23 July 2024 - Ordinary Council Meeting

[Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] e [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] e [Music] [Music] n [Music] back [Music] n [Music] he [Music] down [Music] he [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] this good evening everyone and welcome to the July 2024 ordinary council meeting.

We acknowledge and pay respects to the traditional custodians of this land, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation, and their Elders past and present.

I would like to advise everyone that the audio of this meeting is being live-streamed to YouTube. I request everyone to please turn off your mobile phones. I remind you that any recording of the meeting proceedings and photography within the chamber is prohibited unless prior approval has been granted. Councilors and City officers are reminded to disclose any declarations of financial interests or interests affecting impartiality and are requested to activate the microphones when addressing the meeting.

So, with that, welcome. Item one is the Declaration of Opening, and I declare this meeting open at 1 minute past 6 p.m.

Item two is a disclaimer. The City of South Perth disclaims any liability for any loss arising from any person or body relying on any statement, discussion, recommendation, or decision made during this meeting.

Item three is announcements from the presiding member. That's me. There are no such announcements this evening.

Item four is attendances. Item 4.1 is apologies. I haven't received any apologies this evening. And item 4.2 is approved leaves of absence, and that's Neil for this evening.

Item five is Declarations of Interest. So, Mayor Greg Milner, that's me, I've declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as I'm a former co-patron of WAPS Hockey Club. Councilor Haley Prendiville has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as myself and my family are members of WAPS Hockey Club. My involvement extends to numerous committee positions, one of those positions being president. I'm currently minky coordinator. Councilor Bronwyn Ware has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as my son attends Wesley College but does not play hockey. Councilor Mary Choy has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as my son attends Wesley College and has played for WAPS Hockey Club, and my husband is a Wesley College old boy and has also played and coached for WAPS Hockey Club in the past. And Councilor Glenn Kidland has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as two of my children used to play hockey for WAPS, and the site that WAPS are considering down at Collier Reserve is where I walk my dog each day.

Councilors, does anyone else have any declaration that they wish to make this evening? That's a no. Okay, moving on. That brings us to item six, which is Public Question Time.

Item 6.1 is responses to previous public questions taken on notice. That's nil.

Item 6.2 is public question time itself. So, I now open public question time at 3 minutes past 6 p.m. We've received 11 written submissions prior to tonight's meeting, and I'd like to begin by inviting Mr. Michael Mory of Como. If you'd like to come to the microphone. Uh, we... yes, there we go. Mr. Michael Mory, welcome to you. We have...

Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. My questions relate to Collier Reserve. According to the 2021 census, the population within a 2 km radius of Collier Reserve is 8,618 people, comprising, excuse me, 2,198 families. This number has since increased due to urban infill, while the area of open space will remain static. Granting the lease to WAPS for Collier Reserve will adversely impact current and future users. What is currently a community amenity, a significant portion of this public open space would no longer be accessible to other sports clubs and the general community. Additionally, granting the club priority access to the remaining space on the reserve would restrict public access to what's left of the green space that everybody currently has fair access to.

My first question is, the original motion submitted by Councilor Ware in February, agenda item 12.5, suggests that the lease area would encompass the footprint of the future synthetic turf and clubroom, while the license area would be the remaining space designated for the club's use as grass turf, as indicated in their feasibility study. Can the City please provide an approximate measurement in square meters of the proposed lease and licensed areas? Thank you, Mr. Mory.

Mr. Adams, can I send that your way? Uh, no, we're currently awaiting that information from WAPS, and it will be provided as part of the decision-making process for council when the option comes before council for a decision. So that'll happen, uh, hopefully at the next council meeting. Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Your second question, Mr. Mory. Yeah, my second question is, the feasibility study has recommended constructing 100 car bays in a separate car park adjacent to the synthetic turf facility, thereby converting what is currently public open green space into a car park. Can you please advise on the approximate measurement in square meters of the loss of public green space this would result in? Thank you, Michelle.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the proposed car parking area has not been designed, and as such, the City cannot confirm the square meterage at this point in time. A standard car parking bay is 2.4 by 5.5, and as such, we'd need at least 1,320 square meters, excluding access ways and vehicle access maneuverability for 100 car parking bays.

Okay, thank you, Michelle. And your final question, Mr. Mory. My third question is, the February council report states that further discussions between Wesley College and Hockey WA are necessary to determine if their needs can be accommodated at the center. The outcome of these negotiations could affect Wesley College's 50% contribution towards the WAPS synthetic turf and associated infrastructure. While WAPS's position is understood to remain unchanged, has Wesley College's position also remained unchanged? Thank you, Michelle.

Thank you. So, Wesley College and the club had entered into a memorandum of understanding such that approximately 50% of the capital cost of the project would be met by Wesley College. This is a matter between Wesley College and WAPS. Should council proceed with the option to lease, WAPS must demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that it has secured funding for the development.

Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Mr. Mory, for the questions. And folks, I'm just going to remind everyone asking public questions tonight that, uh, try and keep the preambles as, as short as you can. We've, we've got a lot of public questions, and I'm not a big fan of preambles that are effectively deputations with a question mark on the end. So, with that, I'd like to invite Ms. Kirsten Poe of Como. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Good evening. The City's Administration has previously informed me that the WAPS lease option agreement that will be presented to council for a decision will be consistent with the conditions outlined in the notice of motions submitted by Councilor Ware and endorsed by council during the February ordinary council meeting. As such, no new information or conditions will be added to this lease agreement. However, Director Adams stated in last week's meeting that the draft lease option is currently with the club's lawyers, and the City is awaiting their markups and requested changes. Until these are received, the City won't know what negotiations will be required. This suggests that the finalized lease option agreement may deviate from what council agreed upon in February. Could the City please clarify what is meant by markups and provide details on the types of changes the club may be permitted to request, and that the City will be required to include? Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams.

Yeah, so the City provided the club with a draft option document and a draft lease document that reflected the key terms provided for in the council resolution. The full legal document contains many other clauses and definitions that are standard for City leases for crown land and require agreement from the lessee prior to putting the documents forward to council for endorsement. Some of these clauses are able to be varied to some extent to suit the needs of the lessee, and some are not. Just for an example, the lease document contains approximately eight pages of definitions and some 30-odd pages of other clauses, and those clauses are things like to do with indemnities, warranties, insurances, make good clauses, clauses to do with legal licenses, all of those sorts of things. So, there's a whole lot of things that go into the leases on crown land. So, they're the types of things that there may be some negotiations on.

Thank you. I was informed that the boundaries of the lease area would only be approximate at this stage, and that precise surveying will be conducted later if the motion is moved. Could you please clarify whether it is standard practice to include approximate boundaries in such agreements, and whether the lease agreement becomes legally binding based on these approximate boundaries, or if it requires finalization through precise surveying and therefore another council decision before becoming binding? Thank you, Mr. Adams.

So, yeah, the approximate lease boundaries will be included in the lease option agreement. However, the final boundaries will need to be known before the final lease document can be signed. These will only be known once the design has been done and the area properly surveyed. So, it's not necessary to have the exact area for the option agreement, but it will be necessary to have the exact area for the exercise of the option in order to activate the lease agreement, noting that once the option is going to be exercised, the area will not be able to be varied by more than an agreed amount. So there'll be a clause in there that says that if it does vary, then it can't be by more than an agreed amount.

Thank you. Can the City please advise when the finalized lease option agreement will be available for public viewing and confirm if it will be released as part of the agenda notes? Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Yes, the option agreement will form part of the item that goes before council for a decision. So, obviously, council decision is one part of the decision-making process. It should be noted that council is not the final decision maker, as we're dealing with crown land, and any option to lease or lease agreement will require the approval of the Minister for Lands under Section 18 of the Land Administration Act.

Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you, Ms. Poe, for your questions. Thank you. I'd now like to invite Mr. Murray Rosenberg of Como. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Councilors. I refer to the council officers' reported agenda 10.1.1 concerning the possible use by Wesley South Perth Hockey Club of the Australian High Performance Hockey Centre. The quote in my questions is taken from this report. Question one: Why is the City of South Perth Council continuing to investigate the use of Collier Reserve as hockey facilities for the Wesley South Perth Hockey Club when the proposed High Performance Hockey Centre, which will only be 1 kilometer from Collier Reserve, is extremely likely to have, and in quotes from the report from WA Hockey, they're saying is likely to have four turfs, an expanded range of facilities to accommodate local clubs, including WAPS and Xavier Hockey Club? Thank you for the question.

Mr. Adams, that was a question, sorry. Yeah, sorry. And we'll answer it. Mr. Adams.

Okay, I think council's reasons were made clear at the council meeting at which the resolution was made. But following on from that, City officers are bound to follow council resolutions. And as I said, in February 2024, council resolved for the CEO to negotiate with WAPS to prepare a three-year call option to lease over a portion of Collier Reserve, subject to a number of conditions. City officers have simply been carrying out the work required to fulfill that resolution.

Question two: Is it likely that if the WAPS Hockey Club were to utilize the facilities at the proposed High Performance Hockey Centre, that this would be a much less expensive option to both the WAPS Hockey Club and the ratepayers of the City of South Perth as compared to developing hockey facilities at Collier Reserve?

Thank you for the question. Mr. Adams, I think City officers have made it clear on more than one occasion that that's the view of City officers. However, it's also been made clear on more than one occasion that WAPS' preference is to have their own single home ground facility, which would not be provided at the new stadium.

Question three: If WAPS Hockey Club facilities were to be built at Collier Reserve, what benefits will there be to other sporting groups such as soccer and cricket clubs?

Mr. Adams. Um, at this stage, we're unsure as to what the benefits would be to other sporting groups such as soccer and cricket. There is part of the resolution where, uh, WAPS where WAPS are required to look at other users of the facilities there. Um, we expect that they'll do that, and there may be some other benefits that come out of that, but at this stage, it's unclear.

Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you, Mr. Rosenberg, for your questions. I'd now like to invite Professor Chris Maxwell of Como. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. Um, just a little bit of a preamble. In reviewing the council officers' report on agenda item 10.1.1, I note the statement, and I quote, "It is highly likely that the High Performance Hockey Centre will now feature four turfs and an expanded range of facilities to accommodate local clubs, including WAPS and Xavier Hockey Club." The report confirms that the venue would meet the club's needs, including ongoing access to synthetic turf without overlapping demand, on-site income-generating opportunities, and the ability to maintain their sense of identity through the display of club memorabilia. Additionally, various, various meeting and activity spaces will be available for the clubs to use for meeting and social events. This addresses WAPS' desire for a space where their entire club can come together and socialize. Despite assurances that all needs can be met, WAPS maintains its position unchanged due to the absence of grass turfs at the venue. My questions: Firstly, my understanding is that WAPS already has a lease at Richardson Reserve, which is approximately 3 kilometers away from the High Performance Centre, and they have access to grass turfs and their own clubhouse. Can the City please confirm if this is correct and specify the number of hockey grass turfs available at the reserve?

Thank you for the question. Mr. Adams.

So, Richardson Park provides WAPS with a clubhouse, and I think it's set up for three grass hockey, or six, is it? Sorry, six hockey pitches at the moment. It doesn't provide them with a synthetic turf, which is what the higher grades of hockey require for their home games at the moment.

Thank you, Mr. Adams. And, and just before you continue with your second question, Professor, I'm going to extend public question time for another 15 minutes. Please proceed with your second question.

Thank you. Can the City please provide details regarding the type of lease WAPS currently holds at Richardson Reserve and the expiry date of this lease?

Mr. Adams. So, WAPS Hockey Club is a joint lessee of the W.C.G. Thomas Pavilion at Richardson Park together with South Perth Cricket Club for a period of 21 years, expiring in 2044. It does not hold an exclusive lease over the sporting fields but books them for the required playing and training times, as other clubs are required to do throughout the district. So, the lease was approved by the Minister for Lands and is registered with Landgate.

Thank you. My third and final question: The club is also seeking to lease Collier Reserve, and I understand that the drafted lease agreement is currently under review and amendment by the club's lawyers. How can the City assure the public that it will prioritize the interests and needs of the entire community rather than solely accommodating WAPS' desires?

