Agendas are published on the City's website on Wednesday evening before each Ordinary Council or Committee meeting. Minutes are available within 10 working days of the meeting.
View on City website →A minimum of 15 minutes is allocated at each meeting. Written questions should be lodged with the CEO at least 30 hours prior to the meeting start time.
Learn more →Members of the public may present a Deputation during Briefing Sessions. A maximum of 10 minutes is allowed per deputation. Requests must be received by 9:00am on the day.
Learn more →Petitions are formal written requests asking Council to take action. Only original, final printed versions are accepted. Contact me if you'd like me to present your petition.
Petitions info →Watch Council proceedings live. The stream commences at 6pm (AWST) on each meeting night. You can also view past recordings on the channel.
Watch on YouTube →A Motion on Notice is a formal proposal I bring to Council on behalf of Central Ward residents. Click any motion to see the full detail, Council decision and current status.
To consider the preparation of a project proposal to investigate a pedestrian overpass over Wanneroo Road to improve connectivity, safety, and place activation between the distinct precincts of the Wanneroo Town Centre.
Decision: CARRIED 10/2 — Mayor Aitken, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Huntley, Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Seif and Cr Smith. Against: Cr Bedworth, Cr Berry.
View Motion PDF →To consider the implementation of the 'Snap Send Solve' Enterprise platform on a trial basis to improve the customer experience for residents reporting issues.
View Motion PDF →To consider authorising the CEO to sell City-provided ICT equipment to current Council Members at market value, prior to the new Policy coming into effect.
Decision: CARRIED 11/3 — Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Miles, Cr Moore, Cr Nguyen, Cr Parker, Cr Seif, Cr Smith and Cr Wright. Against: Cr Bedworth, Cr Herridge, Cr Rowe.
View Motion PDF →To request a comprehensive review and update of the City of Wanneroo's Corporate Governance Framework to ensure it reflects current legislative requirements.
View Motion PDF →LPP 4.3: Public Open Space is an important policy that influences the outcome of the City's public open spaces. This motion brought it to the Policy Review Committee for workshopping.
View Motion PDF →To introduce the Council's first Policy Statement to clarify matters involving political figures and political parties.
View Motion PDF →To consider the installation of a traffic management scheme on Kemp Street, Pearsall to address the issue of speeding traffic.
View Motion PDF →To prepare a project proposal for comprehensive mobility mapping within important hubs in the City of Wanneroo that provide access to basic services and facilities.
View Motion PDF →To ensure that any appointments or dismissals of Managers at the City of Wanneroo is advised in writing to all Council Members.
View Motion PDF →To consider the development of a research report for the delivery of an externally run intergenerational practice program within the City of Wanneroo.
View Motion PDF →The establishment of Service Plans by service unit level to enhance transparency, accountability and effectiveness in the allocation of financial resources.
View Motion PDF →To propose that Council receive a regular report of meetings and functions attended by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor on behalf of Council.
View Motion PDF →To consider the development of a Policy allowing community members in the City to build their own BMX tracks out of natural materials.
View Motion PDF →To consider joining the Cities Power Partnership (CPP) program.
View Motion PDF →To consider traffic safety issues and an upgrade of the intersection of East Road with Wanneroo Road.
View Motion PDF →To consider establishing an East Wanneroo Community Reference Group (CRG).
View Motion PDF →To consider amending the Terms of Reference for the Wanneroo BMX Raceway Relocation Working Group.
View Motion PDF →I use public question time at Ordinary Council Meetings to ask Administration for transparency and accountability on matters affecting Central Ward residents.
Can the City confirm that the meetings below took place with either an elected member present, the CEO, or any other staff?
Response by Chief Executive Officer: The City can confirm that the meetings listed above had an elected member/s and member/s of staff present except the meeting held on 19 August 2024.
Is the City aware of any private meetings between developers and elected members from 1 January 2025 to present? If so, how many?
Response (CEO): The City is not privy to elected members' diaries. There were 14 meetings held between 1 January 2025 and now where elected members were present with staff and developers.
Does Administration agree with the Department's guideline that elected members should refuse invitations to attend meetings between professional staff and developers?
Response (CEO): There is a clear distinction between general relationship-building meetings and detailed operational meetings. Operational meetings are typically attended by senior staff only.
Can the City provide advice regarding elected members meeting with developers (Acumen, Capricorn Beach, etc.)? What guidance has the City provided?
Response (Director Planning & Sustainability): Section 10D of the Code of Conduct details how Council Members should conduct themselves when dealing with proponents.
If a Councillor declares an impartiality interest, are they allowed to excuse themselves from the room and abstain from a vote, or would that be a breach of the Local Government Act?
Response (General Counsel): Unfortunately not. If a Councillor declares an impartiality interest, they are still required to stay in the room and participate in the debate and decision-making.
