Transcription
**Good evening, councilors and those in the gallery, and welcome to this ordinary council meeting.**
I declare this meeting open on 30th March 2024 at 6 p.m.
I would like to acknowledge the City CS1 acknowledges the traditional custodians of this region, the Wajak people of the Noongar nation, and their continuing connection to the land, waters, and community. We pay our respects to Elders past, present, and their descendants.
**Disclaimer:** The terms and conditions of entry into this meeting are posted on the door as you enter, so please ensure that you've read them prior to attending this meeting and abide by them.
**Attendance and Apologies:** We have all councilors present tonight. Councilor Pnik is online electronically attending, and we have no other apologies—no leave of absences, nil apologies.
**Declarations of Financial Proximity Interest and Interests Affecting Impartiality:** Mr. Steven Kane this evening declared an impartiality interest in item 14.1.2, independent member audit committee remuneration, as he has previously worked with Mr. Draber in the Australian Army.
Are there any other declarations of interest? If so, please fill out that form under your desk in the drawer and pass them up to the CEO.
**Part Five: Public Question Time:** Questions and answers recorded in the minutes of the meeting may be summarized in accordance with the Local Government Administration Regulations of 1996. All questions received for this meeting have been answered and included in this schedule. All questions will be published in the minutes of this meeting.
5.1 **Answers to Questions Taken on Notice:** We have nil.
5.2 **Questions Relating to Reports Contained in the Agenda:**
5.2.1 Questions of which due notice has been given: One person has asked questions, which are answered below and will be published in the minutes. That was Mr. Simon Ashby, so you have those responses.
5.2.2 Questions without due notice: The following people have registered to ask questions, and the first is Miss Marilina Stimle. Thank you, Marilina. You're welcome. Oh, okay, so I have three questions. Can I ask them all?
So, my first one goes this way. This is in regards to the motion one for 14.11-17, which was raised by me at the annual elector meetings regarding changing the boundaries of the City of Swan and entering into discussion with the City of Bassendean. The question is: Have there been instances in the recent past, like we say, you know, 10 to 15 years back, where a change in boundary with a neighboring LGA has occurred? If yes, when, what was changed, and how was that change initiated?
Thank you.
**Through you, Mr. CEO:** Thank you, Marilina.
So, the process of initiated change is undertaken through the Local Government Advisory Board. They publish an annual report each year that deals with any proposed changes or any changes they dealt with in terms of the timeframe you have referred to. If you write to the Local Government Advisory Board, they'll be able to provide you details of everything over that decade.
Yeah, so I'm aware at least of one, which I'd like to mention for the new councilors: The City of Noranda switched from the City of Swan to, was it Bassendean in 2016 or Bayswater? Thank you.
So, there have been things that happened in the recent past.
So, the other one is: Is staff, Madame Mayor and Mr. CEO, aware that the City of Bassendean has had a massive change of heart regarding getting into discussions with the City of Swan to talk about the change in the boundaries? Because as of March 13, sorry, March 11, so Monday, they held a special meeting and they had a resolution which was passed unanimously supporting collaborative dialogue with the City of Swan.
So, I think there is a strong appetite for discussing the boundary change, in contradiction to what was discussed at the agenda forum when you had that information last week where people said that the City of Bassendean wasn't interested in it. Would you like us to respond to that question? Are you aware that they changed their minds?
**Yes, excellent.**
This one is a bit long, and it speaks to a comment that Mr. COO made in regards to the lack of community support for entering in discussion with the City of Bassendean regarding the changes of the LGA boundaries. Mr. CEO, you stated that staff showed you copies of social media posts showing no strong desire for a boundary change and that no letters were received by the City of Swan indicating that the community wants this change and is aligned with the motion that I raised. I paraphrase, but that was the gist of what you indicated last week.
So, my question is the following: Is Facebook now an official channel that will influence staff recommendations to council? Because if that is the case, I can point you to a couple of sites where the will of a community on controversial items was very clear, but we were not heard, and the staff kept acting against our recommendations.
So, has this changed now? Can we just express our views on Facebook and you guys will take it into account as an official statement of community views?
**Thank you.**
**And thank you, Marilina.** You'd be aware that Facebook and other social media, such as Twitter, are communication channels where people express their personal views. Those views represent the individual’s views, not necessarily a wider spectrum but the individual’s views. So, there'll always be opportunities to use those channels.
As I said last week, the city had not received any proposal from a community member in regard to anything to do with boundary adjustment, but people, other than with the motion that was moved at the annual electors meeting.
Excellent.
**So as a community member that has been engaged with this council for the last two years on several items, I can feel that the goalposts keep on changing.** Because when you indicated that there is no direction from the community in forms of letters or whatnot to express our support for this motion, I can point to many, many other situations where hundreds of emails have been sent.
Yeah, just need to make sure we keep this on track. A question—no, the question is when enough is enough. How many letters do you need or emails do you need for staff to take the community view into consideration, Mr. CEO?
So you’d be aware that under the Local Government Act, there is an avenue for the community that wishes to move a proposal to deal with boundary adjustment, which requires 250 signatures of the affected electors. But at that stage, people moving would have to include a proposal that outlined the impact on the residents. For instance, the City of Bassendean’s rates for its residential customers are 177% higher and 25% higher for pensioners. That information would need to be included in the presentation. So, all the aspects to do with the impact on infrastructure, the impact on community service, etc., would need to be included.
It’s not simply a case of just raising a petition and saying, “There it is, 250 people. We want a proposal.” The Local Government Act is quite clear. The Local Government Advisory Board process is laid out on the website, and if community members are interested, that’s where they should start.
**Excellent. Can I just ask a couple of clarification points? Very short.** So, I went and looked at the directions from the board, and it looks like there is a lot of—is the board’s job to assess if a change in boundary is viable or not, pending, as you said, the community 250 signatures? Did they get that wrong, or is that how it should go?
**Um, you’ve got that partly wrong:** So yes, it’s the board’s job to assess a proposal, but you need to make a proposal. The proposal needs to deal with all of the matters outlined in the including the financial impact. So for instance, financial impact not only of the affected area but on the unaffected area—for instance, a boundary adjustment involving the transition of Midland, Guilford, and Woodbridge into the Town of Bassendean would require a $100 million investment by the residual residents in the City of Swan to replace its Administration Center and its Operation Center and other critical infrastructure.
It would need to include the impact on rates, so the loss of ratable areas and industrial areas that move from one to the area would significantly disadvantage those who are left.
So it’s not simply a case of saying we, the affected residents, want to put down a proposal to change a boundary. You need to address each of the criteria contained in that analysis.
**Fair enough. I had another smart question, but I forgot to write it down. Thank you so much for your answers.**
Thank you very much, Marilina.
5.3 **Any other questions?** Sorry, other than those that have already had a chance to have their questions answered. Is there any member of the public wishing to ask a question on an item in the agenda?
Right, 5.3 Other Questions Not Relating to Items Contained in the Agenda. If there’s anyone in the gallery would like to ask a question…
5.3.1 Questions of Which Due Notice Have Been Given: Nil.
5.3.2 Questions Without Due Notice: There have been no questions without due notice received at this point.
Um, I can ask, other than those that have already had their questions answered, is there any member of the public wishing to ask a question on an item not on the agenda?
I might just see Council M—if you could just turn that microphone on, thank you.
And that brings us to **Public Statement Time.** So registration for Public Statement Time at council meetings was required by 6 p.m. on Tuesday, the 13th of February 2024, and there have been no requests for anyone to make a public statement at this stage.
