Num­ber of sub­mis­sions was big, not small

Western Suburbs Weekly - - Western Opinion -

THE last para­graph in a re­port in last week’s edi­tion head­lined “Re­zon­ing de­bate rages” talks about 55 sub­mis­sions sway­ing five coun­cil­lors. This is in­cor­rect. There were 75 sub­mis­sions in ob­jec­tion of the pro­posed Amend­ment – this rep­re­sents 64 per cent of all sub­mis­sions made.

It was also the most ob­jec­tions re­ceived by Cottes­loe coun­cil in years.

The ar­ti­cle made it sound like a small num­ber, but in re­al­ity 75 (or even 55) is a big num­ber when talk­ing about ob­jec­tions and lo­cal coun­cil.

I think this para­graph mis­rep­re­sents the true sit­u­a­tion.

A large num­ber of sup­port­ers who wrote to coun­cil in favour of the pro­posed Amend­ment are ei­ther mem­bers of the Swan­bourne Vil­lage Trust or stand to make fi­nan­cial gain from the Amend­ment.

A high num­ber of these sup­port­ers are not even res­i­dents or ratepay­ers of Cottes­loe.

I think it is im­por­tant for these facts to be high­lighted.

In­cor­rect in­for­ma­tion could have dev­as­tat­ing re­sults, not just for this pro­posed Amend­ment, but for the prece­dent this Amend­ment will set for Cottes­loe if ap­proved. Nicole Osborne,

Cottes­loe.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.