The Montville Future Studies

Waiting for our Multi-Purpose Community Arts Centre.

Background

When the Montville Village Association (MVA) was created to replace the Montville Hall and Progress Association in 1988 it inherited a sub-committee structure that included two key committees; a Futures Committee and a Streetscape Committee. Together, these two committees informed the development of Montville in the last decades of the 1990s.

The Futures Committee developed guidelines for new commercial buildings along Main Street. These included a two-storey limit with the upper storey being devoted to residential accommodation to retain an active village life. It also opposed the introduction of ‘franchise or chain’ businesses. Although these were not enforceable, the five large commercial buildings built on Main Street south of the village centre in these years all adhered to these guidelines.

At the same time, the Streetscape Committee advocated for paved pathways between stone-bordered gardens incorporating laneways, arcades and an indoor-outdoor shopping experience.

These committees still exist today within the MVA structure and although their role has not been as prominent at times, they have still informed subsequent studies looking at Montville’s future, including The Greater Montville 2020 Project, The Montville Futures Workshop – 2019 and the Montville Futures Forum – 2025,

The Greater Montville 2020 Project

In 2000, Dr Ken Lyons, encouraged by MVA President of the day, Ian Rolle, took an active interest in the Council’s planning for the Blackall Range and Montville. While still acting as Head of Department and Professor of Geographical Sciences and Planning at the University of Queensland, Ken had made a pre-retirement move to Montville and had joined the MVA. He grew concerned that the Council’s approach to ‘community consultation’ reduced the community’s role to merely reacting to Council plans, resulting in only minor, cosmetic changes.

Under the auspices of the MVA, Ken chaired a (futures) committee to create a proactive process for determining the community’s vision for Montville’s future. In 2000, the Greater Montville 2020 Project produced a vision and action plan for the area. The committee, which included ten prominent community and business leaders, conducted a series of consultation meetings before distributing a detailed 38-item questionnaire to all households and businesses. Six key planning areas were explored: General Development, Land Use, Montville Village, Industry and Commerce, Community Facilities, and Roads and Infrastructure.

When the 160 responses were tabulated, a clear consensus was found in most of these. As a general principle for development, 151 respondents believed that” the existing semi-rural natural environment should be retained”. Although not quite as convincing, 129 respondents found the most compelling need in land use was that “landowners be encouraged to re-forest open land”; while 154 believed that “a green belt of parks etc should be retained around the village” and a further 150 felt that “the natural beauty of the area should be the focus of promotion to visitors”. There was a clear priority from both community and business respondents that Montville’s greatest asset was its environment.

Similarly, under the categories of industry and commerce and community facilities, 135 respondents felt that “artists and craftspeople should be encouraged to create, demonstrate and sell their works in the area” and 138 further believed that “cultural aspects like theatre, art, crafts etc are important to the spirit of Montville”. This notion that the arts be an important factor in informing future planning was also endorsed by both the business and community.

A slightly lesser priority was given to the improvement of paths, roads and local public transport to improve community connectivity (122 to 128 respondents) while rumours that the school was to be re-located outside the village resulted in 137 respondents wanting to ‘retain the school’ at its present location in the heart of the village.

Ken had received positive support from Jenny McKay, then Councillor for Ward 5, Greg Rogerston Ward, Ward 10 and Hermann Schwabe, Ward 1 and Chair of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council for the project and was invited by the then Mayor, Alison Grosse to present its findings at a full Council Meeting in late 2000. He said that the Council, with a strong commitment to the environment and hinterland needs, expressed interest and support for many of the priorities it identified. However, he felt the response of Council planners was less encouraging and momentum for any change to the planning processes was lost in the amalgamation to form the Sunshine Coast Regional Council.

The Montville Futures Workshops – 2019

In 2015, Dr Max Standage was invited by the then President of the MVA, Doug Patterson, to chair a newly formed Sports Ground Management Committee to manage the Montville Sports and Recreation Grounds on behalf of its trustee, the MVA, for the people of Montville. Before his retirement, Max had served Griffith University as Pro-Vice Chancellor (Community Partnerships) and Provost Gold Coast and Logan Campuses. His particular interests included strategic planning of university campuses and their role in community engagement and social inclusion. This led to his participation in broader regional development programs through Regional Development Australia.

