To keep the momentum going with the City of Stirling, we often ask questions to the council. Please find a summary of the latest Q&A below. If you are interested in the full text, please download the full Council meeting minutes on https://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/city-and-council/about-council/council-and-committee-meetings/minutes-and-agendas
(Questions submitted in writing prior to the meeting; annotations follow each answer.)
Q1. At the 2024/25 Electors’ General Meeting I asked why Council hasn’t consulted the community on its Climate Change Adaptation Plan while the Annual Report claims it has. I was told Council would respond in writing and make contact about my comments. Why have I received neither in the 15 weeks since?
The City acknowledges the request and apologises that no written response was provided earlier. The 2024/25 Annual Report noted that the review of the Adaptation Plan recommended further community consultation to better understand community priorities. During the Future Stirling engagement, community members gave feedback on a range of long-term challenges including climate change and the natural environment, and the City is considering those insights to inform how adaptation can be strengthened across corporate planning and community programs.
Annotation: the final paragraph doesn’t address the issue raised — that the Annual Report incorrectly claims consultation “is planned as part of the Strategic Community Plan engagement during 2025.” The Plan appeared in none of the Future Stirling materials of October 2025; the only climate reference was one biodiversity-adaptation strategy among 46 to be ranked.
Q2. On 2 August 2025 Council approved key deliverables in the consultant’s brief for the Karrinyup Library site — indicative draft 2/2/26, final 27/2/26, design workshop with City staff April 2026, workshop with Council May 2026, one urban design subdivision concept, and two library concept plans (one on site, one in a future shopping centre tenancy). Do the proposed plans reflect the community inputs gathered several years ago, and when will the community be consulted on them?
The background and history from the 2019 community engagement process was provided to the consultants as part of their brief. The consultant’s report is scheduled for a Council workshop in August 2026. Should Council resolve to proceed, the City would undertake appropriate community and stakeholder engagement under the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act, including public comment before Council’s final decision.
Annotation: the first paragraph doesn’t answer whether the plans reflect the community inputs. The second neither explains nor acknowledges the timeline change — for instance, why the Council workshop planned for May 2026 was postponed to August 2026.
(Opens by thanking the City for the support that enabled Sustainable Stirling Community Inc. to incorporate, and noting the Electrify Mount Lawley heat pump co-op workshop at Nollamara on 18 April.)
Q. In the recent internal restructure, was the dedicated Sustainability unit disbanded and the community energy position removed? If so, what was the reason, and what risk analysis was done?
(Director Infrastructure) The Sustainability team was repurposed; no positions were lost. It is an operational change only, with people moved into different units.
Q. Is there still a community energy position?
(Director Infrastructure) The staff are still there, doing the same work, within a different structure.
(The Mayor) The change was to stop sustainability being pigeonholed into looking after trees and the like — it belongs across the whole organisation.
Q. Against the net zero by 2030 target, does Council intend a staged plan with measurable milestones for waste collection vehicle emissions, as done in Los Angeles and Nagpur? If so, how will it be communicated to ratepayers?
(Director Infrastructure) There are no specific plans. The market is limited but developing rapidly; the City has made large strides with light fleet electrification, and waste trucks are a future target. The City monitors the market globally and is confident alternatives to the diesel waste truck will emerge.
Q. So there is no such plan yet — it’s in process?
(Director Infrastructure) That is correct.
Q. Page 186 says community consultation on the climate change adaptation plan is planned as part of the strategic community plan engagement during 2025. Our members participated and believe adaptation was not consulted on — the only climate mention was one biodiversity-adaptation strategy among 46 to rank. Given adaptation is already a public health, financial and environmental issue, why has Council chosen not to engage ratepayers directly on the plan?
(Director Infrastructure) There is a lot in the question; it will be taken on notice.
(The Mayor) The City will provide more information in writing and will take the comments on board and make contact.
Q. Council signed the WALGA Climate Change Declaration in 2013, yet last year described such things as virtue signalling. Melville and Bunbury use that declaration as a framework for community engagement in adaptation planning. Why isn’t Stirling, and has it sought advice on future legal and financial risk to ratepayers of not doing so?
(The Mayor) The City will take the comments and investigate what other councils are doing.
