CITY OF STIRLING

MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL
16 DECEMBER 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT/LOCATION/NAME PAGE

1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 1

2 APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 5

3 REPORTS OF COMMITTEE 5

* - Indicates Separate Attachments submitted with Agenda.

@ - INDICATES COUNCILLOR INTEREST.

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD IN THE SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY CENTRE, 173 GILDERCLIFFE STREET, SCARBOROUGH ON TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2003

Present:

Mayor

Councillor D C Vallelonga JP

 

Deputy

Councillor S Popovski

 

Councillors

D Boothman, J M Camilleri OAM JP, J Copley JP, R J Daniel, B R Ham, P L Rose JP, T E Pickard, W M Stewart, T J Tyzack and R M Willox AM JP

 

Officers

Chief Executive Officer - L Delahaunty, Director Community Development - T Holland, Director Infrastructure Management - R Moody, Director Planning and Development - S Johnson, Manager Council Support - D Simmons, Communications Manager - P Beard, Corporate Projects Manager - R Fischer and Corporate Support Officer - N Robinson

 

Consultants

Sinclair Knight Merz - E Richardson, Chris O'Neill and Associates - C O'Neill, Syme Marmion and Associates - J Syme, Malcolm Mackay Urban Designer - M Mackay and Estill and Associates- L Pike.

 

Public

30

 

Press

2

DECLARATION OF OPENING OF MEETING

The Mayor declared the Special meeting of Council on 16 December 2003 open at 7.00pm.

DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

Councillor Stewart disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 3.1, as he was involved in the public meeting held by Scarborough and Districts Progress Association Inc. regarding high rise development on the coast.

APOLOGIES

Councillor T W Clarey.
Councillor A A Spagnolo JP.

Prior to Item 1, the Mayor advised the public gallery that he felt it appropriate to defer public question time until after the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy Consultants presentation as the content may be of assistance to those persons present.

As some members of the public gallery agreed and no objection was raised from the public gallery in relation to the proposed deferral of public question time until after the Consultants presentation it was:

Moved Councillor Copley, seconded Councillor Pickard

That prior to consideration of Item 1 a presentation be provided by the consultants involved in the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy project.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

Mr John Syme gave a brief introduction to the presentation concerning the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy project.

Mr Lynton Pike provided a presentation on the public consultation strategies used in the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy project.

Mr John Syme gave a presentation on the public consultation.

Mr Malcolm Mackay provided a presentation on the urban design issues and visual changes and answered questions.

Mr Chris O'Neill provided a presentation on revised development guidelines.

At 8.07pm the Manager Council Support left the meeting during consideration of Item 1 and returned 8.10pm.

ITEM: 1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

(Please Note: Section 7(4)(b) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 states that a Council at a special meeting is not required to answer a question that does not relate to the purpose of the meeting. It is requested that only questions that relate to items on the agenda be asked).

1.1 The following questions were submitted by Mr Paul Kotsoglo, PO Box 1138, East Victoria Park at the Special Council meeting held on 16 December 2003.

The following question was read by the Chief Executive Officer.

"Q. This question pertains to land within the SEAS Study area, but beyond the Special Beach Development Zone Area ie key sites our office has made submissions in regard to :

For example Corner of Reserve Street and West Coast Highway and Indian Ocean Hotel.

There appears great uncertainly in regard to the `Key Sites' referred to. I would appreciate the sites specifically considered this evening and would appreciate your comments."

A. The Director Planning and Development replied there is no item on the agenda tonight about sites outside of the special beach development zone. The report outlines that there will be two amendments suggested for the District Planning Scheme, one for land within the Special Beach Development Zone which you will be hearing about in the policy and the further one for land within the SEAS precinct area but outside of that particular section which will be a much more comprehensive amendment including zoning etc Beyond the boundaries of that any applications will be treated on their merits along with other applications received by the City.

1.2 The following questions were submitted by Mr Mark Beaver, 33 Charles Street, Karrinyup, at the Special Council meeting held on 16 December 2003.

Q1. In the minutes of the SEAS Steering Committee 10 December 2003 Item 1.1 refers to legal advice, what was of concern to the Council that it needed legal advice?

A1. The Director Planning and Development replied it was mainly as to the approach, if the City is going to change the SEAS policy whether it is best to do it by policy or District Planning Scheme Amendment. It was considered the best way was by District Planning Scheme.

Q2. Why wasn't the SEAS Steering Committee meeting on the 10th an open public forum?

A2. The Chief Executive Officer replied that the SEAS Steering committee like some other council committees is an internal working committee and therefore is not subject to being open to the public. The Local Government Act requires Committee meetings that are delegated authority to make decisions to be open to the public. In this situation the Steering Committee is not delegated to make any decisions and must refer them to full Council.

Q3. I have been told by a councillor that they cannot talk with ratepayers about what was discussed in the meeting on the 10th is this true?

A3. The Chief Executive Officer replied that no, the information from the SEAS Steering Committee is public information here tonight from the recommendations that come forward to the Council. It is the normal course of events and I think whether it was the period from when minutes were being prepared and agendas distributed for the meeting, I am not sure, but once the agenda is distributed for general release it is open for public comment and for dialogue with Councillors.

Q4. Has the full Council been made aware of peoples concerns if parts of the SEAS review are implemented viz:-

Q4a. Afternoon shadowing.

A4a. Mr Chris O'Neill replied that the issue of solar access and shading is an issue that each of the developers would be required to address as part of any application for development approval.

Q4b. Wind tunnelling.

A4b. Mr Chris O'Neill replied that this matter is addressed in the design guidelines requiring applicants to undertake detailed wind modelling.

Q4c. Due to the topography of the land the visual permeability of proposed medium and high rise buildings has been shown in the SEAS review report and that the skyline pictures on the Council web site and library displays only show the profiles of the first row of buildings back from the beach. The ones further inland could be built on land that is up to 22m higher than the level that the Observation City development is on, I am referring to Edgehill and Filburn Streets?

A4c. Mr Chris O'Neill stated that the area east of West Coast Highway is not part of this process. There will be a separate scheme amendment to deal with this area. However we note comments and will certainly be looking at capping the heights in that area so we don't get the effect that you have mentioned.

Q4d. The review has no verifying references to qualify some of the statements that it has made?

Q4e. What will the economic effect on the value of housing up to 2km inland be in the future. Which currently have coastal views of the ocean but will lose this if B2 or B1 proceed. I take issue with your tour of the streets of Doubleview/Karrinyup/Scarborough. I work a lot in this area. I go into people's houses, I go up into the second floor. I see what people have built to get a coastal view and I think it has been a fairly selective look at what is around.

A4e. Mr John Syme replied that it is a matter of judgement. Judging on precedents elsewhere in Perth and other cities, development under option B1 at Scarborough could add substantial value to properties back to Doubleview. Development would become another element in the landscape. People are prepared to pay high values to have views of tall City centre buildings.

Q5. Mr Mayor can I get your opinion as someone who is known in the industry as having a pretty sharp mind. If a house has coastal views and sunset views from Westview Street and then if this project goes along and it no longer has coastal views would you agree that the potential value of the property in 20 years times would not be as much as what it would if the high-rise does not go through?

A5. The Mayor replied that he didn't believe that that is the case. Because no one buys views in this world. Views belongs to God. So when you buy property it is to live in. Simple as that.

Q6. That the 6000 people participating in the community consultation called "Dialogue With The City" overwhelmingly rejected high-rise on our Coast. Why doesn't the report to the Committee and the SEAS review refer to this consultation. Have the Councillors been given any details from the Minister for Planning?

A6. Mr John Syme replied that the report on "Dialogue with the City" has only become available recently. At the various presentations made during consultation quite a bit of attention was given to the role of Scarborough in the metropolitan context. One of the most important aspects of the Dialogue was to limit the growth of the metropolitan area at the fringes. Therefore, to cope with a doubling of population by 2020, development nodes had to be identified for intensive development and Scarborough is one such node.

Mr Beaver further queried do you also remember that they also suggest talking through the preferences of where to put this infill and high-rise that it had to be near major transport nodes and the railway lines were the preferred place.

Mr John Syme replied by and large they were the preferred places but there are other places and Scarborough for example is well serviced by public transport. It is not on a railway line but it is sufficient.

Q7. The weight of the submissions received. Could this be explained if the city has a system which weights submissions received. Do written submissions carry more weight than proformas?

A7. Mr John Syme replied that his view after looking at all the submissions is that weighting one against the other and comparing the numbers of one against the other is misleading as all the data was collected in entirely different ways. They were different sorts of information written and it is very difficult to say one is weighted more than the other. They need to be viewed as pieces of information within themselves and not as collective information.

Mr Beaver further enquired as to how many of the proformas were done via electronic link.

Mr John Syme replied that he would investigate this enquiry as he did not know the answer. He stated that he believed that very few proformas were received via electronic link. At a guess less than 30% of the proformas were received electronically.

Q8. Currently the State Government has a draft planning policy guideline for the coast. "State Coastal Planning Policy 2.6", dated 10 June 2003. Does the Policy draft 6 comply with this?

A8. The Director Planning and Development replied that the policy referred to is a very extensive policy and is to refer to the whole coastline of the state, all the different sorts of coastlines of the state and it really needs to be read as a whole not taken bits of it out of context. The proposal here does not conflict with anything in that policy.

