Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) · 2017. 1. 17. · Membership of Advisory Board The Advisory Board consists of five members appointed by the Governor of Western Australia

Page 1 – LGAB Assessment of the proposal to transfer parts of Ascot and Redcliffe from the City of Belmont to the City of Swan

Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB)

Assessment of the proposal to transfer parts of

Ascot and Redcliffe from the City of Belmont to

the City of Swan

December 2016


Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4

1.1 The proposal..................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Key statistical data ............................................................................................ 5

2. Local Government Advisory Board .................................................................... 7

2.1 The proposal..................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Membership of the Board ................................................................................. 8

3. Conducting the Inquiry ........................................................................................ 9

3.1 Making a proposal ............................................................................................ 9

3.1 Community of Interests ................................................................................... 11

3.2 Physical and Topographic Features ............................................................... 12

3.3 Demographic Trends ...................................................................................... 12

3.4 Economic Factors ........................................................................................... 13

3.5 History of the Area .......................................................................................... 13

3.6 Transport and Communication ....................................................................... 13

3.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments ..................................... 13

3.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services .................................... 14

4. Consultation ....................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Meetings with Affected Local Governments ................................................... 15

4.2 Public Hearings .............................................................................................. 17

4.3 Analysis of Public Submissions ...................................................................... 18

5. Assessment of the Proposal – Matters Considered by the Board ................ 20

5.1 Community of Interests ................................................................................... 20

5.2 Physical and Topographic Features ............................................................... 20

5.3 Demographic Trends ...................................................................................... 21

5.4 Economic Factors ........................................................................................... 22

5.5 History of the Area .......................................................................................... 22


5.6 Transport and Communications ...................................................................... 22

5.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments ..................................... 24

5.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services .................................... 24

5.9 Other Matters .................................................................................................. 25

6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 26

7. Recommendation ............................................................................................... 27

Attachment 1 – City of Swan proposal ...................................................................... 28

Attachment 2 – Aerial view of affected land ............................................................. 29

Attachment 3 –City of Belmont proposal .................................................................. 30


1. Introduction

The City of Swan submitted a proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board

(the Board) to transfer parts of Ascot and Redcliffe from the City of Belmont to the City

of Swan. The proposal was received on 31 March 2016 and it proposed to rationalise the

boundary around three industrial lots, two of which are bisected by the current boundary.

The proposal is for all three lots to be wholly located in the City of Swan.

A valid proposal needs to meets the requirements of clause 2(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the

Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) which states:

“A proposal is to –

(a) set out clearly the nature of the proposal, the reasons for making the

proposal and the effects of the proposal on local governments;

(b) be accompanied by a plan illustrating any proposed changes to the

boundaries of a district; and

(c) comply with any regulations about proposals.”

The Board assessed the City of Swan proposal as meeting all of the above requirements.

1.1 The proposal

The City of Swan has submitted a proposal to the Board to amend its district boundary

with the City of Belmont. The City of Swan has made the proposal to rationalise the

boundary around three industrial lots, some of which are bisected by the current boundary.

Proposal

The City of Swan is proposing to amend its district boundary with the City of Belmont so

that the entirety of Lots 2 (Apac Way), 3 (Ivy Street) and 301 (Great Eastern Highway) are

wholly located in the City of Swan. Ivy Street is proposed, according to the City of Swan,

as the most logical boundary (see Attachment 1).

The affected land is as follows:

Lot 301 (510) Great Eastern Highway – owned by Demol Investments Pty Ltd

(vacant property, subject to planning proposal for redevelopment)

Lot 2 Apac Way – owned by Wirtgen-Australia Pty Ltd

Lot 3 (555) Great Eastern Highway (Ivy Street) – owned by Liebherr-Australia

Pty Ltd.


The matter was initially instigated by representatives of the owners of Lot 301 Great

Eastern Highway, Ascot (owners – Demol Investments Pty Ltd) which is currently located

predominantly within the City of Belmont (8,292m2 or 82%), with a portion (1,812m2 or

18%) of the lot also located within the City of Swan. The request from the owners of

Lot 301 was for a boundary realignment to transfer the portion of Lot 301 that falls in the

City of Swan to be in the City of Belmont.

The City of Swan have stated that the landowners have formally expressed their wish to

rationalise the boundaries, so that they receive one rate notice for each property from the

respective local governments.

At its meeting of 23 March 2016, the Council of the City of Swan resolved unanimously to

propose a change to its local government boundary and to lodge a proposal with the Board

to amend the boundary between the City of Swan and the City of Belmont to an alignment

down Ivy Street as shown in Attachment 1. The City of Swan submitted the proposal for

the Board to consider as being minor in nature, thereby only requiring an informal

assessment by the Board.