Max went on to join the MVA and became coordinator of its Future’s Committee. He believed that the Council’s approach to community consultation in its five-year planning model still limited community input to reacting to proposals that were already preferred planning options. In an attempt to provide for a greater community voice in the Council’s planning process, he proposed that the MVA conduct a series of workshops to identify and prioritise community expectations for Montville’s future. A Montville Futures Reference Group was established to overview this process.

Twenty in-depth interviews were conducted to identify the issues that needed to be addressed in future planning for Montville. Interviewees included residents, members of community groups and business representatives across a ranch of ages and genders. This process identified a range of factors and issues that needed to be considered in future planning for Montville and these were grouped into six broad categories: Population; Planning; Infrastructure; Economic Development; Environment and Sustainability and Arts and Culture.

‘’The Montville Futures Workshop held on 31 March, 2019 was well attended by 57 residents of the Montville, Flaxton, Balmoral Ridge and Hunchy area. The workshop consulted with community members to establish an understanding of the issues facing the future of Montville and the surrounding area and to provide direction for future community action. The workshop focused on the six themes established in consultation with the Montville Futures Reference Group and the 20 interviews with residents and community groups.” (Introduction to the Report of the Montville Futures Workshop.)

The full report of this workshop is 22 pages long. It was presented to Council and published in Book 7 of the Montville Stories Series, Montville Communities. The key findings of this process were for:

·      Population – Establish small scale independent living accommodation in Montville.

·      Planning – Changing Council regulation regarding dwelling types on land.

·      Infrastructure – Art gallery/Multipurpose building in Russell Family Park.

·      Economic Development – Reactivate Russell Family Park-Festival/Event-Weather the stage with cooperation of Council.

·      Environment and Sustainability – Welcome new residence-connect to the community-New Residents Information Pack.

·      Arts and Culture – Need to utilise the Hall and the Green for more community gatherings eg. Seasonal long table; and Council Masterplan-Russell Family Park to locate an arts space/educational facility.

The workshop also identified the ten top actions as priorities. These were to:

1.     Reactivate Russell Family

2.     Complete walkways connecting Montville, Flaxton and Mapleton

3.     Activate Montville after 3.00pm

4.     Utilise the Hall and Green more

5.     Provide small scale independent living accommodation options

6.     Provide a Multipurpose community/art facility in Russell Family Park

7.     Pursue the Artisan Village Concept

8.     Change Council regulations re building types on land

9.     Welcome new residence

10.  Complete Council Masterplan for Russell Family Park

(The full report reveals the differences between key issues and priorities for action.)

Despite using a different process and drawing on the views of a different population base, The Montville Futures Workshop identified a number of issues first raised in the Greater Montville 2020 Project of 2000. It re-iterated the importance of the arts to both the economic and social well-being of the community and also emphasised the need to improve community connectivity in nurturing community growth. However, it did not accord the state of the environment as such a key issue for future planning.

Unfortunately, the impact of the Covid pandemic in 2020 dramatically affected Council and Community responses to this report but it did inform the MVA and other community submissions to Council’s 2020 – 25 planning process.

The Montville Futures Forum – 2023-25

The Management Committee of the MVA, requested Michael Bradley and Deb Davis to update Community expectations for Montville’s future. They conducted this investigation over two years. Following a series of workshops examining the current issues confronting Montville and what the community desired for its future, the group devised a 29 question, paper and digital survey covering issues like:

·      Usage of Facilities

·      The Village Identity

·      Liveability

·      The Environment

·      Community Events

·      Information Sources

·      The Montville Memorial Precinct

The results of this Survey were published in December, 2024.

Key results from the survey found that:

·      The most used facilities in Montville were the IGA and Post Office, while the least used were Russell Family Park, the Village Green and the Village Hall.

·      Almost 50% of respondents agreed that Montville was an Artisan Village and should be branded as such while 82% thought a Community Multi Arts Centre was needed to support this.

·      In terms of liveability, 53% believed a chemist would improve liveability (the existing chemist had closed through lack of support), while there was a need for a greater variety of commercial businesses and extended trading hours. 28% also believed there was a need for more community events.

·      The survey suggested that its environment was fundamental to Montville’s liveability and 50% of respondents supported an Environment Education Centre to improve both visitor and resident understanding of its importance and protect it from future developments.

·      When determining support for community events, the survey found that 88% of respondents supported the Montville Markets, followed by 53% for the Rangebow Festival, 45% for both ANZAC Day and Christmas Carol Services and 32% of other MVA Events. With only 21% support, Australia Day was the least supported event.