And that brings us to **7. Petitions.** All petitions were to be presented to council at the agenda forum last Wednesday evening. The following petition was presented to the agenda forum on the 6th of March 2024 that requires to be tabled tonight: Ms. Lind Dearing on behalf of John and Wendy Faren to retain Riverside Gardens All Abilities Playground presented a petition containing 72 names at the agenda forum on the 6th of March 2024 to be tabled at this meeting.
This is one I have in my hand, which I’ll hand to the CEO there, and the recommendation was that the petition be referred to the CEO for consideration and response.
I’ll ask for a mover…Deputy Mayor and a seconder, CC joins.
**Thank you very much.** Is there anyone against?
Right, that’s carried, and that moves us on to **Deputations for Tonight.** All deputations for items on the agenda were heard at the agenda forum held on the 6th of March 2024.
I do have some pretty exciting announcements tonight. Just would like to share and make a really special announcement regarding one of the City of Swan residents, Diane Ryder.
Some of you might know Diane in the community; she was inducted into the WA Women’s Hall of Fame on March 8th, 2024. So that’s really a fantastic achievement for Diane.
Diane has made committed contributions to the community through her advocacy for Aboriginal veterans, families, and children. After retiring from the Australian Army, she continued to volunteer at various health, education, and cultural programs with the selfless goal to make a positive impact on others’ lives.
Diane’s accomplishments include the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) in 2023 and the National NAAK Lifetime Achievement Award in 2017. She was nominated for Australian of the Year in 2015 and was awarded the Perth NAAK Outstanding Achievement and the City of Swan Active Citizen Awards in 2009.
She currently runs the Indigenous Veteran Service and the Swan Aboriginal Community Christmas celebration held in Guildford, and we’d also like to thank Diane for her dedication to helping those in our community and congratulate her on this well-deserved acknowledgment.
I think we can give her a round of applause.
**[Applause]**
Thank you very much.
But also, last week on March 8th, the City received an award from Public Works Engineering Australasia WA recognizing the City’s Stock Road Extension project.
This is one of our biggest projects: $71 million in terms of cost and construction. Like I said, one of the biggest and most exciting—it would have been a major undertaking for any local government.
This is the award that was presented to our staff on Thursday night last week. This project created that 4.3 km connection between Great Northern Highway and Tonkin Highway and featured, obviously, the bridge over Ellen Brook, which we're all aware of. For those of you that aren’t, a rail crossing with boom gates, five T-intersections, and a roundabout at Great Northern Highway.
The extension creates that much more direct and safer commute for our residents and community by allowing heavy vehicles to bypass the Midland townsite. This also unlocks significant economic potential, enabling the creation of a new industrial hub in Perth’s northeast, which is a pretty big step for us towards ensuring our local economy continues to thrive.
And that’s going to create jobs for us in our fast-growing community, so a pretty big step towards… you know, we’d like to really make sure we acknowledge and thank the Australian government, which provided $16.7 million in funding to make that project a reality. But I especially would like to make a very special mention and acknowledge John Dre, who was our project manager and the finalist of the Emerging Young Leader.
So if we can give him a round of applause as well.
Thank you.
The Deputy Mayor also has some fantastic achievements to read out and some news that we have for council.
**Thank you, Madame Mayor.**
The City of Swan has recently been recognized as a Gold Waterwise Council for 2024 through the joint Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and Water Corporation initiative, the Waterwise Council Program.
Since the City’s first endorsement in 2015, the City of Swan has been recognized as one of the top-performing councils in achieving sustainable water management in council operations and in building water-wise communities.
This recognition is also supported by the fact that all three of the City’s leisure centers are also accredited under the Waterwise Leisure Center scheme.
The Waterwise Council Program aims to build a cooperative working relationship between local governments in Western Australia, the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, and Water Corporation by acknowledging councils demonstrating leadership in sustainable water management.
So, well done, City of Swan.
**And number four, last but not least:**
The City of Swan’s new website has earned global recognition, winning Kento’s Site of the Year award in the Government or Municipal category, finishing in front of entries from Texas and Ohio in the United States.
The new site features a clean and modern design, intuitive navigation, simpler language, advanced search functionality, enhanced mobile responsiveness, custom filters, and a modernized brand. It sets a new standard for local government websites in Western Australia.
The award itself is in transit from the US, so I can't show it to you now.
That’s all, thank you.
**Over to you, Madame Mayor.**
Congratulations to those recipients, and well done to the City of Swan. We're pretty proud to be part of the biggest councils in WA, and for that recognition, we’re grateful.
Certainly. Thank you.
And just through the chair, just I’d like to recognize the manager of our marketing and communications area, Alana Joseph, who will be leaving us in a week's time to relocate to Melbourne with her husband and family.
But she has been a mainstay in that area, has done a power of good, particularly in that area under the leadership of Mariel Pickering, who will also be leaving us at the end of next month to take up a role at the City of Melville.
The two of them have significantly revamped much of our marketing, our communication, so thank you very much.
**Number 10: Leave of Absence.** I have a leave form for myself from Wednesday, the 27th of March until the 2nd of April 2024, which I've given to the CEO.
There's also a leave form for Councilor Bowman from the 21st of May 2024 to the 25th of May 2024 inclusive. Is there any other elected member that requires a leave of absence? And if there is, could you fill out the form, please, and then hand that back up to the CEO?
Then there was also a resolution needed for those. We’ll do one at a time, both at the time.
So all those in favor?
Sorry, so someone move. Mover, Councilor Miles and seconded by Councilor Henderson.
That’s carried.
And then we're up to **Confirmation of Minutes.**
11.1 Confirmation of minutes of the ordinary meeting of council held on the 14th of February 2024.
The resolution required to confirm the minutes of the 14th of February 2024. Do I have a mover?
Councilor Bowman and a second, Councilor Miles.
**Thank you very much.** It’s carried. Is there anyone against?
Is there anyone against?
That is carried unanimously. Sorry, Council.
**And 12: Business Left Over from Previous Meetings:** which was nil. So we move on to part 13, adoption of those recommendations contained in items not withdrawn.
So for the benefit of community members observing the meeting, the council uses an on-block method of decision-making, so this means that agenda items where council supports the officer's recommendations are not debated separately. One vote is taken on all of the items, and the officer recommendation is therefore the decision of the council.
The following items have not been withdrawn for individual consideration and will be dealt with via the on-block vote.
So therefor the officer recommendation will be the decision of the council:
14.1.2 Independent Member Audit Committee, audit committee remuneration.
14.2.2 The draft Ellen Brook Station Precinct Improvement Scheme Number One.
14.3.3 Proposed amendment number 222 to local planning scheme number 17, and that is to insert multiple dwellings as an additional use, Lot 463, number 108 Swan Street, Guildford, LPS 17-222.
14.5.1 Financial Management Report for the period ended 31st of January 2024.
14.5.2 List of accounts paid January 2024.
14.5.3 Which is the change in basis of valuation.
And I'll ask for a mover, Councilor Bowman, and a seconder, Councilor Miles.
So that’s carried unanimously. Was anyone against?
Right, no one against. Then that’s carried unanimously.
And then it’s quite a large agenda tonight, so we move on to **Reports Withdrawn for Debate or Absolute Majority Vote Required.**
The following reports have been withdrawn for debate in accordance with the meeting procedures local law 2023, and they will be dealt with by council individually.
So we move on to **14.11 Annual Meeting of Electors, consideration of motions.**
On page 7, proposed motion by Councilor Bowman, if you’d like to read out your alternate motion, please.