In support of the proposal, the City of Swan stated that the effect of the proposal on the

two Cities is minor and does not affect the viability of each local government.

The Board met on 7 July 2016 and while it noted the City of Swan’s request that the Board

assess the proposal as one of a minor nature, it resolved to conduct a formal inquiry into

the proposal.

1.2 Key statistical data

This proposal would see the City of Swan and the City of Belmont continue as local

government entities. The population of each local government will not change, as no

residential properties are affected by the proposed change. Although the land area

affected is relatively small, approximately $106,000 in rates levied by the City of Belmont

would be lost. The City of Swan is expected to collect higher rates because it levies a

higher rate in the dollar.


Table 1: Impact of boundary proposal

Factor Proposal area

Existing City of Swan

City of Swan after adjustment

Existing City of Belmont

City of Belmont after adjustment

Area in square km

0.12 1,044 1,044.12 40 39.88

Population 2015

0 133,303 133,303 41,344 41,344

Electors 2016

Not applicable

78,281 78,281 21,647 21,647


2. Local Government Advisory Board

2.1 The proposal

The Board is a statutory body established under section 2.44 of the Act. Its role is to

provide advice to the Minister on amalgamations, district and ward boundary amendments

and councillor representation.

The Board’s major function is to assess proposals to change local government boundaries

and their system of representation and make recommendations to the Minister about these

proposals.

Clause 12 of Schedule 2.5 of the Act sets out the Board’s powers of inquiry and they are

as follows:

Powers of Inquiry

(1) For the purposes of carrying out an inquiry under this Act, the Advisory Board may

–

(a) by summons signed on behalf of the Advisory Board by its executive officer,

require –

(i) the attendance before the Advisory Board of any person;

(ii) the production before the Advisory Board of any document;

(b) inspect any document produced before it, and retain it for such reasonable

period as it thinks fit, and make copies of the document or any of its

contents;

(c) require any person to swear to truly answer all questions relating to a matter

being inquired into by the Advisory Board that are put by or before the

Advisory Board (and for that purpose a member of the Advisory Board or its

executive officer may administer any oath or affirmation);

(d) require any person appearing before the Advisory Board to answer any

relevant question.

(2) A person is not excused from complying with a requirement under subclause (1) on

the ground that the answer to a question or the production of a document might be

incriminating or render the person liable to a penalty, but an answer given by a

person that was required under subclause (1) to be given is not admissible in

evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings other than

proceedings for perjury or for an offence against this Act arising out of the false or

misleading nature of the answer.


2.2 Membership of the Board

Clause 2 of Schedule 2.5 of the Act makes provision for the membership of the Board and

reads as follows.

Membership of Advisory Board

The Advisory Board consists of five members appointed by the Governor of Western

Australia of whom-

(a) one person is nominated by the Minister; and

(b) two persons are to be persons having experience as a member of a council

appointed from a list submitted to the Minister by the WA Local Government

Association (WALGA) under clause 4(1); and

(c) one person is to be a person having experience as the chief executive officer

of a local government appointed from a list submitted to the Minister by the

Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) WA Division under clause

4(2); and

(d) one person is to be an officer of the Department nominated by the Minister.

Current Board Members

Chair

Mr Melvyn Congerton JP

Members

WALGA Nominees:

Cr Karen Chappel (Member)

Cr Russ Fishwick (Member)

Mayor Gary Brennan (Deputy)

Cr Chris Cornish (Deputy)

LGMA Nominees:

Mr Anthony Vuleta (Member)

Ms Francesca Lefante (Deputy)

Department of Local Government and Communities:

Ms Mary Adam (Deputy Chair)

Ms Jenni Law (Deputy)


3. Conducting the Inquiry

A proposal for amending local government district boundaries may be made by electors,

local governments or the Minister.

Clause 2 of Schedule 2.1 of the Act sets out the requirements for proposals for

amalgamations and boundary amendments and reads as follows:

3.1 Making a proposal

(1) A proposal may be made to the Advisory Board by —

(a) the Minister;

(b) an affected local government;

(c) 2 or more affected local governments, jointly; or

(d) affected electors who —

(i) are at least 250 in number; or

(ii) are at least 10% of the total number of affected electors.

(2) A proposal is to —

(a) set out clearly the nature of the proposal, the reasons for making the

proposal and the effects of the proposal on local governments;

(b) be accompanied by a plan illustrating any proposed changes to the

boundaries of a district; and

(c) comply with any regulations about proposals.

Provisions for dealing with proposals are set out in clause 3 of Schedule 2.1 of the Act and

reads as follows:

Dealing with proposals

(1) The Advisory Board is to consider any proposal.

(2) The Advisory Board may, in a written report to the Minister, recommend* that the

Minister reject a proposal if, in the Board’s opinion —

(a) the proposal is substantially similar in effect to a proposal on which the Board

has made a recommendation to the Minister within the period of 2 years

immediately before the proposal is made;

(aa) where the proposal was made by affected electors under clause 2(1)(d),

that the majority of those electors no longer support the proposal; or

(b) the proposal is frivolous or otherwise not in the interests of good government.

* Absolute majority required.


(3) If, in the Advisory Board’s opinion, the proposal is —

(a) one of a minor nature; and

(b) not one about which public submissions need be invited, the Board may, in a

written report to the Minister, recommend* that the Minister reject the

proposal or that an order be made in accordance with the proposal.


(4) Unless it makes a recommendation under subclause (2) or (3), the Advisory Board

is to formally inquire into the proposal.

At its meeting on 7 July 2016, the Board determined that the proposal should not be dealt

with under the provisions of clauses 2 and 3 above and as such, the provisions of clause 4

would apply and the Board would conduct a formal inquiry into the proposal. The Minister

for Local Government was informed of the Board’s decision on 13 July 2016. Around this

time, the process for appointing new members to the Board took place, causing a delay in

progressing the proposal. Both local governments were subsequently informed on of the

inquiry on 1 September 2016.

When a formal inquiry is conducted, the Board is required to give notice to affected

electors and affected local governments about the inquiry.

Clause 4 of Schedule 2.1 of the Act contains provisions relating to a Notice of Inquiry and

reads as follows:

Notice of inquiry

(1) Where a formal inquiry is required the Advisory Board is to give —

(a) notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors

of districts directly affected by the proposal; and

(b) a report to the Minister.

(2) The notice and report under subclause (1) are to —

(a) advise that there will be a formal inquiry into the proposal;

(b) set out details of the inquiry and its proposed scope; and

(c) advise that submissions may be made to the Board not later than 6 weeks

after the date the notice is first given about —

(i) the proposal; or

(ii) the scope of the inquiry.

(3) If, after considering submissions made under subclause (2)(c), the Advisory Board

decides* that the scope of the formal inquiry is to be significantly different from that

set out in the notice and report under subclause (1), it is to give —

(a) another notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other

electors of districts directly affected by the proposal; and

(b) another report to the Minister.


(4) The notice and report under subclause (3) are to —

(a) set out the revised scope of the inquiry; and

(b) advise that further submissions about the proposal, or submissions about

matters relevant to the revised scope of the inquiry, may be made to the

Board within the time set out in the notice.


The Notice of Inquiry appeared in The Southern Gazette community newspaper on

6 September 2016. A copy of the Notice is included as Appendix 2.

A six week public submission period closed at 4.00 pm on 20 October 2016. The Board

met with both local governments on 12 October 2016 to discuss the proposal. The Board

also held a public hearing in the evening of 12 October 2016 at the Centenary Park

Community Centre, Belmont.

The public hearing was attended by three people who were appearing on behalf of two of

the owners of the affected properties. Additionally, there were four representatives from

the City of Belmont.

In carrying out a formal inquiry the Board is required to consider submissions made to it

under clause 4(2)(c) of Schedule 2.1 of the Act and have regard, where applicable, to:

Community of interests

Physical and topographic features

Demographic trends

Economic factors

The history of the area

Transport and communication

Matters affecting the viability of local governments

The effective delivery of local government services.

The Board may also take into account any other matter it considers relevant as part of

its inquiry.

The Board has developed the following guiding principles for each of the above factors:

3.1 Community of Interests

Community of interests includes part of a district that share common interests, values,

characteristics and issues giving rise to a separate sense of identity or community. Factors

contributing to a sense of identity or community include shared interests and shared use of

community facilities. For example sporting, leisure, religious and library facilities create a

focus for the community.


The use of shopping areas and the location of schools also act to draw people together

with similar interests. This can also give indications about the direction that people travel to

access services and facilities. The external boundaries of a local government need to

reflect distinct communities of interest wherever possible.

Neighbourhoods, suburbs and towns are important units in the physical, historical and

social infrastructure and often generate a feeling of community and belonging. The Board

believes that wherever possible, it is inappropriate to divide these units between local

governments.

3.2 Physical and Topographic Features

Physical and topographic features may be natural or man-made and will vary from area to

area. They may include:

Water features (such as rivers)

Catchment boundaries

Coastal plains and foothills

Parks and reserves

Manmade features (such as railway lines or freeways).

These features can form identifiable boundaries and can also act as barriers to movement

between adjoining areas. In many cases physical and topographic features are appropriate

district and ward boundaries. The Board supports local government structures and

boundaries that facilitate the integration of human activity and land use.

3.3 Demographic Trends

Local governments should consider the following characteristics when determining the

demographics within its locality:

Population size

Population trends

Distribution by age

Gender

Occupation.

Current and projected population factors will be relevant as well as similarities and

differences between areas within the local government.


3.4 Economic Factors

Economic factors can include any factor that reflects the character of economic activities

and resources in the area including:

Industries within the local area

Distribution of community assets

Infrastructure.

3.5 History of the Area

The history of an area can be a relevant consideration, although the Board believes that in

the majority of cases this will not be a primary justification for changing or retaining local

governments and local government boundaries. The nature of historical ties between

communities is important to understand, irrespective of where the local government

boundaries lie.

A community within a local government may have a strong historical identity; alternatively

there may be strong historical links between two or more communities in adjacent local

governments. It is important to note that historical identity is not lessened if an area does

not have its own local government.

3.6 Transport and Communication

The transport and communication linkages between towns and other areas may be a

significant barrier to movement and therefore an appropriate boundary between local

governments.

Consideration of the following factors is important in any assessment of local government

boundaries:

Port access

Neighbouring towns

Railways

Major roads.

3.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments

Local governments should have a significant resource base:

To be able to efficiently and effectively exercise its proper functions and delegated

powers and operate facilities and services.


To be flexible and responsive in the exercise of its functions and powers and

operation of its facilities and services.

To employ appropriate professional expertise and skills.

To be capable of embracing micro-economic reform.

Each local government should have a diverse and sufficient rate base to ensure that

general purpose grants do not represent the major revenue source.

3.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services

A broad range of factors can be relevant to the effective delivery of local government

services and these are often directly relevant to those that also affect the viability of local

governments. They include:

The size and geographical spread of the population.

Management effectiveness and efficiency.

The availability of staff expertise.

Appropriate infrastructure and equipment.

Customer satisfaction and feedback.


4. Consultation

4.1 Meetings with Affected Local Governments

Meeting with the City of Swan

The Board met with councillors and staff of the City of Swan on 12 October 2016 to

discuss the inquiry process and the City’s position on the proposal and to give them the

opportunity to provide further information about their boundary amendment proposal.

In her role as deputy, Mary Adam acted as Chair, as Mel Congerton had declared an

interest in the proposal, as he is a ratepayer in the City of Swan.

The City provided a summarised history of and background to, their proposal to the Board,

referring back to the commencement of the Metropolitan Local Government Reform (metro

reform) process in 2009, and the irregular boundary with the Shire of Mundaring,

discussing the possibility of an amalgamation with Mundaring at the time.

Swan had subsequently provided a submission during the metro reform period and stated

that they had agreed with the key findings of the Robson Review.

The current proposal to the Board had originated from the potential development of the

affected area, with the City of Belmont then engaging with the City of Swan to seek some

further options/solutions to the issue.

The City of Swan had subsequently made the current proposal to the Board.

The City advised that Lot 301 was the property which provided the original catalyst for the

submission and subsequent discussions with the City of Belmont, where they had agreed

on the Ivy Street alignment.

The City of Swan had also looked at the eight general criteria for assessment – and

determined that only three were relevant:

Community of interest – the area in question is an industrial/commercial area, with

the boundary bisecting private land holdings.

Transport and communication.

Effective delivery of local government services – ie the owners will eventually only

have to deal with one local government.

The City noted that Apec Way (part of Lot 2) is a private road and is therefore unlikely to

affect any neighbouring properties. The City stated that they would have preferred the

Board to consider their proposal as one of a minor nature – but acknowledged that it’s the

Board’s prerogative and responsibility to ultimately decide to go to an Inquiry.


It was also clarified that Lot 301 will include a carpark for the proposed residential

development. The owner of that Lot had indicated that their major concern was regarding

planning for Lot 301, and the carpark area for the proposed residential development.

The City suggested that Liebherr is also likely to provide a submission to the Board during

the Inquiry period, as they are concerned about a potential increase in their rates (City of

Swan rates are higher than City of Belmont’s).

It was noted that the City of Swan had engaged in discussions with the City of Belmont to

a point, after which Swan had taken their proposal to council.

It was advised that the City of Swan had written to all three landowners and the City of

Belmont about the City of Swan proposal.

The City advised that the objections from the Lot 3 affected landowners was mostly based

on the potential for increased rates. However Lot 301 appears to be more concerned

about the development proposals. The City hadn’t heard from the Lot 2 landowners as

they’ll continue to stay within the City of Swan.

Meeting with the City of Belmont

The Board also met with councillors and staff of the City of Belmont on 12 October 2016

and Mary Adam again chaired the meeting.

The City gave a PowerPoint presentation, which included:

Pros and cons of the City of Swan proposal.

The planning impetus for Lot 301.

Pros and cons of the City of Belmont (alternative) proposal.

The impetus for change (DeMol Investments).

A brief history of the consultation between the Cities of Swan and Belmont on

the matter.

City of Belmont’s assets and rates.

City of Belmont staff spoke further on the City’s alternative proposal which incorporates

DA9 and Lot 301 concept plan, the Ascot Foreshore master plan.

A special council meeting was scheduled to be held the following week on Tuesday

18 October.

Reference was also made to the difference in rates between the councils, with Belmont

being 5.3 cents in the dollar and Swan 12 cents in the dollar.

Belmont advised that they had not yet had the opportunity to discuss their alternative

boundary proposal with Swan.


The Board noted that the City of Belmont provided a comprehensive review of how the

proposed boundary fits into their long term integrated plans. The City explained that

transport linkages for the affected properties (now and into the future) are through the City

of Belmont.

4.2 Public Hearings

The Board conducted a public hearing in accordance with clause 5 of Schedule 2.1 of

the Act.

The Act requires that any hearing for the purpose of an inquiry is to be conducted in a way

that makes it as easy as possible for interested parties to participate fully in the process.

The Board held a public hearing on 12 October 2016 at the Centenary Park Community

Centre, Belmont.

The public hearing was attended by seven people, including four representatives from the

City of Belmont.

The Managing Director of SITE Planning + Design, representing Demol Investments (Lot

301), made a presentation to the Board, including a detailed history of the proposed

boundary change. A hard copy of the presentation was provided to the Board. The

presentation included the following points:

At present, their client, Demol Investments (Lot 301) pays 82 per cent of their rates

to the City of Belmont and the remaining 18 per cent to the City of Swan.

That following open discussions regarding the potential boundary change, the City

of Swan subsequently made a resolution at a confidential council meeting on

23 March, which did not include consultation with the affected landowners on the

proposal that was resolved on.

SITE Planning + Design have also undertaken extensive discussions with WAPC,

City of Belmont, and the Department of Parks and Wildlife.

Lot 301 relies on Great Eastern Highway access – which comes under the City of

Belmont.

Development approvals would not necessarily be held up should the boundary

change proceed and City of Swan planning staff had indicated that they would apply

similar zoning to the City of Belmont.

The representative of the owners of Lot 3, Liebherr, advised that they had been

approached by the City of Belmont regarding the proposed boundary change, and had no

objections to the City’s suggestion, as the bulk of the property is rated by Belmont and

they are currently satisfied with the services provided by Belmont. Liebherr stated that to

date they had only had limited contact with the City of Swan and were somewhat

disappointed by that, considering the current proposal before the Board.


Liebherr’s key concern is transport access to their business, as eventually the only access

would be via Redcliffe Road.

Liebherr stated that they didn’t object to the status quo, but did object to the City of Swan

proposal, as their preference is for all of their lot to fall within the City of Belmont. They

also noted that they hadn’t heard anything further from Swan following their initial contact,

which was prior to the City’s confidential council meeting.

The City of Belmont CEO noted the City’s position in relation to the City of Swan’s

boundary change proposal, and that they would be holding a special council meeting the

following Tuesday, 18 October.

The CEO advised that Belmont would be submitting an alternative proposal – however, he

could not pre-empt Council’s decision on the issue. To date, City of Belmont had not yet

consulted with the property adjoining Liebherr.

4.3 Analysis of Public Submissions

The consultation period commenced on 8 September 2016 and concluded on 20 October

2016. The Board received five written submissions in total, including one from the City of

Belmont. All five opposed the proposal.

Table 2: Submission Results

Support Oppose Total

0 5 5

0% 100% 100%

There are three main industrial properties in the affected area.

There were a number of matters which were raised in the public submissions, these being:

While the boundary change would be to the financial benefit of the City Swan,

the opposite is true for the City of Belmont – i.e. it would result in a financial loss

for them.

If the proposal was to go ahead, it was suggested that the residents of the City of

Belmont should be compensated for the loss in rates.

Park land between Great Eastern Highway (GEH) adjoins the City of Belmont land

and should be retained as a complete nature strip.

People living in the Tibradden Estate (on the opposite side of GEH, in Ascot) could

potentially be affected by planning decisions made by the City of Swan. Current

zonings could also be altered.


Access to/from GEH is a critical issue for the affected lots. Main Roads WA

(MRWA) plans may impact future access.

Ongoing development of the Forrestfield Airport Link, Perth Airport Masterplan and

Development Area 6, which all currently sit within the City of Belmont, ensure that

current requirements can be addressed as these important projects are delivered.

While there was some initial consultation with the City of Belmont and affected

landowners, the City of Swan subsequently tabled a confidential item at a meeting

of full council (March 2016) and resolved to submit a request to the Board seeking

the inclusion of Lot 301 wholly within the City of Swan.

Therefore, there was no consultation undertaken by the City of Swan, prior to the

item being tabled at full council or submission of the request to the Board.

Concern was expressed that the City of Swan’s submission to the Board requested

that the proposal be deemed a minor matter. Had the proposal progressed in that

way, affected landowners may not have been consulted nor had the opportunity to

address the Board.

There were some concerns regarding the land use planning and development

framework that is currently in place, and the associated uncertainty about the

framework should Lot 301 be wholly included within the City of Swan and the

possible detrimental impact on development potential and land value.

There were some concerns regarding provision, management and funding of local

services and community facilities, including for example, vehicle access, upgrades

to GEH, payment of rates to City of Belmont, Lot 301 is largely isolated from the

City of Swan and its community services and facilities.

Development and approvals process certainty - Demol Investments would be

seeking certainty prior to the lodgement of applications for the redevelopment of Lot

301 and the river foreshore landscape works.

Based on the fact that all of the five submissions received opposed the proposal, it could

be concluded that the majority of affected businesses in the affected area do not support

the transfer of land from the City of Belmont to the City of Swan.


5. Assessment of the Proposal –

Matters Considered by the Board

5.1 Community of Interests

The issue of community of interests emerged as an important consideration during the

inquiry. In their proposal to the Board, the City of Swan stated that one of the most

relevant criteria to this proposal is communities of interest. The City of Swan noted to the

Board that the area subject of the proposal is an industrial/commercial area with the

boundary bisecting private land holdings. Furthermore, boundaries bisecting individual

properties are not to be favoured and do not accord with the considerations for the

Local Government Advisory Board when assessing local government boundary changes.

In contrast, the City of Belmont submitted to the Board that encompassing the entirety

of Lots 2, 3 and 301 within Belmont reflects a distinct community of interest by ensuring

that the industrial community is retained as a whole along the southern side of the

Great Eastern Highway.

Both of the local governments and the landowners agree that the lots should entirely fall in

one local government. Representatives of Lots 3 and 301 attended the public hearing and

provided submissions to the Board. Both advised that they object to the City of Swan

proposal for the lots to be fully in the City of Swan and that their strong preference is for

the lots to be entirely located within the City of Belmont.

Note - The City of Belmont has submitted a proposal to the Board with an alternative

boundary adjustment which sees all three lots in the City of Belmont. The Board will deal

with that proposal separately.

5.2 Physical and Topographic Features

Boundary is clear

The City of Swan’s proposal notes that the current boundary between the City of Swan

and the City of Belmont bisects the airport and three industrial lots. The City of Swan

advised the Board that it considers that the best boundary alignment is along Ivy Street.

This is a physical boundary which creates a straight line between the river and the airport

with a minor deviation to follow the private road (Apac Way) that forms part of Lot 2.

The Board acknowledges that the current boundary is therefore neither logical nor

particularly effective.


The City of Belmont submitted an alternative district boundary to the Board which will

partly follow the existing Perth airport boundary aligned with Lot 2, the road reserve toward

the Swan River and then proceed along existing Crown and State holdings to the Swan

River. The City of Belmont believe this is a clearly defined boundary and that it is in line

with the boundary alignment request of the landowners of Lot 301, the instigator of the

boundary change request.

See maps of the boundary adjustments proposed by both the City of Swan and the City of

Belmont in Attachments 1 to 3.

Relevant physical and topographical features

The City of Swan is proposing the amendment of its district boundary with the City of

Belmont so that the entirety of Lot 2 (Apac Way), Lot 3 (Ivy Street) and Lot 301 (Great

Eastern Highway) are wholly located in the City of Swan. Ivy Street is proposed, according

to the City of Swan, as the most logical boundary.

The City of Swan states that in assessing the physical and topographical features of the

immediate area, there is a logical boundary following Ivy Street. This ensures that the local

government boundary in this area follows that physical feature and does not follow the rear

of property boundaries and that the boundary is not irregularly shaped.

Both the City of Belmont and SITE Planning + Design (representatives of the owners of

Lot 301) informed the Board that a significant development proposal is currently being

prepared for Lot 301.

SITE Planning + Design advised that a development application for Lot 301 (submitted to

the City of Belmont in 2015) includes 217 multiple residential dwellings, office tenancies

and a restaurant. They also state that Lot 301 is largely excluded and isolated from the

City of Swan by a substantial ‘parks and recreational reserve’ which forms a physical and

topographic feature appropriate in determining the district boundary.

The Board noted the above information and assessed that the boundary proposed by

the City of Swan may not be the best and most logical boundary for the area. This is

particularly relevant when taking into consideration the proposed developments in the

area, including the Swan River foreshore reserve area which the owner of Lot 301 has

undertaken to landscape and develop.

5.3 Demographic Trends

Not applicable to this proposal.


5.4 Economic Factors

The major economic factor pertaining to this particular area relates to the extensive

property redevelopment proposed for Lot 301 which is discussed above at point 5.2.

The City of Belmont has advised the Board that it has worked closely with the owners of

Lot 301 on their development proposals to enhance economic development in the area.

There would be some loss of rating income to the City of Belmont arising from the City of

Swan’s proposal. The Board considers that the loss of income to the City of Belmont is

minor in the context of the total rate revenues of both the City of Swan ($157.8 million) and

the City of Belmont ($58.4 million).

The owners of Lot 301 (through SITE Planning + Design), informed the Board that they

mainly make use of the City of Belmont’s road network and in the future, residents of the

proposed redeveloped Lot 301 will use Belmont’s amenities and facilities. Therefore, they

see very few benefits from the payment of rates to the City of Swan.

The Board overall assessed both local governments to be viable and sustainable into

the future irrespective of which local government receives the rating income from the

affected properties.

5.5 History of the Area


5.6 Transport and Communications

The Board’s Guiding Principles identifies that transport and communication linkages may

constitute significant barriers to movement and provide appropriate boundaries between

local governments. The issue of transport and road access and linkages emerged as a

consideration during the inquiry.

Roads

During the submission period, the City of Belmont advised the Board that the owners of

Lot 301, Lot 3 & Lot 2 have existing restricted access to Great Eastern Highway with an

implication that Lot 2’s access will be further restricted by MRWA in the future. The

predominant access to and from all of these lots is via the City of Belmont

road network.

In their submission to the Board, representatives of the owners of Lot 3 (Liebherr Group)

advise that Lot 3 is bounded by Great Eastern Highway (under MRWA jurisdiction),

Ivy Street (City of Belmont), Apac Way (owned by Wirtgen with right of carriageway

pursuant to Easement F91589891) and Wirtgen’s Lot 2.


Liebherr Group state that their day to day freight and vehicle access is via Redcliffe Road

(City of Belmont) or Ivy Street and Apac Way. They move heavy haulage loads directly

onto Great Eastern Highway.


In their submission to the Board, SITE Planning + Design (on behalf of the owners of Lot

301) state that as no vehicle access is permitted directly onto Great Eastern Highway from

Lot 301, all vehicle access is provided via the City of Belmont including Ivy Street (and in

the future, Fauntleroy Ave) to connect to the wider road network. The current upgrade of

Great Eastern Highway will restrict access to the Highway from Ivy Street, which will

increase the use of Hay Road and Fauntleroy Ave, both under the control of the

City of Belmont.

Furthermore, SITE Planning + Design advise that the owner of Lot 301 recently funded

and completed construction of the extension of Hay Road through to Ivy Street in

coordination with the City of Belmont and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

5.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments


5.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services

In their submission, the City of Belmont advised the Board that the owner of Lot 301 has

other property holdings south of Ivy Street and has instigated a major development

application that encompasses Department of Planning land adjacent to Lot 301 and

abutting the Swan River, which will facilitate the upgrade of recreational land in Belmont.

Additionally, the landowner has invested significant capital in constructing road access to

Lot 301 via Hay Road, which is in the City of Belmont.

The City of Belmont also notes that the future development proposals will potentially lead

to an increase in the residential population. Residents will mainly access road networks,

recreational services, community facilities and retail outlets all located in the City of

Belmont.

