The city planning staff make considerable arguments about problems with the proposal's proximity to ANEF noise contours. The town planning staff have not alerted the Council to the negative effect on the amenity value of the area whether or not there is a golf course.
Mr Ian McAuley
Have you or any council member wondered why there was no argument against the approval filed by city planning staff? The developers argued that Waterhall was built and therefore the golf course should have been repurposed, but this was a mistake and they should never have been repurposed. One thing that worries me is that councilors have lost touch with their constituents and become too cozy with their jobs.
Mr Peter Stephenson
There is clear evidence of the negative health effects of living near an airport. Some examples of things that have happened in the past that should not be allowed include asbestos mattresses, tanning beds, and cigarettes. There is no indication that councilors appreciate the health impacts of development near airports.
I would like to ask all advisors if they were aware of any of the studies I mentioned and the effects of aircraft noise, if so, had they considered it.
Mr John Squire President South Guildford Community Association, Member Hazelmere Progress Association and an executive member of the Guildford association
Mr Peter Burke Managing Director Handle Property Group
The WAPC went to every statutory body and all submitted a submission supporting the development except for Perth Airports and the residents of South Guildford. As a response to the petition signed by residents (more than 4000 signatures) Handle Property Group was requested to engage with the community. The City was strict regarding the requirements of the building that was built and special conditions will be placed on this development.
The support of councilors and the city has shown voters moving beyond what is required and of any other MRS amendment. Most of the site was unaffected by the noise methodology adopted by the WAPC. If approved, we are absolutely thrilled to sit down with each resident to talk about what we can do to reduce the impact in terms of the draft plan.
I understand the opponents and the loss of value that can occur and understand that we must create a tasteful development.
Mr Ian Johnson
Ms Hazel Bradley
Mr Andrew Kiely
Mr Russell said that he did not remember saying it as he did not believe he would say it as he did not know. Is Mr Russell aware of a development at Guildford Grammar School that has not been objected to by Perth Airports. He was aware of work being undertaken but is not aware of any objection or otherwise.
The CEO said that the airport meeting recalls that the response of Perth Airports to the question of Mr. Kiely that the only development that Perth Airports did not object to was that on the Albany Highway, but generally they oppose all development. The chief executive said he was aware of the development at Guildford Grammar School but was not aware of any objection or otherwise made by Perth Airports. I'm talking about the city's mismanagement and disregard for its own community engagement policies.
Mr Russell provided general details regarding WAPC's advertising and broadcast period and timeframes for submission of comments to Council.
Mr Barry Hennigan
Mr Peter Langlands Motion
Ms Sandra Bransby General Manager Noah Rosehill Waters
In addition, we as developers also conducted consultations to ensure that the community was informed of the true fact. We gave all residents the opportunity to meet with us and are still available and it was all well in advance of a decision being made. On the issue of councilors representing the best interest of residents, there are people who support the development.
In regards to the petition discussed, over half of the 4000 petition signatories do not live in City of Swan. The Council has served the interests of the whole community and not just those who are unwilling to abandon the imagery of the golf course for their own benefit. Most complaints about aircraft noise come from areas outside the ANEF contours.
It is clear that the Council's decision was based on a thorough consideration of all aspects of the transformation.
Mr Matt Birney representing those in close vicinity of Rosehill
The Rosehill Course was a privately owned business that does not appear on the city's open space plan. 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. The city rightly did not go to public hearing 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 will still be an expectation that you will seek some kind of public input. I would also like to point out that it is not the City's decision to change the zoning, it is a state government decision. The developments will enable buyers to buy in an area close to transport and the CBD, which is a state government requirement.
The City did not support all plots for development or a simultaneous amendment to the Local Planning Scheme.
Ms Ruth Drewell
This is a state government responsibility process and Mr. Birney with his experience should be aware of this. I have made my decision to the best of my ability based on the information provided to me and consultation with all parties. I will listen to all the facts before making a decision and I am confident that is what I have done on this occasion.
For many years my wife and I have been the golf course's only and probably closest neighbors. To date, the city has not given us the permit, we don't know if the city will ever give it. Now they want to build a multimillion dollar mall just steps from our bedroom.
This has been approved, but the municipality has not announced when it will be built and remains silent.
Ms Vivienne Harding
Ms Siobhan Durrant
Question: So the claims that the builders offered the clubhouse to the city are not true.
Mr Peter Graham
Mr Matt Dunstan
I would like to know from the Director General when this public consultation issue will be addressed. The CEO said that WAPC had, as previously mentioned, carried out a community consultation in relation to the Rosehill development. In relation to the City's comment on the Roe Freeway proposals, it is believed that Peet and Co.
Main Roads WA conducts community consultations on these issues and he believed they had in this case. Council received a briefing from Main Roads WA a few weeks before the report went to Council. The council was not happy with the outcome, particularly with the removal of an interchange at Morrison Road, but this is required in the interests of public safety.
If the City wishes to engage in the process of all other authorities and consult in addition to theirs, this will require further consideration by Council as it will require additional time, financial and personnel resources.
Mr Brian Vuko
Mr Andrew Pervis
Mr Dave Abbott (Statement provided)
Council and its planning officers are also aware of State Planning Policies 3.1 Western Australian Residential Design Codes and that one of the aims of the policy is to provide a quality of life conducive to the Western Australian climate by providing gardens, an area children's play and outdoor living, recreation and dining spaces. The council and its planning officers should also be aware of the R20 code requirements in Table 1 which state that a minimum of 50% of the total area must be for open space and a minimum of 30m2 provided for outdoor living as defined in the State Planning Policy. The Council should note that clause 2.5.3 of the state planning policy makes it clear that no change is permitted to the minimum or average area requirements per dwelling set out in Table 1, except in special circumstances and then only until in 5% of the area's surface. How can the council justify forcing struggling homeowners to buy land that is mandatory for outdoor living but cannot be used due to excessive and unhealthy levels of noise from low-flying aircraft .
In addition, the council dictates that homeowners must pay extra to insulate their homes so they can live indoors. Will the council reconsider its decision to support the rezoning until it challenges the state planning policy to require the provision of open space in the housing review codes for dwellings zoned ANEF 20-25 to allow full development of R20 sites with residential sound insulation . Has the council advised planners and developers that in cases where there is a specific need for scheme provisions (sound proofing) LPS17 cannot be amended concurrently under section 126 of the Planning Act.
Will the council reconsider its decision to support the rezoning and begin implementing its own policies on the rezoning proposal.
Ms Dianne Arvino
Mr Matt Birney
MOTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED MOTION 1
That Council reverses its decision to support the development of the Rosehill Golf Course, after further consideration of the community's views on the matter. That residents of South Guildford have expressed confidence in two of their three local ward councillors, Cr Gregorini and Cr Elliott, for failing to represent voters' views. Swan City Council is withdrawing their support for Rosehill's rezoning application until state planning policy defines requirements of R codes in ANEF 20 - 25 aircraft noise areas.
That, (in relation to the decision by City of Swan Councilors on 30 July 2014 to rezone the Rosehill Golf Course from 'Rural' to 'Urban', the City of Swan write to the Minister of Planning and explain that the said decision by the City Swan does not reflect the true will of their constituents and therefore he must disregard the vote taken by Council in his consideration of any final decision on that matter. That all Councilors present indicate whether they are willing to consider reversing their decision to support, revoke the development of Rosehill Golf Course Moved: Mr M Birney Seconded: Mr A Keily CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE Note: The Mayor did not ask all Councilors to indicate whether they were willing to revoke the decision.
CLOSURE
