Parking reversal call

Subiaco councillors Murray Rowe, Paul Clements, Mark Burns and Hugh Richardson with plans for the site. Picture: Andrew Ritchie www.communitypix.com.au d414689
Subiaco councillors Murray Rowe, Paul Clements, Mark Burns and Hugh Richardson with plans for the site. Picture: Andrew Ritchie www.communitypix.com.au d414689

Crs Stephanie Stroud, Murray Rowe, Paul Clements and Hugh Richardson signed Mr Burns’ revocation motion so it can be considered at the February 18 committee meeting.

Mr Burns said engaging a contract to demolish existing buildings at 47 and 48 Denis Street and expand the car park by seven bays was ‘not in the best interests of the community’.

‘I agree that we do have a parking problem in Subiaco, but it is never going to be solved by the City spending millions of dollars to add just seven extra bays,’ he said.

‘By my calculations, arguably, take into account the land value is between $9 and $10 million then each of the 91 bays would be valued at about $110,000.

‘There would be no problem with looking at alternatives like basement-style car parking or adopting car lifters and independent mechanical vehicle storage that is taking place all over the city. At-grade, straight-level parking is very yesterday.’

Subiaco chief executive Stephen Tindale said the planned car park would add 11 new bays.

Mr Tindale said the City could not provide any further details before the February 18 meeting.

Cr Lee Hemsley said the revocation motion was an ‘ad-hoc, shoot-from-the-hip response’ and not conducive to good governance.

‘At-grade car parking on this site is the do-able and financially responsible thing,’ Cr Hemsley said.

‘It has taken administration a very long time to come up with the plan for this car park.

‘Now, just before councillors will be given the opportunity to look at the figures and costings, Mark Burns wants to scrap the whole lot. I am not against car parking, but I believe council should not be denied the opportunity to see this report.’

Cr Clements said he supported the revocation motion going to council because the economic landscape had changed.

‘Retail is on a fine edge and it is very delicate to do anything, so we have to get this right,’ he said.