Coun­cil num­bers fo­cus of re­view

Western Suburbs Weekly - - News - Denise S. Cahill

ABOL­ISH­ING wards is among op­tions coun­cils such as the cities of Subiaco and Rock­ing­ham and towns of Cottes­loe and Cam­bridge are ask­ing their ratepay­ers to con­sider dur­ing a ward and rep­re­sen­ta­tion re­view.

The cities of Stir­ling and Fre­man­tle are sug­gest­ing changes to ward bound­aries.

Lo­cal gov­ern­ments that op­er­ate with wards have to re­view their ward bound­aries and coun­cil­lor rep­re­sen­ta­tion ev­ery eight years.

The City of Perth Act 2016 trig­gered the last re­view for Subiaco two years ago and the City has re­leased its lat­est re­view for pub­lic com­ment un­til Novem­ber 6, with five op­tions:

■ Op­tion 1 – No wards (6, 8, 10 or 12 coun­cil­lors and mayor);

■ Op­tion 2A – Two wards (East-west) - 8 or 12 coun­cil­lors and mayor;

■ Op­tion 2B – Two wards (North-south) - 8 or 12 coun­cil­lors and mayor;

■ Op­tion 3 – Three wards – 6 or 12 coun­cil­lors and mayor;

■ Op­tion 4 – Four wards – 8 or 12 coun­cil­lors and mayor.

Subiaco Mayor Penny Tay­lor said the re­view was about the fu­ture struc­ture of the Subiaco Coun­cil to en­sure it was eq­ui­table.

“The com­mu­nity wants Coun­cil to do its job: lis­ten to all and make dis­cern­ing de­ci­sions,” she said.

“By par­tic­i­pat­ing in the re­view you can give feed­back on the struc­ture that you think will best rep­re­sent your in­ter­ests and al­low for good gov­er­nance and de­ci­sion mak­ing.”

Visit www.havey­our­say.subiaco.wa.gov.au/war dreview.

Cottes­loe has re­leased its re­view for pub­lic com­ment, ask­ing for feed­back on keep­ing four wards, eight coun­cil­lors and a di­rectly elected mayor, or no wards with eight coun­cil­lors and a di­rectly elected mayor.

A third op­tion is no wards with six coun­cil­lors and an elected mayor and the fourth is three wards with six coun­cil­lors and an elected mayor.

Res­i­dents have un­til Novem­ber 21 to com­ment at www.cottes­loe.wa.gov.au.

Stir­ling has pre­sented four op­tions to its ratepay­ers:

■ Op­tion 1a – Cur­rent ward struc­ture with mi­nor re­align­ment of the bound­ary be­tween Dou­ble­view and Hamer­s­ley wards;

■ Op­tion 1b – Cur­rent ward struc­ture with mi­nor re­align­ment of the bound­ary be­tween the Coastal, Dou­ble­view and Hamer­s­ley wards;

■ Op­tion 1c – Cur­rent ward struc­ture with mi­nor re­align­ment of the bound­ary be­tween the Coastal, Dou­ble­view, Hamer­s­ley and Os­borne wards;

■ Op­tion 2 – Four ward struc­ture.

Make a sub­mis­sion at www.your­say.stir­ling.wa.g ov.au/wardreview by Novem­ber 2.

Com­ments on Fre­man­tle’s re­view close on Novem­ber 16. Its op­tions in­clude main­tain­ing the sta­tus quo pend­ing pop­u­la­tion in­creases trig­gered by up­com­ing de­vel­op­ment in the City, ad­just­ing the bound­ary be­tween Bea­cons­field and Hil­ton wards to ad­dress the Lo­cal Govern­ment Ad­vi­sory Board’s pre­ferred de­vi­a­tion per­cent­age and hold­ing a com­pre­hen­sive re­view and re­con­fig­u­ra­tion of all bound­aries.

Some coun­cils such as the Town of Bassendean, Shire of Mur­ray and cities of Bayswa­ter, Cock­burn, Joon­dalup, Wan­neroo, Gos­nells and Ar­madale have held re­views and in some cases made changes.

Penny Tay­lor

Phil Angers

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.