Hamer Park and Inglewood Oval Building Redevelopment

View petition status
Principle petitionerJilanne Gout
Date closing12 May 2019
No. of signatures53
View signatures
  • J G Mount Lawley
  • M R Mount Lawley
  • E S Mount Lawley
  • R S Mount Lawley
  • S T Mount Lawley
  • G C Mount Lawley
  • S P Mount Lawley
  • A G Dianella
  • A P Mount Lawley
  • R P Mount Lawley
  • E G Mount Lawley
  • A A Mount Lawley
  • J T Mount Lawley
  • V C Mount Lawley
  • B A Mount Lawley
  • S L Mount Lawley
  • R L Mount Lawley
  • N A Mount Lawley
  • S T Yokine
  • V P Inglewood
  • J S Inglewood
  • I R Yokine
  • M G Karrinyup
  • R H Doubleview
  • M F Mount Lawley
  • J J Mount Lawley
  • B D Mount Lawley
  • D S Mount Lawley
  • G C Mount Lawley
  • J W Mount Lawley
  • B W Mount Lawley
  • M N Yokine
  • P N Yokine
  • F V Mount Lawley
  • L T Mount Lawley
  • D T Mount Lawley
  • J B Mount Lawley
  • J B Mount Lawley
  • A B Mount Lawley
  • J B Mount Lawley
  • N B Mount Lawley
  • D T Mount Lawley
  • H M Mount Lawley
  • S G Tuart Hill
  • A L Mount Lawley
  • C L Mount Lawley
  • C M Mount Lawley
  • K W Mount Lawley
  • R P Mount Lawley
  • K P Mount Lawley
  • K G Mount Lawley
  • A G Mount Lawley
  • S S Mount Lawley

We, the undersigned, request that the City of Stirling:-

  • Provide further information addressing the below concerns;
  • Hold a community consultation session allowing the City of Stirling representative to explain the proposed development to concerned residents; and
  • Extend the community consultation period to a minimum of four weeks, post the Ratepayer community consultation session.

Postponement of the decision is required because:-

  1. The community consultation period of 3.5 weeks is insufficient and also coincides with the Easter holiday period.
  2. There was insufficient notification of the community consultation period. Many residents have not, in fact, received any notification.
  3. No community consultation session (inviting residents/ratepayers) has been scheduled by the City of Stirling, which for a significant development proposal should be held.
  4. Safety – Insufficient information has been provided by the City of Stirling on how the increased safety risks associated with an increased traffic load, and reduced visibility through Woodsome Street, is to be mitigated. The pedestrian safety and impaired traffic flow through this area of Woodsome Street are currently significant concerns of local residents, and parents of students. The proposed development does not appear to address these risks.
  5. Insufficient information has been provided by the City of Stirling to enable residents to adequately evaluate the further influencing factors that have led to this proposed development. The factors include:-

a. Traffic – No traffic study report has been made available for review, nor clearly stated that a traffic study has been performed;

b. Parking – No traffic movement and parking demand reports have been made available, nor clearly stated that a study has been performed;

c. Noise – No noise study report has been made available for review, nor clearly stated that a noise study has been performed;

d. Amenities – Insufficient detail has been provided of the proposed amenities within the new development;

e. Capital Estimates – No budgetary information has been provided for the proposed development, nor other alternatives considered; and 

f. Environmental – The proposed development results in the removal of several established trees. No information has been provided that details the environmental consideration given to the proposed location.

Social Media Share Links below open in a new window



Back to petitions