CITY of SWAN

(1)

CITY of SWAN

M I N U T E S

SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS 22 SEPTEMBER 2014

MINUTES AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE www.swan.wa.gov.au

(2)

We have a lot of people who have requested to speak tonight and so we can give everyone the opportunity to put forward their view, I request that each speaker only speak once and for a maximum of ten minutes. If you would like to talk on each of the items, please do so but during that allotted time.

Once all registered speakers have had their say, I will open the floor to further speakers.

In terms of voting on motions, attendees have already been asked to register as electors on entry. I remind you that members of the public present tonight who are not electors of the City of Swan are not permitted to vote or influence the debate.

Where the vote is not significantly split, I will not require an actual count.

4.1 QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS

4.1.1 Ms Dianne Arvino, Secretary Save Our Golf Courses Action Group (Statement provided)

Mr Mayor, Councillors, Executive and fellow electors of City of Swan

Save our Golf Courses Action Group, with support from the wider South Guildford, Guildford, Hazelmere community and region, have called this meeting about the proposed re-zoning of Rosehill Golf Course, because the community believes the City of Swan and Councillors have failed in their duty to consult with the people, failed to be transparent to the electors, and failed to provide representation to their electors.

(5)

The community also believes the executive of City of Swan presented a biased and misleading report to Councillors’ on both 6November 2013 and 30 July 2014 on which to base their decision.

Some of a number of further grievances are:

 the lack of regard Councillors paid to the petition of 4,000 people.

 the keeping of affected residents in the dark until Directions 2031 was adopted and therefore denied them a voice.

 the willingness to destroy the character and amenity of an area contrary to own policies.

 Bad planning of putting more people in a known aircraft noise affected area.

The deputations by the following speakers will show that this issue is not just about “a selfish few who will lose their views”.

Thank you.

4.1.2 Mr Rob Johnson

When Council voted to support the amendment it was based on agreements that were irrelevant and insulting, one of which was that land ownership was irrelevant.

It is true that Directions 2031 but it is still subject to a statutory process and it also states it should not be assumed that the area will be rezoned.

In September 1998 an application in regard to a neighbouring lot was refused subdivision by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) due to aircraft noise levels.

It seems that because it's in Direction 2031 and privately owned it is certainly not a reason to approve the amendment. It needs to be assessed on its merits.

I was a little bit disappointed in my Council when they cannot acknowledge the noise issues. It is substantial. It seems the Council has become disconnected with the community if it can't acknowledge how serious the problem is.

I refer to a NAL study from 1982 which forms the basis of the ANEF. In summary regarding rezoning around airports, no rezoning around airports in 20 ANEF contours would severely reduce noise issues

Moving forward to 2012 and the National Airport Safety Advisory Group advises that there should be no new rezoning of Rural to Urban in a 20 ANEF. It is true the government has not adopted this yet.

The airport is also against this due to:

 Has to create flight paths taking into account communities and this is becoming increasingly difficult to do as development moves closer to airports.

 Sooner or later it’s inevitable that it’s going to affect the operation of the airport.

When this happens it will affect the growth of the state.

(6)

With the 2014 Perth Airport Masterplan my property is now located in the 20 ANEF contour where it wasn’t before and unable to move easily.

It seems we have scientists, academics and others in this field who say we should not have people in the 20 ANEF contour. On the other hand we have developers who say it will be ok and we will put insulation. It is true that insulation correctly installed will significantly reduce noise impact but residents need to stay inside and not open doors and windows.

This is Guildford, an area with rural amenity and the outdoors.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to refute some claims by Council that we have sufficient sporting areas for the community. No longer have; have a community facility available for everything catering to a range of ages, people with physical and mental disabilities which encouraged values like respect, integrity. It encouraged social interaction and physical activity.

Directions 2013 states that the true cost of inactivity in Australia is higher than

$377million per year. For my mind making a hall a bit bigger and adding a park is not really going to solve that issue.

Based on a brochure what is the community gaining? There is a neighbourhood community centre being developed in Waterhall and therefore don’t require another one. A large portion of public open space which is actually owned by the WAPC is already public open space. We will gain lots of traffic, lots of public space that we already have, neighbourhood centre we are already getting, children without a school and houses where people have to stay inside.

Please support your community, support your constituents a make a morally ethical decision and rescind your support for the development.

4.1.3 Mr Dave Abbott (Statement provided)

I wish to comment on the initial report submitted to Council to get their vote in the affirmative. My view is that the report prepared by City planning staff is biased to a yes decision and only facts supporting that were presented to Council. If the Councillors agree they have been ill informed then they should vote on the motion and rescind their earlier decision.

I refer to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 6 November 2013 Agenda Item 3.5 Report on the Proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment – Rezoning Lots 200, 9000 and 57 West Parade, South Guildford from’ Rural’ to ‘Urban’

Background

I work in the mining industry and am involved in preparing reports, submissions to executive boards on new mining projects. Executive boards are accountable to shareholders for their decisions and ensure they act in their interests. They are required to provide good governance and ensure that policies and procedures are in place to protect shareholder value. Reports and submissions to boards are audited and are required to have both for and against arguments which describe the implications and benefits of each argument. They are detailed and transparent so that executive can

(7)

make informed decisions and understand the outcomes of those decisions based on the options provided.

Council also have the same accountabilities for good governance the only difference being that it is with their ratepayers instead of shareholders.

The report states in the authority/discretion paragraph

The Council's resolution is required because staff do not have delegation to make comment on proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

The report then goes on to comment only on the areas that support the amendment The report submitted by City of Swan planners to Council is totally biased to ensure that the executive achieve the outcome they wish for. Councillors were denied the opportunity to assess the proposal adequately both for and against to ensure the outcome was of value and benefit to the ratepayers. The City planners refer to the land size and amendment as being minor, but the value of the decision to non-rate payers is approximately $225million and so is not the minor matter espoused by the City executive in the report.

