CITY OF STIRLING
MINUTES

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
16 JUNE 1998

1 QUESTION TIME 5
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 7

3 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 8
4 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 8
5 ANY BUSINESS LEFT OVER FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING 8
6 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION 8

8 PETITION AND DEPUTATIONS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS

10 REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

11 REPORTS OF OFFICERS

12 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

14 COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION FILE 48

* - Indicates Separate Attachments submitted with Agenda.

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC PLACE, STIRLING ON TUESDAY 16 JUNE 1998 AT 7.00PM

Present:

Mayor

Councillor D C Vallelonga JP.

 

Councillors

D Boothman, J M Camilleri OAM JP, T W Clarey, V A Cooke, J Copley JP, R J Daniel, B R Ham,
G Italiano, G Maio, E S Martin, A A Spagnolo JP, W M Stewart, T J Tyzack.

 

Officers

Chief Executive Officer - M J Wadsworth, Deputy Chief Executive Officer - R A Constantine, Executive Manager Works/Business Units -
R Moody, Executive Manager Community Development - J Glover, Manager Administrative Services - C Watts, Communications Co-ordinator - P Flynn, Senior Administrative Officer - C Evans

 

Public

15

 

Press

2

APOLOGIES

Councillor R M Willox JP.

DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INTEREST

Councillor Tyzack declared an interest in Item 10.2/PL18.
Councillor Maio declared an interest in Item 10.2/PL23.
Councillor Martin declared an interest in Item 10.2/PL21.
Councillor Vallelonga declared an interest in Item 10.2/PL15.

ITEM: 1 QUESTION TIME

ITEM: 1.1 A & J Blampey, 2 Waterford Street, Inglewood 6052.

Q1. Did the Inglewood Traffic Study for Beaufort Street Town Centre undertaken by independent engineers, Sinclair Knight Merz, recommend a median through Eleventh Avenue, and Waterford Street, to prevent through traffic from Dundas Road veering dangerously diagonally across Beaufort Street and entering Waterford Street opposite the Heritage Civic Clock Tower Building? (This type of road design would appear to be appropriate and logical in this location).

A1. The consultant study team for the Inglewood Urban Design Study included engineering consultants Ove Arup (not Sinclair Knight Merz), represented by Mr Peter Damon. The consultants provided input into the overall study rather than an independent traffic study.

In the draft proposals first advertised, the consultants suggested leaving the traffic island along Beaufort Street open opposite Waterford Street. Following community comment (Stage 1), this was amended to close the median gap and the new draft Plan was readvertised (Stage 2). Comment was then received requesting that the island be left open to allow free access for Waterford Street residents to their properties.

This issue was discussed by the consultants and the Beaufort Street Local Advisory Group in the light of comments received and the traffic consultant indicated that:

· The two options represent a compromise between safety and accessibility;
· Both options represent a viable and reasonable alternative, dependent on the desired outcome;
· More detailed study would be required to show exact impacts of either option.

As such, neither option was `recommended' over the other.

Q2. Is a copy of the Sinclair Knight Merz traffic study report available for public scrutiny?

A2. As mentioned above, there is no separate `traffic study' for the commercial precinct, traffic and engineering considerations being included in the full Inglewood Urban Design Study. This document, considered to be in draft form until it is adopted by Council, is available for scrutiny at the City's Planning Department.

Q3. Does the City of Stirling Design Engineer TRAFFIC agree with the independent consultant's views concerning this dangerous intersection and the issue of the median through 11th Avenue and Waterford Street?

A3. As indicated in the report to Council, the City's Design Engineer (Traffic), Mr Evan Williams has stated that he requires more information/study regarding the impacts of either option before he is able to offer an opinion on which is preferable.

Q4. Can the City of Stirling advise if the Main Roads Department or the Ministry for Planning propose acquiring the Lloyd Collins and Associates Building opposite the Civic Clock Tower Building and is road widening in this strategic and historic location being proposed at some time in the future?

A4. Land opposite the Civic Clock Tower would be required for road-widening if and when this is carried out. However, the acquisition of this land is seen as premature prior to a firm indication by either Council or Main Roads WA that they wish to proceed with road widening at this point. Road widening proposals for this point, and, indeed, the entire length of Beaufort Street have been included in the Metropolitan Region Scheme since 1963.

Whilst the historic character of the area is recognised and attempts are being made to protect this character, the demolition of the `Stan's Rugs' building opposite the clock tower would be necessary to smooth out the `kink' in Beaufort Street at this point. The property in question is not listed on the City's Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places.

Q5. Does the City of Stirling Principal Activities Plan for 1998/9, 2000/2 propose to allocate any funds to commence works in the Inglewood Beaufort Street Town Centre and associated road works and general improvements to promote business opportunities and pedestrian friendly activites in this location.