Q. (Clarifying) The point isn’t that Council is doing nothing — it’s that Council is missing an opportunity by not engaging the community more fully in its planning.
(The Mayor) Understood; the comments will be taken on board and a response provided.
Q. On the canopy target (p.187), Council says it can’t control loss on private land and will focus on Council-managed land. Other WA councils already have planning policies protecting trees on private land, and private-land loss significantly outweighs public-land gains — which makes 18% by 2040 unachievable. How will Council reach the target without similar measures?
(A/Manager Parks & Environment) A significant challenge. The City is observing how other local governments have implemented such policies and assessing their effectiveness, while working to increase planting on City-managed land. Further detail to follow in writing.
Additional information (provided 13 April). Planting effort is concentrated on two land types: public open space vested in or owned by the City, where the 500-plus parks offer scope to lift canopy; and road verges, where most planting occurs under the City Trees Policy commitment of at least one tree per verge. The Free Trees and Plants giveaway is offered as the counter to private-land canopy loss.
Q. Page 194 refers to exploring alternative waste treatment. In 2024/25 diversion was 42% — down 1% on the previous year, down 14% since 2020/21, and 25 points below the 67% statewide target. Nine months into 2025/26, is that trend likely to reverse? What strategies are being implemented, and will there be a staged plan with milestones?
(Director Infrastructure) Correct — the City is not achieving its targets. Two major pieces of work are underway. First, FOGO: not yet part of the standard service, but a Coolbinia trial commences in May following a Council motion, to generate learnings. Second, longer-term alternatives to landfill, where new options are emerging but details remain commercially confidential. Progressing both is expected to deliver the stated waste targets.
(Compiled from the meeting’s video recording. Answers from Mr Murphy, Director Infrastructure, and Mayor Irwin.)
Q1a. How can the Urban Forest Strategy be reported as “progressing according to schedule” when the report itself records a 30,600-tree deficit against the 18%-by-2040 target and ~2.8 million m² of canopy lost since 2012?
The City met its planting goals on City-managed land. The distinction matters: Council has limited ability to influence planting on state and private land, and the bulk of the recorded loss is on private land. The report focused on the gain on City land.
Q1b. How will Council address the trend that some suburbs could lose about 50% of existing canopy within ten years?
That prediction concerns private and residential land, not City land. Canopy cover on City-managed land is expected to increase across all suburbs over the next decade.
Q1c. Why is there no commentary on the risk posed by the polyphagous shot-hole borer?
The City is aware of the risk. It was omitted from 2023/24 because there was no significant impact that year; the 2024/25 report will carry commentary, as impacts are now being seen.
Q2a. Waste management falls well short on four targets — landfill diversion (43% against 67%), C&I diversion (49% against 70%), material recovery (43% against 70%), and per-capita reduction (unreported). How will Council respond?
The City is working actively with Mindarie Regional Council on alternative waste treatment to reduce reliance on landfill. Much of that work is commercially confidential. Alongside it, the three-bin system and the Balcatta recycling centre are being optimised, supported by an expanded education program.
Q2b. Why wasn’t a FOGO proposal supported, given its success elsewhere?
The decision was not to introduce FOGO at that time. The City continues to monitor strategic waste developments, and a future FOGO service remains under review.
Q2c. Why was it not possible to introduce it now?
(Mayor Irwin) Scale is the obstacle. Stirling serves a population equivalent to the Northern Territory, and rolling out FOGO alongside a shift from landfill to waste-to-energy is an extreme risk. The likely consequences include a roughly doubled waste levy, fortnightly red-bin collection, and green bins needing distribution to some 30,000 multi- or shared dwellings — plus no assured end use for that volume of food organics. Council wasn’t satisfied it could be done without significant financial impact on ratepayers.
Q3. Will Council declare a climate emergency, has it signed the WALGA Climate Change Declaration, and why hasn’t it joined Climate Emergency Australia?
(Mayor Irwin) It was considered following an e-petition around 2020. Council’s consistent position is to avoid declarations it regards as virtue signalling unbacked by a plan. It maintains a sustainability and energy action plan, works with WALGA and through the Cities Power Partnership, but has steered clear of emergency declarations and of joining councils writing to federal parliament.