Specifically I refer to various sections of the report which Councillors declared they had given due consideration to.

1.) Under Section Key Issues The report states –

The proposal for Lot 57 and Lot 9000 (currently functioning as the Rosehill golf course and car park) is considered to be generally consistent with the relevant WAPC and City of Swan strategic planning framework.

The statement is vague. If the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the relevant WAPC and City of Swan strategic planning framework then there must be parts of the proposal that are inconsistent with the relevant WAPC and City of Swan strategic planning framework

If I said that City of Swan Councillors were generally honest when disclosing their personal interests in agenda items what would be the message?

The submission is unclear on which points are consistent and which points are inconsistent. There is no minuted discussion on this point.

Question to Mayor Zannino

Did you or any of the Councillors ask which parts of the proposal were inconsistent with the relevant WAPC and City of Swan strategic planning framework? Was there a debate on what was consistent and what was not in the report and was this minuted?

2.) Under Section Background – Applicant:

The City planners report states - TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage prepared the Amendment report referred for comment.

The Amendment report was not included as an attachment to the Swan officers report or in the minutes.

(8)

Question to Cr Elliot.

You voted on the report and declared you had given due consideration to all matters in the agenda. Was the TPG report made available to you by City planners or executive? If so did you read the TPG amendment report before voting?

3.) Under Section Background – Applicant:

The minutes states the project managers are – Discord Pty Ltd t/a Habitat International A search in the ASIC register shows that no such company as Discord Pty Ltd exists The City of Swan executive surely has a checking system in place that ensures the companies they deal with do not have a conflict of interest with City staff and Councillors Question to CEO Mr Foley. Why was there no due diligence checks carried out on the Owners representative and was this a deliberate attempt to hide the owners representative identity?

-Strategy / Policy:

City planners have failed to list all the policies and strategies for Council that are relevant to the issue. They have included only those that they believe support their wish for approval. Missing are:

Policy POL-C-102 Urban Growth

Policy POL-C-103 Neighbourhood Planning Policy POL-C-104 Environmental Planning Policy POL-C-153 Community Engagement

Place planning and actions for the Guildford / Hazelmere Place Environmental Planning Act

Sustainable Environment Policy POL-C-084 City of Swan’s Local Biodiversity Strategy

and probably some others that good governance would require.

Question to Executive Manager Planning – Mr Tan

Why did the report not contain all relevant policies and plans and enable the Council to make an informed decision.

4.) Under Section Description of Site (Surrounding Land Use)

The City planning staff has overlooked and failed to bring to the attention of Council that the South West boundary also contains Bush Forever sites and the associated the Biodiversity importance of the site as a wildlife corridor consistent with the City of Swan’s Local Biodiversity Strategy and the Sustainable Environment Policy POL-C-084

(9)

Question to Mayor Zannino.

As Councillor representing the Swan Valley and Gidgegannup you would be aware of biodiversity issues in the North Eastern region. Did you debate the issue prior to voting and was it minuted?

5.) Under Section Applicant’s Submission The report states –

The following extracts are from TPG's Amendment Request Report (Issue 2, No.712-213, June, 2013) and are relevant in supporting their request:

Note that the City planning staff has presented to Council only the extracts that are biased to supporting the application. There is no argument against and the full amendment report is not available for discussion.

The amendment report contains various statements that would generally not support the application. These have been deliberately omitted to ensure Council vote their approval.

Question to Mayor Zannino

Were any questions asked by Council about extracts from the TPG applicant's report that were not supportive of the application? Was there any debate on the issue and was it minuted?

6.) Under Section Applicant’s Submission

The selective extracts presented in the City Planning report state –

The site is the only undeveloped land parcel surrounded by existing and planned residential development such as the Waterhall Estate, and the existing South Guildford settlement.

The fact is the site has been developed as a Country Club with a restaurant, function centre facilities and sporting facilities run as a profitable business and has been for many years.

Did you challenge or debate this false statement ‘that the site is the only undeveloped land parcel’ before voting to approve the rezoning?

The selective extracts presented in the City planning report state –

The subject land is considered to be minor in size and is consistent with the planning intent for the area, as demonstrated by the alignment of the proposed rezoning with key strategic planning strategies and being ideally suited to be zoned ‘Urban’ to allow for future residential development in accordance with these key strategies.

The City planning staff have not considered or presented to Council the impact on the amenity of the area of the development of a lot considered to be minor in size particularly when the Directions 31 strategy identifies the green fields opportunities for 31,700 dwellings in the City of Swan. The City planning officers fail to explain for the benefit of Council considered to be minor in size compared to what. Which state or Council policy defines minor and major lot sizes?

(10)

What is your definition of minor and major in regard to land size and was your vote influenced by the City planners’ definition?

Contained in the applicants report not mentioned by the City planners is the statement that : It provides the unique opportunity to develop the subject land that is under single ownership to add value to the land. Rezoning the site to Urban will be a significant value adding exercise

The City planners and executive would be aware of this value because the report contains an order of magnitude estimate to develop the land into saleable blocks. The City planners and executive would also be aware of rateable value to the City.

The only people to gain from the value adding are the single owners and their representative, the developers and the City of Swan. Existing ratepayers and landowners gain no value whatsoever, in fact with the loss of amenity and reduction of property values the people that the Council represent are the losers.

To put into perspective.

Previous land sale of the Gatti enterprises to the WAPC was Lot 82 it was on the flood plain and rezoned public open space (an area the proposed developer Mr Burke has included in his brochure that is not owned by him, but he says he will develop into public open space).

Land was sold in 2001 at $4 m² Land was sold in 2014 at $314 m²

After Project Management costs and commissions Gatti Enterprises would pocket ~ $25 Million from the rezoning approval

Order of Magnitude cost to develop blocks were estimated at $54.5 Million (includes $2 Million to City of Swan in fees)

In a prospectus to investors by Handle Pty Ltd owned by Mr Burke's company Green Tops Nominees he states that 25 lots have a value of $9 Million or $360,000 a block.

