newsletters

Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2008 4:36 PM
To: paolalovi@bigpond.com
Subject: Dalkeith

Paola,
Good to make contact and I do appreciate the spirit you have shown in discussing issues such as this.

There are a couple of points I would like to clarify and then it is over to the decision makers. I have often said that, in the end it is your town and you are entitled to make what ever decision you choose. All I ask is that those decisions are made based upon good information. Unfortunately, that is not always the case and in this case, a number of people are using it for their own advantage.

It also annoys the heck out of me to see comments about officers having an agenda. The plain fact is that we don't. We do not wake up in the morning and start working on ways to stuff the place up. I have the utmost faith in people like Carlie, her skills and her integrity and the vast majority of my officers love Nedlands and want to see the best for the Community.
That said:

Attempts have been made for the last thirteen years to have Council's Town Planning Scheme amended and updated.
Last year, The Minister indicated that she would no longer deal with spot rezonings and amendments to the existing scheme, forcing Council's hand on the matter.
Late 2006, Council adopted the Housing Diversity Study as a prerequisite to the Scheme review.
The first area identified was Stirling Highway but it soon became clear that, with the development of Claremont, Waratah Ave needed to be considered as a priority.
Land owners in the shopping centre are losing tenants and there is nothing worse for an area than empty shops.
In my opinion, The redevelopment of Claremont poses a great threat to the continued viability on the Dalkeith Village Shopping centre.
Council already agreed to extend the period for public consultation from the required 21 days to 60 days. It is hard to accept that this is not sufficient time to be advised.
Letters to property owners were sent to every household on our rates data base with a Dalkeith address. They were sent through Australia Post but I recognise that some people have their mail redirected and it is possible that accountants, real estate agents or the like could be sitting on some of those letters. People who live in rental properties would not have received direct mail but have not been precluded from commenting on the proposals.
If letters through Australia Post are not working, I really am at wits end. We put ads in the local papers. We put notices on notice boards. We hold open days. We send direct mail and still people claim not to have been notified. The fact is that people probably ignored the advice as too boring to be bothered with and only took an interest when others took the time to read it. It happens and is a great problem for us. Just how do we communicate with people so that they take notice. I wonder if they would have ignored advice of an inheritance or "not received it".
Nobody is going to force the development of a hotel. If it makes it more palatable, I see no reason why hotels or motels could not be precluded.
Private recreation does not include brothels. It makes me wonder that some people think that it does.

I have suggested to the Mayor (and she agrees) that we must stick to the deadlines or we will be going into next Christmas, something I think we would all like to avoid. However, we agree that late submissions will not be precluded from consideration within the constraints of the process.

Paola, I have no objection at all to people's views on this or any other topic. You are the people who have to live with Council's decisions. Misinformation, though, is another matter. Particularly when it is put out or used for doubtful purposes.
Thank you for the invitation to meet to discuss this matter. It is an invitation I would like to accept.

Regards,
Graham.