Once upon a time in Karrinyup
Having in all honesty never actually been there, I can only assume that you will find in the Karrinyup Library all manner of stories, fables and fairy tales, I was juggling such childhood memories to discover a moral to this story, preferably one with a happy ending – all roads however lead to Pinocchio.
“Lies, my dear boy, can easily be recognized. There are two kind of them: those with short legs, and those with long noses. Your kind have long noses.”
― Carlo Collodi, Pinocchio
Mayor Irwin’s response to several questions in recent weeks in regard to alleged negotiations for the sale of the Karrinyup Library site to AMP were – in my opinion – given in good faith by Mayor Irwin – the answers do however present a priceless and most welcome opportunity to quote Sir Humphry;
“Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.”
If it turns out that Mayor Irwin was guilty of delivering some terminological inexactitudes in his response, again I suspect that like Jim Hacker he did so in good faith, the `City` on the other hand – in answers to questions can *only* have acted either incompetently or duplicitously in its response.
To set the stage:
- On 22nd September ratepayer X asked if the City would rescind the motion that permitted the CEO to negotiate on the Library site.
- The Mayor answered (in lieu of the CEO) no – because no such motion existed.
- Ratepayer X was adamant
- So was the Mayor
- The CEO was silent – Governance was silent
- The gallery chattered
- I asked on 13th October – pointing out that Council minutes showed otherwise – the same question as ratepayer X
- The Mayor answered (in lieu of the CEO) no – because no such motion existed.
- I was adamant
- So was the Mayor
- The CEO was silent – Governance was silent
- The gallery chattered
The minutes released for the 22/09 meeting included additional answers to ratepayer X’s question – in summary the City also said `no` , surreally by referring to a meeting from the 30th June 2015 that like hundreds of other meetings made no mention of such a motion.
“This did not include any delegation to the CEO for negotiations and/or sale of the Karrinyup Library site.”
For reasons which I will leave to the imagination the City chose not to reference any of the meetings which DID introduce such a motion, the Community and Resources Committee meeting of 26th April 2016 voted to authorise the CEO to negotiate on behalf of the City & the following full Council on 3rd May 2016 meeting that resolved the Community and Resources Committee advice – with a 6/3 majority given many councillors noted conflicts as they were AMP shareholders.
Council Resolution 0516/024
Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor MichaelThat the Chief Executive Officer be AUTHORISED to negotiate on a non-binding basis with AMP Capital Investors Limited to establish proposed terms for a land transaction for the redevelopment of the community facilities at Lot 2, House Number 13, Davenport Street, Karrinyup.
The motion was put and declared CARRIED (6/3).
For: Councillors Caddy, Irwin, Jenkinson, Michael, Proud and Sargent.
Against: Councillors Boothman, Lagan and Tyzack.
So the City made a mistake – so what – beh, a reasonable enough point, and were this the first time the City had claimed that no negotiations had ever been undertaken by the City and AMP Capital (the root of the question) – then fair enough, however it is not a mistake, not by a nose as long as Pinoccios or hair as long as Rapunzels.
The City of Stirling has for the last 5+ years denied categorically that it ever entered into negotiations with AMP capital over the sale of the Library site – going as far as to censure – in a fashion many saw as an attempt to belittle ratepayer X who had been asking (along with several others) for several years for some transparency on these negotiations, these are but samples;
March 2016:
“No negotiations have been undertaken prior regarding the redevelopment of the Karrinyup Library site.”April 2016 :
“There are no records to be provided as neither the City of Stirling, nor any person acting on behalf of the City of Stirling, has undertaken any negotiations in regard to the Karrinyup Library site”Ending with censure:
“Therefore, in accordance with Clause 5.7(11)(a) of the City of Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009 which can be viewed on the City of Stirling website at: …. any future questions relating to the Karrinyup Library site will not be Responded to.”
Paraphrasing Paine, a wrong thing said often enough can take on an air of respectability and raise in response a formidable outcry – in the above case the ire of Governance. And given the current Council still insists that no negotiations occurred… well clearly time does make more converts than reason.
What bloody negotiations ?
The DAP RAR of 30 July 2015 includes a submission from CL Zelestis QC , on behalf of AMP and states;
The City’s letter was preceded by a meeting between City officers and AMP representatives on 25th September 2014, during which it was made clear to AMP that the City’s requirements were that the AMP agree to purchase the library site and replace the library prior to a structure plan being finally considered
That’s on September 25th 2014
and continues
“These requirements included relocation of the City’s library, by the purchase of the library land by AMP from the City and the provision of alternative land for the library”
The following is also of interest..