(note that Asian investors were bussed around the site earlier this year prior to approval being given)

Total number of blocks in the application was 646

Handle Pty Ltd stands to make a profit of ~ $110 million on this development

The City of Swan stands to make significant money from the rateable value of the lots The only people losing out are communities and rate payers

Question to all Councillors that voted for approval of the amendment on 6 November 2013

If you were aware of the obscene windfall profits provided by rezoning for a few people at the expense of the wider community and amenity of the area would you have voted in favour of the amendment?

(11)

Question to Mr Cameron Executive Manager Corporate

Has the income from the rateable value of the proposed Rosehill development been estimated and used in budget forecasts? Have the budget forecasts including the Rosehill development been used in submissions to the state government for capital or other funding applications?

8.) Under Section Details

The City Planning report states – Compared to other priority sites on the metropolitan fringe (such as Upper Swan and Bullsbrook) the site is closer to the CBD and represents a logical and efficient expansion of urban development.

By interpretation does that mean that Bullsbrook and Upper Swan are not efficient expansions if so why are they proceeding?

The City planning staff fail to mention that the Upper Swan and Bullsbrook sites are in the same development time frame as Lots 900, 200 and 57 so the statement of being

‘closer the CBD and represents a logical and efficient expansion of urban development.’

is irrelevant and should not be a consideration. Another example of City planners and executive trying to push a yes vote.

Did this misleading statement influence your vote?

9.) Under Section Details

The City planners report states –

Implications of State Planning Policy 5.1 'Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Perth Airport' (SPP 5.1)

The City planning staff present considerable argument regarding issues with the proximity of the proposal to ANEF noise contours. The City planners fail to inform Council that the airport ANEF contours are under review or the impact of the proposed third runway on the decision to rezone.

Question to CEO Mr Foley. Being on two Perth Airport committees as technical advisor, did you advise Council that a review of the ANEF contours was underway? Did the CEO also advise Council of the intended review of AS2021? Did the CEO deliberately withhold this information to influence the voting outcome of agenda item 3.5?

10.) Under Section Details The City planners report states –

Minimal impact on the City's community facilities and open space planning

There may be a perception amongst residents that the residential development of the golf course will impact upon the provision of open space in South Guildford.

While residents may lose the Rosehill Golf Course, this is a private operation on privately owned land so this is not accounted for in the City's planning of community facilities.

(12)

The City planning staff have highlighted that there may be a perception amongst residents that the residential development of the golf course will impact upon the provision of open space in South Guildford. This is an opinion by the planning staff not based on the gathering of any facts through community consultation. However, the decision was still made by Council to support the proposal without any consultation with the community

The City planning staff failed to highlight to the Council the adverse effect on the amenity of the area whether a golf course is there or not.

The City planning staff failed to inform Council of the requirements of POL-C-153 Community Engagement and its governance requirements.

Community consultation would have raised the issues being presented by the community now and would have enabled the Council to make a more informed decision on the rezoning.

Questions to Mayor Zannino

Given that this information was given to Council in this report. Why did Council not defer a decision at this meeting until community consultation had been carried out? Given that eight Councillors are on the City of Swan Governance committee why did no Councillors ask the question regarding good governance of Council regarding their Community Engagement policy POL-C-153 and organise a community information session? Was there a deliberate intention to keep the community uninformed until the vote on rezoning was passed?

11.) Under Section Details The City planners report states –

The land is capable of being provided with essential services

Compared to other proposals in Bullsbrook, Gidgegannup and Upper Swan, the land is in close proximity to infrastructure necessary to support urban development.

The City staff refers to the land is in close proximity to infrastructure necessary to support urban development, but makes no mention of schools, public access, road access which are already stressed in the area due to existing and current developments.

They fail to mention the saturation point of urban density in the area as required by Council policy for urban development and supporting facilities required for it.

Question for Cr Elliot Did you ask the City planners if they had considered support infrastructure such as schools and carried out an urban density study for the area? Was there a debate on the subject? Was the debate minuted?

12.) Under Section Options and Implications

The City staff have failed in due diligence by only providing Council with options that support the proposed amendment. Good governance requires that there must be an option with supporting implications that refuses to support the proposed amendment so the Council can make informed decisions.

City planning staff have presented a biased submission to Council, worse is that Council approved it without question.

(13)

Question to Mayor Zannino.

Did you or any Councillor question why there was no argument against the approval submitted by the City planning staff? Was there a debate on the subject and was it minuted?

4.1.4 Mr Ian McAuley

At the 30 July Council meeting the influences certain Councillors in their arguments for rezoning might have had on other Councillors. Cr Bailey dismissed outright World Health Organisation (WHO) and other agencies on the effects aircraft noise on children's learning. He basically said that the WHO didn’t know what they were talking about.

Cr Bailey referred to noise where he lives. There is a difference between the level and frequency of traffic at an airport and an airbase (which is where the RAAF operate from).

A question was recently posed to Cr Bailey asking if an application for The Vines to be rezoned would he support it. Cr Bailey advised he would not. How is this application any different?

Cr Gregorini was going to say no but changed your mind after conducting research but did you understand that research? Comparative decibel levels are different to an airplane Can you tell me what meterage those decibel ratings were taken at?

Cr Gregorini took the question on notice.

At the meeting Cr Gregorini gave tribute to the Gatti's for giving 50 years of golfing life for 50 years. I think you exaggerated that by 25 years.

Cr Gregorini you tell me that planes fly over your house and the noise level is not so bad. The noise level will be a different level in Rosehill.

Cr Elliot did you do any research on this whatsoever or did you base your vote on the Executives report?

Cr Elliot you said nothing in debate. Did you do any research?

Cr Elliot advised that he conducted external research and read the report.

Cr Elliot did you take into account the signed petition?

Cr Elliott advised that he spoke to residents, parties to the proposed development and others.

