A Near Miss Dressed as Success.

Nambour has, for now, held onto its car park. A 76-space piece of practical infrastructure, sitting exactly where people need it, will not be sold off after all. Council has described this as an example of community feedback being heard.

And it was. Eventually.

The feedback did arrive. In sufficient volume, from enough directions at once, that the proposal did not survive contact with it: A community photo, two petitions, a hundred people standing in a car park on a Monday morning. At that point, the consultation process performed admirably.

What is less clear is what the consultation process was performing before that.

The objection, when it came, was not complicated. It required no specialist knowledge, no technical expertise, no particularly long chain of reasoning. It came from people who park there several times a week and understood, without much assistance, that removing the only genuinely accessible car park in a hilly town clustered with medical services would have consequences. The view was not new. It was just not what the process found.

Which does raise a small question about the machinery.

Council has consultation infrastructure, community representatives, established forums, open channels. The formal apparatus of engagement, assembled precisely to surface this kind of concern before it reaches an agenda, and described in a language that suggests it does exactly that.

In this instance, it produced a proposal that attracted more than 2000 petition signatures within weeks of becoming public. A proposal the Mayor has since described as generating an intensity of community feeling that no one had anticipated. A proposal that, had the community not organised rapidly and with considerable noise, would in all likelihood have proceeded.

The Mayor's surprise is, in its way, the most elegant detail in the story. Because the concern was not particularly subtle. The car park was visibly full, the town is visibly hilly, the services are visibly clustered. The users include wheelchair users and cancer patients for whom the distance between a parking space and a pharmacy is not a minor inconvenience but a practical limit on what the day allows. None of that required uncovering - it was simply not what the process found.

There is also the matter of framing. The choice was presented as housing or parking, as though these were the only two things a site could be. The community's response was not to reject that framing, exactly, but to find it somewhat lacking. Housing, certainly, but not here, and not by removing something already performing a necessary function.

Once that distinction became unavoidable, more interesting possibilities emerged. A local consultant, working informally in his own time, produced a concept for the site that delivered 150 car parks and 84 housing units. It took him a few weeks. The formal process, with considerably more resources, had arrived at a binary.

The outcome will be welcomed. Afterall, something useful stays in place.

But a proposal that nearly passed is not the same as a proposal that was caught. The community caught this one. That is worth being clear about, because next time the community may not be watching, or may not organise quickly enough, or may simply be too late.

If you know someone who’d appreciate this, they probably will. Please share. Sharing's nice.
...
If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more, 'Buy the Goose a Coffee →'.
...
The views expressed are those of the correspondent. Factual claims draw on publicly available sources.