Applecross: concerns raised about Canning Bridge Activity Centre Plan submissions

Stock image.
Stock image.

QUESTIONS have been asked about the submissions received for the City of Melville’s review of a section of the Canning Bridge Activity Centre Plan (CBACP).

The City received 87 submissions as part of its review of the H4 area, which included proposals relating to lot sizes, building height and mezzanine levels.

At Tuesday’s briefing session, councillor Nicholas Pazolli pointed out that 21 of the submissions were near identical to one form and 32 were near identical to another form.

The submissions have been kept confidential, with the City citing the privacy of the submitters as a priority.

City strategic urban planning manager Gavin Ponton noted that a number of the submissions were similar but they had come from separate entities.

In his report, Mr Ponton has pointed to the stakeholder engagement to the proposed amendments producing mixed responses with 57 of the 87 submissions showing support for the CBACP as it currently stood and wanting clarification on “interpretation of terms and minor amendments to improve the operation of the plan”.

Chief executive Marten Tieleman said the inclusion of an address was not a requirement to make a submission to an amendment to an activity centre plan but the City would consider the value of adding an address field when inviting online submissions.

“Individuals submitting mutual or repetitive submissions is common during public consultation, so there is no concern with the fact that some submissions are repetitive,” he said.

“With regards to the review of the H4 area a number of repetitive submissions were received both in support and in opposition to the proposed amendments.”

Mr Tieleman said he was confident the submissions came from different sources.

As part of the review, the City’s administration is recommending the council tick off including references to natural ground level and finished floor levels in relation to building height and adding a definition of mezzanine.

In its July resolution, the council had indicated it wanted the development of four-storey and 16m-high buildings within Q1 and Q2 of the H4 zone to be restricted to sites that achieve a minimum of 25m continuous street frontage and a minimum lot size of 1200sqm with sitesnot achieving this restricted to three-storeys and 12m.

The report showed that 59 submissions were opposed to this, 13 supported it and five people gave another response with the amendment labelled as disabling development in the zone.

The council will make a decision at its December 11 meeting.

Bateman MLA Dean Nalder said disclosure was an important part of transparency and giving the public access to viewpoints they may not have considered could only contribute to a healthier debate.

“By not disclosing any submissions, we can only speculate about what people have actually said,” he said.

“Council’s secrecy puts at risk their credibility on any claims they are responding to the community, because nobody but the council knows what the community has actually said.”