In their proposal, the City of Swan states that boundaries bisecting individual properties

does not result in effective delivery of local government services as the properties are

rated and serviced by two local governments. While the City of Swan acknowledge that the

effective delivery of local government services is a relevant criteria for the Board to

consider, no further information was provided.

The City of Belmont advised that their current assets include significant storm water

drainage infrastructure located in Ivy Street and the surrounding area, and that they wish

to retain these assets into the future.


5.9 Other Matters

Alternative Boundary

In response to the City of Swan proposal, the City of Belmont has proposed an alternative

boundary amendment (see Attachment 3). The City of Belmont’s alternative district

boundary will partly follow the existing Perth Airport boundary aligned with Lot 2, the road

reserve toward the Swan River and then proceed along existing Crown and State Land

holdings to the Swan River.

The City of Belmont has advised the Board that their proposed alternative boundary will

resolve the current issues confronted by the owners of Lot 301 (split rating and zoning)

and fulfil their request for the boundary amendment.

The City of Belmont also note that the proposal is supported by the owner of Lot 3 Ivy

Street and the owner of Lot 2 Apac Way. It brings Lot 2, currently isolated to within a

precinct of similar community interest, activity and all associated in one local government.

As mentioned earlier in this report, the Board will deal with the City of Belmont proposal

separate to this report which is focussed on the City of Swan proposal.

Redevelopment

Planning and development matters emerged as a major issue for this inquiry, with the

redevelopment of Lot 301 being the main reason the owners of Lot 301 have strongly

objected to the City of Swan’s proposal.

Approximately 18 per cent of Lot 301 falls within the City of Swan and the Board has been

informed by SITE Planning + Design that this portion is not zoned with the result that land

use permissibility and development standards are undefined. The zoning (or lack of

appropriate zoning) and potential delays for development approvals provides uncertainty

for the landowner.

In addition to the redevelopment matters mentioned elsewhere in this report, SITE

Planning + Design have informed the Board that they were in discussions with both local

governments following the landowners redevelopment submission in 2015. The

discussions included zoning of the land and planning approvals. Subsequently, a written

request was submitted to both local governments noting previous discussions and

preliminary advice that the Cities of Belmont and Swan agreed that Lot 301 would be

wholly included within the City of Belmont. Furthermore, they understood that a joint

submission would be made to the Board to that effect.

The City of Belmont and the owners of Lot 301 have noted their disappointment that the

City of Swan considered a confidential item and resolved to request that the Board

amends the boundary to include Lot 301 in the City of Swan as a minor matter.


6. Conclusion

The Board is of the view that where possible, individual properties should not be bisected

and be situated in more than one local government.

In addition to the matters detailed in this report, the Board considered the proposed land

use planning of the affected area and noted that the redevelopment of Lot 301 is quite

advanced.

Main transport linkages and road networks used by the affected lots are currently in the

City of Belmont and this will remain into the future. It is evident that the City of Belmont is

already heavily involved in upgrades to the road networks in the area (with MRWA) and

they are currently responsible for the maintenance of roads servicing the affected lots.

At least two of the three landowners oppose the City of Swan proposal, with one

landowner commenting that they would prefer the status quo rather than the boundary

amendment proposed by the City of Swan. These landowners have provided their strong

support for the City of Belmont’s alternative proposal.

After conducting this inquiry, and taking the matters before them into consideration, the

Board finds that there is a strong case to reject the City of Swan’s proposal and

recommends accordingly.


7. Recommendation

Recommendation:

That in accordance with the clause 6(1)(a) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government

Act 1995, the Minister for Local Government rejects the proposal submitted by the City of

Swan to amend the boundary between the City of Swan and the City of Belmont to an

alignment down Ivy Street.


Attachment 1 – City of Swan proposal

Existing (top) and proposed (lower) district boundaries for the Cities of Swan and Belmont


Attachment 2 – Aerial view of affected land


Attachment 3 – City of Belmont proposal

Current and proposed boundary


For more information, please contact:

Local Government Advisory Board

Gordon Stephenson House, 140 William Street, Perth WA 6000

GPO Box R1250, Perth WA 6844

Telephone: (08) 6552 1500 Fax: (08) 6552 1555

Freecall: 1800 620 511 (Country callers only)

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.dlgc.wa.gov.au//AboutUs/Pages/LGAB.aspx

Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) – Telephone: 13 14 50

All or part of this document may be copied. Due recognition of the source would be

appreciated.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dlgc.wa.gov.au/

Documents

Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) · 2017. 1. 17. · Membership of Advisory Board The Advisory Board consists of five members appointed by the Governor of Western Australia