**Councilor Bowman:** Thank you, Madame Mayor.
Madame Mayor, I move the council resolves to:
1. Note the minutes of the annual meeting of electors held on February 5th, 2024.
2. Note the comments outlined in the report detailing when reports are anticipated to be presented to council on relevant motions.
3. A. Request the mayor and the CEO meet with the town ambassador, mayor, and CEO to ascertain the position in relation to potential boundary changes, and
B. That a further report be provided to council on the impacts to the city of any changes to the southwestern boundary with the Town of Bassendean.
4. Require the CEO to conduct a council briefing on the current planning delegations to staff, which should include comparison to other tier one local governments and the current limits on deemed-to-comply or acceptable development criteria delegations.
**Thank you. Do I have a seconder?**
Councilor Zenino.
**Council Bowman, do you like to speak to the motion?**
Oh, sorry, reason for motion first.
I was going to back the reason for the motion. The reason for the motion is community support has been shown and at least the discussion with the Town of Bassendean is warranted.
Council has received numerous emails regarding planning approvals that have been approved by staff under the delegation, many of which are deemed to comply and acceptable development criteria, and such this needs further attention.
**Is there anyone against the motion?**
**Councilor Catalano:** So, Council Bowman, if you’d like to speak to your motion.
Thank you, Madame Mayor.
Um, councilors, the report from staff to council provides the comments to each of the motions to move. For the vast majority, staff provide information the proposed action is already currently being undertaken or reasons why a further report is not necessary.
I would like to see that the relevant staff make contact with chief electors who move the motion to provide any further assistance or advice. For example, motion 11 from Mr. Philip Woods from the Lock Progress Association.
Councilors, we know about the monthly finance report and where to look for the information. You would all be well aware of the major projects page, but if you're not familiar with local government, this isn't always easy to find. In this example, I’d like to see staff have taken the time to contact by phone Mr. Woods and explain, step by step, how we can access this information, how to read and understand it.
Going on to my two slight changes, it was evident that there was a strong theme that came out of the annual electors meeting, and that was the planning decisions, and more particularly the planning delegations.
Councilors, we are required to review the delegations every year, with the last time this was undertaken was June 23.
What would be the impacts if planning delegations were changed, reduced, modified? Would this be a good outcome or not a good outcome? I do not know, and as such, we should be asking for a briefing on this matter so we have a thorough understanding of the issues.
Councilors, you will know I’ve included comparisons with other tier one local governments, and I’d like to stress that I expect that would be the big three as this will provide valuable information as well.
Motion 17, and we heard that tonight, also stood out to me in particular the staff comments or lack of, unlike the other motions whereby staff advised already currently being undertaken or reasons why a further report is not necessary. For this motion, it was not the case.
Councilors, it may be that some individuals are against even considering a possible boundary change with Bassendean, and given the answer to my questions at General Forum last week and the correspondence we have all regarding the Town of Bassendean, where it was very clear the Town of Bassendean is interested in sitting down and having a chat.
There’s concern that there was some conflicting information to make it very clear. And we’ve heard it, the Town of Bassendean had a special meeting on Monday. The timing of such is not lost to me when they resolved the council requests the CEO immediately informed the City of Swan that the Town of Bassendean is a willing partner in boundary adjustment discussions.
Is a possible boundary change a good idea? Are there benefits to the impacted residents? Would this have negative impacts to the City of Swan? Do I support a change of boundary without a report? I do not know.
**Thank you, Councilor Bowman.**
**Councilor Zenino, nothing further to add?**
I think Council Bowman has covered it quite adequately.
**Sorry, Council Catalano.**
Yes, thank you.
Um, this is not about one motion. The local government act, as we know, provides for electors and ratepayers to come along and move motions about issues that are very important to them.
They volunteer their time to do so, and why is it in the Local Government Act? Because allowing and giving ratepayers and electors an opportunity to do so allows them to participate in the democratic process that strengthens the institution of government and strengthens the institution of this local government.
Participation assists us as decision-makers, and it keeps our democracy and society civil.
The Local Government Act says that this council is to consider these motions at the next meeting. **Consider** in my mind means debate, raise the pros and cons. So I’m extremely disappointed to see that these motions have been lumped together for noting and basically dismissed.
I'm disappointed. You can imagine how our ratepayers and electors will feel. This isn't what electors would expect; they'd expect that each one of their motions that they brought along, carefully drafted and considered, and that was usually voted on with a very large majority, would be considered by this council.
For instance, the motion—and these are motions that are brought to council repeatedly, so that means that there’s very strong feeling out there in the community about these issues—about Eastlink, whether that’s actually good for our ratepayers and residents, and the effect it’s going to have on traffic and perhaps even lack of traffic solutions.
**For more public open space on the Midland Oval development,** that’s been ongoing. It’s not resolved for traffic congestion in Lockridge, on Lord Street, for a significant tree register.
And you know, I am concerned about some very old trees in Midland, actually; that if we don’t get them on some sort of protection, they are going to be lost. They’re the last of the eucalyptus routes, 200-300 year old trees.
And the issue about the need for more objections so that issues are brought to council and not all done by decisions made by delegated authority for Henley Brook Avenue—there’s strong support that it doesn’t go through the bush forever.
**And the motion to bring the demolition decision for...**
Um, to demolish…
**I’ll ask, is there anyone for the motion?**
**Council Henderson:** Thank you, Mayor.
I wanted to touch on in particular Part 3 of the motion, and I do support it. But I make a reservation, and the reservation is that we are effectively saying that we want to go and have a discussion about this when we actually haven’t had a position on it.
So it’s a cart before the horse. As Councilor Zenino mentioned to me earlier, the realities are that if the community wants to do this, they’ve got to go out there and come up with a decent answer as to why.
And hopefully then we can see where it’s all going to go. But I just want to make a point—and that is that if this were to occur, Bassendean Council would probably be the base for it.
May well be, may not be, but if it were, the absolute Holy Grail of Guildford, the library would be closed by Bassendean Council. They wouldn’t be able to afford it or justify it.
And the underground power works through Woodbridge—millions of dollars. What would happen with that? It goes on and on.
**And I think, just another example, the street lights down James Street and Meadow Street:** $1.35 million, I think it was, for that work. Those works to be done, the City of Swan would be looking at that in its budget deliberations.
So the point I want to make is that the ideal has been put out there, but the practicality and the thought hasn’t been put out there, and that’s what concerns me most—that it’s been driven by ideology, in some terms, if you like—and frankly, we’re not about that. We’re about proper and due process in my mind.
I will support it, however, because once we go through this part, we’ll end up with a process and hopefully some outcome that the city can come up with a document for the council to review and determine, and then we can go forward with that.
But it's something in my mind that has little foundation to progress, but happy for the discussion.
**Thank you, Councilor Henderson.**
**Is there anyone against the motion?**
**Deputy Mayor:** Yeah, thank you, Madame Mayor.
Um, councilors, the reason I'm opposed to Council Bowman's motion is for the simple reason I prefer Councilor Catalano's motion.
Councilor Catalano's motion provides a simpler way for councilors to evaluate and raise alternate motions against each individual elector motion.
Now councilors, you must be wondering why didn’t you yourself, Mr. Deputy Mayor, raise your own alternate motion if you felt so strongly about it? Well, the reason is I felt it would bring too much complexity into the meeting, and so I refrain from providing an alternate motion. Fortunately, we have Councilor Catalano’s.
We do need to have individual consideration of elector motions. One of the reasons is that local government is a formative training ground for people getting involved in democracy.
So this is one of the ways that people learn, and we need to treat their motions seriously by considering them individually. Previously on this council, we have had motions to hold special meetings of council to individually evaluate the motions from the special electors’ meeting, and Councilor Catalano's motion, which will be debated if this one fails, is an example of that.
It’s happened on many occasions before.
Now to address the important issue of the potential merger of Midland Guilford Ward or parts of Midland Guilford Ward with the Town of Bassendean.
**Councilors, the Midland Guilford Ward, at least most of it, and the Town of Bassendean would certainly have common purpose.**
It is worth noting, though, that the Midland Guilford Ward is about five times the size of the Town of Bassendean, and the effect would be a reverse takeover.
That would not be such a good thing, not such a bad thing because it would mean that the Midland Guilford Ward could acquire its own administration relatively easily without going through a massive reorganization.
Other things we need to think about are examples of how decisions would be made differently. Just imagine that Midland Guilford Ward plus Bassendean tacked onto the side of it.
As Councilor Catalano said, the recent demolition of the Senior Citizens Center on the Midland Oval might have gone in a different direction.
I always remember the fence in Guilford that a resident wanted to be 10 cm higher than the approved standard so that their children would be protected because they only had room for a playground in the front garden.
Well, I’m pretty sure all the Midland Guilford Ward and Bassendean councils would have supported that.
The Midland Oval, goes without saying, and then there are, of course, the numerous Heritage decisions in Guilford, and we’ve delegated all that to the city.
So, councilors, that’s the reason I’m opposed to Council Bowman’s motion because I want to support Council Catalano.
**Are there any for the motion? Anyone like to speak for the motion? If there’s not, I’ll hand over the chair to the Deputy Mayor.**
**Thank you.**
Um, I'd just like to enter into the debate to say that regarding 14.11 regarding the merge with Bassendean Council, the conversation I had with the mayor post the annual electors meeting was confidently there was no general interest as it stood.
There have been some changes currently; now there is interest, as we’ve all discussed.
And I just want to let you know that I support this motion at this stage, for the record, but I do not, at this stage yet now, see a reason for this boundary change.
In light of what may come, I’m happy to have those discussions with the CEO and the Town of Bassendean to see what will become, but obviously it would need to be far more in-depth and outlined.
**Thank you.**
So I’m now going to put the motion. **Council Bowman, do you like to close?**
Thank you, Madame Mayor.
Councilors, Councillor Catalano says we should be considering all the motions. Well, this is what is before us at the moment. Yes, Councilor Johnson is correct that he could have put an alternative motion in. Anyone could have put an alternative motion in.
We seem to have focused in the debate on the merger. I’m trying to struggle to find even the word merger. It was a discussion to see if there’s any benefits, interests, or anything like that.
But we’ve all just focused on that. What I find extremely interesting is that not one person mentioned planning.
Most of the motions, if I did a theme, were on planning. Most of the email complaints I get are about planning.
There were seven or eight motions in there about planning, and not one person has mentioned planning.
**Councilors, electors… actually, I just retain.**
Actually, can you just stand up please and state your point of order?
I did mention planning issues. In fact, I mentioned it about the need for more than to— for less than 11 objections for it to come out of delegated authority.
So, I mean, that’s not correct.
Okay, so Councilor Bowman, if you could return.
**Thank you, Madame Mayor.** And now I’ve got to try and get my head back from that interruption.
Councilors, it was open to everybody.
It was open to everyone to have a look at those motions. There was discussion and mention about the Henley Brook Avenue. Well, it’s quite clear this council had a resolution.
I was probably shocked when the Swan Valley ratepayers brought that one up and I thought perhaps they didn’t know of this resolution, and that’s why I’ve suggested in my opening debate that I’d like to see at least a phone conversation from the staff to each of those who made their motion, just so they’re aware of it.
But wanting to be heard, wanting to be heard, councilors, together with four other councilors, we got to hear every motion that everyone put in before the closed deadline.
If we hadn’t had that special electors meeting on Monday night, we wouldn’t have gotten to hear all of them, and that to me was more important.
So, councilors, motions here, officers have provided comment. I’ve picked two that I thought needed some more work. Nobody is putting else forward, so please support my motion.
**Thank you, Councilor Bowman.** Right, I’m going to put that vote to the—put it to the vote.
All those in favor of Council Bowman just raise your hand nice and high:
Councilor Daor, Councilor Ringo, Councilor Bowman, Councilor Jones, Councilor Mulik, Councilor Miles, Councilor Knight, Councilor Zenino, Councilor Henderson, Councilor Howlett, and myself.
And I did have your name there, Councilor Prant; it was going to come to you.
Thank you, and all those against?
So Deputy Mayor, Councilor Catalano, Councilor Singh, Councilor Knight.
So that’s carried 11-4.
Okay, then we move on to **14.13 Nomination of Deputy Mayor for JDAP, page 69.**
Deputy Mayor, I say Mayor—Deputy Member for JDAP.
Councilor Bowman, if you’d like to read out your alternate motion, thank you.
**Councilor Bowman:** Thank you, Madame Mayor.
My motion is: Council resolves to nominate Councilor Henderson as the deputy member to the Development Assessment Panel and to authorize the CEO to advise the minutes of council’s nomination for consideration.
**The reason for the motion:** We had to provide one of the two-three councilors, and Councilor Henderson has had previous experience as a JDAP member, has undertaken the required training, and is available when it usually meets.
Do I have a seconder?
Councilor Zenino.
**Thank you. Is there anyone against?**
**Councilor Howlett, do you wish to debate it?**
No, so I’ll put that—all those in favor? So we have a—Deputy Mayor Johnson, Councilor Singh, Councilor Ringo, Councilor Bowman, Councilor Jones, Councilor Mulik, Councilor Zenino, Councilor Henderson and myself.
**And sorry, Councilor Bowman, you must wave like a bit higher.** Thank you.
**All those against?**
Councilor Catalano, Councilor Dawn, Councilor Miles, Councilor Knight, and Councilor Howlett.
So it's carried 10-5.
**Thank you very much.** Then we move on to **14.14—is that right?** Just checking, I’ve got a big agenda: Compliance AIT return from the 1st of January 2023 to the 31st of December 2023, and that's on page 72.
So if any councilor would like to move the officer's recommendation?
**Councilor Bowman:** Do I have a seconder?
**Councilor Henderson.**
Councilor Catalano, would you like to speak against the motion?
So, Council Bowman, Councilor Henderson, would you like to speak, too?
No, is there anyone against?
**Councilor Catalano:** Thank you.
I cannot adopt the compliance return with the knowledge of the four non-compliant issues and, in particular, 16 breaches of the Local Government Functions and General Regulations 1996 and the City’s procurement policy for the supply of goods and services under $250,000 because there was no invitation for tenders for the supply of cleaning services between November 2022 and 2023.
I’m not prepared to overlook non-compliance, and I need to know more as to how the risk of this has been dealt with rather than being informed that such breaches do occur on occasion, which indicates to me that it’s likely to occur again and that there’s going to be no changes operational risk, governance risk of not meeting regulatory requirements, financial, cultural, and reputational risk is the responsibility of this council ultimately.
I think we heard that at a briefing session. I’m not here to be a rubber stamp. I have an obligation and a responsibility to oversee risk, both forward and backward, and I’m looking and seeking proactive adjustments and improvements before I give my approval.
**Thank you.**
**Is there anyone against the motion who would like to speak? Is there anyone for the motion?**
There's no one for or against the motion.
I’d like to put that to the—oops.
Oh, sorry, Council Bowman. You’re right of reply.
**Council Bowman:** We seem to have cut you off.
**Thank you, Madame Mayor.**
And Madame Mayor, as the chair of the audit committee and for my third year on the audit committee, I can rest assured you and the other councilors I do not rubber stamp anything.
This was discussed in detail at the audit committee, and I want to congratulate this council and the staff for actually not just doing a tick and flick, which is known for in a number of local governments, and I am dealing with one of those in another role.
Madame Mayor, I asked the question about the contract management under the tenders because I was concerned, but it was a great response.
And the reason why it was a great response because we are actually staff are performance managing the contracts.
I have concerns with that sometimes that local governments are not good contract managers at times, but in this situation, the contract for the cleaners—they were not capable of doing the job, and if I’m correct, I think the staff were the ones who picked this one as the contract as well, so they got terminated.
However, there’s a little part of the act that says if you spend $250,000 or more, you’ve got to go to tender, and because of the time we terminated the contract and before staff got another contract in place, $250,000 was spent.
Sounds a lot, but if I was to ask someone about our cleaning budget, I’m looking around, I’d say our cleaning budget runs in the millions of dollars. So therefore when it’s four or five months, $250,000 quickly moves up.
When I look at the other non-compliance issues, there were minor things. The compliance audit return is not to catch staff out; it’s to remind staff of what needs to be done.
And a really good example was that was removing the register of returns related to the person under 575 and 576. A lot of things happen in local government; it’s easy enough to forget and miss that one.
And I can guarantee you I don’t think it will be missed again the following year.
Councilors, as I said before, when this was discussed at the audit committee, we discussed it in detail.
We've gone through each of those, and I’m actually grateful that staff actually have gone through it thoroughly and haven’t just done a tick and flick, which is common in local government.
**Thank you, Councilor B.**
I’ll now put that to the vote.
All those in favor, please raise your hand: Deputy Mayor Johnson, Councilor Singh, Councilor Ringo, Councilor Bowman, Councilor Jones, Councilor Mulik, Councilor Miles, Councilor Zenino, Councilor Henderson, Councilor Pnik, and myself.
And all those against: Councilor Catalano, Councilor Dawn, Councilor Knight, and Councilor Howlett.
That’s carried 11-4.
**And we move on to 14.2.1 consent to advertise draft local planning scheme number 18 on page 100.**
Proposed motion from Councilor Catalano. Would you like to read out your alternate motion?
That the council resolved to:
1. Defer the adoption of the draft local planning scheme number 18 for the City of Swan to replace local planning scheme number 17 until a review of the local planning strategy has been conducted and
2. All of the actions identified in the reviewed local planning strategy are inserted in the draft LPS 18 to accordingly defer the advertising and referral to the Western Australian state government agencies.
**The reason for the motion:** The draft LPS 18 as presented does not align with the local planning strategy actions, including but not limited to:
A. Action one: review the local planning scheme to investigate the use of planning mechanisms to retain and enhance the urban forest coverage within the city and to achieve the principles of the local biodiversity strategy.
B. Action three: ensure that provisions of the City’s local planning scheme and local planning policies are consistent with Nangar groundwater protection requirements and consider including a special control area under the local planning scheme.
2. The draft LPS 18 as presented will be a poor planning document as it relies on an outdated local planning strategy that does not identify Ellenbrook and its hinterland as a metropolitan center and a major economic hub of the northeast sub-region.
Thank you. Do I have a seconder?
Councilor Howlett.
**Council Catalano, if you’d like to speak to the motion.**
**Anyone against? Councilor Henderson, do you wish to debate it?**
**Councilor Catalano:** Thank you.
In the report that we've got, it does say the draft LPS 18 reorganizes; it doesn’t change; it doesn’t update the local planning scheme 17. It just puts in some deed provisions.
But the point is that the local planning scheme was actually drafted before 2008. That is almost 20 years ago.
In that 20 years, my goodness, we have seen changes. We really have seen the demographic pool from Ellenbrook and its impact on Midland.
There is no mention in the local planning strategy which is the document that is supposed to inform the local planning scheme. There is nothing in the local planning strategy about the importance or plan for Ellenbrook and the hinterland.
So to put it out for advertising at this stage—we were told—um, in fact I— I haven’t—I’ve been on council, you know, nearly six years, and it’s the first time that I put together those two documents, the local planning strategy and the local planning scheme, and I—it’s the first time I really became aware that the local planning strategy informs the local planning scheme.
We had a briefing session last week, but it isn’t enough to convince me that what we need right now is just for the same old plan, the same old 20 year old plan, local planning scheme, to just be, okay, we’ll just move on with this and keep this going.
And a local planning strategy that doesn’t even mention Ellenbrook as a regional center—I mean, I’m starting to see—and the other thing that I’ve raised is that two actions from the local planning strategy which relate to environmental issues haven’t been incorporated into this local planning scheme 18, which is supposed to have been done and is supposed to be incorporated into this revision.
I think I understand why our environment—why our natural environment has suffered and is suffering and will continue to suffer if we don’t start putting express provisions for it in the planning documents.
And that’s also the same for Ellenbrook as a regional center; it has to be expressly in the planning documents.
These are the highest level planning documents. It has to be expressly in there that Ellenbrook is a major metropolitan subregional center and that there needs to be adequate planning for that.
**Council Howlett, would you like to speak for the motion?**
Nothing further to add.
**Thank you.**
Any Council like to speak against the motion, Councilor Henderson?
**Thank you, Councilors.**
Um, I want to get down to the last point, and that was Ellenbrook.
And a page and a half of the officer comment pulling apart pretty much all of the foundation of what has just been said.
So it says, “In response to reason two, it should be noted that the local planning strategy is consistent with the WA Planning Commission’s state planning policy 4.2 activity centers, which identifies Ellenbrook as a secondary center.”
So it’s there. They perform an important role in the regional economy and provide essential services to their catchment.
Let’s go and touch on some of the other things.
Um, we know that if we push particular approaches that do not suit the WA Planning Commission, because let’s face it, whilst this might be our document, WA Planning Commission will actually tear it apart and tell us what we’re going to do.
And I gotta say, from—and that’s been evidenced by what’s happened to the Netherland City Council.
I want to say one thing, though. After having read this document twice—and I must say it’s just almost like watching paint dry with respect to people that love the sort of work it.
But the point I want to make is that there are things in there that I don’t like, and I’m sure there are things in there that a lot of us don’t like.
But a lot of it is there because the state says it will be there, and you will like it or you’ll lump it.
And that those deed provisions in particular are taking away significantly from what councils used to do.
And that in itself is one of the things that I dislike intentionally about local planning scheme number 17.
Yes, it has been around for a while, but we have had a couple of briefings in this regard.
But critically, the WA Planning Commission actually says that our scheme is pretty good. So let’s start off on that.
Our scheme is pretty good; 18 is going to make it a little bit better, perhaps with all these deed provisions.
But the point I want to make is we need to progress this. We need to have the community have their say. It's very important that they do that.
**I do foreshadow my motion after this, should this fail.**
And whilst I don’t necessarily like a lot of the stuff, I do think we could do a lot better from a planning perspective in this state.
But people will have their opportunity to say so, and that’s what we want, so let’s progress this.
**Thank you, Councilor Henderson.**
Is there anyone for the motion?
**Deputy Mayor:** Yeah, thank you, Madame Mayor.
Yes, I’m going to support this, and in particular the reasons given by Councilor Catalano to investigate the use of planning mechanisms to retain and enhance the urban forest coverage within the city and, most importantly in my view, to achieve the principles of the local biodiversity strategy.
I do recall when that first came out many years ago—when I first, you know, six or seven years ago—I recall when I first got on council, I wanted to know, “Why are we not taking note of this when we’re making planning decisions?”
And I was told, “Oh, it’s only advisory, councilor; it’s not actually part of the planning scheme.”
And how often does this come up? Well, it comes up very frequently. At the last meeting, when we looked at Ellenbrook Northwest, that decision was all about our local biodiversity strategy and how the WA Planning Commission should take note of that.
So my view is we do need to integrate the principles of the local biodiversity strategy into our local planning scheme.
Now, I do understand, councilors, that the whole concept of local planning scheme number 18 is really a redraft into a different format of local planning scheme number 17.
And without any changes to the actual planning concept, it’s just presented in a more modern, planner-friendly format.
But does that really take us anywhere? We’ve got to do it.
Why can’t we add these two simple things in there?
I really don’t believe that the WA Planning Commission would object. I’m sure that everybody in our community would support this, particularly integrating the principles of the local biodiversity strategy.
If we have a biodiversity strategy, we have to give it lawful effect through our planning scheme.
So, to me, it is self-evident that these should happen—it needs to happen now, given the environmental situation that we are facing in our world. We need to speed up our actions.
So, to say, “Oh well, it’s just an administrative change,”—it’s not appropriate to incorporate the biodiversity strategy into it.
Well, I think it’s too late for that kind of idea.
I think the WA Planning Commission would support this.
So that’s the reason I’m supporting Council Catalano’s motion.
**Thank you, Deputy Mayor.**
**Is anyone against the motion, Council Bowman?**
Thank you, Madame Mayor.
Madame Mayor, I actually agree with Councilor Catalano because it doesn't update; it is out of date, our Town Planning Scheme.
Interestingly, at a meeting I was at, or a training seminar I was at on Monday with a number of Mayors and councilors, we got talking about planning and planning schemes, and ours is pretty in date compared to a number of them.
I question the need to do it. It’s like me getting my old car and getting a brand new paint job; it’s still an old car.
But what’s been proposed has been tried. And the staff have actually said attempts to include these provisions in the draft LPS number 18 after the WA Planning Commission’s rejection of such an approach elsewhere.
So others have tried and have been rejected.
We’ve also been given a scope and it’s not within the scope they want local governments, and it’s been there since September 2020 in their instructions to bring it up to the new paint job—they want the new paint job for our town planning schemes like everyone else.
That’s what we need to do first, and then we can work on everything else because I agree with Council Henderson; there are some things in the town planning scheme I am totally not happy with.
And if we talk about the biodiversity strategy, it was only six months ago we couldn’t even get that for members of the public because it wasn’t publicly available on our website.
So there are things to do, but we’re being told to do the paint job.
**If my wife asked me to do a paint up with the car, I’d be thinking, waste the money.**
But we’re being told to actually do it, and what we’ve been suggested to do in this has been rejected by the WA Planning Commission with other local governments.
So why would we go down the line of something where we know it has previously been rejected?
Do we think the City of Swan we are going to be treated any differently than the other local governments that were rejected?
Please, if there’s a reason why, tell me. Otherwise, I cannot support this motion.
**Thank you, Councilor Bowman.**
Is anyone for the motion?
**Is there anyone against the motion who would like to speak?**
There’s no one for or against the motion.
I’d like to ask the mover for a right of reply.
**Yes, thank you.**
Um, paint job. Look, let’s just do the job properly. That’s what I’m saying, and that is for the benefit of all users.
I’m sure that the WA Planning Commission would understand a job done properly. They’ve approved the local planning strategy, so they have approved action one, which relates to the biodiversity strategy and action three, which relates to the water and the Nangar mound.
They’ve approved those already in the strategy.
What we haven’t done is we haven’t expressly included them in the local planning scheme, as our own strategy says we are to do.
That’s what we haven’t done, and that’s what I’m saying needs to be done, because otherwise, we’re going to get absolutely no environmental protection.
It’s going to carry on just the same—maybe clunking on for another 20 years.
And it’s not about what I like or don’t like; it’s about what has to be done, because that’s the local planning strategy point.
Point of order.
Just um—a minute, councilor.
**I’m sorry; it was said that we basically we will have the—we will say what we want, but the WA Planning Commission tells us what we want.**
So the argument is not in fact factual.
Thank you.
**Resume seat.**
The WA Planning Commission has handed down the deed provisions.
I don’t have any comment to make about the deed provisions.
I’ve got comments to make about the fact that we haven’t included actions from our own local planning strategy that are identified as actions that have got to be included into the next LPS update, and we haven’t done that.
And that relates to the environment, and that’s what I’m objecting to.
I think we should do that.
And you know, if the WA Planning Commission don’t do it or don’t like it, they’ll let us know.
We don’t stop doing something just because we think that somebody might not like it.
We do it and then we act. If something else is required of us, that’s called proactive.
And the other thing is that the LPS 17 is pretty good as it is.
The LPS 18 makes it better. How?
By reorganizing?
I don’t get it; I don’t see how that makes it improved.
All it does is puts in the deed provisions that.
The thing is that we haven’t fulfilled our own local planning strategy.
It should be expressly in the local planning scheme because that’s the overarching document that we make all our decisions by.
And the same goes for Ellenbrook as a regional center.
It’s high time that that hinterland and that regional center is included in the local planning strategy because that’s the way we get good outcomes for everybody in the City of Swan: good transport outcomes, good planning outcomes, good environmental outcomes, good social outcomes, because we expressly include it in the local planning scheme.
**Thank you, Council Catalano.** I’ll now put the alternate motion to the vote:
All those in favor, please raise your hand:
Deputy Mayor Johnson, Councilor Catalano, Councilor Dawn, Councilor Singh, Councilor Knight, Councilor Howlett, all those against, please raise your hand:
Councilor Ringo, Councilor Bowman, Councilor Mullik, Councilor Miles, Councilor Zenino, Councilor Henderson, and myself.
So Councilor Pnik.
**The motion is lost.**
We have a foreshadowed motion from Councilor Henderson.
**Thank you, Mayor.**
I move the council resolves to:
1. Adopt the officer’s recommendation 1 to 6,
2. Adopt an additional point: Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to undertake any minor grammatical or formatting corrections required to improve the clarity and readability of the draft local planning scheme number 18 prior to public advertising.
So I’ll ask for a second, Councilor Jones.
**Is there anyone against? Councilor Catalano? Councilor Henderson, do you wish to debate it?**
Is there anyone against?
Yes, so we’ll move …
*Councilor Howlett:* … can now be debated.
It has already passed that through and asked …
Yes, at this point in time.
Okay, just well, I’ll move that and put that to the vote:
All those in favor of Councilor Henderson’s motion, please raise your hand: Deputy Mayor Johnson, Councilor Singh, Councilor Ringo, Councilor Bowman, Councilor Jones, Councilor McCullick, Councilor Howlett, Councilor Zenino, Councilor Henderson, Councilor Pnik, and myself.
**All those against?**
Councilor Catalano, Councilor Dawn, Councilor Knight, and Councilor Howlett.
The motion is carried 11-4.
**And we are moving on.**
Now move on to **14.2.2 MRSS Amendment 14410, that is Part Lot 96 Staff La Road, Henley Brook, on page 370.**
**Proposed motion:**
Oh, sorry, my apologies. Council Bowman, you had withdrawn this alternate motion prior to the meeting, is that correct?
That’s correct.
Thank you.
So Councilor Catalano, if you’d like to read your alternate motion.