Mr. Adams. So, if a lease is granted, it will provide for exclusive use by WAPS of the synthetic turf and clubhouse areas, with other areas being licensed for non-exclusive use as per the council resolution. Any lease will require the approval of the Minister for Lands and will therefore be assessed in accordance with state government policy, DC Policy 5.3, Use of Crown Land Reserve for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space. So, it'll have to meet the requirements of that, is our understanding.

Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you, Professor Maxwell, for your questions. Thank you very much. Now, I'd like to invite Ms. Christy Low of Como. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Good evening, everybody. My preamble: In reviewing the local government operational guidelines, disclosures of interest, my understanding is that if a council member has an impartiality interest in a matter, as a council member, they must declare that interest. However, they may remain in the meeting and vote on the item. Prior to the June 2023 ordinary council meeting, community members emailed the Mayor, who at the time was co-patron of WAPS, to express their concerns and opposition to the WAPS development at Collier Reserve. The Mayor advised these members that although he was not required to, he would recuse himself from the agenda because it was, in his words, best practice. So, my first question: Am I correct to say that if a council member declares an impartiality interest in a matter, the person can either remain in the meeting and vote on the item, or choose to leave the meeting and abstain from voting? In other words, it is not mandatory for that person to vote on the item. Thank you for the question.

Mr. Adams. Yeah, it's only mandatory for someone to vote on an item if they're in the room.

Okay. So, in the case of the resurrected WAPS development item presented at the February ordinary council meeting, five council members declared their impartiality interests. Among them is Councilor Haley Prendiville, who previously served as president of WAPS and remains heavily involved with the club, holding numerous committee positions and currently minky coordinator. Could Councilor Prendiville, if she chose to abstain from voting on the upcoming WAPS lease agreement agenda item, to address the community fairness concerns?

Thank you for the question. Mr. Adams.

So, again, it's up to a councilor. A councilor can choose not to be in the room when the vote's taken, but if a councilor is in the room when a vote is taken, then they must vote on it.

Okay, thank you. Last question: Following the June ordinary council meeting, the Mayor resigned from his role as co-patron of WAPS to publicly support the club by submitting a notice of motion for the July 2023 ordinary council meeting. Additionally, he endorsed three other candidates who currently are on the council during last year's local election and collectively advocated for collocated facilities for the club. Can the Mayor please explain why he didn't consider it in the community's best interest to recuse himself from the February ordinary council meeting?

Thank you for the question, and I'd be happy to if I'd had a financial or proximity interest in the relevant item at the February 2024 ordinary council meeting. I wouldn't have been able to vote on that. I didn't have a financial or proximity interest. I had an impartiality interest, which, of course, I declared prior to the February 2024 ordinary council meeting. I contacted and sought advice from both the City Administration and also from the Department of Local Government. The advice I received was that I should declare an impartiality interest and vote on the item. So that's exactly what I did.

Thank you very much for the questions. And, uh, well, I'll invite the next questioner to the podium, which is Dr. Sue Gillott of South Perth. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Councilors and City officers. With great leadership from this council, especially Councilors Prendiville and Kovic, in March and April this year, together with strong support from the rest of the council, we now know that the community is substantially in support of the tree retention policy. The draft tree retention policy, at the request of council, the City has expended significant resources on the policy's development, subsequent consultation, and documentation. Tonight is the final step in decisions around its adoption. My question: Could the administration please advise the cost, in the equivalent number of days of time incurred, the number of officers involved, and estimated total cost of direct expenditure in getting the draft tree retention policy to council tonight? Please include time incurred for workshops, community engagement, and consultation, and previous council meetings.

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

Tasks associated with the draft policy include research, preparation of the draft policy, preparing and publishing reports to council, preparing and undertaking advertising, and review of the submissions received. This involves staff from Environmental Services, Planning, Stakeholder Engagement, Communications and Marketing, Governance, and the Executive. The City has not tracked actual costs incurred, given the task can be undertaken through the existing adopted operational budget. However, these tasks have occurred at various times over many months.

So, at the request of this council, the City has worked assiduously on the draft tree retention policy for, I think, several years, but especially this year, and with a council level of interest in this matter. Indeed, expectations have now been raised broadly throughout the community that it will be approved. Having listened to the agenda briefing last week, I heard the focus slip into multiple worries about implementation costs, penalties, risk of neighbor disputes over pruning of trees, policy enforcement, and so on. I also understand that these are important issues which need to be canvassed. My question: Given tree protection is the responsibility of local government in Western Australia, unlike other states, and if, per chance, per chance, this is not adopted tonight, what is the economic and social cost to the City of South Perth of not approving this policy?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

The City disagrees that tree retention is the sole responsibility of local government and instead considers it is a matter between state and local government, as well as private landowners. It is difficult to measure the economic impacts of tree retention on private property, given property prices are speculative, and the City has not compared energy consumption on private properties for those with trees. The social benefits of trees have, however, been outlined within the report at item 10.3.1, including the environmental benefits and creating a sense of place.

Thank you. We have all seen the data on heat index and urban greening, including canopy, biodiversity, amenity, and we know street trees alone will not do the trick. The risk rating for this policy was deemed medium by Director Shaw. I presume this risk rating relates to the risk of an approved, of a policy if it's approved, rather than a risk rating for not having the policy in place. My question: Can the administration please explain the meaning of medium risk in the context of tree protection or retention, how is it arrived at, and what measures the City will need to undertake in order to reduce, or would they need to undertake in order to reduce the medium classification risk rating?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

Risk was considered in relation to the type of event, likelihood of the event occurring, and any mitigation strategies. The medium risk was based on the events that could occur if council adopts or not adopts the draft policy. Should council not adopt the draft policy, there is a risk the City would not be adequately maintaining or enhancing the natural environment. Should council adopt the policy, the City may be unable to uphold its statutory obligation to uphold the requirements of the policy, given the resource implications to enforce the policy.

Thank you, Michelle, and thank you, Dr. Gillott, I'd now like to invite Ms. Katherine Brady of Kensington. Welcome to you, if you'd like to come to the microphone, we look forward to your questions.

Good evening. My preamble: I'll make this short. As a ratepayer, I would hope that it is reasonable to presume that the City only chooses to prosecute someone when there is a high chance of successful outcome in favor of the City. Question one: When choosing whether or not to prosecute someone for illegal development works, would the City consider whether or not the illegal works conflicted with the intent of the relevant planning provisions?

Michelle. Thank you. Yes, the City would need to commence an investigation to determine whether there was a breach of the requirements of the local planning policy.

Okay. Number two: Is the City likely to choose to prosecute someone who pruned a branch that was 50 mil without development approval, rather than the 100 mil prescribed in the draft policy, if the pruning had not adversely affected the health of the tree?

Michelle. Thank you. The City has a responsibility to uphold the requirements of its local planning framework. In determining whether to commence enforcement proceedings, the City needs to consider whether it is in the public interest to do so, the impact of the contravention on the amenity of the locality and the environment, the time elapsed since the works occurred, and the factual circumstances in which the contravention took place.

Number three: If the illegal pruning was more than 10% but was otherwise insignificant and had little adverse impact on the health of the tree, would the City prosecute?

Michelle. Thank you. So, in addition to the previous response, in prosecution proceedings, the onus is on the City to prove all elements of an offense beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, an additional factor that should be considered when determining whether to initiate prosecution proceedings is the strength of the evidence available, being the prospect of the prosecution succeeding. So, we would need to ensure that we had appropriate evidence before we sought to commence prosecution proceedings.

Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Miss Brady, for your questions. Thank you. I'd now like to invite Mr. Warren Borman of South Perth. Welcome to you. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your questions.

Thanks. Question in this case, yes. Question might have just about been answered in that last one, because it would be reassuring if the City chose to be moderate and sensible in its approach to enforcing the draft tree retention policy. My question: Can the City please describe the approach it will take to enforcing the policy around minor tree maintenance in the context of no threat to the life of the tree, and or when tree owners have informed the City of their intention to trim the branches?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

Thank you. Should the landowner provide the City with details of the proposed pruning, which could include photos of the tree to be maintained, the City can compare the proposal to the requirement of the policy to determine whether the works are exempt from requiring development approval. If the City becomes aware that works have allegedly occurred that are inconsistent with the requirements of the policy, the City may commence an investigation to determine if a breach has occurred and whether or not it's appropriate to commence enforcement action.

Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Mr. Borman, for your question. I'd now like to... Oh, wait, before I do that, we're just about to run out of the second tranche of 15 minutes. So, this time to extend public question time again. I do need to put it to a vote. I'll move a motion that we extend public question time by further 15 minutes. Seconded by Councilor Brenda Brandis. Thank you. Councilors, please cast your votes as to whether we extend public question time for a further 15 minutes.

And that was unanimous. Thank you very much. With that, I'd like to invite Ms. Cathy Lee of South Perth. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilors, and City officers. So, my questions are in relation to the draft local planning policy on tree retention. Thank you again, Councilors, for persisting with your mission to protect our large, healthy trees, which you're under more pressure than ever. I urge you now to finish the job and adopt the policy without delay. With this in mind, I have the following questions in response to some concerns that you have raised. So, question one: The City has a lot of local, a lot of laws and policies that are required to be complied with, but from my experience in local government, there are generally limited resources allocated to compliance, largely for budgetary reasons. So, a case in point being the illegal artificial turf that is on numerous verges in the City that the City's been notified of, and it's taken no action on those. So, if the policy is approved, does the City believe that there is value in pursuing minor pruning breaches, such as inspecting green waste put on verges as part of the green waste collection to ensure the branches do not exceed 100 millimeters in diameter, and is this something that the City is likely to commit resources to?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

The City has limited capacity to proactively monitor any breaches to the policy. If adopted, the City would therefore typically only commence an investigation where it became aware of the alleged offense, which is often on a complaints basis.

At the agenda briefing last week, there were concerns raised about the costs to the City of prosecutions if the policy is adopted. I think this concern is unwarranted, as policies and laws are generally a deterrent in themselves for the majority of the population who are law-abiding citizens, but also because, in my experience, local government administrations and their councilors generally err against prosecuting wherever possible. But can the City please advise how many times it has prosecuted someone that has undertaken development that is illegal under the Planning and Development Act 2005 in the last two years, and in the last five years?

Michelle. Thank you. Whilst the City agrees that policy positions and laws can act as a deterrent, the City has a statutory obligation to uphold the requirements of its local planning framework, which includes undertaking an investigation where it becomes aware of an alleged breach. The City takes an education-first approach to planning compliance, seeking to work with landowners and developers to bring a proposal into compliance in the first instance, including obtaining any necessary approvals. The City has commenced one planning-related prosecution action in the last five years for illegal development, which is currently before the courts.

So, question three: The City has aerial surveys of tree canopy undertaken periodically, which provide the mapping of individual trees, their location, height, and canopy width, including one done in April just gone. The cost of this survey has already been incurred as part of the review of the Urban Forest Strategy, so there's no additional cost there. And my understanding is it can provide the tree height and width information needed to enforce the tree retention local planning policy. It is also likely that there are other aerial survey sources, such as Intramaps, available that could assist in providing the information in terms of canopy width. So, can the City please advise if it is likely that, regardless of whether or not this policy is adopted, these aerial surveys and collection of canopy data will continue to take place from time to time to monitor the success of the Urban Forest Strategy when it is reviewed and finalized?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Whilst Arbor Carbon acquired airborne data over South Perth in April 2024, this data differs to the data required to enforce the policy in that the height for the user interface is not preset to the heights for a defined regulated tree in the policy, and there is no data available for the diameter. The 8-meter strata would need to be acquired and embedded into the user interface, and diameter information obtained. Intramaps does not have the specificity required to enforce the policy. The City's preference is also to rely on data obtained from the state government due to consistency between local governments and the data set being the intellectual property of the state for ongoing reference and cost implications.

Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Miss Lee, for your questions. So, but I didn't get an answer whether you would be doing data as part of the Urban Forest Strategy.

Yes, we would.

All right. I'd now like to invite Ms. Bronwyn David of South Perth. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilors, and City officers. Thank you for the opportunity. My question is in regard to the local planning policy on tree retention. As we all know, the majority of mature trees in the area are lost when a property is purchased for development. This policy aims to address this loss by requiring a development application before trees are removed. The majority of developments in the area are undertaken by development companies or developers. As such, the policy impacts on developers' business as usual model, hopefully saving trees from removal, and as such, it may be that this policy will restrict the activities of developers in the area. My first question is, that given this motion may impact developers and development companies, does the City consider that a councilor may have a conflict of interest in relation to the motion if a councilor has received donations from development companies or developers, such that they should recuse themselves from voting on the motion?

Thank you for the question. Michelle.

It is the responsibility of the individual elected member to declare an interest. A person has a financial interest in a matter if it is reasonable to expect that the matter will, if dealt with by the local government or an employee or committee of the local government or member of the council of the local government in a particular way, resulting in a financial gain, loss, benefit, or detriment for that person.

My second question is, concerns the council. The City is the largest tree owner in the City. So, the City must from time to time be met with plans where it is proposed that a verge tree or a street tree will need to be removed to accommodate a crossover for a new development. Can you confirm that the City's planners already have experience negotiating with applicants and looking at alternative options to avoid tree removal?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

Oh, yes. So, the deemed-to-comply criteria of the Residential Design Codes provides that driveways should be located so as to avoid street trees or, where unavoidable, replaced at the applicant's expense. This criteria provides the City the ability to determine whether a design should be modified, which can be used in negotiation with the landowner. The City therefore has experience in these negotiations.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Miss David, for your questions. I'd now like to invite Mr. Thomas Lee of South Perth. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilors, and City officers. The impacts of climate change and increasing urban heat will have a significant negative impact on the health and well-being of our community, especially younger people who have to live with the consequences of these decisions for longer, and on our environment. Our existing canopy cover on private lands helps to mitigate this risk. My first question is, have the impacts of climate change and increasing urban heat been addressed on the City's strategic risk register?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

The potential impacts of climate change and a City's ability to respond have been identified in the City's operational risk register.

My second question is, does the City recognize that there will be an increased risk and associated cost to the community and to future generations if the retention local planning policy is not adopted?

Thank you for the question, Michelle.

The City has determined the risk associated with the draft policy as medium, which includes impacts on the ability for the City to maintain and enhance the natural environment.

Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Mr. Lee, for your questions. Now, I do understand that was the end of the questions that we've received written submissions prior to tonight's meeting, but I do understand we've received some late questions. I'm happy to read them, but I don't know if the officers will be in a position to respond. Have we got those questions on hand?

Oh, the person is here, apparently. Okay. So, Ms. Natasha Hurley-Walker, if you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you. Uh, we look forward to your questions, but because they were submitted late, I can't guarantee you'll get an answer here.

I understand. Sorry about the late submission. I just, in regards again to the draft tree retention policy, I wanted to note that the large, healthy trees have a significant dollar value in terms of benefits to the community, and of course, in terms of benefit in the warming climate. We, the policy aims to prevent the loss of mature trees by requiring a development application before trees are removed. And currently, it seems the majority of mature trees are lost when a property is purchased for development. For example, near me, there's a large development block on the corner of Lay Street and Manning Road.

Miss Hurley-Walker, I'm indulging you because the question is late, but it's a deputation. It's time for public questions.

I know, I know. It was cleared of all vegetation, including large trees, a few years ago. So, my question is, does the City agree that most tree removals that would require approval if the policy is adopted would be included as part of an application for proposed development of a site, and not a separate application? So, would they normally be included anyway?

Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, the policy seeks to affirm that tree retention constitutes works for which development approval is otherwise required under the Planning and Development Act. There is no separate application that would otherwise be required. It would be an application for development approval if the policy is adopted.

Okay, thank you. And I just wanted to ask about the cost between, if we continue to remove these trees versus the cost of implementing the policy. Since the dollar value is so high, would the City agree that if we implement the policy, the cost would be recouped, even if just a handful of large, mature trees were saved?

Michelle. Thank you. No, given the City does not pay for the removal of trees on private property, and we seek to retain trees on public land where possible.

Thank you. And finally, just regarding that cleared lot, would it have been avoided if this policy had been in place when that lot was cleared?

Michelle. Not necessarily, as the landowner may have chosen to still remove the trees and risk enforcement action being undertaken by the City. The policy would make it an offense to remove regulated trees, but it does not prevent a landowner from removing a tree.

Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Miss Hurley-Walker, for your questions. Okay, that brings us to item seven, which is confirmation of minutes and notes.

Item 7.1 is minutes. Item 7.1.1 is the ordinary council meeting held 25 June 2024. So, I'm about to call for a mover and a seconder that the minutes of the ordinary council meeting held 25 June 2024 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record. Could I have a mover, please?

Councilor Coveny. Thank you.

A seconder? Councilor D'Usey. Thank you.

Councilors, does anyone oppose this? No. Okay, then I'll declare that carried unanimously.

Item 7.2 is notes of briefing. I'm about to call for a mover and a seconder to move that council notes the following council briefings and workshops were held: 7.2.1 concept briefings and workshops, and 7.2.2 Council Agenda Briefing 16 July 2024. Could I have a mover, please?

Councilor Kovic. Thank you.

Councilor Brenda Brandis seconding. Councilors, does anyone oppose this? No. Okay, well, that we'll call that one carried unanimously then.

That brings us to item eight, which is presentations. Item 8.1 is petitions. That's nil for this evening. Item 8.2 is gifts or awards presented to council. That's nil for this evening. And item 8.3 is deputations. Deputations were heard at the council agenda briefing held 16 July 2024.

That brings us to item nine, which is method of dealing with agenda business. And I'll now seek confirmation from the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Mike Bradford, that all the report items contained in tonight's agenda were discussed at the July Council Agenda Briefing.

That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Bradford. So, with the exception of those items to be withdrawn for discussion this evening, reports will be adopted by exception resolution. And by this, I mean the officer recommendation will be adopted as is, without discussion or amendment. The following items have been withdrawn: That's item 10.3.1, entitled Draft Local Planning Policy Tree Retention Final Adoption, and the reason for that is I have an alternative motion, and Councilor Brenda Brandis has an amended motion. Councilors, items 10.3.2, Proposed Alterations and Additions to Single House and Home Business Office, Lot 3, Number 151 Angelo Street, South Perth, item 10.3.3, Proposed Child Care Premises, Lots 21 and 22, Numbers 15 and 17 Bowman Street, South Perth, and item 10.4.3, City of South Perth Honor Boards, were the subject of deputations last week. Does anyone wish to withdraw either these or any other items for discussion this evening?

And that's a no. Okay. In that case, I'll now call for a mover and a seconder to carry the following items by exception resolution. Those are item 10.1.1, Collocated Hockey Facilities within the City of South Perth; item 10.3.2, Proposed Alterations and Additions to Single House and Home Business Office, Lot 3, Number 151 Angelo Street, South Perth; item 10.3.3, Proposed Child Care Premises, Lots 21 and 22, Numbers 15 and 17 Bowman Street, South Perth; item 10.4.1, Listing of Payments June 2024; item 10.4.2, Monthly Financial Statements June 2024 Interim; and item 10.4.3, City of South Perth Honor Boards. Could I have a mover, please?

Councilor Coveny. Thank you.

A seconder? Councilor Brandis. Thank you.

Councilors, does anyone oppose any of these items? No. Okay, so those items have just been passed by exception resolution in accordance with Clause 5.5 of the City of South Perth Standing Orders Local Law 2007, and the officers' recommendations have been accepted by council. We will now be moving on to those reports identified to be withdrawn for discussion this evening.

Good catch, Michelle. Uh, the first and only one of which is item 10.3.1, entitled Draft Local Planning Policy Tree Retention Final Adoption. And so, as I foreshadowed before, I've got an alternative motion on this item. Bear with me, which I will move now. Uh, so I'll read that out, and then I'll see about a seconder. My alternative motion is as follows: That Council: 1. Pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4, Subclause 3 of the Planning and Development Local Planning Schemes Regulations 2005, sorry, 2015, does not adopt Draft Local Planning Policy Tree Retention as contained within attachment A. And 2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to write to the state government and request the state government adopt a consistent position concerning trees on private property to provide certainty on this issue. Could I have a seconder there, please?

Councilor Prendiville. Thank you.

Okay, so these are my reasons. I'll have to speak fast, but here we go. So, councilors, there were a lot of questions asked at last week's Council Agenda Briefing, and the information provided by our officers in response was instructive. There are obviously some major problems with the draft policy. In the time I have available to me, I'm going to speak to what I think are some of those problems with this draft policy. But before I do, I want to be clear that nothing that I'm about to say is a criticism of the City officers. Council asked the City officers to create this policy at the March ordinary council meeting. Council then asked the City to advertise the draft of this policy at the April ordinary council meeting. Our officers have worked hard to give effect to what we've asked them to do, and I think having had the opportunity to consider the draft policy, that we actually gave them a very difficult job. In fairness to our officers, I'm not sure the intended outcome can easily be achieved without major problems. That may be why the state government has so far declined to lead the way on this issue. I don't think it's fair to expect local governments to pick up the slack. We simply haven't got the resources to do it. This issue should be determined by the state government, as state governments have in other jurisdictions. The central issue before us is the protection of large mature trees on private property. The council.

Has previously tried to legislate on this issue. As many, well, everyone here, I think, is aware, Council introduced amendments to the then draft local planning scheme last year to protect large mature trees. Those amendments were rejected by the minister, and the same thing happened to the City of Netherlands.

So why do I say this issue belongs with the state government and not with us? The first issue is cost. It became obvious last week that this policy is going to be very expensive to administer and enforce. I'll try to be brief because I've got limited time, but these are some of the costs that were identified last week. We heard that it'll cost the city between $3,000 and $40,000 to obtain detailed mapping data that would tell which trees in the city are regulated trees for the purposes of the draft policy. Let's be reasonable. Let's split the difference and say that's a cost of $335,000. We also heard that we need to refresh that data annually, making that $35,000 an ongoing annual cost. We heard that we'll need to employ at least two new planning officers, possibly three, to handle the new development applications that the city will receive pursuant to the draft policy, at an estimated cost of $100,000 per officer, inclusive of salaries, superannuation, and overheads. Let's be optimistic. Let's assume we'll only need two rather than three new planning officers. That creates an ongoing annual cost to the city of $200,000 per annum. We also heard that we'll need to employ new planning officers to handle the prosecutions that the city might undertake pursuant to this policy, once again at an estimated cost of $100,000 per officer. We don't know how many new planning officers will need to handle prosecutions. Let's assume we only need two. That's a further $200,000 per annum. We also heard that the legal costs of the prosecution of one of our residents under this policy would be likely to cost the city between $10,000 and $20,000. Once again, let's split the difference. Assume an average cost of $155,000 per prosecution. If we have, say, 10 prosecutions per year, that's another $150,000 per annum. These are estimated costs, uh, but that's an estimated cost of $585,000 each and every year to administer and enforce the policy, and that's not including the costs of the broad community advertising campaign referred to at page 12 of the officer report, which we heard last week would cost approximately $50,000.

Counselors, that's a lot of money. How many new trees could we plant for that money? I'm guessing it would probably be in the tens of thousands. Whatever you think, that's a lot of money that could be put into any number of alternative ways that could benefit our community, such as sports facilities, public lighting, or precinct activation. If we pass this policy, we need to be aware that we're saying no to whatever else that money could have been used for. Now, in fairness, I do appreciate there are some members of our community who would probably say that any amount of money is worth it to save some trees. So it's probably worth us looking at how effective this policy would be in saving regulated trees.

Counselors, any hypothetical landowner who has sufficient means and who is sufficiently sophisticated will find a way around this policy. Dead trees fall outside the definition of regulated tree and therefore have no protection. I've been speaking for 5 minutes. Would someone be kind enough to move a motion?

Counselor Coveny, uh, when want to speak. Counselor Souza, thank you very much. Councilors, can you please vote on a motion as to whether I should be rather defer the 5 minutes? That was unanimous. Thank you, councilors. I do appreciate the indulgence. I'll try to be quick.