Cr Färdig, you made a comment during the debate that upset my wife and family and others. During the debate Cr Parasiliti said that he was very concerned about education in the City of Swan, you stated "not our problem". What did you mean by that?

Cr Färdig responded that Council is not responsible for education, is a state government responsibility and the Department of Education believed that the schools in the area could cope with the development.

Cr Färdig you also stated this development was 'a given'.

(14)

Cr Färdig responded that he did not accept the way the question was put.

Cr Wainwright made a comment during debate. It was argued by the developers that Waterhall was built and therefore the golf course should be rezoned but this was a mistake and they should never have been rezoned.

I request Council rescind the motion and not compound mistakes.

One thing that concerns me is Councillors have lost touch with their electors and have become too cosy with their jobs. Reassess and get back to the people.

4.1.5 Mr Peter Stephenson

There's been a lot of talk about noise. Noise is also a health issue and is a complex topic and it is doubtful that all involved in the debate fully understand the issues and impact and noise.

Most people will refer to aircraft noise in decibels however converting decibels to the level of noise is not easy. An increase from 60 to 70 decibels is a doubling of noise. An increase from 70 to 80 decibels is double again. 80 decibels is the level that OHS regulations state that ear protection must be worn.

Aircraft noise in not only momentary, it is constant and cumulative.

The Perth Airport Masterplan indicated by 2018 there will be over 250 air movements of the South Guildford area per day and will continue into the foreseeable future. The development of the parallel runway may result in a decrease but not until 2032 and only for a short time. The Masterplan that area will be subject to over 200 incidences of noise over 65 decibels each date.

This is not a minor interruption.

Numerous studies have been carried out regarding the health impacts of aircraft noise.

Regardless of origin and the methods all state that there are increased health risks associated with aircraft noise. These include:

 increase in heart and lung disease (and an increase in hospitilisation due to these issues)

 increased levels of high blood pressure

 noise related stress

 cognitive and psychological problems

 developmental issues in children

 affect on general health and vitality

 affect on sleep patterns/sleep deprivation

To counteract this, some people think insulation can reduce the effects of noise. This is flawed for two reasons: our lifestyle is outdoor oriented and an increase in cost of living will result from the use air conditioning.

(15)

There is clear evidence of the negative health impacts associated with living near an airport.

Some examples of things that occurred in the past that should not have been allowed include asbestos mattresses, tanning beds and cigarettes.

The US does not allow development of areas near airports subject to 65+ decibels.

Development of Rosehill Waters will be a health disaster.

There is no indication that Councillors have an appreciation of the health impacts of development near airports. I'd like to ask all Councillors if they were aware of any of the studies I have mentioned, and the effects of aircraft noise, if so did they take it into account?

4.1.6 Mr John Squire President South Guildford Community Association, Member Hazelmere Progress Association and an executive member of the Guildford association.

We’ve all come along to obtain answers from Councillors. We are obviously not getting them.

With all the issues against the developments, noise issues, lack of infrastructure, schools and size of development, the development should not have been considered.

The City of Swan have shown disregard to the wishes of the community and has continuously supported the developer. They tried to push this through without consultation.

The information session conducted by the developers was a joke.

Does the developer have a secret agreement with WAPC? If so what other agreements and secret deals behind closed doors have been made?

From the start the development has had public opposition and no one is taking any notice, particularly Council. The development has been shonky from the start.

The City allowed this to be considered as a minor amendment to avoid scrutiny.

I have submitted a petition and submission to the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs. I wish to get to the truth.

The City has been so complacent in recent years. A number of Councillors got in unopposed. The City believes they can do whatever they want without consultation. It's time now for accountability. I make a request again, that the Council reconsider their previous decision and oppose the development of Rosehill Waters.

4.1.7 Mr Peter Burke Managing Director Handle Property Group

I'd like to start by addressing some points made by the previous speakers. I don’t know if people have been living in the same Perth I have. There are no secret deals. We have simply followed due planning process and have been guided in the process by the City and the WAPC. This service is same that all community members can access.

(16)

Regarding noise levels, we've had to follow the same State Planning Policy procedures as every other development in Perth. If we stop building in these areas we will lose thousands of lots not just in this area but in Perth. Perth Airports have a mandate to object to developments affected by aircraft noise. Perth Airports have rejected all but one development on Great Northern Highway which they believed would not be greatly affected by aircraft noise.

The WAPC has gone to every statutory body and all have put in a submission supporting the development except for Perth Airports and the residents of South Guildford.

As a response to the petition signed by residents (over 4000 signatures) Handle Property Group were requested to engage with the community. Representatives were available for two full days, 42 people attended. 150 people are here tonight, less than 4% of those that signed the petition.

The petition was based on misleading information.

The media have refused to print responses from Handle Property Group regarding misleading noise information that was distributed.

The City has been strict regarding the requirements of the building constructed and special conditions will be placed on this development. The City has gone to considerable effort and has also requested information that would not normally be required at this stage and would be required at later planning stages to ensure the development occurs correctly.

The support Councillors and the City have shown constituents is over and above what is required and of any other MRS Amendment.

Council and state government cannot base their decision only on objectors. They need to conduct their own research and listen to both sides and make decisions on behalf all constituents, not just some.

After the open days, we set up a stall at Midland Gate. 110 people visited the stall, 17 people object, 90 people indicated their interest in living in this area.

Most of the site was not affected by the noise methodology adopted by the WAPC. 90%

of the site can be built on.

If this gets approved we are absolutely delighted to sit with every resident to talk about what we can do to lessen the impact in terms of the concept plan. We will try to integrate homes facing the golf course with the concept plan.

The truth is, it gets to the stage where you can only say the same thing so many times.

The reputation of the group is untarnished. If you Google our development group, you won't find a negative comment about one of our developments.

I understand the objectors and the loss of value that may occur and understand that we need to create a tasteful development.

I understand the role of the state and local governments.

(17)

4.1.8 Mr Ian Johnson

I was fascinated by the last speaker about how hard the City worked with him. You are required to represent your ratepayers and residents. I don’t understand why you would work with these people to close down a golf course.

