Proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board. (October 2016)

CITY OF BELMONT

Heading here Heading here

Prepared by the City of Belmont Tel: (08) 94774 7200 Fax: (08) 9478 1473 Email: [email protected] Website: www.belmont.wa.gov.au

Contents

Executive Summary 2 Nature of the Proposal 3 Reasons for making the Proposal 5 Concluding Remark 8 Effect of the Proposal on the local governments 8

Executive Summary

The This proposal will address the request of the instigator, the owner of Lot 301 Great Eastern Highway and other similar property and district boundary Imperative anomalies within the immediate vicinity. It will recommend a district boundary extension to deliver the best outcome for property owners, the City of Belmont and future residents associated with the development at Lot 301.

Council Responsibility The Council of the City of Belmont recognises its responsibility under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995. Local governments are subjected to significant scrutiny over probity, governance, and due process obligations. Sections 2.8(2) and 2.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 require all council members to represent the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents of their districts. S.2.8(2) applies s.2.10 to elector mayors and presidents, and s.2.10(a) provides: ‘A councillor - (a) represents the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents of the district; …’

The City of Belmont has communicated its intent to the three property owner/representatives impacted by this proposal.

Legislative Objectives The City of Belmont proposal placed before the Local Government Advisory Board (the Board) and the Minister for Local Government, Hon Paul Miles MLA has been prepared to accord with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995.

Good Essentially governance at the City is about the way the organisation is controlled and directed, or alternatively, the process by which decisions are Governance made and implemented. It incorporates all parts of the organisation, including service delivery, public consultation and input, decision making processes, asset management and financial management. At the City of Belmont, governance is often described as “how the Council goes about its business” and is adaptable to the proposed new district. This proposal will deliver demonstrable good governance. The City of Belmont applies governance principles based upon a corporate, public sector and community based model. The structures and processes adopted by the City to ensure that its accountability and relationships to its residents, employees and stakeholders reflect:  Sound principles,  Ethical behaviour,  Robust procedures,  Democratic accountability,  Openness,  Transparency,  Clearly assigned roles and responsibilities,  Responsive frameworks for community participation, and  Fiscal responsibility.

The City of Belmont also applies a range of best practice methods to maintain its governance, inclusive of policies relating to decision making and the quasi judicial function of decision making, applied business excellence and quality assurance methodologies.

Nature of the Proposal

The matter was initially instigated by representatives of Lot 301 Great Eastern Highway (GEH), Ascot which is currently located predominantly within the City of Belmont (8,292m2), with a portion (1,812m2) of the lot also located within the City of Swan. Following is a brief chronological sequence of events:

1. The City received a letter of request dated 19 October 2015, Attachment 1, from the Spatial Group (now Site Planning & Design) on behalf of the property owner (DeMol Investments Pty Ltd) for the City to initiate a request to change the district boundary relating to Lot 301 GEH, Ascot. The Spatial Group requested that “Given the site is predominantly within the City of Belmont and is already zoned under LPS 15, it is proposed to amend the government boundary to include Lot 301 wholly within the City of Belmont”.

2. In a letter to the City of Swan dated the 19th October 2015, Attachment 2, the Spatial Group also requested that the City of Swan “prepare a request to the Local Government Advisory Board for the district boundary to be amended to exclude Lot 301 from the City of Swan municipal area”.

Spatial Group Boundary suggested change.

3. The City’s intent from the outset was to work in a cooperative manner with the applicant and the City of Swan on a joint proposal to the Board. Communication with Swan dated 21 December 2015 indicates a similar intention where officers from Swan stated: “I have an initial draft report that I need to polish and want to confirm that Belmont is happy to proceed with a joint submission to initiate the minor change as discussed.”

4. December 23, 2015: the City notified Swan of a similar matter, Attachment 3, at Lot 3 Ivy Street and requested if Swan is in favour of “the boundary amendment” and an investigation into Lot 3, which presents with the same problem.

Note: Lot 3 Ivy Street, directly opposite Lot 301, had previously been recognised by the City of Belmont as a parcel of property divided over two district boundaries. If a boundary proposal was to be put forward to the Local Government Advisory Board then both properties could be dealt with in the one proposal.