Does Administration intend on changing the location pending community feedback?
Response (Director Assets): Council endorsed a location and all master planning, studies and environmental approvals are only being requested for the site under consideration.
Can Administration clarify the level of community engagement currently being undertaken?
Response (Director Assets): Community engagement extended to 17 December. A further drop-in session was held at the Civic Administration Centre on 3 December, with all questions to be responded to.
Q (Petition 1): Update on the Council 2021 decision to list a detailed design for the footpath on Clubhouse Lane?
Response: Design was prepared and community engagement undertaken. Lack of support meant the design did not progress to construction. Briefing Note provided March 2023.
Q (Petition 2): Were residents from Greens Village consulted as part of the consultation process?
Response by Director Assets: No, only the residents directly impacted by the proposed footpath location were consulted.
Q (Petition 3): Can Administration provide the resolution of Council to discontinue the project or to not proceed?
Response by Director Assets: The Council resolution was to request Administration to list the detailed design, including the assessment of the storm water drainage and trees removal and community engagement for 170 meters of footpath on the eastern side of Clubhouse Lane in the draft long term capital works program, in accordance with the request set out in the petition. The detailed design was listed in the budget and under that particular project the City prepared the design and undertook the community engagement, which didn't support the footpath, therefore it did not proceed to the construction.
Q (Petition 4): Is this project still listed in the draft long Capital Works Program, if so, has Council endorsed the removal of this project?
Response by Director Assets: Footpaths are listed in a separate database based on the priority order, based on the Pathway Policy and the Long-Term Financial Plan which lists the recurring program for a footpath program, so depending upon the priority order of all projects they form part of the annual budget to delivered in that particular year.
Q (Petition 5): With the retention of trees and noting that Council decision was in 2021, what are the implications of that particular policy now that Council has endorsed that particular detailed design and construction with the new City tree policy?
Response by Director Assets: Administration has not changed its Policy on tree retention. Council adopted the revised City Tree Policy in December 2024. The Policy adopted in December 2024 supports the retention of trees in Clubhouse Lane.
CQ10-07/24: I am confused by some documents being presented to us but they are not needed to make a decision, and other documents not being provided to us which are needed to make a decision?
Response by Director, Assets: On page 348 of the report there is a section headed Environmental Considerations where it states that to support Amendment 215 the proponent has also provided the following information and that includes the District Water Management Strategy, an Environmental Report and a Bush Fire Management plan which you have referred to, and then it goes on to state all supporting technical information be considered by Administration in more detail should Amendment 215 be initiated. Consideration would be made in light of responses from external agencies which would be consulted on during the advertising process. Therefore, all this information is material to the next stage of considering Amendment 215.
CQ02-07/24 Q1: In relation to this item how much would a structure plan cost and can it be a joint investment between the City of Joondalup and City of Wanneroo?
Response by Manager Approval Services: Structure plans are a costly exercise as they require the engagement of a range of specialist consultants and they are generally led and run by the land owner as it is the land owner that achieves the value from the change in land zoning. It would be a decision of Council and a budgetary item, it would not be delivered out of the operational budget.
CQ02-07/24 Q2: Why were the District Water Management Strategy, Environmental Report and Bushfire Plan which were referenced in the report, not presented to assess the impact of rezoning to Urban? If Council defers this item, can it request that Main Roads provide official correspondence on the plan and what the appetite is within Main Roads for any achievable plans for the local area or projects that they may have already budgeted for?
Response by Manager Approval Services: The attached documents would be provided and developed as part of a structure planning process. They would also be part of the documentation that would be circulated and advertised for public comment.
CQ02-07/24 Q3: These reports were also referenced to support amendment no. 215. Why were these reports not presented but the traffic report was?
Response by Manager Approval Services: The report and attachments were designed to provide Council with the information around the rezoning process which would then go out for public consultation and that information would then be circulated.
CQ02-07/24 Q4: Was there a reason why the April 2023 concept plans were not presented to Council?
Response by Manager Approval Services: It is important to distinguish between the rezoning from rural to urban and the future potential development of the site. Those issues would be addressed in the assessment of a structure planning stage, rezoning to Urban doesn't require that level of information and is not material consideration to the zone being changed.
CQ02-07/24 Q5: Was the traffic impact assessment based on residential or commercial, because the report seems to flip between assessing traffic conditions with residential development and then later with commercial development?
Response by Manager Approval Services: The report was prepared by consultants on behalf of the proponent. I cannot comment on why it is written the way it is.
Regarding the approval of the Ryderwear gym — are there conditions other than noise?
Response (Manager Approval Services): Yes. The application was approved for 90 patrons and 23 parking bays, consistent with scheme amendments at the time.
Has Administration funded a community consultation for a full parking ban on Calabrese Avenue?