The city isn't going to know or be able to prove whether a regulated tree has been poisoned or whether a regulated tree has had its root systems damaged. The city might well suspect, but as we heard last week, the city isn't going to have the evidence to mount a successful prosecution. More than that, Clause 5, sub-Clause B, sub-sub-Clause Roman numeral 4 of the draft policy says that landowners are entitled to remove trees if the tree removal is urgently necessary for the protection of the environment. A hypothetical landowner could remove trees from their property and subsequently claim that the trees were infected with shot hole borer or with dieback or with something else that justified the removal of the tree under Clause five of the policy. They'll say that urgent removal was necessary to protect the environment, and it will be very difficult for the city to prove otherwise. So, in short, any sufficiently sophisticated landowner is going to be able to drive a Mac Truck through this policy. I understand that some members of our policy, our community, are excited. They think that the existence of this policy will mean that no regulated tree will ever be removed from private property again. I do fear those people are mistaken. So that's the second problem with this policy. It's not going to be capable of enforcement and it won't achieve the aims that people expect it will.

The third problem with this policy is unintended consequences. Page 12 of the officer report tells us that passing this policy will create, quote, "a likelihood of trees being preemptively removed at scale ahead of the policy measures being introduced," end quote. Well, that's bad. In fact, that's completely counterproductive to the intent of the policy.

Problem four is opportunity cost. Councilors, this is a prime example of putting on the blinkers and focusing on one single tactic to the exclusion of all else, at the expense of the overarching goal. If the goal is tree canopy cover, then they are much more efficient and effective ways of achieving that goal. This proposal is expensive, it's inefficient, and it's, speaking frankly, it's probably doomed to failure. The city could pour an enormous amount of resources into trying to make this policy work. Those are resources that could otherwise have been spent on projects and endeavors that have a much greater practical chance of benefiting our community. The resources that we will end up spending trying to save a single regulated tree, probably unsuccessfully, could fund the planting of thousands of new trees. So, council, that's the fourth problem with this policy. It fails the opportunity cost test.

Councilors, I'll leave it there because I'm starting to run out of time, but I appreciate the intentions behind this policy are good, but it is unworkable in practice. One of the biggest responsibilities we have as a local government is to oversee the allocation of the city's finances and resources and to determine the local government's policies. In fact, that's exactly what section 2.7 of the Local Government Act says is the role of council. Might be unpopular to say this, but we would be failing that duty if we passed this policy. This is very much the domain of the state government. There's an old saying: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," and what that means is stay in your lane. This is a state government issue. It's up to the state government to resolve it. Councilors, I commend my alternative motion to you.

Uh, thank you for that, uh, Councilor Pral. The microphone is yours if you'd like to speak a second. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we've been through an incredible exercise, um, to date, and I'd like to commend the city, especially elected members and the community, for everyone's hard work. And I can truly say that, um, especially for myself, and I know that none of us have taken this lightly, um, and we have exhaustedly explored so many ways that this can work. Um, this draft local planning policy has brought the community together on an important issue. I'll be honest, this has been really difficult. Uh, it seemed simple, but the further we got into this process, the more complicated it all became. One of the initial intentions for this policy was to avoid mass clearing on larger developments, but in reality, it comes to light that, as stands, I feel the everyday resident, um, will be the person who suffers for accidentally overt trimming their tree. Um, these, there are a number of practical issues of implementing this draft policy, and as the administration has worked hard to investigate and report, um, they have explained to us the extra resources that we would be looking at, um, which will impose significant financial costs, extra resources, administrative staff, enforcement costs, and these will be ongoing and not just the one-off costs. Um, as mentioned, we have a responsibility to be financially prudent, and these costs will ultimately fall to our ratepayers, um, even possibly resulting in a rate rise. We are in a strong financial position, and we need to be cautious moving forward to get the best result for our city. I know we've been disappointed, um, in the response from the state government around this issue, but like it does in other states, it needs to come from the state government at their level. Um, this current motion maintains an important point of advocation to the state government and representatives, which is an essential part of this process. I cannot justify passing these costs, significant costs, onto our community. Um, I remain committed to improving our green spaces in the city and I look forward to the elected members' urban greening strategy workshop in a few weeks so we can work together with the admin, um, on our next steps forward. Um, but I'll be, uh, in favor of this, um, uh, alternative motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Praval. Councilors, is there anyone who would like to speak against my alternative motion? Councilor War. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am speaking against this alternative this evening. Now, firstly, uh, whereas I do fully accept that the city has had to address this question because the state legislation has not properly ensured tree protection, and whereas other states in Australia have included within their legislation tree protection provisions, this, in my view, is only part of the solution. We do need to consider the position that we are in at present. This city is in a crisis. Shot hole borer is likely to destroy trees that line our streets. Trees contribute to the amenity of our community, and it is not sufficient to simply say, "Oh well, the state government has not provided leadership on this critical issue, so neither can we." I, for one, do not understand why we do not have legislation that protects significant trees, similar to other states. This policy that we've been provided is a WALGA template, and while this may not be as enforceable as stated, nevertheless, I understand that WALGA has taken legal advice on this question. I consider the debate over what a court might do in the event that a city, city officer decides to use their discretion in some unknown circumstance in the future pushes us into a world of hypotheticals. Rather, I have faith in our officers who presented us with this policy, and that they will use their discretion wisely when considering the circumstances of each case as they may present. I do not consider this a reason to refrain from taking steps to preserve our environment. If it becomes apparent that our policy requires amendment, then we are able to do so in the future, but we must start somewhere. We must find ways to have sensible policies that protect significant trees, and when I say significant trees, I mean large trees, trees that our community loves. We cannot sit here and point the finger at the lack of action by state government as a justification to do nothing ourselves. If I had thought that the protection of our tree canopies under threat by both overdevelopment and shot hole borer was not a crisis, I would accept that we do nothing and we simply write to the state. But my fellow counselors, I do believe we are in a state of crisis. Our tree canopy is under threat. Our community expects us to take a stand, and to just wait for the state government is not leadership that our ratepayers expect from us. Much has been said of private property rights, and I assure you, as a town planning environmental lawyer, I have argued many cases where the government takes land for public works. I have been on the forefront of property rights issues. This is an issue that is very close to my heart. When a local government said that land had been removed from a title 30 years before my client had bought it without changing the title, I fought it to the High Court. When artificial wetlands are determined without a proper environmental basis, restricting what my clients are able to do with their land, I fought it. When government resumes land, I fight for compensation. My concern for property rights runs very deep, and in fact, a little known fact is that it motivates me to want to do more. However, it is a balancing act. We all accept restrictions over our land caused by zoning policy or legislation, provided such restrictions are fair and reasonable in the circumstances. We all accept them. You cannot start a business in a residential area, and for good reason, yet this is a constraint to your property rights. You see, property rights must be seen in context, and in my view, sensible constraints on people removing significant trees where we all value our trees so much is sensible and reasonable. This is not a property rights debate. This is a debate about protecting our treed suburbs. It's about protecting the very character of our areas, and are about protecting what is South Perth. So please don't hail me down as if I'm presenting preventing all trees from being cut down. Hear me clearly. We need to protect those trees that are significant within our community. We need to ensure that we provide protections for trees where the state government has failed to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor War. Folks, we've spoken about this before. We, we just listen respectfully rather than booing or hissing or clapping. It's, it's not the role of the gallery. So with that, is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the alternative motion who hasn't spoken yet? Councilor Coveny. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, firstly, I commend Councilor Pral for bringing a motion seeking to protect established trees, and I also commend the administration for them putting together a policy about it. However, the feedback that we've received from our community about this particular issue is polarizing. When I counted the feedback from residents in the ward whom I'm elected to represent, being the Melville Ward, I counted about 50, four and 50 against. That is not a clear mandate from our community to pass this policy, and it should be cause for caution. When I look at most of the responses from those in favor, there is no critical analysis of the policy itself, but rather a general statement in support of trees and the benefits they bring. But we are not voting on whether or not we like mature trees. Most members of our community would support that proposition. So when I look through the comments which have engaged in discussion about the policy itself, which unfortunately comes largely from those against it, there are some practical issues that arise that I say cannot be ignored. The cost to our residents in advertising and regularly updating data because trees grow, in hiring new staff to review applications and in enforcement, the uncertainty in enforcement in trying to apply a policy with no legislative backing, the ability for well-meaning moms and dads to get caught in the crossfire from the ill intent of bad neighbors, to have no case study examples in WA. We would be the guinea pigs. I also commend Councilor Brenda Brandis for doing his best to try and remedy some of the issues highlighted, namely by removing tree pruning activities from the policy, but in my view, it doesn't overcome the issues of cost and enforcement and the philosophical argument of private property rights. The policy is virtue signaling, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but, but, but it is when it comes at a significant cost to our ratepayers in the hundreds of thousands each year. I ran on a mandate of strong financial management, and I'd be breaking that promise, promise if I were to support this motion, uh, sorry, to support the policy. I remind all councilors that this vote is not about whether or not we support the retention of mature trees, but rather this specific policy before us. Not voting for this policy does not disqualify you, does not disqualify you from being an ally to the cause of tree protection. The world is not black and white. There are many ways to skin a cat, and the policy as drafted is just the wrong way to go about it. So I'm fully behind the state government. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Coveny. Is there someone who would like to speak against the alternative motion who hasn't spoken? Councilor Choy. Uh, yes, um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Look, I've got a comment and a couple of questions. Um, the first question I have is just in regards, um, to the, as a point of order, actually, question around the procedure for raising an alternative motion. Wasn't the substantive motion required to be raised first before an alternative? No, in fact, consistently alternative motions have been given first part of the cherry at this chamber. Oh, that's okay. Before the officer recommendation is, is read out? Yes, okay. No worries. Thank you. Just want to clarify that. Uh, so secondly, um, Council brought this item to the city, not the other way around. Time of money has been expended by the city on the policy, including the community consultation process, and, um, at that time, when Council endorsed that process, it could have, um, raised some issues with, with the draft policy, but I don't recall, um, anything or much was raised, um, in any case, the community did respond, and they've responded positively to the draft policy during that relevant submission period. So my question on that is, what are the implications of council now not deciding on the draft policy as presented, as it requested? Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So if council chose to not adopt the draft policy, um, it would mean that we would not have statutory protection for regulated trees as defined in the policy, um, and we would not be able to undertake enforcement action should a regulated tree be removed. Did you have another question, Councilor Choy? Yes, a couple more. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And through the chair to Director Shaw, did the city get any legal or other opinions or advice on the draft policy before it, um, brought it to council? Michelle. Thank you. Yes, so the city, um, has received legal advice that effectively provided that, um, council could adopt a policy that seeks to interpret the works definition as contained within the Planning and Development Act as works that would otherwise require approval. However, that hasn't been tested, and I think I've outlined that through the previous reports. Uh, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Again, through, um, the chair to Director Shaw, so I know the officer recommendation is for council to adopt the draft local planning policy. I'm a bit confused as to why it would recommend a policy that I think I heard Director Shaw say earlier on in response to another question that it might find difficult to enforce. Miss Shaw, and then I'll throw to Councilor Kirkland. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So there are, there are two parts to this. The first is whether or not council can adopt a local planning policy. Um, the city has followed the regulatory processes for, um, preparing and advertising a local planning policy. The city is also of the opinion that the local planning policy is based on sound town planning principles, and they're the requirements that are needed for council to be able to lawfully adopt a local planning policy. So it passes those tests. That's a separate matter to the implications associated with administering the local planning policy, and the city, throughout various reports, has advised that it can administer the policy. It just needs the data and resources to do so. Thank you, Michelle. Councilor Kirkland. Um, I was simply going to raise a point of order, um, Mr. Mayor, just in respect of, um, asking questions of staff, um, or the admin in respect of legal advice that may, in any way, reveal the content of that advice, because, of course, we would lose legal professional privilege if there was any indication given as to what the content of that advice was. Point well made. Thank you, Councilor Kirkland. Councilor Choy, any further questions? No. Is there anyone who would like to, Councilor Brenda Brandis, questions or speaking? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got some questions. Far away. Okay. Um, so I've got a series of questions, um, which I provided earlier, so hopefully the administration can assist. Is there any other option available to the city at this time to require that these large trees remain in place until a development application for a site is approved? Michelle. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, other than council acquiring land, or, and this is something that hasn't been tested in Western Australia, council could, um, adopt heritage areas, which would otherwise make, um, it would otherwise require the need for a development application for residential development over land within a heritage protected area. So that also hasn't been tested. Uh, thank you, Director Shaw. And just following on from that response, uh, with regard to adopting heritage areas, is that something that would give consideration to, um, with the work that will come back to council for heritage? Michelle. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, however, the city would be doing that on the basis of the heritage values of the area and the number of places that are otherwise contained on the local heritage survey, and it would not necessarily be recommending heritage areas so solely on the basis of protecting trees on private property. Thank you, Director Shaw. What was the cost to the city in prosecutions for illegal development works under the Planning and Development Act 2005 in the last 5 years? Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, nothing at this point in time. However, as I mentioned before, we do have, um, one action currently before the courts, and we don't know the final, um, cost associated with that. Thank you. Um, with regard to fines imposed by the magistrate or the, the State Administrative Tribunal, um, for illegal development works, um, under the Planning and Development Act 2005, um, how much was that in the last 5 years? I'm going to expect, based on your previous answer, that that would be nil. Michelle. Sure. Yes, that's correct. Nil. Thank you, Director Shaw. Um, another question, um, is the city aware of a large, um, Citriodora at 53 South Perth Esplanade that was removed yesterday? So large numbers of the community have actually raised this as a concern and have been very disappointed with regard to the loss of, uh, that tree. Can you advise whether, if adopted, the tree retention policy with amendments as I've proposed, um, tonight, would require a development application for the removal of a tree like this in the future? Michelle. Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor. So the images that I've seen suggest the tree would have met the criteria of a regulated tree under the draft policy, and as such, the city would have considered it an offense to remove that tree unless development approval had first been obtained. Thank you, Director Shaw. Um, just another question with regard to, um, the proposal, uh, that I had this evening, so amending to remove maintenance pruning criteria, would this amendment provide greater clarity, certainty, and also reduced direct cost to be incurred by residents and ratepayers in complying with an amended LLP in undertaking routine maintenance of the trees? Michelle. Thank you. So removing reference to maintenance from, um, the draft policy and the associated provisions would clarify to the residents that development approval is not required to maintain their tree because it would no longer be a requirement of the policy. Um, fewer development applications would therefore be required, which would reduce the staff costs associated with processing the applications and investigating alleged breaches of the policy. Right. Thank you, Director Shaw. And just following on from that question, um, at last week's agenda briefing, a lot of the conversation was with regard to the pruning of, um, limbs that were over fences, um, the pruning of branches of 105 or 150 millimeters in diameter, and also with regard to, um, pruning of fruit trees. Would they all have been caught under, um, the maintenance pruning, um, definition, and therefore, if the amendment did proceed, none of those conversations would have been relevant last week? Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Without knowing the specifics of each tree, I wouldn't be able to, um, say with all certainty that they wouldn't have been captured, um, but the concerns would be removed, um, given development approval wouldn't be required for any maintenance pruning, um, if, if the changes that you're suggesting went through. Thank you, Director Shaw. Um, this evening, we've heard of a considerable cost and impost to the city to administer, um, a, a tree protection policy. We've heard of a couple of thousand dollars. Can the, um, administration please confirm that a couple of thousand dollars annually is a reasonable estimate, and would that also be a couple of hundred thousand dollars if the, removal of the pruning maintenance provision, um, was made to a local planning policy? Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think, um, that initial estimate is accurate for if the policy was adopted as is. However, if there were modifications to remove, um, provisions related to maintenance, we would need to actually monitor the policy if adopted to see what staff and resource implications there actually were, because that would likely significantly reduce the amount of development applications that would otherwise be required. Thank you, Michelle. Any further questions, Councilor Brenda Brandis? No. Okay. I might ask three questions then, because Councilor Brenda Brandis has made reference to the amended motion he's got, and this is to Michelle Shaw. As far as I can tell, the amended motion that I think Council is referring to removes all provisions regarding pruning and tree maintenance from the policy. If that amended motion were to be carried, would that mean that landowners could incrementally prune a regulated tree to the point of that tree actually dying? Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Theoretically, yes, um, and that would be, uh, unfortunate, but a landowner could continually prune a tree, which would not require development approval, to the point that the tree then died and could be removed because it wasn't a living tree. Thank you. You've answered my second question, which is, would the landowner then be free to remove the dead tree without the need for development approval? Uh, my third question is, is that why the maintenance and pruning provisions that the amended motion would seek to remove were included in the policy in the first place? Yes, that's correct. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, Councilor Brenda Brandis, questions or speaking? Uh, yes, another question, Mr. Mayor. Um, following on from, uh, your response, Director Shaw, um, with regard to removing the maintenance pruning provisions, um, to what extent would you consider that that would actually reduce the administrative burden to have a workable, um, tree protection policy, because that would obviously be a significant amount of, um, arbitrary discussion and judgment? Um, Mr. Bradford, I'm not sure we can reasonably estimate, you know, that, given the discussion, it would have an impact, it would lead to a reduction, but it's pretty hard to speculate on a whole bunch of variables. Thank you, Mr. Bradford. Councilors, is there anyone who would like to speak against the alternative motion that hasn't spoken? Councilor Brenda Brandis. Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to speak against this item. Far away. Okay. So firstly, we need to consider that, um, this proposal is actually going to take any protection policy out of our hands and take it back to the state government. We need to consider that the state government has had, um, a lack of support with regard to tree protection, and they've been somewhat indifferent. The state government has not taken any action or lead in tree protection, and this has been identified when we proposed as a council to include tree protection, um, in the local planning strategy number seven, and that has since, since been removed. The state government has a private property rights charter, sorry, private property rights charter, which would not support restrictions to development on private land. The state government has demonstrated an indifference to the lack of support through the following: no restrictions to be imposed on private land, the removal of the local government, um, tree protection policies that were included through the local planning scheme number seven, the aborted green growth plans, and also the urban greening strategy that does not consider any tree protection. So it's really quite important to note that the state government has not got any proposal to have any tree protection in place. If we had another turn of term of government next year, we would see the same, um, indifference to tree protection policies. It should be noted that the green growth plan clearly indicates the state's appetite to actually undertake any issues with regard to, um, protection of, um, vegetation on private properties doesn't exist. For the urban greening strategy, um, it should be noted, um, that there is reference to tree protection, but the survey undertaken did not consider tree protection as part of the process. The minister has been quoted as saying that it's not an official decision that's been made, but the government is working on different broader greening strategy that seeks to respect the rights of private property owners. Now, that's highly aligned to the private property rights charter, which would indicate that there'd be no development opportunities. I'm extremely concerned when we see the loss of significant trees across the city, and we are helpless and can do nothing. Some of the, the, the trees that we've lost in the last year and a half include places like the former Telstra site, the corner of Manning and Lay Street, the Peninsula Riverside Apartments, 53 South Perth Esplanade, 123 Hensman Street, three large, we lost two Hopetoun Street, 28 Angelo Street, 5 to 7 Birdwood Avenue, Como, for a proposed lot, 61 Canavan Street in Manning, 256 and 258 Mill Point Road, and 380 Mill Point Road, to name a few. I'm also very concerned that when we seek community feedback, and we get an overwhelming response, um, supporting a local planning policy, that we prefer possibly an option to hand this back to the state government, who has no appetite for tree protection policies. With regards to the costing, so we've, we've heard that this might cost a significant amount of money, bearing in mind the trees are a long-term strategy for greening the community and also providing canopy cover. This is not for a short-term benefit, it's a long-term strategy. The cost that we should be considering with regard to planting trees is an investment. The trees, um, do need, um, protection. We've considered that currently the city's got a canopy cover of around about 17%, which is quite, in, which is quite a significantly low number. The private lots comprise about 57% of the land, but despite this, we're still substantially losing trees on private property. On private property, um, any tree above 3 meters in height accounts for around about 13.3% of the canopy cover, and above 8 meters in height, they account for only 6% of the canopy cover. 80% of tree loss is now occurring on private land, and as the city continues with, Councilor Brenda Brandis, that's five minutes. Uh, I, I'll move a motion that you be granted a further 5 minutes. Would, would someone? Councilor Coveny. Thank you. Councilors, please cast your votes as to whether Councilor Brenda or Brandis should be granted a further 5 minutes. That was unanimous. Thank you. Councilor Brenda Brandis, please continue. Thank you. Um, as the city continues with urban infill development, there's going to be considerable increased pressure on trees on private property, taking into account the other impacts, so not just the urban infill, but the shot hole borer. To date, over 3,000 trees across the metropolitan region have been lost to shot hole borer, and there will be more. I am concerned about trees that we don't know about, and I've heard that the Moreton Bay figs at the Perth, uh, have incidents of shot hole borer in them. So how many trees are we going to lose through that? We had a significant, um, uh, heatwave through last summer. It was our hottest summer on record. We had a record 13 days above 40 degrees, and six of those were consecutive. Global temperatures have surpassed 1.5 degrees Celsius for 12 consecutive months. I have seen many trees on the verge, um, that have not survived the summer, and some of those trees are not juvenile trees. Some of them are actually fairly mature. We have lost trees, um, through the changing environment. So without adequate protections in place on private property, we're going to lose a significant amount of tree canopy cover. So returning to the, um, cost with regard to, um, undertaking a tree protection policy, it's important that we don't consider this a cost. This is actually an investment. This is no different from investments that we make for other things within our city, whether they be community events, whether they be, um, tangible assets, even roads, footpaths. It, it is something that we need to incur, and these costs are, um, within our remit. Whilst the state government provides us direction and strategy, we do, um, deliver at the lowest level, and that includes things like the dog act, um, any of the planning matters and development applications go through. We, as a city, need to actually address those issues. So the cost is not a cost to the city, and we should really consider that this is actually an investment. Over the 24 or five years of, um, transferring our overhead power lines to underground power, we would have seen a significant cost in the annual maintenance of tree pruning. No longer do we need to prune about 80% of our streets, which are now actually underground power. Now, that's a cost that's already been, um, embedded within our operating structure. I understand that, but that is a saving, and that's something that we should also consider. Um, last year, well, sorry, the year just passed, we can see it in the financial statements. We have had a significant surplus at year end. Operating capital combined surplus is around about $7 million, and that's on top of a revised mid-year review budget, which also adjusted a mid-year review position by $7 million. Uh, the prior year, we also had a generous, healthy operating surplus. So I think we need to really consider that, you know, um, we need to incur costs, we need to spend money in order to ensure that we act, that we actually have a future asset, and it's, it's not a short-term strategy. The Agonis flexos trees around some of those 60, 70, maybe even 80 years old, it's a long-term strategy, and we need to ensure that we're actually doing something now. We're taking control of it. We're not trying to pass this down the track to the state governments who have no inclination at this point in time to come up with a, a tree protection policy. Um, we will have more of the same for at least the next four years, and we will lose many more trees, and not only those that I've identified, um, through development. It is really important that we consider what the public have said. So we've had feedback, um, there's been overwhelming support with regard to tree preservation. Um, the initial one was when we actually, um, undertook the, um, the local plan, local planning scheme number seven implications to introduce height and also canopy cover. We had about 79% support for that. Um, we've also had significant support with regard to this tree protection policy. 20 seconds, Councilor Brenda Brandis. And as a council, we need to consider the community, how they voted, what their concerns are, the long-term implications, and take that into account as opposed to passing this off to a state government that is not going to be doing anything to protect trees for at least the next four years. Um, I will not be supporting, uh, this amendment. We need to have full control over tree protection policy within the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Brenda Brandis. Councilors, is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the alternative motion who hasn't already spoken? Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Oh, Councilor Kirkland. Look, I don't have any great desire to talk on this item because, um, most of it's been said, um, but I think in fairness, uh, to the community, so, uh, they know what I'm thinking, um, when they see how I vote. Um, it's important to show a bit of transparency, even if it's just to, um, give them, um, some more ammunition to, um, send me a nasty email or two. Uh, I, I do take this very seriously. I've lived in South Perth, um, since, you know, the last millennium. I'm that old, and one of the best things about this city is its trees. You go to a new, um, suburb development, perhaps up in the northern suburbs, and what strikes you is the tiny little micro blocks, um, which have been, uh, which have little houses put, you know, fence to fence, um, to cover the land, which is basically cleared of everything but the sand, and it's really unattractive. And you compare that with South Perth, which is not that old, um, as a suburb. Um, places like Como, which I represent, used to be a pine, um, plantation, you know, up till after World War II, but now you drive through the city and you see the trees, native and, uh, introduced, whether they're Jacarandas or, uh, Queensland box, or even some things from WA, and it's just beautiful to see the trees, perhaps the canopy going over the road. It is lovely and cool. You see the kids out in the verge, a bit of lawn, and perhaps some swings hanging from the trees, and it's just a great place to be. And it changes as we remove trees, whether it's from the public realm or the private realm. And this policy was, um, developed, um, following, um, Councilor Pral raising it, because I'm, and I haven't asked this, but I'm sure it's because she also values those things and wants to make South Perth into the future that same brilliant place it is now. And that's really hard because the previous government, but even more so the current government, is determined to house the people, um, who don't have houses in a city which is getting longer and, um, not so much wider, but it's expanding along the coast. Um, we're having that sprawl as more people live here, and we don't have enough houses. And the, and the solution we were told by the last government, but even more stridently by the current government, is urban infill. And every time you have urban infill, um, it's, well, it's not always at Canning Bridge, it's not always at the peninsula and 50-story buildings, it's, um, increasingly in the suburbs which have backyards and trees. And that is the explanation why the state government is not indifferent, as Councilor Brenda Brandis said, but rather, um, in some ways opposed, I think, to, um, rules which will protect trees. And that's perhaps why they took out the tree protection provisions we put in the local, um, planning scheme. This policy would have no prospects of surviving the state government, which is desperate to house more people and house them in an affordable way, R, um, and to deal with sustainability issues, other ones which they see is not, um, going another 100 kilometers north and south to house people in those areas where we just bulldoze all the trees and put in all the ticky-tacky houses, and they all look just the same, as, you know, I can remember at primary school singing that song, but I never really understood it until I went up and saw new suburbs being created up north. There are practical issues with the policy as it is before us. I think the pruning provisions, uh, to be blunt, would have seen a public revolt once the vast majority of the residents in South Perth were aware of them. We did get a number of submissions, and I think Councilor Coveny picks up the fact that yes, a lot of them aren't from the city, and it's great that people around the city are interested in trees in our city, but we need to focus on what the people here, um, would put up with. And I think rules about pruning, um, would have been a disaster, especially where it could lead to a prosecution under the planning and, Councilor Kirkland, that's five minutes. But I'll, I'll move a motion that you be granted a further five minutes. Could I have a second? Councilor Coveny. Thank you. Councilors, please cast your votes on Councilor Kirkland being granted a further five minutes. It was unanimous. Uh, please continue, Councilor Kirkland. Thank you for the indulgence, and I'm not trying to bore you or convert you. Um, this is just my thinking so that you know you can understand me. Um, I think it's very dangerous to have the Planning and Development Act, uh, used as a potential weapon for prosecutions in matters such as pruning. I, I think the people who are too busy to take notice of this because they don't know, they've got three kids at primary school, or they're struggling with their jobs to pay their bills, would just be astounded to know that, you know, they're facing a $200,000 maximum penalty. Now, I have heard some laughter, um, in the audience just then, and, and people say, well, where's the sensible prosecutorial discretion? Well, that is not the way offenses are created, um, in legislation, because what some people think are sensible decisions to prosecute, other people have a different view on. I was in court today defending a prosecution which I thought no sane person could have brought, but the offense was there, um, and I have done enough defenses against local government prosecutions, not this one, of course, to realize that, um, there are widely diverging views, well beyond the pale of mine, as to when a prosecution should be brought. And to allow that as a possibility in my view, as someone who is in court almost every day, is just craziness. You can't say, well, let's create an offense with a potential huge penalty and just hope like hell, um, someone uses their discretion never to use it, because it will be used if it was ever allowed to continue. But the state government won't. Noting that practical problem, I do think Councilor Brenda Brandis's, um, amended motion would have dealt with the majority, uh, of that big issue, the vast majority, perhaps. But then, as we've heard from the director, um, if you take out the pruning provisions, it does make it easier for you to kill a tree, not by a thousand cuts, but perhaps by a few, um, to prune it to death if you're desperate enough to get rid of your tree. So what's the solution? Well, there ain't no easy one, because the state government's not going to do it. If we do it, we'll end up with something, if the pruning provisions stay in, that I think is not workable, would not be acceptable to almost all the residents of the city who have got trees and backyards, noting that increasing numbers don't. And if we take that out, it won't be as effective, and the state government won't let us keep it. So, and the cost, oh my God, the cost. Well, we have cut a lot of our services. We don't have the big things we used to have down on the foreshore. We've sold the seniors' bus. We're looking at other ways to reduce our funding. We don't have funding to build courts for kids. We don't have a single court for our children to play in in this city. So I don't know what we can cut. We can, of course, increase the rates to pay for this, and of course, if this policy goes through, I'm happy for the rates to be increased to pay for this. But will it achieve more than simply, um, picking the low-hanging fruit, which I think perhaps is planting trees on, um, in the public realm, obviously not in parks which are being used for sport, but perhaps verges where there aren't trees. That is low-hanging fruit. But I, I think we also have to understand that in this climate, and I don't, that's not a pun, because I do believe in global warming and I do believe trees make us much cooler, but we have a political climate where urban infill is seen as the solution, and it is not a solution that has no pain attached to it. The pain that is attached to it is a loss of amenity for the communities that have urban infill imposed. Not politically correct to say this, but 30 seconds, Councilor. Urban infill means less yards, less yards means less trees, but it's just going to happen, and we are king canute if we think we can stop the tide. Thank you, Councilor Kirkland. Councilors, is there anyone? Councilor Brenda Brandis, you've spoken. I assume this is a question. Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's a question. It just follows on from a comment from Councilor Kirkland. My understanding, um, in particular with regard to the, um, the planting for Carrara, Waterford, and Signia Cove was that the redistribution of trees onto, um, the public realm is limited, um, given what's already been planted. Um, could the administration please advise if that is actually correct? So pretty much asking what capacity do we actually have to plant a lot.