A5. The City's Principal Activities Plan for 1998-2002 does not list the implementation of the Inglewood Urban Design Study outcomes separately. However, funding for this project has been included in the draft 1998/99 Engineering Works budget. Currently, $300,000 is included, for acquisition of land for proposed road widening. Other funding has been set aside for the implementation of the separate but connected Inglewood Local Area Traffic Management study, some of which could be reallocated to the Urban Design project. However, prior to the carrying out of major works, a Plan must be approved by Council and the Ministry for Planning, detailed design must be carried out and necessary land acquired. As such, it is unlikely that more funding will be required for the implementation of the study prior to the 1999/2000 budget.

ITEM: 1.2 Dr Zaninovich, 34 Kings Park Road, West Perth 6005

Q1. Our plan has been through Council, an advertising period, and has for the second time, been resubmitted to the WA Planning Commission following their request for certain modifications which have been made.

Our proposed plan and accompanying documentation complies with Schedule 9 - Why won't Council confirm its consent to the WAPC to allow them to determine their approval or otherwise to our DLP?

A1. On 13 June 1995 Council resolved that Urban Focus be advised that before approval of the design layout plan, the approval of the Ministry for Planning, Water Corporation, Environmental Protection Board, Main Roads Western Australia and the City is required and they are required to address in detail concerns raised over the design layout plan.

Advice has not been received from the Ministry for Planning that the plan is acceptable nor from the other Government Departments involved.

Q2. The Landowners and Urban Focus spent in excess of $250,000 to comply with Council's requirements for the area over a period of several years. How can Council, on the eve of us securing the support of the WAPC, even contemplate a completely new proposal that only relates to portion of the area and not all the land as required by Schedule 9?

A2. Council has received an application for part of the precinct from owners in that part. Legal advice was sought and as a result Council received a recommendation from the Town Planning and Statutory Services Committee that more than one plan could be considered.

Q3. Is Council going to insist that Level Holdings Pty Ltd resubmitted proposal complies with ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SCHEDULE 9?

A3. Yes.

Q4. If the resubmitted proposal DOES NOT comply with all the requirements of Schedule 9 - is Council going to -

a) allow them more time to comply?

Or

b) not allow their proposal to be advertised?
c)
A4. The Town Planning and Statutory Services Committee has recommended to Council that both plans can be advertised, subject to compliance with Schedule 9 of the District Planning Scheme.

Q5 What time period is Council proposing to allow Level Holdings Pty Ltd to submit a plan that complies with Schedule 9 of its Scheme?

A5. It is understood that a period of 21 days will be allowed for submission of plans from Level Holdings and, if they so wish, from Urban Focus on behalf of Coburg Nominees Pty Ltd.

Q6. I want to ask why,
Taking into consideration that:

The Urban focus plan was chosen and that the design layout plan was approved in principle by the Council in 1995.

That years of negotiation and planning and expense has been invested in the urban focus plan, to meet stringent requirements from your Planning Department, from landowners, other ratepayers, Water Board, Main Roads, Environment Protection Authority and Ministry of Planning.

THAT The Owners management committee has put in place the required legal structure with which an implementation plan can be introduced that is a fair and equitable method of profit sharing for all the landowners in proportion to the value of each land holding.

That the full requirements of Schedule 9 is so onerus that it will take years and years for a new plan to meet all the requirements.

Why the Council is "INVITING" another submission.

A6 The Town Planning and Statutory Services Committee has recommended that Urban Focus has been invited "to review and submit any amendments it may wish to make to the original plan".

The Committee felt that if, following legal advice, that a new plan for the precinct can be considered, then it was only equitable that the original layout plan should also be able to be updated if the owners so desired.

Main Roads is not compelled to submit a revised plan; if no plan is received, then only the Roberts Day Group plan can be advertised at this stage.

The invitation for revised plans and additional information is based on

· the long delay since the plan was last advertised (May 1995)

· the issues raised on the previous plan requiring resolution in consultation with the Ministry for Planning; the Environmental Protection Authority; the Main Roads Western Australia and the City.

ITEM: 2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

2.1 ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL - 2 JUNE 1998

ITEM: 2.1

SUBJECT ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL - 2 JUNE 1998

Moved Councillor Spagnolo, seconded Councillor Copley

That the Mayor sign the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Council of 2 June 1998 as a true and correct record of proceedings.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

ITEM: 3 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

ITEM: 4 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Moved Councillor Spagnolo, seconded Councillor Camilleri

That Councillors R J Daniel, J Copley and B R Ham be GRANTED leave of absence for the Council meeting on 7 July 1998.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

ITEM: 5 ANY BUSINESS LEFT OVER FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING

ITEM: 6 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT
DISCUSSION

ITEM: 7 ANY ORDINARY BUSINESS WHICH THE MAYOR WISHES TO PLACE
BEFORE THE MEETING

ITEM: 8 PETITION AND DEPUTATIONS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS