City of Melville – 2021 Report Card poor

A POOR REPORT CARD

Cultural Change – not just yet, it seems ……

The City of Melville Electors AGM held last Wednesday was orderly, but reflected the high level of frustration among ratepayers towards the City. From the ten motions that were carried two clear trends emerged: That the City persists with a lack of proper consultation with its ratepayers, and that there is an ongoing high level of dissatisfaction with the City’s Planning and Building Management Group under the leadership of Director Urban Planning, Stephen Cope.

Our City does a great job in the traditional municipal roles – roads, waste collection and maintaining our parks and reserves, but there are long-running festering sores in other parts of the Administration.

The motions as recorded in the minutes (click here to see the motions ) are brief and don’t convey the full story. The speakers at the AGM had much more to say. (You can listen if you have time ). With most of the motions only the proposer addressed the meeting – seconders remained silent in the absence of any opposition and half the story remained untold. Even so, what was said was enough.

The message was clear – the cultural change at the City for which you have renewed the Council over the past two elections has yet to take place. The City Administration remains largely deaf to its ratepayers, manipulative in order to minimise community input and in the case of the Urban Planning Department, which also oversees building-related matters, both arrogant and incompetent.

This led to successful motions of no confidence in both the CEO and the Urban Planning Group.

The message of the AGM is also one that Councillors and Mayor need to hear: They have not yet done the job for which they were elected.

Planning for Green Open Space

Two motions sought more green open space in the Canning Bridge Activity Centre – one site is the agglomeration of properties on Moreau Mews, North of Canning Highway and one site to the South, at 13 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, linking The Esplanade with Kishorn Road. Each of these sites is owned by the City (ie, owned by you, the Ratepayers!).

The first site was assembled by the City between 2015 and 2017. The process was a litany of blunders and incompetence by the City, ranging from paying close to 40% above the contemporary market prices, to arguably breaching the Local Government Act, arguably falsifying documents to conceal this, culminating in the then Mayor and CEO committing to a $4million purchase without the requisite prior consent of Council.

Throughout this entire process the then Mayor Aubrey remained silent on his property holding in the immediate neighbourhood which seems a clear conflict of interest. The Councillors of the day politely turned a blind eye to all this.

The Mt Pleasant site has been under active negotiation for close on 4 years – all behind closed doors. The City is now unveiling the outcome of these talks to Council. (Click here to see more) We must ask whether the Local Government Act has again been avoided for a Major Land Transaction, and whether the City has improved on its lease negotiating skills since the Wave Park. The new proposed lease is for 89 years and if the Wave Park lease is anything to go by, will heavily favour the Developer with the ratepayers bearing all risk and hence the cost of long-term subsidy of the Development.

The City is under no financial pressure to develop these sites, with $150million in its Reserves after providing for all its annual expenses.

The City is great at maintaining parks and reserves, and are very poor property developers and negotiators.

TELL YOUR COUNCILLORS AND MAYOR THAT YOU SUPPORT THE AGM MOTIONS TO USE THESE SITES AS GREEN OPEN SPACE.

The Culture of Consultation.

Consultation works in two directions. One is for the Local Government to keep stakeholders properly advised of matters that may affect their lives, the other is for Local Government to hear, and act upon, matters raised by its ratepayers. Judging by the AGM motions, the City of Melville fails on both counts.

Several motions were all about the deaf ear that the City turns towards legitimate complaints. These episodes led to the two votes of no confidence, and also to the motion to reject the City’s annual report.

Another motion arose from an arbitrary decision regarding the exercising of dogs on or off the leash, where it appears that the City made a ruling affecting many dog owners, but with no consultation at all. Perhaps the City listened to one ratepayer and forgot about the rest, but it demonstrates the incapacity to communicate effectively with the community.

There was a motion requesting that the City extend the consultation period for a proposed Mountain Bike Trail at Point Walter. Having liaised with the Bike lobby for about two years, the City then (quite cynically, it seems) requested feedback from the general public in a relatively short period coinciding with school holidays when the public is generally otherwise engaged. Does the City consult only those who support its proposals and overlook the rest? Or was it gaming the rules of consultation to get the outcome it wants? Or was it both? Have your say - click here for details.

The number of motions of this nature, and the wide range of issues they cover, makes it clear that the culture at City of Melville still is a long way from one that respects its ratepayers.

ASK YOUR ELECTED MEMBERS TO SUPPORT AGM MOTIONS THAT COULD IMPROVE CONSULTATION.

The Delinquent Urban Planning Group

The saga which led to the No Confidence motion against the Urban Planning Group, which includes Building, demonstrated the persistent intransigence of this team – its refusal to act to enforce its own regulations, to apply widely accepted safety standards, to comply with Australian Design Standards, and to hear legitimate and well documented issues raised by a ratepayer. The department was repeatedly shown to be at fault by state government authorities, by special inquiries, and in court, yet it failed to act.

The experience of this ratepayer is not unique. There was another in the room (but who chose to remain silent) who has had a long term similar conflict with this group, with similar adverse findings against the Urban Planning and Building group from regulators, special inquiries, and in court, but no accountability shown by the City.

On the Planning side, the City planners have for years been undermining Council attempts to change the Canning Bridge Activity Centre Plan (CBACP) and persist in recommending excessive developments knowing that Council and the community oppose these.

Amazingly, the Director of Urban Planning, responsible for the competent enforcement of building regulations and safety codes by his department, still holds his job. The same Director oversees the Planners’ sabotage of Council’s efforts to have the CBACP reflect the deal that was approved by ratepayers back in 2015. For this the Director should be should be held accountable. And so should the CEO.

TELL YOUR COUNCILLORS THAT THE AGM MOTIONS OF NO CONFIDENCE ARE WELL FOUNDED.

What you do makes a difference and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make (Jane Goodall)

As distributed by SPFA, email: [email protected]