The developer is basically unaccountable. It is an unhealthy development and inappropriate. I am very disappointed to hear you’ve been working with them so closely and not listening to local ratepayers.

In regard to the accountability of Councillors, we hear very little from Councillors.

At the previous electors meeting ratepayers put forward a motion to record Council meetings. Council rejected it with a wonderful explanation from Cr Congerton, not to be repeated here.

This has been a very interesting meeting and the quality of the speakers is good. At the Council meeting where the vote in favour of this development occurred, there was poor communication. What about greater accountability at this meeting?

Motion

This Special Meeting of Electors resolves to allow at this meeting photography, recording of sound and video, and live broadcast of sound and video from the meeting.

Moved: Mr I Johnson Seconded: Mr A Sanford CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE Cr McNamara stated that he did not wish to be recorded, photographed or have his views recorded. If photographs are taken of me, I will take action personally.

It is of concern that in the face of objections and a petition signed by a significant number of people and the health impacts that Council chose to ignore it. You are here to represent the local community.

Which Councillor were elected unopposed?

Councillors indicated if they were elected unopposed.

Cr Lucas and Färdig both advised that they were prepared to go to election if required at election where they were elected unopposed.

Cr Färdig asked how many attendees would be willing to stand up here and take the accusations that are being made? There are 105,000 residents in the City and Councillors are elected to represent the whole City. You said earlier on we don’t listen to you, but all lots were not approved due their location within the ANEF contours. We also did not support a concurrent amendment to the Local Planning Scheme so that it could come back to Council and we could represent the community better at that stage. Don’t hesitate to nominate for election.

Are you going to resign Cr Färdig?

Cr Färdig advised he would not.

(18)

Councillors, you represent the voters and not Committees. We need to see you representing us and oppose this development.

Cr Färdig clarified he was elected because nobody else ran for election i.e. he was elected unopposed.

4.1.9 Ms Hazel Bradley

Earlier this year a single rose gum threatened with removal in Claymore Close, Guildford, was valued at $300,000. Can the Council provide a calculation as to the total value of all the trees that will be removed to make way for the 600-800 houses at Rosehill?

The CEO took the question on notice.

In making submissions to the WAPC on Rosehill rezoning, people were asked to provide a copy of their submissions to the City of Swan. Can each Councillor indicate whether or not they took the trouble to read any of these individual submissions before voting on the issue?

All Councillors present with the exception of Cr McNamara indicated that they had read submissions provided to them. Cr McNamara advised he was unable to answer without further information regarding the date that the submissions ware made.

In 2012 the State Government signed an agreement from the Council of Australian Government’s National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group. This agreement banned the rezoning of land near to airports from rural to urban to protect the importance of them to national, state, territory and local economics and transport networks. This, combined with the strong feeling in the community against the Rosehill development, should have been enough for the City of Swan to mount a strong case to the WAPC against the rezoning. Why didn’t you?

The Mayor advised that if this was the situation, he would imagine the WAPC would take it into account and refuse the Amendment.

4.1.10 Mr Andrew Kiely

Firstly I wish to respond to Mr Burke's statement where he stated that Perth Airports have a mandate to reject development. It's an important issue because if Perth Airports has a mandate to reject every development, it rules out important information collected by Perth Airports over the years. If it's ignored its ignoring information that the Perth Airports have put a lot of work, time and profession expertise in to. They objected to the rezoning.

Just recently, a few weeks ago, I put a question to Perth Airports asking if they objected to every development. The answer was yes and no, they consider everything on its merits. Effectively they do not object to every development. It’s a very important key point.

Mr Russell Manager Statutory Planning also concluded at the 30 July meeting where he said Perth Airports oppose every development. I would like to know from Mr Russell if that was misleading in any way to Councillors?

(19)

Mr Russell stated that he did not recall stating that as he does not believe he would say it as he does not know it.

Is Mr Russell aware of a development at Guildford Grammar School which was not objected to by Perth Airports?

Mr Russell advised he was not. He was aware work was being undertaken but is not aware of any objection or otherwise.

The CEO advised his recollection of the airport meeting was Perth Airports' response to Mr Kiely's question was that the only development Perth Airports had not objected to was one on Albany Highway, but generally they do object to all developments.

The CEO advised he was aware of developments at Guildford Grammar School but was not aware of any objection or otherwise made by Perth Airports.

There is generally a lack of information and then there is misleading information being provided to Councillors.

In regard to good governance, I ask Councillors to consider the statement I am about to make and consider whether they agree. I refer to the City's poor governance and failure to adhere to its own policies in regard to community engagement.

I must apologise to Mr Burke because when we talk about engaging with your constituents, we mean it to be before a decision is made. This is not community engagement in a positive light. This is a reaction to a bad decision made by Council. If Council had done their due diligence we would not be here tonight.

On 10 September Council voted to adopt 79 Council policies for a period of two years.

This included a policy on community engagement. I will remind the Councillors and Swan City administration of its key elements and that you have failed in the key objectives and failed in its duties.

Mr Cameron Executive Manager Corporate confirmed in his presentation that no consultation was undertaken.

Therefore there was a governance and accountability failure in regard to the adopted Strategic Plans and Policies.

The CEO advised that the City did not conduct or become involved in community consultation because it is a matter for the WAPC. They advertise the matter and run the consultation process. The City can only make a submission, just like individuals can do.

Mr Russell advised of general details regarding WAPC advertising and submission period and timeframes for Council submissions.

(20)

4.1.11 Mr Barry Hennigan

My family live in the area and we love living there. Noise has never been an issue to us.

My children sleep all night and go to school all day. The kids love the planes go over it is and they are not suffering ill health and they are doing very well at school.

4.1.12 Mr Peter Langlands Motion

That to reduce confusion in Council meetings, the City discontinues the use of ‘voting by acceptance’ or ‘bloc voting’ in Council meetings. That each item is voted on separately and members of the public are allowed to give deputations immediately prior to the relevant item.