Response (Director Assets): This forms part of the routine operating budget as existing staff resources.
Pearsall Primary School is still waiting on a crossing — can Administration provide an update?
Response (Director Assets): Administration is liaising with Pearsall Primary School regarding a guard-controlled crossing application. A meeting with the Principal was scheduled 27 February 2024 to assist with the application and discuss safe routes to school.
If the funding for Hinckley Park has been redistributed, when is the initial construction date?
Response: Construction is well underway and landscaping works are starting in the new year.
On Motion on Notice procedure: when items go to a Forum, should Motions on Notice be returned to Council with a 'do not support' recommendation if not progressed?
Response (CEO): If Council articulates that items go to a Forum and then be represented back, that would close the loop.
Division 4 Complaints: How much does a complaint cost? How much was spent last financial year? What is the current year budget? How many complaints received?
Responses (Director Corporate Strategy & Performance): ~$1,000 per complaint. $35,764 spent last financial year. $35,000 budgeted this year. Number of complaints is confidential.
Are there any projects or upgrades occurring at Edgar Griffiths Park that Council Members are not aware of?
Response: Cr Wright has requested these projects be listed for consideration as part of the 2023/24 budget discussions.
Who owns the land and building where the Wanneroo Sports and Social Club is located?
Response: Crown land (Reserve 27744) managed by the City. Buildings owned by the City. Lease expires June 2025.
CQ04-08/22: Is there a statutory charge that is applied to those opting to use the Financial Hardship Support payments, such as the $30.00 administration fee or interest charges?
Response by Director, Corporate Strategy and Performance: The financial hardship opportunity is not the same as the pay by instalment service. Rates staff have to manually monitor each service offered.
CQ02-07/22 — Destroyed Youth Track at Ashbrook Park, Pearsall: Is Administration aware that last month a small bike track was knocked down by City staff that was created by local Youth at Ashbrook Park in Pearsall and has caused community detriment attracting over 150 Facebook reactions and almost 100 comments? Clearly this issue is of community interest. Can the City please provide a response as to why the track was destroyed?
Response by Acting Director Assets: Administration is aware of the bike jumps removed from Ashbrook Park and also similar jumps been noted and removed from this park as part of routine maintenance to maintain and restore the conservation value of the reserve. The creation of the unauthorised bike track through the reserve present a public safety risk and threatens the species habitat. Primarily Ashbrook Park is a banksia dominated woodland location. Pearsall Primary School have adopted the bushland at the reserve and on a monthly basis they undertake bush care activities. The bike jumps observed within the park were determined to be unsafe for the public and were observed just prior to a school planting event and removed to ensure there was no risk to the Pearsall Primary School students and the public.
CQ02-07/22 — Status Update on the Upgrade of the Wanneroo Recreation Centre: Can the Director of Community & Place please provide a status update through the A/Chief Executive Officer on the Upgrade of the Wanneroo Recreation Centre and when this is scheduled to be completed by?
Response by Director Community & Place: Concept designs for the Wanneroo Recreation Centre were presented to Council Members in February 2022. Council Members requested additional work to be done on these concepts. The consultant was re-engaged to undertake the additional work which is expected to be completed in July 2022. In the next couple of months Administration will be presenting the updated concept plans to Council for consideration.
CQ02-07/22 — Status Update on my Motion on Notice: Kemp Street (MN04-03/22): Can the Director of Assets please provide an update through the A/Chief Executive Officer on my notice of motion from the March council meeting 'Traffic Management Scheme in Kemp Street, Pearsall and please provide the next steps to get this much needed infrastructure in place?
Response by Acting Director Assets: A review against the policy has been undertaken and that is the Local Area Traffic Management Policy, which resulted in a score of 33 for the location of Kemp Street. and in accordance with policy no traffic management. In accordance with the policy provisions no traffic management treatments are recommended at this point in time as the minimum score for some intervention is generally around 60. The city is planning on some interim measures such as the deployment of the speed advisory trailer to help educate motorists. A further update will be provided to Councillors in the coming days on the outcome of the study that occurred.
CQ02-07/22 — Status Update on City's Website: Can Administration please provide a status report on the update of the City's website and also the status of the Councillor workshop?
Response by Acting CEO: Administration is appointing a consultant to undertake the update of the City's website and as soon as that appointment has occurred a Councillor Workshop will be scheduled along with other stakeholder consultation.
Why has the general enquiries email address been removed from the website?
Response: Replaced with an online form to enable proper responses. Accessible via 'Contact Us' → 'General Enquiries'.
Requested a commitment from Administration on the proposed upgrade of the City's website.
Response (CEO): Website upgrade allocated as a project spanning the current and next financial year. A Councillor workshop will be scheduled for input on desired functionality.
