Electors' NO CONFIDENCE motion in City of Melville's planning functions passed overwhelmingly

Electors voted overwhelmingly at the City of Melville 6 February 2023 Electors AGM for a motion of NO CONFIDENCE in the City's planning directorate. NO ONE spoke against it.

The Canning Bridge Activity Centre Plan debacle is just one example of the City and the CEO's dismal performance.

Whilst the Director - Urban Planning, Steve 'can't' Cope, has gone; it is our view that more managers need to go to correct the ongoing problems.

Read the motion mover's speech below that had the greater majority of electors angry and committed to the motion of NO CONFIDENCE.

_______________________

Mr Mayor, you have repeatedly challenged the planning department to come up with a plan for Canning Bridge that the council and community will accept and get behind. So why hasn’t it happened?

Because the Strategic Planning Manager and the Statutory Planning Manager don’t want it to. Because the CEO either doesn’t want it to or refuses to act.

The planning strategy has been and remains double height excessive bonuses, for no tangible community benefits.

Just when was this debated and agreed at a council meeting? Or publicised openly by the City? Even now they are using the

Canning Bridge review to promote a 25 storey zone on Canning Highway. Following the double height strategy will lead to a 50 storey development being supported by the officers. Do you agree with me that this is administrative overreach by officers who believe they can behave as they like without being held accountable?

There are many examples of how the CoM following their poor urban planning strategy has had negative impacts on the Canning Bridge area.

Poor planning strategy has led to excessive urban density where the suburb can no longer function with regards to traffic and road closures. The lack of holistic planning with regards to traffic is causing chaos.

Coming soon, we have the closure of the Kintail Road junction to Canning Highway. Has the City made representations to Main Roads to object to this? Probably not, but the Planning Department doesn’t communicate it’s views to ratepayers.

Poor planning strategy has resulted in a lack of public spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and community gardens, which negatively impact residents' physical and mental health.

Poor planning strategy has resulted in overdense development.

This has led to insufficient infrastructure such as sewage systems, water supply, and electrical systems which have further disrupted the area.

Poor planning strategy has resulted in lack of side setbacks.

Oversized developments encroach on residential homes right on people’s property boundaries. This has caused damage, noise, pollution, environmental problems like damaged street trees and overshadowing.

Poor planning strategy has led to the creation of stranded assets.

This negatively impacts owners’ physical and mental health. It should have been entirely foreseeable. Yet the City has no strategy in place to deal with the stranded assets created by it’s policies and the way officers have interpreted those policies.

How can we escape this urban planning nightmare?

Poor planning strategy has led to uncertainty and anxiety in residents. We are left with our homes having their amenity trashed. We can’t sell up and move on with our lives and regain our amenity and sanity.

It is important to keep in mind that this poor planning strategy has had a detrimental effect on the community as a whole, even outside the immediate Canning Bridge area.

Don’t take my word for it. When the Canning Bridge review was advertised 485 ratepayers told Council that the Planning Strategy is wrong. How long can Council accept the City’s attitude of refusing to listen or act on such feedback? 485 ratepayers is not merely a pressure group that certain councillors may feel they are entitled to ignore. Council sets strategy, not the administration.

Proper planning prevents poor performance. We have poor performance at Canning Bridge.

The planning department has not delivered the vibrant precinct promised.

Failing to plan is planning to fail and we have a massive planning failure at Canning Bridge. The Planning Department has failed the citizens of Canning Bridge.

Callous disregard for the interests of adjacent property owners and lack of support or acknowledgement that there is even a problem is the strategy. Yet the City stays silent.

The City continues to show contempt for the legitimate concerns of ratepayers.

The City has allowed statutory planning errors to occur in many areas.

Undersize blocks given bonus heights, wrong ground levels and incorrect interpretation of permissible land use. The City has ignored the provisions of the building act and wilfully disregard it’s enforcement.

Systemic errors in statutory planning where mixed use crossovers do not comply with Australian Standards is negligent.