Moved: Mr P Langlands

The Mayor advised that he would not allow the motion as it did reflect the purpose for which the meeting was called.

It does relate to Rosehill because each meeting I've been to people did not understand the meeting process and decisions that have been made.

When this was voted on in Council there was even confusion between Councillors.

It is not a matter for more education or explanation.

Voting on each item may be inefficient but this is a small price to pay to enable the public to easily follow the meeting.

I also request that deputation be conducted immediately prior to the item so they can be heard and hear the decision straight away.

I rang the Shire of Mundaring today and they advised they do not use en bloc voting and residents can be invited to a give a deputation immediately prior to an item.

Request Council consider this as a way to improve engagement and understanding.

4.1.13 Ms Sandra Bransby General Manager Noah Rosehill Waters

The meeting today has been pursued by a number of residents questioning the rationale behind Council's support of the rezoning. Councils such as the City of Swan encompass extensive urban development programs.

Decision can often upset local residents. If Councillors adopt the not in my back yard mentality most of us would not live where we live today.

The assessment of a MRS Amendment is subject to the Planning and Development Act 2005 and community consultation only occurs at the appropriate time. Consultation occurs with government stakeholders and community members. The City is one of those stakeholders in the consultation process and not the instigator.

(21)

The City along with 20 other government departments were notified of the submission period. The decision made on 30 July was in response to the WAPC's request for comment. Other government agencies also provided their support and there is little comment or objection here tonight regarding their support.

The only objection that was raised in this matter was Perth Airport, a private company.

Further, us as the developers also undertook consultation to ensure the community was informed of the true fact. We provided every opportunity for residents to meet with us and are still available, and this was all well before a decision was made.

Any allegations of bribes are categorically not the case.

All parties, including us as a landowner, were provided a fair and balanced opportunity to meet with Council.

We’ve been very transparent with this process and have not engaged in any inappropriate actions to advance this matter.

In regard to questions regarding Councillors representing the best interest of residents, there are people in support of the development.

In regard to the petition that has been discussed, more than half of the 4000 petition signers do not live within City of Swan.

The Council have represented the best interests of the whole community and not just those that won't let go of the imagery of the golf course for their own benefit.

Many residents have accepted that Rosehill is no longer a golf course and anyone who enters into the property without permission will be prosecuted as a trespasser.

The site will and must be developed. If not for residential use, then other intensive more unattractive land uses will be considered.

In regard to accountability of Councillors, the report provided to Council was through and covered a significant number of issues than normally required by local government. This included:

 environmental factors

 concept plan

 infrastructure upgrades, and

 water management.

This was all considered prematurely to ensure a thorough and exhaustive assessment to a level usually assessed during a Local Planning Scheme amendment and Structure Plan stage. These stages will also include their own consultation phases.

Any developments attract objections and support. This was the case with previous amendment including Waterhall. The MRS amendment for Waterhall followed the exact process that this amendment is now following. This is mandated.

During advertising for the amendment to create Waterhall, a significant amount of rejections were received, many of which were identical to those being presented today.

(22)

If this had not been developed, the majority of you would not have been given the opportunity to live in South Guildford.

In addition, the rezoning of Waterhall Estate was not identified as a site for development. Rosehill Waters was identified in Directions 2031 for future urban development.

Just because the development is unpopular with a minority but is supported by Council, does not mean there was uneducated or unsubstantiated behaviour.

Council is required to consider whether it should promote infill development over locations on the urban fringe.

Rosehill Course was a privately owned business which does not appear on the City's open space plan.

There have been questions why Rosehill needs to be developed as housing. Directions 2031 seeks a mixed approach of providing new development areas along with infill. This seeks to maximise benefits established areas might have. The subject site has the capacity to capitalise on some of these benefits.

Most complaints in regard to aircraft noise actually come from areas outside of the ANEF contours.

Should it be determined to use the site for industrial purposes, what will be used as an argument then as industrial uses are permitted under ANEF contours.

The concept plan shows and proposes a rationalisation of public open space to provide a better area for the community to use.

It is evident Council's determination was based on thorough consideration of every aspect of the rezoning. Council's support was clearly educated and substantiated

4.1.14 Mr Matt Birney representing those in close vicinity of Rosehill

Apart from representing the residents, I am also a rate payer of the City. I'm very concerned and a little frightened of the indifference that Council have shown to constituents on this matter, particularly individual Councillors who represent this particular ward.

Cr Elliott:

I asked Cr Elliot if he would attend a meeting at a resident's house adjoining the golf course. He agreed to attend the meeting three days later. He did not show up and so I called Cr Elliot asking how far away he was and he advised he had forgotten. That’s not the sort of representation that people want. When he arrived he said only two words. He did not advise his views, ask any questions or seek any input.

(23)

Cr Gregorini:

Cr Gregorini did attend and on time. She interacted with the constituents. She looked over the golf course and said" I will fight for you people, I do not agree with rezoning the golf course'. We asked if she would present a motion to the Council and she said yes.

She left the meeting with the support of the constituent. A few weeks later I called Cr Gregorini to see how she was going with the motion and have a general chat where she reaffirmed she would move the motion. You can imagine our surprise when at the Council meeting she supported the rezoning. Why did Cr Gregorini not advise the constituents she did not intend to support them?

Mayor, I'm also disappointed that Cr Bailey has left the room. I was at a meeting of The Vines Residents Association where I asked if The Vines which is also privately owned, was to be proposed for development would he support it? He said no and could not provide a reason.

The arrogance shown here tonight by some Councillors is extraordinary.

The principal issue is, in which world do the views of 4000 people not override the views of one profit seeking development? Why does Council support the developer over the residents?

Why would Council support the rezoning of land that would be subject to over 200 flights per day? Why would officers not let the WAPC know of the Perth Airport forecasts and include it in their submission? The report was to support the view of officers.

