Poor de­ci­sion

Wanneroo Times - - OPINION - KATE COUGH­LAN, Wan­neroo

RE ‘City’s block buster’

(Times, Novem­ber 20) and Wan­neroo coun­cil­lors’ de­ci­sion not to ini­ti­ate an amend­ment to the lo­cal plan­ning scheme.

The coun­cil­lors’ neg­a­tive de­ci­sion means that the Wan­neroo com­mu­nity has been de­nied the de­vel­op­ment of an aged care and se­niors liv­ing precinct, which would in­clude:

de­vel­op­ment and op­er­a­tion of an aged-care and se­niors liv­ing precinct;

de­vel­op­ment in­vest­ment of $80-$100 mil­lion;

pro­vi­sion of care ser­vices to over 400 res­i­dents across home care, res­i­den­tial aged care and re­tire­ment vil­las;

a home-care ser­vice for up to 100 res­i­dents in their own homes from an on-site fa­cil­ity;

em­ploy­ment of 200 to 300 staff in the City; and

an­nual rates and taxes of up to $150,000.

Most of us are not much in­ter­ested in re­zon­ing is­sues at coun­cil meet­ings.

If we were, there would be more peo­ple at­tend­ing them to lis­ten to how their elected mem­bers de­bate, or not, the rec­om­men­da­tions pre­sented by the plan­ners.

I’m aware that in most lo­cal gov­ern­ments a sym­bi­otic re­la­tion­ship ex­ists be­tween coun­cil­lors and the ad­min­is­tra­tion which some­times leads to poor de­ci­sion mak­ing. I think this de­ci­sion is an ex­am­ple of that. In my view, coun­cil­lors and City of Wan­neroo plan­ners failed to put the needs of the com­mu­nity and the ratepay­ers first.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.