No veto vote for res­i­dents

Southern Gazette (South Perth) - - NEWS -

RES­I­DENTS af­fected by devel­op­ment pro­pos­als “can­not be given the power of veto”, ac­cord­ing to a report pre­sented at last week’s As­cot Wa­ters spe­cial elec­tors meet­ing.

The report ad­dressed con­cerns raised in a pe­ti­tion signed by al­most 300 res­i­dents op­posed to the pro­posal to build a 15-storey re­tire­ment vil­lage.

“There is a sig­nif­i­cant need for aged care ac­com­mo­da­tion in the City of Bel­mont but also in the Perth metropolitan area as the baby boomers have en­tered re­tire­ment age and peo­ple gen­er­ally are liv­ing longer,” it said.

“The coun­cil must make de­ci­sions for the ben­e­fit of the en­tire com­mu­nity of the City of Bel­mont, now and fu­ture gen­er­a­tions.

“Those who are di­rectly af­fected by a devel­op­ment pro­posal can­not be given the power of veto.”

In March 2014, 52 Grand­stand Road was val­ued at $3.15 mil­lion.

A new val­u­a­tion will be un­der­taken and re­ported to coun­cil as part of any rec­om­men­da­tion to fi­nalise and ad­ver­tise a con­tract of sale.

Re­spond­ing to claims that res­i­dents have been mis­led, the report said they had been in­formed in ac­cor­dance with the “rel­e­vant leg­is­la­tion”.

And re­spond­ing to claims that the process had been “fun­da­men­tally flawed” it said the city had ex­ceeded its pub­lic no­tice re­quire­ments.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.