Commentary: Gillman Barracks – can we rethink how the public participates in decisions on redevelopment?

Either way, people are more likely to accept difficult decisions when they understand how their views informed the outcome.

During conversations following the Gillman Barracks announcement, I was struck by suggestions that residents should identify alternative uses for the site. However, identifying and evaluating realistic planning scenarios is ultimately the responsibility of planning agencies, which have access to environmental assessments, transport studies, demographic projections and broader land-use data that members of the public do not.

Meaningful participation should therefore not depend on residents producing fully developed master plans. Agencies could present several credible planning options, explain the trade-offs associated with each, and invite the public to discuss which balance of housing, conservation and heritage they believe best serves both present and future generations.

For example, alternatives might include concentrating development on previously disturbed parts of the site while retaining larger contiguous areas of native forest, and adapting heritage buildings for community and cultural purposes. Even if these alternatives are ultimately not adopted, explaining why they were considered – and why they were rejected – would strengthen public confidence in the planning process.