5. January 11, 2016: Email confirmation received from Swan that at an officer level, the City of Swan is happy to consider a boundary change that deals with both properties that are currently split by the Belmont/Swan boundary... It was also indicated of Swan’s awareness that Belmont was consulting with the owner of 555 (Lot 3) Ivy Street for their view of any boundary change and that they will wait to hear from Belmont when a response is received.

6. January 18, 2016: the City of Belmont sends a letter, Attachment 4, to Lot 3 Ivy Street property owners (Liebherr Australia) requesting feedback on whether they would support or object a proposal to change the municipal boundary to bring the entirety of their property within the Belmont district.

7. February 5, 2016: Liebherr (Lot 3) write, Attachment 5, to the City of Belmont confirming that they have no objections.

8. February 12, 2016: the City advises Swan that Liebherr (Lot 3) has provided written confirmation that they have no objection to the proposal of a district boundary change “which would result in the entirety of their premise falling within the City of Belmont district.” Swan acknowledges receipt of this on same.

9. February 24, 2016: the City writes to the Spatial Group, Attachment 6, (Lot 301) advising that the City and Swan have mutually agreed at an officer level to progress the matter further and that the matter will require a Council resolution and application to the LGAB. Furthermore, the City of Belmont is currently awaiting the result of the City of Swan resolution before it will determine the matter further.

10. March 31, 2016: the City of Swan writes to the City of Belmont, Attachment 7, advising that at a Council meeting held on the 23rd March 2016 the Swan Council resolved to lodge its own boundary alignment (an alignment which would encompass both Lot 301 and Lot 3 solely within the district of Swan). Furthermore the City of Swan advised that it had already lodged its proposal with the LGAB. In the same letter the City of Swan offered the City of Belmont an “opportunity to discuss the proposed boundary change”. See diagram below.

Note: Swan’s consideration at this Council meeting was by way of a confidential report. The invitation to discuss the proposed boundary change within Swan’s letter seemed somewhat futile when Swan had already submitted its proposal to the LGAB without prior or further consultation or communication on the matter with either the City of Belmont or the relevant property owners. The City of Belmont was, as is clearly indicated in this report, attempting to facilitate a joint submission which would have been of a minor nature.

City of Swan Boundary Change Proposal submitted to the LGAB (Moves City of Swan Boundary south to Ivy Street)

11. May 5, 2016: Liebherr (Lot 3) write to the City of Swan, Attachment 8, objecting to the City of Swan boundary change proposal.

12. May 20, 2016: the City of Belmont writes to the Board advising of its concern to the City of Swan proposal, seeking input and consultation with the Board and providing an overview of the chain of events.

As the City of Belmont has a responsibility to do what is best for the community of Belmont, it has sort to lodge a proposal for the Boards consideration. In the words required by the Local Government Advisory Board:

The City of Belmont, being an affected local government within the meaning of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA), resolved to submit a proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board, pursuant to clause 2 (1) of Schedule 2.1 of the LGA, that orders be made by the Governor under Section 2.1 of the LGA which would vary the boundary between the district of the City of Belmont, as so constituted, and the district of City of Swan; in accordance with the plan indicated as Figure 1 illustrating the proposed changes.

The above represents the City of Belmont proposal in the context of a “boundary change” where the boundary of the City of Belmont is intended to be extended to parts of the City of Swan.

The boundary extension proposal is considered to be the most efficient and cost effective for the City of Belmont and the three private land holders impacted.

Reasons for making the Proposal

The following reasons are provided for the Boards consideration:

City of Belmont Proposed Alternative

Figure 1: City of Belmont Alternative Proposal to the LGAB.

Rationale of Alternative 1. The proposed 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. A clearly defined boundary.

2. It will resolve the current issues confronted by Lot 301 and fulfil the property owners request for the boundary amendment, DeMol Investments Pty Ltd.

3. It will maintain consistency for the significant development proposal presently being prepared for Lot 301 and assist by bringing MRS Parks & Recreation land currently split between two local governments under one local authority in terms of negotiation and future maintenance subsequent to development completion. See Below:

Figure 2: Lot 301 Development concept showing interaction with surrounding land.

Figure 3: Lot 301 Development concept showing interaction with surrounding land.

4. It will maintain consistency for DeMol Investments Pty Ltd, the owner of Lot 301, and other land holdings it has south of Ivy Street as they may relate to future development.

5. The development proposal at Lot 301 is contiguous with and supportive of DA9 south of Ivy Street and bounded by Hay Road.

6. It is supported by the property owner of Lot 3 Ivy Street, Liebherr Australia Pty Ltd.

7. It is supported by the property owner of Lot 2 Apac Way and will bring Lot 2, currently isolated, to within a precinct of similar community interest, activity and all associated in one local government.

8. It will maintain the existing revenue stream, with additional revenue from Lot 2 for the City of Belmont all of which supports the predominant use by these properties of the Belmont Road network.

9. It will maintain Belmont’s storm water drain infrastructure located in Ivy Street within the City of Belmont.

10. It caters for the predominant land access to Lots 301, 2, & 3 via the Belmont road network with consideration of future Main Roads restriction to Great Eastern Highway.

11. It considers future service utilisation and access for residents of the proposed development at Lot 301, which will be predominantly in the City of Belmont, direct this revenue stream and provide for elector eligibility to the appropriate local government.

12. There will be financial implications by way of a loss of rating revenue for the City of Swan. The revenue loss to the City of Swan under the City of Belmont proposal is significantly less than the potential revenue loss to the City of Belmont should the City of Swan proposal be accepted by the LGAB. Small revenue gains, relative to total rate revenue, through the inclusion of Lot 2 Apac Way will be received by the City of Belmont. Rate revenue currently received by the City of Belmont for Lot 301 Great Eastern Highway is $12,088.76 and Lot 3 Ivy Street $95,801.32 for 2016/17

Considering the 12 points listed above the following brief statements are made toward the Guidelines of the Board: Community of Interest Encompassing the entirety of Lots 2 and 3 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. Physical and Topographic Features The integration of human activity and land use is enhanced by extending the boundary to include State and Crown holdings so that parks and recreation land fall into one District. History of the Area 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 and has invested significant capital in constructing road access to Lot 301 via Hay Road in Belmont.

Demographic Trends The future development proposals potentially lead to an increase in the residential population. Residents will access City of Belmont services, road networks, recreational services, community facilities and retail outlets all located in Belmont. These residents should be eligible to be electors of Belmont and have their democratic vote in representation and development for services which they will principally use. Economic Factors The City of Belmont takes a progressive approach to foster and support economic development and growth throughout the business community. Consequently the City has worked closely with the Lot 301 development proposals to enhance economic development for the general area. Transport and Communication Future Main Roads plans propose restricted access to Great Eastern Highway (GEH) requiring Lots 301, 2 and 3 to predominantly access the City of Belmont road network. This is a pertinent point as Lots 2 & 3 is primarily heavy haulage businesses. Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments Additional small revenue gains, relative to total rate revenue, through the inclusion of Lot 2 Apac Way and minor portions of Lots 301 and 3 will be received by the City of Belmont. This supports the predominant use by these properties of the Belmont Road network. Effective Delivery of Local Government Services Encompassing Lot 301 within the one District enhances future service utilisation and access for residents for the proposed development, potentially 217 multiple residential dwellings, office tenancies and restaurants. It also allows for a seamless progression for the entirety of the development area under a single Local Planning Scheme and future servicing by a single local government authority.

Concluding Remark

This proposal the City places before the Board clearly demonstrates engagement with effected private land holders, consideration of a request instigated by the owner of Lot 301 Great Eastern Highway and a long term view toward solving a boundary anomaly as well as ongoing and future Great Eastern Highway access matters.

The solution will provide for consistency in term of development in the precinct, consideration of service utilisation, infrastructure management and revenue allocation.

Effect of the Proposal on the local governments

The effects of this proposal will result in the movement of the existing district boundary of City of Belmont north to encompass land presently split between Belmont and Swan to wholly within the City of Belmont

It is a logical solution that has given consideration to land owner needs, development matters, infrastructure and service utilisation, appropriate rate allocation from a services aspect as well as future elector representation based upon service accessibility.