The City rightly did not go to public consultation as it was not the City's process but the WAPC. If the City is going to make a submission on behalf of residents there would still be an expectation that you would seek some kind of public input.

Councillors gave responses to statements made by Mr Birney.

Cr McNamara :

You state I acted arrogantly in responding to a question put to me earlier. The question was not complete so I could not answer correctly or with honesty therefore I did not answer.

Additionally Councillors are required to vote on planning grounds only, and I have not heard any of these grounds from residents.

Cr Gregorini:

I was at that meeting you refer to and I did look out at the golf course and I did say I could support this but I would need more information. You offered to send me information and when I received this as well as further information I sought, I could not support those residents. I also want to point out it is not the City's decision to change the zoning, it is a state government decision. The developments will enable buyers to purchase in an area that is close to transport and the CBD which is a requirement of the state government. New houses will be better insulated for any kind of noise. Waterhall Estate had more complaints about freight trains than planes. Public open space plans are also beneficial to the community. I could not fault the development, therefore I made a decision to support the development.

(24)

Cr Färdig:

This is a state government responsibility process and Mr Birney with his experience should be aware of this. Local government is only a referral agency. The City did not support all lots for development or a concurrent amendment to the Local Planning Scheme. I am appreciative to be here and to listen but do not appreciate the abuse.

Cr Elliott

I was criticized moments ago for being a bit quiet at that meeting mentioned. I reserved my view on the basis of wishing to see all the facts. I told the residents that I take their concerns on board and would seek further information with technical staff. I did. I made my decision to the best of my ability based on the information provided to me and consultation with all parties. I made the decision on what I thought was right rather than what I thought was easy. I will listen to all the facts before I make a decision and I’m comfortable that this is what I did on this occasion.

4.1.15 Ms Ruth Drewell

I was involved in the original survey with residents who were close to the Rose Hill golf course for the developer. In that time I have spoken to many individuals finding out what they liked/disliked in the community and what they wanted for the future.

This is what I found:

 They loved living in the area for family and relaxed living. Living near the airport, city, Midland and where they worked and shopped. Children could play safely.

The semi-rural feel.

 Some loved the planes coming in and watching them, the planes didn’t bother them, they didn’t hear them anymore.

 Some didn’t like the noise from the barracks, trail bike noise and dust, the fact that buses ran spasmodically. Some thought trains were causing damage with constant vibrations. Some did not like the planes at all.

 There was a lack of cycle ways and play grounds for children and issues with buses servicing the areas.

 A great majority stated that they looked forward to the golf course being developed as it could result in greater services. If they had some shops locally it would be great rather than driving to High Wycombe of Midland.

So we now need to stop being selfish and allow families that don’t live here to live here, the same opportunity that those who do live here have. I’ve spoken to a lot of people who are on the pro side for development.

Please acknowledge there are people who are on the pro side and those have remained quiet in the room. Some people have advised that they would not come and speak tonight due to intimidation.

On being questioned, Ms Ruth Drewell confirmed she was a resident and elector of the City and that she had been employed by the proponent.

(25)

4.1.146Mr Charlie Vanic

I am an old resident of South Guildford. For many years my wife and I have been the only and probably nearest neighbours to the golf course. For many years we watched the golf, wedding parties and enjoyed this. Since the place was closed two months ago it feels like a deserted place and now we feel like we are missing something.

More than a year ago we applied to build a shed. Until today the City has not given us the permit, we do not know that the City will ever give it.

Now they want to build a multimillion dollar shopping complex only a stone throw away from our bedroom.

At the same time I am being asked a question by my wife, when will the footpath be made. This has been approved but the City has not advised when it will be built and remains silent.

The Mayor advised Mr Vanic that if he has personal issues, to please see either himself or the staff after the meeting and it can be investigated.

4.1.17 Ms Vivienne Harding

I live on the freight train line which is noisy. I don’t have trouble sleeping and I leave my window open I don’t run an air conditioner.

Olive Grove Estate was subdivided from paddocks as were South Guildford and Waterhall Estates. Previous uses were chicken farms and playing fields.

All now protesting, it is private land and has been sold. It should become housing.

I support the development and the Council.

This is not about concerns regarding aircraft noise which is the same as South Guildford and Guildford experience. We moved here by choice. Please let others choose for themselves as you did. You begrudge those who wish to move to the area and belittle others opinions.

4.1.18 Ms Siobhan Durrant

Questions to Councillors: Are you aware of any gifts or reimbursements offered or promised by the developers and have you signed a conflict of interest?

All Councillors answered that they had not received any gift, nor were aware of any offers of gifts and therefore no conflict of interest requires signing.

Councillors advised they found the question insulting and advised that if anyone had any evidence of wrongdoing to report it to the CEO who would be required to report it.

(26)

Question: So the reports that the developers have offered the City a club house are not true?

Answer: That is not correct.

4.1.19Mr Peter Graham

I request that the Mayor allow Mr Langlands' motion as it is related to the meeting.

The Mayor reiterated that he would not allow the motion as it did not reflect the purpose for which the meeting was called.

The Mayor advised that he and any Councillor would be willing to discuss the matter with them following the meeting.

Mr Graham suggested the motion did meet the criteria and that if the City conducted meetings in an appropriate way there would be no requirement for tonight's meeting.

MOTION

That the Mayor be censured and sanctioned for not allowing the motion and that the meeting accept the motion and the Deputy Mayor take over the chair for Mr Langlands' motion.

Moved: Mr P Graham Seconded: Mr J Squire CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE Cr McNamara stated the motion did not relate to the purpose for which the meeting was called or the process or direction of the meeting.

The Mayor continued to Chair the meeting.

4.1.20Mr Matt Dunstan

I thought I would put in a varying perspective from a person who doesn’t live in the particular area about working with the City. As far as things generally go working with Community Development Officers and other staff result in positive outcomes.

Request consultation through Place Officers to address and develop services residents expect.