Q9. In its briefing of coastal urban development were the Councillors informed that one of Australia's most internationally famous beaches is Bondi. A place where planning heights are limited to 4 stories. After experimenting with high rise development in Hawaii, mainly in Honolulu and finding it impacts negatively on the local community did Council know that building heights are now limited to tree height? (Source Mr Richard Taylor Hawaiian Property developer).

Given the report in Item 4.2 page 3 and page 9 Item 8 both conclude that while the public want a more vibrant Scarborough, the majority of submitters want to retain low rise. Will the Council tonight make a decision that will retain Perth's unspoilt coastline for all. Or will they make a further ugly blunder as in the 1980's with Observation City. Recently voted as one of Perth's major eyesores.

A9. The Mayor replied that the comments were noted.

1.3 The following question was submitted by Mr Tony Rechichi at the Special Council meeting held on 16 December 2003.

Q1. How many of us have had interstate or international visitors and taken them for a drive along West Coast Highway and had them ask what is the name of this place? City Beach, it is all grass and beautiful ocean. Forget all development, there is nothing there. What if this development went into City Beach. Would it pass? Would a development like this pass in City Beach? Why do we have to be the dummies for all the speculators?

A1. The Mayor replied that the comments were noted.

1.4 The following questions were submitted by Dr John E Maloney, Former Vice Chancellor of Curtin University, 148 West Coast Terrace, Trigg 6029 at the Special Council meeting held on 16 December 2003.

Q1. Mr Maloney enquired as to why the Mayor overruled his request to hear the history of the gentleman who spoke this evening. I actually think from a public point of view it is very important as while Councillors may know these people many of us out there don't know them although many of us have been involved in significant developments for a very long time. I would also like to know if all the impacts have been considered, such as environmental, economic and social.

A1. Mr John Syme outlined his qualifications and background in major projects and replied that of the social, environmental and economic impacts have been addressed in some detail within the study.

Q2. It seems that a scenario has been projected to the residents of Stirling some 175,000. Whereas we have only 2000 responses, about 2%. From that 2% you have projected that this may be the majority view. Have you got any formal submissions, how can you make such serous decision from this?

A2. The submissions were received on the basis that individuals chose to make submissions rather than being randomly selected. The exception was the telephone survey which was randomly selected.

The questionnaire results have a general correlation with the telephone survey and therefore it can be concluded the questionnaire gives a good indication of the community sentiment.

These indicate an approximate 50/50 split for and against.

Q3. When you spoke you didn't mention the impacts of scenario A, which wouldn't have a visual impact.

A3 Mr Malcolm Mackay replied that scenario A is presumed to be a continuation of the status quo.

1.5 The following question was submitted by Mr Sasa Ivanovich, Dwight Street, East Fremantle, at the Special Council meeting held on 16 December 2003.

Q. Is Council aware that at the City Vision Statement Conference which was attended by quite a variety of people who are specialists in planning and so on and architecture, Scarborough was seen as being the possible centre for quite a large tourist development and on account of that as a very important node that would lead to other things that would happen in the City and linking Scarborough to the City and even railway lines and things like this and something which seems to be on the cards and whether it happens here it will happen and I don't know how long one can pretend that this can be a quiet village with two storey buildings. That is my question?

A. The Mayor replied that this question did not need explanation.

1.6 The following question was submitted by Mr John Pringle, 33 Sorrento Street, North Beach at the Special Council meeting held on 16 December 2003.

Q. The summary of locations of which the submissions originated as follows, where it says elsewhere on the questionnaire 80 out of 566 were from elsewhere, which is about 14%. The written submissions there were 58 out of 347 which is about 18% . With the proforma letters where there is 100% support for program B1 337 were from elsewhere. That is about 50% from elsewhere which is triple what any other of the questionnaire. Could you explain how it could be that 100% voted for B1 when 50% were from elsewhere?

A. Mr John Syme replied that we simply reported where they come from. The proforma elsewhere's came from a wide range of locations, the ones with double figures came from locations across the metropolitan area such as City Beach, Cottesloe, Duncraig, Floreat, Morley, South Perth, Nedlands, Subiaco and Wembley. The rest were all in single figures.

ITEM: 2 APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Councillor T W Clarey (Granted leave of absence on 9 December 2003).
Councillor A A Spagnolo JP.

ITEM: 3 REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

3.1

ITEM: 3.1 SCARBOROUGH ENVIRONS AREA STRATEGY (SEAS) STEERING COMMITTEE - 10 DECEMBER 2003

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL

Moved Councillor Stewart, seconded Councillor Pickard

That the Special Council meeting ADJOURN until 11 February 2004 at 7.00pm, to allow further consideration of the reports.

The motion was put and declared LOST.