This is the personal blog of Ian Ker, who was Councillor for the South Ward of the Town of Vincent from 1995 to 2009. I have been a resident of this area since 1985. This blog was originally conceived as a way of letting residents of Vincent know what I have been doing and sharing thoughts on important issues. I can now use it to sound off about things that concern me.

If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Here We Go Again - LGAB Muddies The Waters Even More

 The Local Government Advisory Board has advertised three of its intended recommendations that are 'significantly different' from proposals into which it inquired. Its advert, including how to make submissions, is at right here and the revised maps are at the foot of this post.

As with so much else in this debacle of a 'process' (and I use the word loosely), these 'intended recommendations' muddy the water rather than clarify matters.

Just as with the original Ministerial proposals there is insufficient information. There is no text (other than a simple description of the changes to boundaries from the original proposals), only maps - the 'intended recommendations' that are 'significantly different from the proposals into which the LGAB inquired' do not provide the information required for a proposal in the first place. How are individuals, organisations and local Councils supposed to comment when there is no information on the basis on which the LGAB is recommending the changes?

Schedule 2.1 Clause 6 Para 2 of the Local Government Act 1995 states that the Board must afford "adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order" - surely 'adequate opportunity' must include not only time but also information. If we do not know why the LGAB is recommending these variations, how can we be said to have 'adequate opportunity' to make submissions?

Amended proposal 5 (the original proposal was made by the City of Armadale) now covers the whole of both Armadale and Serpentine-Jarrahdale. Why is this not, therefore, an amalgamation - especially as Cockburn-Kwinana is now described in those terms despite the loss of some of Cockburn? 

Amended Proposal 10 (Melville) excludes a large part of the City of Canning than was included in the original proposal. If, as seems likely, the LGAB is going to recommend the City of Gosnells proposal that incorporates most of the current City of Canning, why does this not then become an amalgamation (despite its description as a boundary change in the City of Gosnells proposal) - especially as Cockburn-Kwinana is now described in those terms despite the loss of some of Cockburn?

Amended Proposal E1 (Cockburn Community submitted the original proposal) presumably accepts at least some of the arguments for keeping Cockburn together - but it also, presumably, considers that Fremantle's 'need' for lebensraum outweighs the wishes of the Cockburn community. It would be helpful to know how the Board reached this conclusion.
Click on map to enlarge
Click on map to enlarge


Click on map to enlarge

No comments:

Post a Comment