OVERVIEW
The ‘placedness’ of this development’s ‘site’ comes with layer upon layer of histories and ‘cultural landscaping’ that reach back millennia. Consequently, the ‘place’ has an enormous Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) and this development, on the evidence to hand, is by-and-large careless of its depth and extent. Rather, it is totally focused upon the proponent’s aspirations and expectations as if the ‘place’ is not a component of a diverse ‘cultural landscape’ with a multiple layered set of communities with cognitive ownerships and cultural interests invested in 'the place'. It is a 'public place' and it needs to be understood as such.
Against this backgrounding, the discretionary status of this 'development application' is concerning given that it is fundamentally ticking a bureaucratic box in the expectation of winning community approval – as if there is nothing to be contested. That implies that a community, that on the available evidence has not received meaningful consideration could or would have anything to say. Nor might 'the community' expect to have anything resembling ‘engagement’ beyond the comfort of the proponent’s aegis and zone of interest and influence – such as it might be. Yes, there has been engagement with 'council' but not with the wider community in any wider sense.
Essentially, the DAprocess here is intended to be ‘the consultation process’ and it is clear that the proponents are not in any way interested in regarding the place’s COI in any way that resembles ‘unconditional positive regard’ – rather it sees them in an adversarial and antagonistic light and something to be overwhelmed and beaten. ..... Click here to read the full submission
