After years of consultation between the City of Port Phillip Council (CoPP) and the community regarding the proposed Coles development in Balaclava, it is reasonable to ask a simple question: Was the community actually heard?|
I am concerned that, despite extensive community engagement, meetings and submissions, there is little evidence that the concerns raised by residents have resulted in any meaningful
change to the proposed development. Consultation should be more than an opportunity for residents to express their views. Genuine consultation should:
-
- provide an opportunity for community feedback to influence a proposal,
-
- with transparency about what was heard,
-
- how it was considered and
-
- what changed as a result.
Instead, I see little evidence of significant changes arising from the consultation process.
This raises the question of whether the consultation was genuinely intended to inform and influence the proposal, or whether it became little more than an administrative exercise in box ticking.
My involvement in the consultation
I, like many in the community have actively participated in the consultation process, initially by making submissions and attending the Town Hall meeting on 29 May 2025. I have also written to ward councillors and met with the relevant ward councillor to discuss the development and the consultation process.
During that meeting, I was informed that the consultation results were approximately:
-
- 30% agreed with the proposal
-
- 30% did not agree with the proposal
-
- 30% abstained
That does not, demonstrate clear or overwhelming community support. These are not statistics I would use to claim broad community backing for a proposal. An abstention cannot
reasonably be assumed to mean agreement, while those who expressed disagreement
should not simply disappear from the assessment of community sentiment.
The question therefore is: how were these results interpreted, and what weight was given to
the views of those who did not support the proposal or chose not to express a position?
What is actually being proposed?
There are several issues repeatedly discussed within the community where the expectations being created appear difficult to reconcile with what is proposed.
1. The community square
A community square or village green is frequently discussed as one of the potential benefits
of the development. However, the amount of open space proposed appears substantially
less than what would ordinarily be required for it to function as a genuinely viable village
green or meaningful community square. Calling a space a “community square” does not necessarily make it one. Its size, design, accessibility, usability and relationship to the
surrounding development will determine whether it can serve that purpose.
2.The trees
The retention of existing trees is another significant community concern. During my meeting with the ward councillor, I was informed that the trees would not be retained. Residents should be given a clear explanation of why they cannot be retained and what is proposed in their place.
Established trees provide shade, community amenity, biodiversity, streetscape character and
environmental benefits. Replacement planting may provide benefits in the future, but it cannot necessarily replicate the immediate value of established trees.
3.Parking and Carlisle Street traders
There is expressed concern among Carlisle Street traders about the potential loss of access to all-night parking. A large supermarket development usually changes how parking onsite is
managed, and conventional supermarket developments commonly use time restrictions or other controls to manage customer parking and turnover.
If similar restrictions are proposed here, there could be implications for traders, workers, residents and others who currently rely on longer-term parking. This should not be left to assumption. Council should clearly explain what parking arrangements are proposed and how the concerns of Carlisle Street traders and other affected users have been considered.
What I am asking Council to address
The central issue is whether community consultation has in any way, genuinely influenced
the development.
I am asking Council to provide a transparent account of the process and clarify:
-
- 1. What meaningful changes, if any, were made to the proposed development because
- of community consultation?
- 2. How were the concerns raised by residents documented, assessed and considered,
- and why did concerns result, or not result in changes?
- 3. What evidence demonstrates that the consultation reflected the views of the broader
- Balaclava community?
- 4. Is the proposed community square sufficient in size and design to function as a
- meaningful village green or community space?
- 5. Why cannot the existing trees be retained, and what measures are proposed to replace their environmental and community value?
- 6. What parking arrangements will apply following the development, including whether
- existing all-night parking will be retained, and how have the concerns of Carlisle
- Street traders been considered?
- 7. Can Council demonstrate a clear connection between the feedback received from the community and the proposal now being considered?
Was the consultation meaningful?
I am not suggesting that consultation did not occur. The question is whether it was meaningful.
Residents can attend meetings, make submissions and provide feedback, but those
activities alone do not demonstrate that consultation has influenced an outcome.
The real measure is what happened afterwards.
If residents were told there would be a community square, is the space anywhere near large enough to function as one?
If residents raised concerns about established trees, why are they not being retained?
If traders raised concerns about parking, what arrangements will be put in place?
After years of consultation, the community is entitled to ask a very simple question:
What changed because we were consulted?
If the answer is little or nothing, then Council should explain why — and demonstrate how the consultation process can reasonably be described as meaningful.
I raise these concerns in the interests of transparency, accountability and genuine
community engagement. Right now, CoPP’s social capital is looking dangerously low, and
public trust is not something Council can afford to spend.