·      In noting that although most people got their information on upcoming events from signs and posters (43%), Word-of-mouth (36%), Local papers (31%) and Montville Happenings (30%); promotion of events was a problem.

·      59% of respondents thought Montville needed a complementary war memorial to recognise and commemorate those who served in other conflicts besides WW1, with 82% wanting better landscaping and gardens and 55% believing that Memorial Close should be a pedestrian precinct only open to local traffic. However, their responses to improving the Village Green focused on improved ‘people’ facilities including additional sitting (83%), picnic benches (71%) and better lighting (54%).

·      Almost no one had heard of the 2023 Report on the Montville Memorial Precinct.

Their intention was to use this specific and detailed results to inform a community forum to prioritise issues that needed to be addressed.

From this survey, six themes were identified to addressed at a Community Forum in 2025.

Community and Lifestyle

·      Relaxed and friendly atmosphere

·      Thriving with a community comprised of more than tourists

·      Keep the slow-paced village atmosphere

·      Support for a mixed population of all ages

·      Maintaining a peaceful, low-technology, arts-promoting environment

Shopping and Development

·      No empty shops, lower the rentals

·      A town where there are not so many empty shops

·      Greater diversity of stores

·      A proper pub, a bottle shop

·      A restaurant in Misty's

Arts and Culture

·      Recovering more of its true original status as an arts and crafts destination –

·      An Artisan Village that once attracted visitors

·      A proper stage in Russell Family Park that can actually be used

·      Creation of community/art spaces and theatre

·      A vibrant centre for original art and artisans

·      A thriving artistic community with studios and galleries

Environment and Green Spaces

·      More focus on our green spaces, e.g., National Parks

·      Better use of green spaces and promotion of eco-tourism

·      Preservation of green spaces and native trees planting

Property and Development

·      The property prices are so high, and the lack of rentals is changing the population... not necessarily a good thing –

·      I preferred it when it was a quiet rural affordable place

·      Encouraging development of accommodation while retaining green spaces

·      Limited new developments to maintain village feel

·      Increased residential development for families and retirees

·      More affordable accommodation options

Identity and Branding

·       Queensland's Premier Garden Village

·       The same

The Community Forum:            Michael Bradley

1          The Forum took place on June 29.

2          It was well attended with fifty-four people.

Andrew Wallace stayed for two hours and took extensive notes. He asked to be kept informed and of the results. Andrew Powell stayed for one hour and participated in the discussion. He also asked to be briefed about the outcomes and follow up. It was noted by many that the fifty-four attended were truly diverse including   younger people. This diversity was pleasing.

3          Topics.

The Forum considered the five topics: Facilities Use, Community Events, Artisan Village Identity, Liveability and Planning for the Future.

4          Findings.

Overall, the feeling of the meeting is best summed by the following quote from a person at the Forum.

‘From an environment perspective Montville is very liveable. From a services perspective Montville is not very liveable.’

Some findings are:

• Establish a community hub and drop-in centre.

• Make the Village Green the centre of attraction.

• Work on identity

• Develop cooperative enterprises/programs.

• Develop programs /attractions for youth e.g. basketball court.

• Promote RFP

• More community events

• Lights at Sportsground for evening events

• Recognise, celebrate, and honour volunteers through ceremonies.

• Create a volunteer bank.

• Develop an Arts centre that celebrates real artisan who use their hands: not just a commercial sale gallery!

• Poor public transport

• Improve pathways.

• Need local pub and bottle shop.

• Farm gate outlet

• More residential options in village

5          Findings Summary

People did not separate community and commercial facilities. They see both as complementary and that they can influence and change both for the betterment of the community. People want a living dynamic village.

People expressed strong support and priority for:

• Arts centre which would promote hands on artists.

• Improved public transport including at weekends.

• Businesses more in tune with community needs.

• Co-operative enterprises.

• A community pub and bottle shop.

• Program of events at the Hall.

• Improved footpaths.

6          Communications

Though not a specific topic at the Forum communications in the village in the community is an issue. Given the variety of social media and other communication avenues I would be worthwhile for the MVA to address this issue and to make sure that MVA communicates effectively across the range of communication devices.

7          Action

It was emphasised that nothing would happen if people did not put up their hands and contribute. This went down well and interestingly in the week following the Forum a group of people who had attended the Forum had taken up the challenge to establish a community pub at the Hall. They are having a meeting soon and Wayne has been asked to attend to provide MVA input. A community pub would be significant.

Some suggestions re actioning the areas of priority listed in five are shown below:

• Arts centre. This is a major one. Needs a coordinator such as Skye who has previously shown interest. Jim and Pam have suggestions re-funding.

• Improved public transport including at weekends. Should be taken up with Council. Eva has contacts that could start the ball rolling.

• Businesses more in tune with community needs. Wayne, as President, could take this up with the Chamber of Commerce and write an article about it to crate interest.

• Co-operative enterprises. An interesting concept asks someone at the General Meeting to follow up.

• A community pub and bottle shop. In hand: see above comments.

• Program of events at the Hall. Hall coordinator role in conjunction with Events group.

• Improved footpaths. Role of Streetscape committee.

 8.        Conclusion

The Forum was successful and moving forward is the next challenge.

Unfortunately, there was a serious disconnect in this process. The survey was structured around seven issues: These were: Use of Facilities; The village identity; Liveability; The Environment; Community Events; Information Sources; The Montville Memorial Project.

The results of Question 16 identified six themes to be pursued. These were: Community and Lifestyle; Shopping and Development; Arts and Culture; Environment and Green Space; Property and Development; Identity and Branding.

However, participants at the Community Forum were asked to consider five topics: Facility Use; Community Events; Artisan Village Identity; Liveability; Planning for the Future.

There were also a number of structural weaknesses that impacted on the veracity of the findings of the forum.

Participants were seated at tables but where they sat was self-selected. This meant that people quite naturally sat with people they knew and shared interests with. This could have resulted in less opportunity for balanced discussion and points-of-view. In addition, the survey established the age and gender of respondents – 68% were older, females. This was not attempted at the forum but a slight majority of participants seemed to be middle-aged-to-old males. Then, because of time constraints, feedback from groups was limited when the facilitator suggested that it was not necessary to repeat the findings of earlier groups.  As a result, it was impossible to actually prioritise results and so an almost throw-away comment “be nice to have a community pub and bottle-shop” suddenly attracted equal importance as the need for a Multi-Purpose Community Arts Centre. Unfortunately, unlike earlier forums, the 2025 forum actually detracted from the survey results it was meant to clarify and prioritise.  

However, the project did lead to immediate community responses.

The first was from the MVA Events Sub-committee which held series of workshops at the end of 2025 to plan a far greater range of Community Events for 2026 and greater support for other community groups to hold their own events in the hall.

The second was from a small group that identified with the idea of creating a community pub and bottle shop. However, this proposal proved to be very divisive and derailed any future action at that time.

When the findings of the three future studies are compared, several priority issues were identified by all three. These include:

·       Community health, social well-being and community connectivity through a variety of initiatives like ‘Welcome Packs’, Community Events and improved pathways and local transport options.

·       The recognition and support of arts and crafts to Montville’s identity as an Artisan Village through the provision of a Multipurpose Community Arts Centre.

·       Promoting community use of community assets like the Russell Family Park, The Montville Village Hall, The Montville Village Green and the Montville Village Sports and Recreation Grounds, which, by default, all falling under the auspices of the Montville Village Association.

Where there appeared to be a difference in priorities included:

·       The importance of the natural environment to Montville future where Project 2020 recommended a range of specific actions Council could take to preserve a ‘green’ Montville and the 2025 survey calling for an Environment Information Centre to inform both residents and visitors how to enjoy and protect the environment, while the 2019 study focussed on the need to broaden land use and subdivision laws.

·       Both the 2000, Project 2020 and 2025 studies were also critical of poorly researched and often irrelevant commercial enterprises that failed while driving up rents.

·       Both the 2000, Project 2020 and 2019 studies produced detailed reports with clearly established priorities that were presented to Council, while, unfortunately, a final report for the 2025 research has not yet been presented to Council.

Since the 2025 report, The MVA has prioritised Community Health, Community Engagement and Promoting Community Use of the Assets managed by it through a process of Community Partnerships. At the same time, it is working closely with the Montville Chamber of Commerce to encourage closer ties between the business and residential communities. However, it has had little success in influencing a coast-focussed Council to resource any of the assets the community has been calling for or improvements to community connectivity it has sought for the last three decades.

Despite its best efforts, the MVA is still reacting to planning decisions by Council based on different regional priorities under budget constraints. This would suggest that the years of research led by highly qualified and experienced professionals has been a futile waste of time and democracy has been reduced to where the money and the votes are the real priority.

Doug Patterson

April, 2026