“The City’s officers declined AMP’s request to arrange a meeting with Council members”
Regardless: AMP themselves do not deny that negotiations occurred between themselves and the City in regard to the purchase of the Library site in late 2014 and 2015 – though they have not confirmed the rumoured $10Mill price tag bandied around by several other sources but that of itself is not relevant.
What is relevant is that in 2014 and 2015 the City did negotiate with AMP with regard to the purchase of the site , and in 2016 the City did resolve to allow the CEO to undertake non binding negotiations with AMP on this matter. The City continues to deny such negotiations or authorisations ever took place, preferring instead to belittle ratepayers having the gumption to keep on asking **.
As far as we are aware, resolution 0516/024 unless rescinded remains in force and the CEO still has the authority to negotiate albeit in a non binding manner.
Mayor Irwin did vote on the non-existent motion – but given I do not remember what I did on a Tuesday night some 4 years ago It is quite reasonable that the Mayor has similar recall. Why however the officers answering ratepayer X’s question, who unlike me are paid for this , could not discover such * is to many a mystery wrapped in a fairy tale wrapped in something smelly.
Even if dear reader you accept that this is a clear and deliberate obfuscation by the City and accept that ratepayer X is owed a monumental apology from the City of Stirling your inner Candide might still wonder what the problem is … ignoring of course those trifles of expectations of transparency, accountability and respect.
The long nose of Pinocchio is a parallel for the long lie, if the current Mayor and the entire governance staff of the City of Stirling have forgotten about this issue well – guess who’s back , back again – AMP’s back, tell a friend, now…
Everyone report to the DAP
The redevelopment of the Karrinyup Library site was recommended for refusal by the City for the DAP application in 2016 – a core component of that refusal was because then – as now – there was no Activity Centre Structure Plan (ACSP) in place for a development that is required under State Planning Policy to have one, the DAP as they are oft inclined, approved the redevelopment regardless.
Here is not the place for a lesson in planning needless to say an Activity Centre Structure Plan if created would describe and guide the future development of the site covering guidelines for building heights and envelopes, transition zoning, setbacks and other amenity related goodies.
Without this ACSP – AMP’s current proposals to construct 9, 15 and 24 storey residential towers adjacent to R20 and R30 zoned predominantly single and 2 storey properties in a fresh DAP application are significantly heightened – providing one less set of planning controls to have to navigate through in their DAP application.
AMP previously have and probably will continue to blame the City of Stirling for the lack of an ACSP – probably whilst dancing like whirling dervishes playing pin-the-highrise on the ACSP-free map of Karrinyup, for fairness – the City noted in its previous recommended refusals that AMP’s proposals to create an ACSP were not legally valid – indeed there is a cacophony of pot-kettle/kettle-pot to be enjoyed.
The difference of course is that AMP are beholden to their shareholders – they are not beholden to the Karrinyup community – they are not – unlike Stirling – required to provide for the good governance of the District or indeed to tell the truth [not saying they did or did not – just that they are not required to ;)].
So who is to blame for the lack of an ACSP at Karrinyup ? AMP, the WAPC, the DAP or the City of Stirling? – did the City really demand the purchase of the Library site in order to bring about an ACSP ? or is a barrister telling porkies and are Council resolutions and Mayoral letters to the WAPC simply fake news?
Ratepayers will not know how this particular fable ends until the City decide to come clean about any and all negotiations that occurred with AMP (and the WAPC and the DAP) Those are the answers another questioner and myself asked in Council last week , in essence the same question ratepayer X has been asking for years – we look forward to the City’s answer and would like to gently remind them that if the City’s already drooping nose gets any longer – it may well just break.
The CEO’s ‘delegation’ (not an actual delegation) BTW was in 2016 – was this retrospective? did the CEO deal with AMP prior to this date, we know that officers and (then) Mayor Italiano did but the CEO ? .. we have our answers and simply can’t wait to hear the City’s
……………………….
It is possible BTW to imagine a completely semantic counter to the above arguments (the wording rather than the intent of the questions) – I have full trust that we will not descend to those depths which would leave the realm of fairy tales and take us somewhere else grimmer.
……………………….
* Ratepayer X – is ratepayer X because I have not been able to contact ratepayer X to ask permission to name him…. err or her
** to be fair the City’s new websites search feature is procedurally useless – pick a Council resolution – type it in – or save yourself the frustration and simply search google instead.
*** Stirling appears not to have yet worked out that many if not most questioners already know the answers – but given no place for statements or other engagements question time is the only avenue available to put their concerns in the public domain.
