Issues of consultation, privatisation, and the true power of the public voice in the face of bureaucratic obstacles drew up strong opinions in the Hunter Room of City Hall on Friday night as the Hunter Community Forum met to hear from three outspoken local leaders with a stake in the city's future.
The forum describes itself as a coalition of community groups advocating for better planning, heritage and environmental policy, and have in the past pitted themselves against such divisive local issues as the Newcastle 500 and the development of the former NBN News site at The Hill.
Now, in part following reporting by the Newcastle Herald that revealed the City of Newcastle's gazetting of plans to lease its inland pools in recent weeks, the Hunter Community Forum has turned its attention to issues of public consultation.
The forum met on July 21 to "discuss how the community can effectively respond to the wholesale destruction of the city's assets and reclaim ownership of Newcastle's planning", and featured local speakers Brian Ladd, the president of the Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance, Christine Everingham of the Newcastle East Residents Group and Hunter Community Environment Centre coordinator Johanna Lynch.
The forum's co-convenor, Therese Doyle, said the meeting was attended by around 145 local residents, as well the City's three Liberal councillors - Jenny Barrie, Katrina Wark and Callum Pull - Greens councillors John Mackenzie and Charlotte McCabe and Labor councillor Elizabeth Adamczyk.
Lord mayor Nuatali Nelmes, deputy mayor Declan Clausen, coucillor Carol Duncan and local MP Tim Crakanthorp sent apologies in their absense.
Ms Doyle described the meeting as another step in a "ongoing campaign" over the City's public consultation processes.
"We have been at this for a long time," she said, "And we will continue to press the case for genuine public consultation about decisions that are significant to the lives of the community."
Ms Doyle said the chief issues discussed were the forum's ongoing opposition to the city playing host to the Newcastle 500, as well as a handful of local development projects the group perceived as being contrary to the best interests of the community.
"My sense of the meeting was there there were two overwhelming sentiments," Ms Doyle said, "That the community is being systematically excluded from important decisions about the city and, more disturbingly, that the decisions being made are being skewed against the public interest."
The coalition has called on council to engage in "more meaningful" consultation with community groups particularly on matters pertaining to public planning.
"Residents go to a lot of trouble, especially people who represent organisations," Mr Doyle said, "They write detailed and well-researched submissions and the worst thing is to find them repeatedly ignored.
"Council officers and decision makers barely take the effort. We are shut out and when we do get a say, it's barely listened to."
The coalition of residents groups are no strangers to finding themselves at odds with the City. Earlier this year, the forum abandoned its unsuccessful attempts to block a 155-unit Sovereign Park development on the former NBN site through the NSW Land and Environment Court.
The case ultimately reached a dead end when Court Justice Sandra Duggan found the forum failed to demonstrate it had a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience warranted refusing the notice of motion.
The decision to drop the case came after Stronach Property agreed not to seek legal costs against the group.
In 2021, the group again found itself in a planning stoush, when forum member Dr Everingham was booted off a City of Newcastle planning group over an alleged run in with council CEO Jeremy Bath.
"From my experience, council sees their duty as being to keep as much from the public as they can," Ms Doyle said, "We want better mechanisms for really genuine public consultation."
The resolutions of the meeting, Ms Doyle said, would be sent to the Lord Mayor and local councillors for their consideration.