**Thank you:**
That, council resolves to:
1. Advise the WA Planning Commission that it does not support the scheme amendment 14410, proposed to include part of lot 96 Staff Road Henley Brook in the Urban Zone under the MRSS (Metropolitan Region Scheme).
**Reason:**
1. The land contains beautiful examples of magnificent remnant trees that provide desperately needed forest cover and important biodiversity and habitat values.
2. The land should be left as public purposing for future generations.
I’ll ask for a second there.
**Councilor Howlett.**
Now, is there anyone against?
**Councilor Jones, do you wish to debate it?**
Okay, so we’ll put the motion.
It was already passed through again.
Thank you, Councilor Zenino. You have three minutes.
**Thank you:**
This amendment appears to me to be about packing in people, not about sustainability or providing for healthy communities or a healthy environment.
Public purpose—can’t we leave some land for future generations? Who knows what they will need it for—whether to plant more trees, make it part of a nature corridor, or for some other essential community and public need.
We’ve got to start thinking about reserving things for future generations.
The environmental qualities of this strip of land are important. There are beautiful old mature trees on there.
We’ve got to leave some land for the environment, for the climate, for other animals and birds, and they are magnificent and beautiful and very old remnant trees. They’re irreplaceable, hundreds of years old. They were here before this colony left the trees for future generations of humans and other animals, birds, that can at least use them as a stop as they are teaching their young to fly before risking the flight over Drum Pelia.
It’s also important to have this land reserved as a noise buffer to humans who are going to be residing on the side that’s closest to Henley Brook.
There needs to be a buffer. People can’t be living right up against effectively a highway and concrete, huge concrete walls.
It’s just an unsustainable—excuse me—sorry, thank you.
**Thank you.** Just disrupting me there.
You can continue.
Thank you.
I was going to—we can do better than this, and if we can’t do it now, what hope have we got for our children in the future?
I urge you to say no and send that message to the state government.
**Thank you, Councilor Hower. Would you like to speak to the alternate motion?**
No, nothing further to add.
**Thank you.**
Is there anyone for the motion?
Is there anyone against the motion?
**Thank you, CEO.**
Oh, Councilor Gemma.
Yes, I will support this motion.
The reason being this is a development for our entire city, and we should not risk losing this opening corridor by packing people in, as previously noted.
**Thank you. Council nor Halloway.**
So is anyone for the motion or against the motion?
**Is there anyone for the motion?**
Let's move!
Is there anyone against the motion?
If there's no one for or against this, I will now put that to the vote.
Shady Hills um originally this came to council uh it was for a $5 million budget. I mean, it was fairly clear if you go out and have a look at the terrain that this is going to cost a lot of money. I mean we're basically talking about a road up a steep granite gradient. Uh this is not going to be cheap.
So, $5 million, it was pretty clear from the beginning that uh it was going to cost more than that. Even the $5 million was a hell of a lot of money to spend on 200 residences. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt, 200 residences, uh when you know people all over the city of Swan are asking for money to be spent in their suburbs. A lot of people are asking for money to be spent in the suburbs, and now it's gone up from $5 million to $7 million as I predicted, as I predicted, and no doubt it'll keep going up.
Um, as I say, it's a pretty steep gradient and it's granite rock. So, we get told that, oh, we'll get the money back with the DCPS. Yeah, well, there was a hell of a lot of confusion about whether the land there on the uh on the sort of um the bottom of the slope was actually going to be uh given approval or whether it wasn't going to be given approval. No mention of it uh this time round, it's just a note in a budget adjustment.
Thank you for the briefing; not anyway uh it's a lot of money. It's a hell of a lot of money, it's seven more than $7 million now, and uh I think that money is better spent on a greater number of ratepayers. Uh that's the principles of utilitarianism and that's the principles that uh we pretty much run all our uh rating and economy on—the greater number for the greater good.
Council Hower, do you like to speak as a seconder? Um, nothing further to add, thank you. Thank you. I ask the council, is anyone against?
Council Bowman, thank you Madam Mayor. Um, what's the price you put on a life? 'Cuz that's what we're doing here. 200 properties, let's say 2.3 people in each of those properties, that's 460 people that we're potentially putting in danger. And this local government, this Council, should be one of few Metro local governments that totally understands—totally understands from experience—from knowing people living next door to people, being in certain clubs with these people, the damage and the impact that bushfires can have on this community.
Our community, not my ward community, not Councillor Jones' ward community, our ward community. Now, let me tell you one thing: water counting, that got ruled out in 1995, water counting is not allowed—end stop. I've just heard that we want to bring water counting back without using those words.
Now, perhaps it's me, but when I look at what we spend, where is it needed across the whole city? Now, if that happens to be 90% in Badura because something happened in Badura and it was absolutely necessary because all their roads have broken, and all that, so be it, because it goes on demand.
We do not, and we should not, look at expenditure because it's only 200 properties and we're not getting a good return. What is a good return when we potentially put a life in danger? Now, I wasn't on council with the last big fire, but I know what we went through. I know what the community went through. I'm looking at Swan Valley, G Gan Ward councillors, and they can tell us exactly what happened up there on access roads when you've only got one way out. I think that's a disaster waiting to happen.
The costs have gone up, yes, of course the costs have gone up. The costs have gone up in everything—state government, building, roadway lines. Uh, it's gone from 100 million to 500 million on some projects. Our Swan Midland pool, what do we start at and what do we end at? Uh, we've just gone through another budget workshop and we've seen from the time items came to our council to make resolutions. I think there were eight, and some of them were less than six months. It has gone up, up.
But councillors, how can you support this motion and put properties—roughly 460 people's lives—in danger? Because that's what I've heard. Thank you.
Council Bowman, is there a round for the motion?
Deputy Mayor Johnson, yeah, thanks. Um, I'd like to address um particularly the danger issue. Councillors, uh I'm a volunteer firefighter and I've actually attended an incident at Shady Hills. Um, it was after the uh the 2022 vote. Um, what I observed was two things. Firstly, um the uh topography and the steepness of the terrain were not made clear to me at all as a councillor. I was genuinely shocked by and I thought how could he possibly build a road over that what looked like a small mountain to me, which does somewhat go to explain why the cost has escalated so much.
Um, but let's address the uh the safety issue. I seem to recall when I was there, um there was a fire that was uh coming up from potentially going to be coming up from the river, and we had a very large number of trucks there. Um, I think there were probably 40 trucks, and that would have meant in the region of 200 firefighters.
Um, it was almost a firefighter for every house there, so how we address um fire risk in our community? It's not just through building extra roads; it's through actually having a fire service that, uh, can defend people. So, um you don't, we're not just making the place safer by building an extra road. There is a fire service, and in addition, you should have a bushfire evacuation plan.
And as it happened, what was the—the fire didn't actually arrive in Shady Hills at all. Um, so Council, I am not too concerned about that aspect of it. There's a risk for sure, but the risk mitigation is fire service and volunteer firefighters.
I'm concerned about the uh further escalation of cost. I think that the uh the road should be built to the cost that we've approved, uh because I'm concerned it will continue to escalate. One thing that uh I observed um when looking at the uh the plans at the time and then having been to Shady Hills and seeing uh the housing there, I thought one of the other features of this road is it cuts about 10 km off the uh the drive to Midland, and um I don't—I think that's uh quite an important factor in the uh reason why the uh there's been so much advocacy for the road.
So councillors, um this is primarily why I'm supporting uh Council Catalina's motion. The danger, the fire danger is mitigated uh through having a fire service. The roads—sorry, the houses are actually quite far apart. Um, there are trees there, but it's um widely spaced um trees in grassland. Um, I think that uh the issue here is we should be focusing on is the cost of the road.