My experience of trying to work with the City can be quite frustrating, there’s a big lack of public consultation. It seems that City seem to favour business over residents. One that I particularly refer to were proposals for work on Roe Highway. A developer who had purchased property in the area was given the opportunity to comment and residents were not.

The Mayor advised this was a matter for Main Roads WA.

There seems to be a big gap between business development and residents. Seeking development is favoured over residents' concerns.

(27)

It is evident that greater consultation is not occurring.

I'd like to know from the CEO when this issue of public consultation will be dealt with.

The CEO advised that as indicated earlier the WAPC conducted community consultation in regard to the Rosehill development.

In regards to the comment from the City on proposals for Roe Highway, it is imagined Peet and Co. sought information in regard to the purchase of land from the state government. Main Roads WA do conduct community consultation on these matters and he believed they had in this instance. Council received a briefing from Main Roads WA a couple of weeks before the report went to Council. Council was not happy with the result, particularly with the removal of an interchange at Morrison Road, but this is required due to public safety.

If the City wished to become involved in the process of all other authorities and run consultation in addition to theirs, that would require further consideration by Council as it would require additional time, financial and staff resources.

4.1.21Mr Brian Vuko

I have lived in the Swan Valley for almost 50 years and have lived under the flight path the whole time. In Baskerville where the elevation of the planes is much higher, the noise is not much of a problem. Having lived in Guildford for the last 6 years, the planes are much lower, the noise is horrendous, and it drowns out the TV and radio.

Despite what the developer says in regard to installing insulation to buildings, it would cure the problem.

I haven’t experienced any health problems so far but I take on board what others have done studies into. I’d like to ask Council what sort of noise recordings they actually took on the site. If they have who did it, and if not why didn’t they?

The Mayor advised that all the noise monitoring is conducted by Air Services Australia and not by the City. They are an independent body and have monitoring stations in strategic locations and that has been ongoing for some time.

Can I have a look at the information?

The Mayor advised that anyone can visit their website to access the data.

As an architect I would be negligent if I didn’t do any monitoring if a client wanted to build in the direct flight path.

People who do not live there may not understand the noise but it is different when you live there.

(28)

4.1.22Mr Andrew Pervis

I can actually see the pilot in the cockpit sometimes, it doesn’t bother me.

What I am concerned about is if this gets through, what about the Barracks? Are we going to see a proposal about that?

The Mayor advised this is federal government land. Council cannot initiate a proposal, it can only consider a proposal when its proposed. The City is not aware of any proposal in regard to the Barracks land.

If it was to be proposed, how much notice would you get?

The Mayor advised it could be 6 months or 12 months. Any proposal would also be dependent upon the ANEF contours.

4.1.23Mr Dave Abbott (Statement provided)

I refer to the minutes dated 30 July 2014 where Council voted to support the rezoning of the Rosehill rural land.

The minutes make several references to the aircraft noise issue in ANEF 20-25 being mitigated by mandatory noise insulation requirements.

Several Councillors interjected during the meeting that noise would not be an issue if insulation was provided.

I refer to these references:

Page 1 dot point 5 which states……SPP 5.1 doesn’t prohibit the urbanisation of land affected by the 20 – 25 ANEF, but the new mapping reinforces Council’s prior comments that there is a need for specific Scheme provisions that ensure residential development incorporates noise insulation.

Page 7 paragraph 4 which states……If anything the 2014 ANEF contour maps for Perth airport reinforce the need for noise insulation

Page 13 Conclusion which states……a special use zone is recommended and will result in mandating noise insulation for residential etc.

Page 14 Statutory Implications which states …Noahs Rosehill have made commitments requiring higher building standards for noise insulation.

So it is very obvious that Council is aware of the excessive aircraft noise issue with this development.

(29)

The Council and its planning officers are also aware of the State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and that one of the intentions of the policy is to provide quality of living conducive to the Western Australian climate by providing gardens, a play area for children and outdoor living, recreation and dining space.

Council and its planning officers should also be aware of the requirements for code R20 in table 1 which states that a minimum of 50% total of site must be for open space and a minimum of 30m² provided for outdoor living as defined in the State Planning Policy Council should note that Clause 2.5.3 of the State Planning policy makes clear that no variation to minimum or average site area per dwelling requirements set out in Table 1 is allowed except for special circumstances and then only up to 5% of site area

Council should be aware of their own policy POL-TP-128 Building and Development standards – Residential Areas (the council voted to retain the policy for a further two years at the last Ordinary Council Meeting on 10September 2014)

I refer to Clause 2.9 - Table 1 which reflects the State Planning Policy Table 1 I refer to Clause 4.2.13 - Residential Zone

I refer to Clause 4.2.14 – Residential Development Zone; and PART 5

I refer to 5.2 Residential Design Codes

The noise insulation solution proposed by council, the planners and the developer cannot protect these mandatory open areas from excessive noise.

I live on the 20 ANEF zone in Rosehill and can testify that outdoor recreation or relaxing is impossible due to continued aircraft noise. Conversation is not possible when planes are taking off or landing on runway 03/21.

My questions to the Council are:

How can the council justify the imposition on struggling home owners having to purchase land that is mandated outdoor living, but cannot be used due to the excessive and unhealthy noise levels from low flying aircraft. Further the council mandates that home owners have to pay extra on housing for insulation so they can live cocooned inside?

Will the council reconsider its decision to support the rezoning until it challenges the State Planning Policy to have the requirement for open space provision in the residential codes reviewed for dwellings in the ANEF 20-25 zone to allow full development of the R20 sites with sound proofed dwellings?

Has the council notified the planners and developers that where there is a specific need for Scheme provisions (noise insulation) there cannot be a concurrent amendment to LPS17 pursuant to section 126 of the planning act? Is there a loophole they can use?

Will the council reconsider its decision to support the rezoning and start applying its own policies to the rezoning proposal?

CITY of SWAN

CITY of SWAN

M I N U T E S

SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS 22 SEPTEMBER 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS