City of Canning Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 22 February 2011
4. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ AND OFFICERS’ INTERESTS
Declaration of Interest
Cr Elliott PD-058-11 – Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale
Nature of Interest: My daughter lives in the area affected by the odour.
Cr Elliott sought a ruling on his interest on the item of business on the grounds that his daughter lives in the area affected by the odour. Cr Elliott withdrew from the Council Chambers at 6.02pm.
MOVED Cr Barry, Seconded Cr Olsen, that the interest declared by Cr Elliott in item PD-058-11 – Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning is common to a significant number of electors or ratepayers.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
For: The Mayor, Crs Barry, Mason, Clarke, Olsen, Morgan, Daly, Dowsett, Wheaton and Boylen
Cr Elliott returned to his chair at 6:03pm and was informed of Council’s decision.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
5.1 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY AT THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 9 NOVEMBER 2010
Mr J Harding,
Question 4: Due to the on-going legal battle with the SMRC, were the Chief Executive Officer or Mayor consulted to approve the half a million SMRC payment, or was it made on delegated authority and is there any question regarding the legality of that approval?
Answer: This payment was paid in accordance to the above Policies and approved budget allocations.
Question 9: Mr Mayor, tomorrow is the first anniversary of Council members illegally leaking confidential data for use at the RRSRA AGM:
(a) Are you attending this year and do you anticipate a repeat performance considering the SMRC events of October 2010?
(b) Were the recent changes within the City Executive staff connected in any way to the leaking of that Confidential Council Information to the RRSRA in November 2009?
Answer (a) : Please refer to answer provided by the Mayor shown below.
Answer (b): No.
Final question Mr Mayor.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
5.3 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY AT THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 8 FEBRUARY 2011
Mr G W Gleeson,
Question 1: Mr Mayor, when will you be issuing a Press Release informing the citizens of Canning that an application to rebuild the Recycling Plant at Canning Vale was approved by the State Administrative Tribunal on the 2 December 2010?
Answer: The Mayor. I believe I gave you an answer at the last Council meeting when you asked the question.
Statement: A Press Release – Headlines. Normally you would when you have good to do in the City – I am yet to see any headlines or photos of you issuing a Press Release about this.
Answer: The Mayor. Why should this be any different?
Statement: I have a copy of this document I would like to give to you, because I will be relating a couple of questions to that document. Document was tabled and given to the Mayor.
Answer: The Mayor. I already have this document as I was at the Hearing, which I told you about 2 meetings ago.
Question 2: You obviously read it.
Answer: The Mayor. Yes, I was there.
Question 3: Have you read the SAT Order in the manner of Southern Metropolitan Regional Council and the City of Canning, I have given you a copy. Which of the 15 conditions did the City of Canning Council impose on the SMRC, given most of the conditions seem to be standard conditions?
Answer: The Mayor. There is a document if you want to look at them, you are more than welcome to come to Council and have a look at that document. We asked for 16 Conditions and we got 15, one was rejected by SAT.
Question: 4 Could you please inform me which condition was rejected?
Answer: The Mayor. I can’t recall that now. Will take that on notice and advise you of the conditions set, including the one that was rejected.
Question 5: Attached to the document is the Fire Protection Strategy document, did the City of Canning engage a Consultant to persuade and assistance to the Fire Investigators and Fire Consultants, who engaged by the SMRC to develop a Fire Strategy to the Material Recycling Facility at Canning Vale. Did your Consultant approach SMRC Consultants, Rick Hinch Associates requesting a far greater Fire Strategy be attached for that building and it was rejected? If so, why?
Answer: The Mayor. Who said that?
Statement: I have made personal contact with certain people and I have been told that is exactly what happened and it was someone that was involved in the document.
Answer: The Mayor. That is not correct.
Statement: You are saying No.
Answer: The Mayor. No, I said that was not correct what you said.
Question 6: Do you see the Material Recycling Facility as any benefit to the City of Canning community?
Answer: The Mayor. The City of Canning made a decision over 12 months ago that as at 30 June 2010, have severed that relationship with that particular organisation, because Council saw fit to withdraw because they keep wasting money.
Question 7: The question is do you see the Recycling Facility as a benefit to the City of Caning community, its either yes or no?
Answer: The Mayor. Answer is no, if we did we would not have resigned from it.
Question 8: All I want you to say is yes or no?
Answer: The Mayor. I have already told you, that Council saw fit that there is no benefit to stay with the SMRC?
Question 9: Does this Recycling Facility need a Development Approval from this Council, if yes where is the application now?
Answer: The Mayor. You have already given me this document, if you read this, the information is in that document.
Question 10: It doesn’t need a Development Approval?
Answer: The Mayor. As a former Councillor of South Perth, you told me that you understand how SAT works. SAT takes the matter over from any Council in WA once it goes to an Appeal or Hearing, this one has gone to Hearing, the Chairman of the Hearing made a decision to grant that Application with those 15 Conditions.
Question 11: So there should be any reason why that Development.
Answer: The Mayor. If it complies with the conditions, there will be no problem. I did not set the conditions, the State Administrative Tribunal set the conditions.
Statement: To me those conditions are very normal for that type of Building. Thank you Mr Mayor.
****************************************
Mr J Harding,
Question 3: There is additional information to answer 5 – it is the responsibility of the organisation raising the Invoice to ensure that GST is applied correctly, which implies that the City does not need to check Suppliers Invoices, etc and just pays the amount charged, irrespective of any errors or overcharges. Is that an extract from a City Policy or are they the words of an internal Policy within the Finance Department?
Answer 3: The Officer’s understanding of the legal situation is that Suppliers are responsible for correct application of GST. However, the GST calculations on all Invoices is automatically checked and verified by the Council’s system with any errors referred back to the Supplier for correction. GST has been charged by the SMRC to all participating Council’s on these transactions for some years in accordance with agreements made with all Member Councils’ Chief Financial Officers of the time based on discussions with the Australian Tax Office (ATO).
Statement: I would suggest that no one in this room would conduct their personal finances in that casual manner, and if it is Policy, does the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and Council consider that Policy needs to be changed, considering it can contravenes basic business common sense and taxation laws. For example, if the City received an Invoice showing an incorrect amount of GST, or the Invoice has been incorrectly added, which amounts to 2 basic accounting errors, the additional information to Answer 5 suggests that the City would just pay the amount shown on the Invoice.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
13.2 EXECUTIVE – PROPERTY ASSETS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PD-055-11 PROPOSED HAZARDOUS INDUSTRY (BITUMINOUS PRODUCTS MIXING PLANT) TO GENERAL INDUSTRY SITE AT 109-111 EWING STREET (LOT 277), WELSHPOOL APPLICANT: PLANNING SOLUTIONS OWNER: TRANSPACIFIC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (OCM: 22.02.2011; File: 109-111 Ewing Street {Lot 277}; Lodged: 05.02.2008;
Processing Days: 971 days; Serial: 15/11946); l:paed061/eg
From: Executive Property Assets and Economic Development ID: 98
Cr Barry declared an Impartiality on this item.
Amendment
Cr Mason suggested the following amendment to part (a) of the Officer’s recommendation to read – for a period of three years from the date of approval. It was then;
MOVED Cr Mason, Seconded Cr Barry that:
(a) Council RESOLVE, pursuant to Subclause 2.3.9 of the City Zoning Scheme (Town Planning Scheme No 40) to approve the Hazardous Industry (Bituminous Products Mixing Plant) at 109-111 Ewing Street (Lot 277), Welshpool for a period of three years from the date of approval. Following comment by Cr Mason, the Mayor reminded Members of the Public that under Standing Orders 2.20, recording of proceedings is prohibited. Cr Clarke then spoke against the amendment and provided further comment. Following Cr Barry speaking for the amendment and further questions by Cr Clarke to the Mayor, Cr Mason closed the debate.
The Mayor put the amended Motion, viz;
(a) Council RESOLVE, pursuant to Subclause 2.3.9 of the City Zoning Scheme (Town Planning Scheme No 40) to approve the Hazardous Industry (Bituminous Products Mixing Plant) at 109-111 Ewing Street (Lot 277), Welshpool for a period of three years from the date of approval, subject to following conditions:
(i) All wastewater or contaminated stormwater produced on-site must be disposed of to the Sewer with approval of the Water Corporation of Western Australia, or alternatively captured, contained and disposed of off site to an approved facility. Storm water collected from within all bunded areas is not to be discharged to Councils Drain.
(ii) Odour, fumes and visible smoke emitted from the premises must not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of any person who is not on the premises.
(iii) The maintenance and cleaning of vehicles and any other equipment or plant must be carried out in hardstand, bunded and drained areas from where contaminants cannot be released into the environment, any stormwater soakwells, the roadside, gutter or stormwater drainage system.
(iv) The hydrocarbon bin storage area must be constructed with a sealed hardstand floor impervious to water, chemically resistant to the chemicals stored within it and have a roof which prevents the entry of stormwater.
(v) All trafficable areas on the premises are to be of hardstand construction (concrete, bitumen or paving) and drained to allow for the effective disposal of stormwater.
(vi) The owner shall submit to the City’s Chief Executive Officer, within 15 months of commencing operations, a compliance report, completed by an independent suitably qualified consultant, which assess the Bitumen Products Mixing Plant’s performance during the first 12 months of operation. The report shall include; air emissions, noise emissions, odour emissions, particulate emissions and detail the extend to which the Bitumen Plant’s operation is in compliance with the development approval issued by the City of Canning for the Bitumen Products Mixing Plant.
(vii) Standard Conditions:
N: The proposed development is to comply in all respects with the submitted plans approved on 22 February 2011 and stamped
accordingly.
B2: An area of the site shall be reserved for car parking, which can accommodate 55 parking spaces and their access aisles, to City Zoning Scheme standards. Before the subject development is first occupied or commences operation, 22 parking spaces together with their access aisles is to be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council specifications.
T1: All street trees located in verge areas adjoining the subject lot/s are to be retained and protected, unless removal is approved by
the Council.
M1: Development to be connected to the Minister’s Sewer, to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation.
G3: Prior to the issue of a building licence the applicant/developer shall submit a plan detailing the landscaping of the subject lot.
The plan will be required to satisfy the requirements of Council’s Policy SRS-O4 and all landscaping on site will be required to be
provided and maintained in accordance with the landscape plan.
D: Building setback areas from any street having no use other than car parking, access ways and landscaping treatment, unless
otherwise approved by Council. Furthermore, bins, bulk bin storage areas or any storage of waste material shall not be located within the building setback area, and where required, such facilities shall be contained within the proposed tenancies.
(b) Applicant and adjoining property Owners be advised of (a) above.
CARRIED
For: The Mayor, Crs Barry, Elliott, Mason, Olsen and Wheaton
Against: Crs Morgan and Clarke
****************************************
PD-057-11 NOTICE 3.25 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 – 24 BRANDON WAY (LOT 183), LYNWOOD
(OCM: 22.02.2011; File: ECH/2/18); l:paed053/eg
From: Executive Property Assets and Economic Development ID: 69
RECOMMENDATIONS
PD-057-11
That:
(a) Council, RESOLVE, in view of the state of the property at 24 Brandon Way (Lot 183), Lynwood to issue a Notice to the property owner requiring that all rubbish and disused material be removed from the property within a period of sixty
(60) days from the date of notice.
(b) Complainant, and property owner to be advised of (a) above.
****************************************
PD-058-11 ODOUR REGISTER – REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE – CANNING VALE
(OCM: 22.02.2011; File: ECH/2/18); l:paed031/eg
From: Executive Property Assets and Economic Development ID: 69
RECOMMENDATIONS
PD-058-11
That Report PD-058-11 Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre, Canning Vale, be received.