The City is now having to spend ratepayers’ money to remediate these. The unacceptable levels of risk the Planning Department is exposing the City to is now becoming apparent.

This is unacceptable and inexcusable. It is to the detriment of public safety.

The Planning Department invented their own unique definition of what constitutes a mezzanine level, contrary to definitions in building codes. This was done so they could approve extra storeys on to a development application and is breathtakingly arrogant.

Mandating massive structures on block boundaries has caused immense damage to many adjoining properties. That is nothing short of negligence. Why does the City not assess the impact of building on property boundaries? Failure to do so has led directly to damage in adjacent properties and is both unbelievable and inexcusable.

We have a conflicted administration whose sole objective appears to be maximising rates revenue. The City does not appear to have any regard for about the mental and physical health of it’s citizens or the amenity of the Canning Bridge area.

The City is refusing to accept any responsibility for their part in the complete mess that builders are making of adjacent properties. Damaging cracks are undermining the stability of people’s homes and causing depression, stress and anxiety.

Refusing to act on resident’s complaints about dust and environmental hazards on building sites is an unbelievable abdication of the City’s responsibilities.

Refusing to prosecute builders for starting work without a permit demonstrates just how cosy the City’s relationship is with developers.

Granting building permits without reference to council when roads have to be narrowed as part of development conditions is arrogant and disrespectful.

Senior planning officers have sold out the interests of ordinary citizens to developers.

The statutory planning manager has been accused of misleading JDAPs, council and ratepayers. The code of conduct complaint is under active investigation. Is this conduct acceptable?

I respectfully request that at the next OGM council directs the CEO to take affirmative action to correct the City’s approach to planning strategy and statutory planning. Otherwise nothing will change.

Ratepayers’ mental and physical health is suffering as a direct result of the poor professional judgement of the Senior Planning Managers.

Despite all the discussion about the Canning Bridge review one thing will remain. That is the due regard status of whatever amendments are finally passed by the WAPC. The Canning Bridge review responses show that people don’t trust the City Planning Officers to exercise this due regard and provide a good outcome for the whole community. If the same decision makers are allowed to continue you will still get the type of Responsible Authority Reports vehemently opposed by council and the community.

These are not just operational issues, they are fundamental problems with service delivery. They have put the health and safety of ratepayers and residents in danger. Council has a duty of care to ratepayers to direct the CEO appropriately and must act and act quickly.

The poor planning decisions that have been made have literally wrecked people’s lives.

The City does not have the right talent or the right attitude at these senior levels in the Planning Department.

Municipal greed is no way to run a planning department.

Wilful refusal to enforce the building act and follow council policies on mixed use crossovers is no way to run a planning department.

Refusal to engage with council or the community on planning matters is no way to run a planning department.

We need to see stronger leadership from the CEO and the Mayor.

The City of Melville puts a dollar number on everything and knows the value of nothing. Ratepayers and residents are being expected to suck up the consequences of their poor planning. Not good enough.

Residents are being treated like collateral damage in the move to high density. The City has no advice or suggestions. Nor is it offering any compensation for the loss, stress, trauma and removal of amenity in our homes and in the area as a whole.

Are the Planning Department living up to the City’s values. NO.

Are they engaging with our diverse community to achieve an inclusive, vibrant and sustainable future. NO

Are they providing good governance and quality services for the City of Melville community. NO

Are they acting with honesty, openness and with good intent. NO

Are they striving for the best possible outcomes. NO

Are they demonstrating empathy, kindness and genuine concern. NO

Are they Involving, collaborating and partnering. NO

Ladies and gentlemen, the City of Melville couldn’t plan a chook raffle. If they tried the chook would be 10 times the size of an average chook and eat all the other chooks in the area while trashing the henhouse.

So if you agree with me please vote for the motion.

This meeting has no confidence in the Strategic Planning and Statutory Planning functions at the City of Melville

Thank you