“The PBP and TFP process lost a bit of momentum due to staff changes, but we don’t expect the process to be far removed from its original intention.
“There is, however, the need to take a bigger picture view in the delivery of the plans,” he said.
Mr Sharp, like chief executive officer Pauline Gordon, was not at Campaspe Shire when the PBP and TFP schedule was designed.
The three-way partnership to develop the PBP and TFP documents involved committees from the various towns working with a council-appointed consultant and community planning employees from the shire.
It is those same committee members who are now shrugging their shoulders when stopped in the main streets of their respective towns to answer questions about “where to from here”.
The bottom line, according to Mr Sharp, is that the PBP and TFP were originally attached to council’s asset management and outdoor pool policies — something which needed to change.
The current review intends to recommend council detaches them from one another, allowing council to take an integrated planning approach to moving forward with the process.
For the uninitiated, integrated planning ensures all stakeholders are involved at the right time to align the priorities of a particular project.
It gives a complete view of resources and commitments and makes sure that financial and capital resources are aligned in order to support strategic decision-making.
Sounds like that would have been a much better starting point.
Mr Sharp said the PBP and TFP process sat within the community development and partnership space.
From my half-hour conversation with the well-spoken local government professional, I can convey a level of confidence to the committees that the right man is on the job.
Mr Sharp said there was a logic to the original decision to run the PBP and TFP concurrently, in conjunction with discussion about the asset management policy and the future of the outdoor pools.
“Originally, the aquatics plan was attached to both the plans, but some of the PBP outputs haven’t allowed us to progress the TFP process,” he said.
The council will now complete a separate aquatics strategy, which will be separate — but still considerate of — facilities planning.
It appears the original plan to have the “ankle bone connected to the knee bone and the knee bone connected to the hip bone” did not work.
But it is it not entirely back to the drawing board.
“I would not say the TFP process has been shelved, but it certainly will be tweaked.
“The original framework revolved very much around asset management, but will now take a much broader view.
“It was unintentionally self limiting, but now there is an opportunity to look at other things,” he said.
Mr Sharp said it was important to disconnect disposal (sale) of assets to the delivery of new community facilities.
“If you are only looking at what you can sell it is very limiting. We are here for the long term.
“An integrated planning approach will allow this to happen, taking a bigger picture view to the implementation of PBP and how to attach a TFP to that,” he said.
Mr Sharp said there was much more to the process than just looking at buildings.
“It is not just a matter of sell this and get this,” he said.
“It’s more like moving an aircraft carrier. It takes a lot of time, a lot of energy and a lot of room,” he said.
Mr Sharp said some of intellectual property which had left council through previous officers involved in the PBP and TFP process was lost.
“A lot of this information was discussed in casual conversations and built over time through relationships,” he said.
“In some instances those conversations and relationships will need to start again.
“But we are prepared to step up to the plate. We want to plan for the communities, so let’s get on with it,” he said.