That's your three minutes. Are there any other councillors against the motion?
I have two, but Councillor Jones, would you like to speak?
Thank you. This project up in Shady Hills was a state government project that the city declined to approve, and the state government approved it against our wishes. We've been left with the problem. Um, it's a one-way in and a one-way out. It has an extreme fire hazard, and I just want to remind Councillor Johnson about his comment last night—all his projects go over budget, so this is not that much to deal with.
Thank you. Is anyone for the motion?
For the motion, is there any Council against the motion?
Against? Council Mall, thank you, Mayor. There were a lot of "hells" in Councillor Catalano's debate. I can tell you that it would be hell on Earth if a fire ravaged that community, and there would be hell to pay if we didn't have that secondary access road.
I think that that money is far better spent on a greater number of ratepayers. Councillor Bowman has already addressed what price you put on life. Fire risk, yes, making places safer, as Councillor Johnson mentioned, bushfire evacuation plans are essential, but a secondary access road is absolutely essential in this community—one of our communities across one of our wards.
As in 15 councillors elected to the whole of the city of Swan councillors, I was very close by helping man a water truck, providing water to fire tankers during the worldo fires. Yes, the fire didn't reach Shady Hills, as Councillor Johnson reminded us, but it sat at the bottom of the hill like a menacing demon. The photos from a female volunteer firefighter that night showing those flames licking the bottom of that hill were horrific.
I put out a prayer on Facebook that night; within a couple of hours, there were 16,000 retweets, comments, and amens to that. Yes, 400,000 liters of fire retardant assisted saving Shady Hills that night, but a secondary access road could well help save them if, God forbid, we have another fire through there.
You've got your officer comment that details all the practical logical reasons why this project is going ahead. Also, the fact that the loan funding used to fund this project and the contributions are to be recovered from the landowners will factor in the loan and interest costs being incurred and not require the ratepayers to pre-fund works up front through the use of municipal funds.
Councillors, I'm just going to take a breath now, sit down and encourage you to not support this motion.
Are there any councillors for the motion?
Are there any councillors against the motion?
Councillor Henderson, I'll try and be short. Mayor, why is this project being built? Because there's a serious fire risk on that hill—it is a very serious fire risk and it's been well annunciated.
So if you recall the last state election, I forced, as a candidate for Swan Hills, the state to commit to some funding for this project, and give them their due, they followed through and they committed. And so, um this gave us the opportunity to get on and actually build this road, which we do desperately need.
What is a life worth, has been said? I'd just like to refer to a paragraph here from the officer comment: further funding is being sought from the state government by the CEO. Now, however, this provision is required in the instance that this is unsuccessful. Well, I suggest you get on the phone and talk to your local member and say, "Hey, put some money into this so it can be finished." That'd be real nice, wouldn't it?
Councillors, I think we've all got a bit of SP, haven't we? Well, I don't have any SP with chess, but that's not the story. The point I want to make is that this project has progressed. There've been well said about how it's going to be funded.
Uh, this is a provision; it's absolutely essential that we get on with this and make it happen. Thank you.
Are there any councillors for the motion?
There's no further item to debate. I'll hand the chair to Councillor—sorry to Deputy Mayor Johnson.
Go ahead, Madam Mayor. Thank you, councillors. We could spend quite a few hours talking about this subject, but in its briefest form, I cannot support this motion. Being a PE Councillor for the last four years and other elected councillors in the room, you can only know your own ward the best, and although I don't live in that particular ward, we've seen the devastation of the bushfires, particularly over Christmas—over the Christmas period.
Although I was away, living on edge, hoping and praying that there was no bushfire while I was away because I'd stepped away for that short period of time, every day checking the news, every day checking the weather, praying that nothing happened while I was away. Goodness forbid that everyone else would have to deal with it here, let alone those residents who have to deal with that period of the year where their lives are at stake.
We are responsible. We are their councillors. We are their Council. I am astounded that this has made it this far. This would happen in any of other wards. We would protect our wards with everything that we had. This is the minimum standard that we can provide to them—minimum.
I'm sure we can do a whole lot more and I would hope that other councillors would see that in other wards and also support um the residents—that we wouldn't even consider not going through with this project and particularly turning back funding—state funding. I mean, why wouldn't we make it safe for our residents? It's just a question I can't even consider right now.
So, I'd just like to say that I cannot support this motion. Thank you.
Deputy Mayor, Councillor Catalano, you have a reply?
Uh, thank you. Uh, price of life, I mean, there's plenty of intersections where people have lost their lives because the intersections aren't up to scratch. I mean, you know, it's not just uh these people that are at risk, uh, and that reflects the way we spend ratepayers' money.
And um, it's not much to deal with. I think I heard that comment. Let me remind you every $1 million that we spend is 1% on the rates bill. I didn't put anyone in danger up at Shady Hills, I'm afraid they chose to live there and they're the risks that come with living in such an environment.
Um, you know, that's just the facts of it. I don't know how many others are in that same situation who live in the hills who have that kind of risk but don't have that kind of advocacy behind ensuring that uh their existence up there is completely risk-free in terms of fire as well.
I don't know because only just hear about Shady Hills—there's probably a lot of people up there that face the same risks year in year out. But it's not just about fire, as I say, people have died at intersections that need work done on them.
So, I don't—I don't know what you mean by water counting, sorry, I just don't get it. In fact, I think this might be an example of water counting. I'm talking about uh, you know, ratepayers right across the whole of the city of Swan.
So, you know, it's a lot of money. It's actually uh a third of the cost of uh the refurbishment at Swan Active Midland, which is a lot of money, but just think of how many people benefit from that. It is actually uh utilitarianism, and if you don't understand what that means then look it up, and that's just how we do run our economies, I'm afraid.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Catalano. Right, I'll put that to the vote. All those councillors in favor of Councillor Catalano's motion, please raise your hand.
We have Deputy Mayor Johnson, Councillor Catalano, Councillor Dawn, Councillor Knight, and Councillor Howlett.
And all those against? Councillor Singh, Councillor Ringo, Councillor Bowman, Councillor Jones, Councillor Mulik, Councillor Miles, Councillor Zenino, Councillor Henderson, Councillor Vovnik, and myself.
The motion is lost five to ten.
Thank you. So, Councillor Bowman, you foreshadowed the officer's recommendation?
I did, Madam Mayor, and I'll ask for a seconder.
Councillor Jones, would you like to speak to the alternate motion?
Already done.
Is anyone against?
Yes, Councillor Catalano, do you wish to debate it?
There's no one against, so I'll put it straight to the vote. All those in favor of the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Singh, Councillor Ringo, Councillor Bowman, Councillor Jones, Councillor Mulik, Councillor Miles, Councillor Zenino, sorry Councillor Henderson, Councillor Vovnik, and myself.
And those against? Deputy Mayor Johnson, Councillor Catalano, Councillor Dawn, Councillor Knight, and Councillor Howlett.
So, the motion is carried: seven, sorry, seven to ten, five, sorry, ten to five. Thank you very much.
So, to move on now to section 15, motions of which previous notice has been given. We have Councillor Vovnik; she has a revocation motion, and that would be Councillor Knight has proposed uh the introduction of vacant land rating categories in 2024 and 25.
Section 16, notice of motions for consideration at the following meeting. If given during the meeting, uh the deadline for submissions will be 5:00 p.m. on Monday, the 18th of March, 2024.
And I declare the meeting closed at 8:02 p.m. Thank you very much, and thank you to everyone in the gallery who came this evening.