News - 17 May 2010 Peppermint Grove Council meeting
At the Council Meeting on 17 May 2010, the Shire of Peppermint Grove provided answers to a number of questions raised about the Cliffe. Here are the responses as published in the agenda for that meeting...
Shire of Peppermint Grove - Council Meeting 17th May 2010 -
Agenda A3 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Questions received from Mr Brian Waldron
The following questions were received from Mr Brian Waldron 42 Brougham Street, Woolloomooloo, NSW, 2011 on 29th March 2010. The questions were taken on notice at the Council held on 19th April 2010.
1. Is it usual for Council to grant permission for the demolition of a "Category A" heritage building (as listed in Council's Heritage Inventory) without considering a development application for the intended replacement of the demolished heritage building?
Whilst desirable, there is no legislative requirement that Council consider or require a redevelopment plan as part of an application for demolition.
2. Noting that the present demolition licence issued for the Cliffe was issued without Council considering the redevelopment of the site, can Council advice whether any other heritage buildings have been demolished without Council considering redevelopment plans, since the introduction of the WA Heritage Act in February 1990?
Given that it is not a legislative requirement, there is no obligation to require a development plan as it is up to the landowner/developer to choose whether to submit a redevelopment plan or not. A review of previous development applications is therefore not considered relevant and has not been undertaken.
3. Can Council explain the rationale behind granting an extension to the demolition licence for the Cliffe AFTER Council's decision in August 2009 "that the Shire's preference is for the Cliffe to be reinstated and restored on site in line with Option 1 of the Future Options Study" (p55 - Minutes - Council Meeting 15 February 2010).
Whilst it was the preference of the Shire that the building be retained, the resolution which stated that position in August 2009 was superseded by the decision of the September 2009 meeting which granted planning approval for the demolition of the buildings.
The February 2010 meeting decision was that the Shire meet with the owner of the building and the heritage Council to discuss the reinstatement and restoration of the building. The February 2010 meeting decision did not rescind the September 2009 planning approval to demolish.
4. If the present Council forms the view that The Cliffe should not be demolished, does Council have the power to rescind or cancel the existing demolition permit?
Council may decide to rescind an approval, however it may lead to action for compensation by the landowner.
5. I understand that the Shire of Peppermint Grove issued a 12-month extension of the demolition licence for the Cliffe on 10 February this year and resolved unanimously on 15 February that, "The Shire President requests a meeting with the owner of The Cliffe to discuss options for the reinstatement and restoration of the building on site; and The Shire President requests a meeting with the WA Heritage Council to discuss options for the reinstatement and restoration of The Cliffe. Is it not possible, even prudent, for Council to consider the cancellation or suspension of the demolition licence while the resolutions from February's Council meeting are being considered?
See note 4 above.
6. Why has Council never used its powers under section 409 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 to compel the renovation of the Cliffe?
Council has granted planning approval for demolition, it could only consider action under section 409 if it rescinds the planning approval after advice of the legal and compensatory considerations of taking this action. Council should also consider how it would defend an appeal against a section 409 notice whilst it has given approval for demolition.
7. Has Council ever debated the use of this section of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 in relation to the Cliffe?
See note 6. Above.
Officer recommendation:
That this response be noted and communicated to Mr Waldron.