More trees on the public realm. M, should I send that to you or to Miss O? M. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the capacity to plant more trees in the public realm, would it be dependent on funding, um, space available, and what parameters we put around, um, where we planted? So, um, for example, we've previously, um, there's previously been discussions in Chambers around, um, and decisions by Council where, um, we've decided not to plant in certain areas of the public realm. So, uh, it would really be dependent on those factors before we could determine how many more trees we could plant. Mr. Bradford, anything to add there in terms of practical examples of where we have planted trees in the public realm? I think Bill Gren, the recent planting of several hundred really great trees around that, as an example of, of how we are thinking about it can be done in the city. But there are, as the Director says, practical constraints. But if you want to look to what's possible, I think that's a great example of it. Thank you, Mr. Bradford. Another question, Councillor Brender Brandis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a following question. So, um, would we consider the possibility of planting more trees along the, um, the South Path foreshore at a huge point in time? Would that be probable? Who should I direct that to? M. Primo. Oh, I, I'm, we'll let this one go for the time being. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, that would be an option. Councillors, is there anyone who would like to speak against the alternative motion who hasn't already spoken? Councillor NAD. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be brief. Um, I do acknowledge the challenges, uh, outlined by Mayor and, and I do, I do think it'll be a difficult journey. Um, but I also think that, um, in not doing anything, we're just kicking the can down the road again, and I know we've been guilty of that in the past. Um, to quote an ancient adage, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. And I therefore think on those grounds, we, um, should give it a bit of bravery and, um, start the journey. Um, we know perfectly well that the state government, at the moment, won't be, uh, making any sort of initiative towards this, and therefore, really, any forms of rescue will, uh, require local initiative. Um, um, we do have the heft of the WA good policy development, and we still always have the capacity to adjust our own policies if we're finding that it's not quite the way we, uh, want it to be. So, you know, there's still the opportunity to adjust and adapt as we go along, and that's my reason, uh, for, um, opposing the idea of just shelving it. Against. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor NAD. Councillors, is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against the alternative motion who hasn't already spoken? No. Okay. In that case, I'll wind up. Uh, I'll, I'll try and be brief. I don't want to drag this out much longer, but I will endeavor to speak to the arguments raised by those who spoke against this alternative motion. One of tonight's deputies, and I think Councillor Choice raised the issue of costs incurred by the city to get to this point, but the costs incurred to get to this point are sunk costs. That's no reason to throw good money after bad. Councillor War and Councillor NAD both referred to the WA template, but the WA template is clearly problematic. Uh, Councillor Brender AB Brandis recognised that in his amended motion, and I do commend him for, for recognising one of the problems with the WA template. Unfortunately, we, we've heard from Miss Shaw that Councillor Brender AB Brandis's amended motion would have had the unintended consequences of granting landowners a get out of jail free card to kill regulated trees through frequent and excessive pruning. Councillor Brender Brandis raised the issue of tree loss due to shot hole borer, and it seems that we will continue to lose trees to shot hole borer, but that's a separate issue. It's completely irrelevant to the utility or cost-effectiveness of this specific policy. Another councillor, I think it might have been Councillor War, stated that she trusted our officers to exercise discretion wisely. I absolutely agree. I, I think they, they would as well, but this isn't a question of our officers using discretion wisely. It's a question of a policy that will cost significant resources and achieve nothing, if not next to nothing. I think the reality is that this policy would be an inexpensive and, well, embarrassing failure. I think it would very quickly highlight the difference between what the city can legislate, or in this case, enact by policy, and what we can actually enforce. I need to make the point to our community that no one on this council, or for that matter, the city administration, is anti-trees. I love the trees in my backyard, so does my wife, so, so do my children. But that doesn't solve the problems with this policy. Councillors, I ask you to support this alternative motion. I'm putting it to the vote. We're voting on my alternative motion, and I'm waiting on one more vote. Okay, so the votes are in. Uh, my alternative motion has been carried five votes to four. For those who, and would the gallery please act respectfully, please. So the people who voted in favour of the alternative motion were myself, Mayor Milner, Councillor Coveny, Councillor Credland, Councillor Dusza, and Councillor Prendiville. Those who voted against were Councillor Brender AB Brandis, Councillor Choy, Councillor NAD, and Councillor War. Okay, that concludes item 10. Uh, we now move, if the gallery could please remain respectful and, well, act like adults, that would be appreciated. So, item 11 is applications for a leave of absence. Uh, councillors, I've submitted a leave of absence application for the period of 12 September 2024 to 22 September 2024 inclusive. The, does anyone else have a leave of absence application that they'd like to submit? Councillor Kin, did I see your hand go up there? Yes, I'm just quickly looking at M. Di. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I kind of thought it'd be at the end of the meeting, so I wasn't really prepared. Um, from the, uh, 12th of September, please, until the 13th of October. All right. Uh, anyone else? Councillor War. Uh, thank you. Yes. Could I please, um, submit a request for the 28th of January until the 10th of March? Thank you. 10th of March. Anyone else? No. Okay. So, uh, I'm about to call for someone to move that a leave of absence applications received from myself, Mayor Greg Milner, for the period of 12 September 2024 to 22 September 2024 inclusive, from Councillor Glenn Credland for the period of 12 September 2024 to 13 October 2024 inclusive, and from Councillor Bronwyn War for the period of 28 January 2025 to 10 March 2025 inclusive, be granted. Could I have a move? Councillor Dusza. Seconded by Councillor Coveny. Does anyone oppose this? Councillors? No. Okay, then I, I'll say that's been carried unanimously. Then we now move to item 12, which is motions of which previous notice has been given. The first is item 12.1, which is a notice of motion from me, Mayor Greg Milner, entitled Indoor Sporting Facilities in the City of South Perth. Uh, I will read this, and then I'll, I'll see about a seconder, and, well, let's get the show on the road. So, my motion is that Council, paragraph one, recognises the chronic shortfall of indoor sporting facilities within the district and welcomes the support of the state government and federal government to meet this urgent community need. Paragraph two, requests the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Minister for Local Government and Youth, the Honourable Hannah, sorry, The Honourable Hannah Beasley, and to the State Member for South Perth, Mr. J. Jeff Baker, MLA, as well as to The Honourable Anika Wells, MP, the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, and to Zanita Ganes, MP, Member for Swan, as well as to the Shadow Minister for Sport in the state government, The Honourable Peter Randall, MLA, and the Shadow Minister for Sport in the federal government, The Honourable Senator Anne Rushon, to A, provide the state government with information relating to the shortfall of indoor sporting facilities within the district, and B, signal Council support for a 12-court indoor sporting and mixed-use community facility that will benefit the community of the City of South Perth. I have a second, please. Uh, can I, Councillor Choy has, has been seconded. Okay. All right. I'll speak. Where are my notes? Okay, so councillors, this motion is pretty straightforward. Uh, we're all aware that there's a chronic shortage of indoor sports courts within our district. We're all aware that the growth of sports such as basketball and volleyball, two of the fastest growing team sports in WA, are constrained by the number of courts available for training and competition. We do what we can in local government, but our communities are generally speaking, highly dependent on state and federal grants for the kind of large-scale public sporting facilities that our growing communities increasingly require. That said, we do have an advocacy role to play. When there's an opportunity to advocate to the state government or the federal government for the kind of infrastructure that our community needs, we should be ready to take that opportunity. Our strategic community plan reflects this strategy. 1.2.3 of the City's Strategic Community Plan states that the city will plan for and promote the development of recreation facilities to service the City of South Perth's needs. And at the end of the day, that's what this motion is all about, councillors, promoting the development of recreation facilities to service our community's needs. There's a strong push from the Perth Basketball Association and Perth Reds Volleyball to deliver a 12-court indoor sporting and mixed-use community facility. The campaign is supported by The Honourable Hannah Beasley, MLA, and the Member for South Perth, Mr. Jeff Baker, MLA. There's an e-petition going to the Legislative Assembly seeking funding and land from the state government to build a new 12-court indoor sporting and mixed-use community facility. That's due to be presented in mid-August, and when I last checked, that e-petition was just shy of 6,400 signatures. With the state election scheduled for 8 March 2025, and a federal election that can't be too far away, this is a prime opportunity for our council to advocate for this urgent community need on behalf of our residents. And if this motion helps, uh, deliver more indoor sports courts that will benefit our community, that will be a tremendous outcome. Councillors, I ask you to support this motion. Uh, Choy, you're the second. You can speak if you would like to. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just briefly. Um, last week, I thought this motion may be unnecessary, and so I did ask questions, um, in that regard, and following the city's responses, I've now determined that this motion is actually harmless and indeed may actually have some merit in sending a message to the community, um, including with our neighbours, um, that we are very supportive of new recreational facilities in the district, or closer to the district, um, that will benefit all of our, um, constituents. So, this motion, uh, is straightforward. And albeit, I acknowledge that you've amended, um, the, the motion to include other government officials to the list. I can't see any issues with that. Um, but I do acknowledge that Minister Beasley and, uh, Mr. Baker, MLA, are the two main government representatives that are sponsoring and or supporting, um, that e-petition that you've just mentioned for the indoor sports courts and, um, and to give the Redbacks a home, and also, um, other clubs and, uh, to achieve their court endeavours. And so, with all this in mind, um, I think that is, uh, sufficient for our needs. It doesn't bind the city, so I think that's really important. Um, it's great that we, we can support, um, neighbouring, uh, local governments, community, and state government to, um, provide, uh, much-needed recreational spaces for our community. So, yeah, I do think this has some merit, and, um, yeah, I, uh, encourage, uh, councils to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Choy. Is there anyone who would like to speak against the notice of motion? Is there anyone who would like to speak in favour who hasn't spoken? Councillor War. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I applaud you for bringing this motion, and, and I'd just like to say that a project of this type does require commitment, uh, from federal, state, and local government. I do want to see that we again make an earnest commitment to receiving funding from both state and federal governments. And given the background to the RAP that proposed, um, only six indoor courts, um, together with other things, at a cost estimate at that time of $60 million, that had been proposed as early as 2020, the state government was continually lobbied at that time. The federal government committed $20 million, and, uh, over the years, the state failed to pledge anything despite being lobbied for an extended period of time. I readily agree that there is a chronic shortfall of indoor sports courts, and for that matter, also outdoor sporting facilities, and this has been the subject of lobbying to the state government for years. The City of South Perth adopted its own Community Recreation Facilities Plan in 2019, in which it recognised that the minimum requirement for basketball and netball courts is six to eight courts indoor, and most viable as part of a multi-purpose facility. And six, since 2003, the city has conducted six studies and delivered nine polls and surveys incorporating sport and recreation needs. Collectively, more than 1,000 have responded. It is clear from page 30 of that plan that this intends to also refer to volleyball, badminton, table tennis, and other relevant sports. Sporting clubs are one of the backbones of our city. We need to not just write to the state government to signal our support, but asking the federal government to reinstate its commitment of $20 million to address the chronic shortfall of sporting facilities across South Perth, starting with an indoor sporting facility, to meet this community needs. So, I do urge everybody to support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor War. Is there any else who would like to speak? Councillor Coveny. Very briefly. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, we heard from the CEO of the Perth Redbacks last week, who told us they're using 35 venues each week, and that more than a third of their residents are from the City of South Perth. The fact they're having to use 35, um, venues each week is totally unacceptable. Um, we also heard from the presidents of the Perth Redbacks Volleyball last week, who said they were born and bred in the City of South Perth and have over 1,000 members in less than five years, and again, they're also a satellite operation, and that is totally unacceptable. Um, this motion is really an opportunity for us to show, um, to the state and federal government that we are united as a council, we are ready for investment in our area, um, we are ready for the state and federal government to invest in our community, that we are a council of "yes" not a council of "no's". Thank you, Councillor Coveny. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Councillor Prenal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll be quick as well. Um, I think this is really exciting. Um, a journey that is not uncommon for sport in our area is, um, that of finding a home. And, um, as we heard from deputations last week, there are people who are on waitlists simply just to play a sport that they love in their area because of a lack of facilities. So, sport belonging to a club, these are part essential parts of everyday life and lifestyle, addressing physical health benefits, mental health benefits, and becoming an outlet for marginalised, disaffected people, particularly youth. I think these all things that, you know, um, can benefit amazingly from a centre as this. We also heard about the potential of bringing national and international competition to the area, which is really exciting. The positive effects that this will have on our city, local businesses, and our community. We're not being asked for much, just simply support, and that at the very least is what we should be giving. So, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Prenal. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against the notice of motion who hasn't already spoken? No. Okay. Uh, not much for me to say because no one opposed it, so I'll simply put item 12.1 to the vote. Councillors, please cast your votes. And that was unanimous. Thank you, councillors. So, we now move on to item 12.2, which is a notice of motion from Councillor Nick Coveny, entitled Public Art at the South Perth Foreshore. Uh, Councillor Coveny, would you like to move your motion by, by reading the motion itself, and then I'll see about a seconder, and if we get a seconder, you'll be given the opportunity to state your reasons. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, my motion reads as follows: That Council requests the CEO to prepare a report to Council by no later than the 10 December 2024 ordinary council meeting with respect to the installation of temporary and permanent artwork and or signage to attract tourists to the South Perth foreshore and surrounding precincts, noting the opportunities as set out in these reasons. Thank you, Councillor Coveny. Would anyone like to second Councillor Coveny's notice of motion? I think Councillor Dusza was first. Councillor Coveny, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The best views of the city skyline are from the South Perth foreshore, but the foreshore is not included in the top attractions in Perth on TripAdvisor or on the official Australian tourism website. We want to attract more people to the foreshore and nearby precincts, and we can achieve that through engaging public art. The Public Art Master Plan states that the city recognises the role that public art can play to assist in achieving its vision through place activation, creating community pride, strengthening connections between people, and providing landmarks that make places and help people find their way. The opportunities and initiatives in South Perth specifically are set out in the Arts Master Plan to investigate options and opportunities to provide infrastructure along the foreshore to support dynamic art and to establish and develop a regular public art festival in partnership with others, for the foreshore to enhance the dynamism and seasonal offerings of South Perth as a cultural destination. With the developing local, national, and international profile, there has been rapid economic development at Elizabeth Quay, including tourism. There's a ferry which runs from the Quay to the Mends Street Jetty. It's currently the only ferry route along the Swan River. The Mends Street Jetty at Mends Street, which is at the bottom of the Mends Street precinct and the foreshore, where there's breathtaking views, which have just been recognised as one of the best globally. Local residents tell us they want activation of our foreshore and precincts, and here in lies a raft of opportunities through art. There are plenty of examples of successful artworks which have become international attractions and are of cultural significance to their location of residence. For example, the Hollywood Sign, Chicago Cloud Gate, I Amsterdam, and the Table Mountain Photo Frame, to name a few. Done properly, artwork within the Perth CBD, with the Perth City skyline in the background, could be synonymous with WA, taking a selfie, Kings Park, Fremantle, or Cottesloe Beach. Uh, the other opportunity is putting out to tender an art pop-up along the foreshore, uh, to Sculptures by the Sea at Cottesloe and Sculptures by the River in Brisbane. The Cottesloe event drew about 220,000 visitors across 18 days. This would increase foot traffic to the nearby Mends Street and Angelo Street precincts. It may also incentivise the state government to consider reactivating the Coogee Street ferry, uh, terminal, which previously operated either on a full-time or temporary basis during the pop-up to go between Mends Street Jetty, Coogee Street Jetty, and Elizabeth Quay. Art is, of course, not limited to the physical form. Examples of renowned international art which uses a combination of water, sound, and light includes a spectral light and water show at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, the Dubai Fountain light and water show, and the Bellagio Fountains water show in Las Vegas. Those shows are free and run at regular intervals in the evenings, drawing significant crowds year-round to the area and surrounding precincts. Lastly, another opportunity for South Perth is to explore something similar with the relevant stakeholders, and so long as it doesn't impede a ferry network, clearly this sort of opportunity would require financial support from external stakeholders like the state government. So, the city's role, at least in this last idea, would be limited to advocacy. In conclusion, art which is culturally relevant, Instagrammable, has a backdrop of the Perth CBD skyline, and doesn't impede views or noise for apartments and residents nearby, really presents an opportunity to build community pride, activate the foreshore and surrounding precincts, and improve amenity for residents, and supports the local economy. Noting the ideas discussed herein will invariably promote tourism within and to WA, there are grounds for state funding, and the City of South Perth has a public artwork reserve of $400,000 for such purpose. Alternatively, we can consider something during budget discussions next year. We heard last week that there is no negative operational impact on this motion, given it is external sources who are doing the significant legwork. Any suggestion that cost would be an impediment at this impasse would be akin to not ordering at a restaurant on the basis of cost without having even looked at the prices on the menu. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Coveny. Councillor Dusza, you're the second. Would you like to speak? Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll keep it, uh, brief. Um, this is a very sensible motion. I think, uh, Councillor Coveny needs to be commended on this sort of creative thinking. I think having some sort of visual cue across, um, the river, in addition to what's already there, um, could potentially underly potential future business cases to get, you know, enhanced ferry routes, um, which is something the state government has announced, um, recently, is, is being looked at. So, I think, um, it's, it's a good first step, and I'm excited to see where this goes. Thank you, Councillor Dusza. Is there anyone who would like to speak against the notice of motion? Councillor Choy. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Respectfully, it is the view that this motion is unnecessary and not a priority for the community. What has been proposed and outlined in the reasons with picture examples is also, for at least the most, most part, not considered public art and or in some cases, even in the realm or control of the city. The ideas seem to be more directed towards tourism signage and advertising, with the only large billboard sign that would considerably work for tourism on the South Perth foreshore being a Perth sign. That example, in of itself, with the iconic city backdrop in the background, is not a bad idea. However, I foresee it costing way more than what is sitting in the public art reserve, given what smaller commissioned sculptures and artwork throughout the city have cost. And in any case, who wants a suburb name, Perth, on the South Perth foreshore? If anyone does, it should nevertheless come from the City of Perth and its ratepayers, or the state government, not via South Perth and its ratepayer funds. The other ideas floated in the motion's reasons and examples is a fountain or water feature in the Swan River. Again, this is not a South Perth asset, and hence it is up to the state government, who actually own and manage that asset, if they wish to entertain this idea, not the City of South Perth. The city and its residents are still experiencing economic turbulence, and honestly, I do not think it's a good look when the city can't seem to fund existing or new assets or allocate resources towards asset renewal projects for recreational facilities and other infrastructure that people actually use, rely on, or still want, but can find the time and funds to debate the erecting of large words or more pieces of art on the South Perth foreshore. And this is what residents are telling me too, as I've consistently for over seven, now seven years now, been listening to people's priorities. This has not been one of them. The response to the city's Public Art Master Plan during the relevant public consultation period just a few years ago reinforces this view, which I recall received less than 15 submissions. Nevertheless, there have been 16 works of public art installed in the vicinity of Mends Up and Mends Street alone, at minimum, as featured in the city's self-guided artwork brochure. The Wilder About Babies conservation public art project in Windsor Park remains ongoing and was at the time compared to the Sculptures by the Sea exhibition in Cottesloe. I've not had the time or inclination to add up the cost of all the existing artworks, but I know it would be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Furthermore, my understanding from a previous council bulletin publication is that the public art fund is a reserve account established in alignment with the city's public arts strategy to facilitate the accumulation of funds expressly for the purpose of assisting with the expansion of the city's public art collection. Aside from the city's ad hoc contributions to the fund over time, the fund is also the repository for cash and in-kind contributions received from private developers in fulfillment of their obligations under policy P316, developer contributions to public art and public art spaces. Thus, a reasonable person may expect that the fund sitting in that reserve should and would be shared throughout the district, not concentrated on and around the South Perth foreshore. Lastly, the South Perth foreshore is primarily self-activated, attracting people due to its stunning natural beauty and views across the river. It also serves as a hub for local community events and gatherings, and hence already contributes to the rich social fabric that exists in the area. Adding more and more artificial things to the South Perth foreshore will only start to detract from and spoil its unique natural beauty rather than enhance it. For all these reasons, I unfortunately just cannot support this motion as it currently stands. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Choy. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favour of the notice of motion? Councillor War. Thank you. So, our foreshore is arguably one of the finest views in Western Australia, and, uh, as Councillor Troy correctly put it, it is a place where locals gather, and it is stunning natural beauty. But this space, as Councillor Coveny had said, is capable of so much more. We are the City of Active Places and Beautiful Spaces, so let's live up to our motto and let's make the most of what we have on our doorstep. I think now more than ever, when we're in the middle of a cost of living crisis, we need local places that are inexpensive and accessible and are open to everyone. In my view, adding temporary or permanent artwork can add a little bit of joy to our residents, and it can benefit our local businesses by drawing people to our activity centres that will benefit them. So, I fully support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor War. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against the notice of motion? Councillor Brender Brandis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got a couple of questions with regard to this item. So, um, as Councillor Choy has identified, that the best view is from South Perth looking, uh, north-northwest facing to the city skyline, and, um, the examples provided, uh, with this motion included names and names of other cities. So, if we were to have a Perth, um, signage facing the city for, for opportunities and for visitors, would the administration consider recovering these costs from the City of Perth, or is that a conversation that would need to be had first? Mr. Bradford, should I send that one to you or Miss Shaw? I have told the Mayor and CEO of the City of Perth, and I'd love to be able to charge them a license fee for the view, that the, the best view of Perth, which is from the South Perth foreshore. But I, in this case, don't think we've considered that. Another question, Councillor Brender Brandis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, with regard to, uh, the suggestion and proposal of a water fountain, um, um, I'm assuming it would be in the Swan River, and, um, can the administration please advise whether we'd be able to do something like that? Like, is that within our remit? I understood that, you know, our, our limitation is to, to the boundary, to the shoreline. Um, and also what other issues, uh, would there be with regard to, you know, habitat, wildlife, fishing, and other recreating? Thank you, Miss Shaw. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Depending on the location of the proposed artwork, um, if it's within the Swan Development Control Area, we, we may need approvals from various state government departments. Um, in terms of the artwork itself, um, the city would more be considering whether or not the artwork met the definition of public artwork that's contained within council's adopted policies. So, what we're really looking for there is artistic treatment of different features, pieces that are not mass-produced, instead, they're more like sculptures, freestanding works, projections, things that are undertaken by an actual artist as opposed to manufactured, mass-production type artworks. So, we wouldn't be considering things like, um, off-the-shelf reproductions, architectural building cladding, landscaping, or hardscaped areas that didn't otherwise have an artistic element to it. So, we would need to consider what the proposal actually is. We would then also run it through our, um, public art advisory group to receive feedback from those members to see whether the proposal was appropriate. Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillor Brender Brandis. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Shaw. So, just to understand that response, um, if you consider the definition of artwork, a fountain with jet streams, water in the air, would that, would that be artwork, or would that, that not be? Miss Shaw. You could consider fountains to be artwork, um, because artwork can include functional equipment and can include elements that would otherwise be considered landscaping or street furniture, but only if it has an artistic treatment and only if it's not mass-produced. Thank you, Miss Shaw. Another question. Oh, no. Oh, you are. Yes. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you again, Director Shaw. Just with regard to, um, I believe we've got just under $400,000, um, in the reserve for that particular locality. Um, it wouldn't buy us very much. So, with regard to the other assets that we've actually got there, the other art, art assets, so we've got the RAC artwork, and previously we had the RAC elephant, which was the creation of of vehicles that were damaged. Was there any indication as to what the value of those pieces of artwork were, because I'm sure they were quite significant? And I'm, Miss Shaw. I thank you. We did, we did review this last week, and I believe it was around $200,000, um, in terms of the public art reserve. Just for a point of clarification, um, you're right, there is just under 400, it's 398,000. However, that's for the district. It's in the reserve, it's not specific to this, um, precinct within the public art master plan that we have. In terms of the scale of art that you could actually get for that, it really depends, um, on the size of the piece and the complexity, as well as the materiality. So, you could have, um, one large piece, or you could have potentially up to 10 small pieces for that amount. It really depends on the proposal itself. Councillors, is there anyone who hasn't already spoken on this item who would like to speak either for or against? I think Councillor NAD was there first. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify what, with, uh, Councillor Coveny, that I was quite concerned about the detail in his application, but given that this is, um, a request for a preparation of a report, whatever my, my details are, it doesn't really matter. So, that's my clarification. Thank you, Councillor NAD. Councillor Choy, I saw your hand go up. A question? Yes. Yes, just following on from, um, Councillor Brender Brandis's questions, um, is landscape art considered public art? Miss Shaw. Thank you. So, landscaping or hardscaping is not considered public art unless it has an artistic treatment and is being created by an artist. Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillor Brender Brandis, another question. Uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, it follows on from Councillor Choy's question. So, if we were to do something with landscaping, would be artistic, for example, you know, Japanese gardens where they actually do have an artistic, uh, flare, would that be something that might be possible, uh, in conjunction with probably, you know, that for sure that needs some substantial work? Miss Shaw, or Mr. Bradford? I was going to say, this motion is about us preparing a report that would actually look at all of these sorts of things. I'm not sure that it's worth much effort speculating about what might or might not be possible. Yes, thank you, Mr. Bradford. Councillor, does anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Prenal. Thank you. Sorry, I know it's late. Um, I just wanted to share my support for this motion. I think it's open, it's not prescriptive, it's about the administration creating a report on what could happen. Um, I think we are the City of South Perth, we're so central, and this is really exciting because it, it opens up a world of opportunities. Um, we are active places and beautiful spaces, and, um, I think the opportunity of bringing people together to appreciate beautiful things, um, that are accessible and available to everyone, um, you know, is definitely worth investigating. We've got our own connections to artists already and artistic symbols, um, for example, our local gem, May Gibbs, you know, and there are lots of others. So, you know, there are so many opportunities, um, that, and I've, that I see would only be, um, a benefit to our community, our people, and of course, attracting other people to come into our city, which would also, uh, be beneficial for us. So, I'm in full support. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Prenal. Councillors, is there anyone who wishes to speak either for or against who hasn't already spoken? Councillor Brender Brandis, speaking. Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm speaking against this item. Look, I, I think, uh, we do need to obviously focus on, um, the artwork in the city. It is important. We have limited funds, and as we've just heard, these funds are actually for the district, not for, um, the Mpoint Ward, and not all, um, for the, um, the South Perth foreshore. So, I think we need to give better consideration, uh, to what we may be doing with this. But the public, sorry, the Art Advisory Committee, um, are tasked with actually reviewing, um, possible artworks and, and the placement of those. So, I feel that, you know, part of the strategy is, um, they have a process, they work through, they provide advice and feedback, and then we take into consideration possible artwork and, and the spending of money. So, I think that's more strategic as opposed to, you know, um, us individually, um, requesting artwork within our wards, and in particular, um, funds that are for the district. So, for that reason, I, I won't be supporting, um, this motion. I think it, it's got a place, and, and I think the Art Advisory Committee are best placed to actually provide that to us. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Brender Brandis. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against who hasn't already spoken? Councillor Credland. Um, I think this is really exciting. Um, I think it's, uh, we used to do some fantastic things down on the foreshore, have some great big concerts and get, you know, 100,000 people along. It used to be wonderful. Everyone used to go, wow, South Perth. We don't do that anymore. It, uh, I think it's just a fantastic way of reinvigorating that area, and moving back from being Dulls Ville. Now, if it's got Perth there, yeah, um, we're not Perth. So, I take the point of Councillor Choy, why don't we stick a sneaky South Perth next to it? Because it's not the Perth Zoo, it's the South Perth Zoo, we all know that. And, you know, if something good comes back in the report, let's take it. If we all think it's rubbish, let's reject it. And I think a fountain in the middle of the river would be silly, but, you know, like, it's only two foot deep in some parts out there. All it would be is churning mud. But maybe there would be some interesting things that would make it exciting down there. But maybe not. I, I think let's just give it a go and see. Thank you, Councillor Credland. Is there anyone else who would like to speak who hasn't spoken already? Councillor Choy, just a couple of questions following on from your comments there. Please, Mr. Mayor. Oh, thank you. Now, in regards to the public art reserve, my understanding is, and the reason why I raised some of the comments that I did raise tonight, because I don't believe I was jumping the gun. Firstly, the, um, notice of motion recommendation says artwork and all signage. That was what I picked up there. Secondly, the, the other question, uh, sorry, the question I had was, my understanding of the public art reserve is that any expenditure from that reserve must come from the public art group. Councillor Choy, I'm just going to ask you a question about relevance. As far as I can see, the notice of motion recommendation doesn't actually mention the Arts Reserve. What's, what's the relevance of your question? This was discussed at last week's agenda briefing. I believe it did come up, and it doesn't matter. Councillor Choy, the notice of motion is the notice of motion. What's the relevance of your question? I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, but I can't find that right now, but I'm pretty sure it was there last week, so I'll have to look at that and bring that back. But in any case, it's, it's not there now. Committee reference group, then I would assume that some of the money, I mean, as a city, like looking at spending that money itself, at its municipal funds and not through the reserve, because I believe that there was some questions or comments last week, the agenda briefing on the reserve, and I asked a question about it as well. Do you have a question now, Councillor Choy, because you have spoken already on this? I do ask a question, but I think you still convened it. That's okay. All right, very good. Is there anyone else who would like to speak who hasn't spoken already? Nope. Okay, Councillor Coveny, you have the opportunity to wind up for five minutes if you would like to. I will briefly. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There was a comment made that residents don't want this. Respectfully, I do knock my ward, and I, um, campaigned on activation for the foreshore and precincts, and, respectfully, I think the election result spoke for themselves. There were comments made that the, uh, motion is not a priority. Respectfully, we've got an Arts Master Plan that recommends, uh, very similar things to what I'm proposing. So, again, I respectfully, uh, don't agree with those comments. There's criticism of costs, and yet we have no idea of costs. Um, and there's criticism of using the art reserve. I mentioned it as being one avenue source. I also mentioned sponsorship. There was criticism of a Perth sign. If you read paragraph 16 of my reasons, I don't even mention a Perth sign, and in fact, so, so we have no idea what it's going to look like. So, again, all of these arguments are legitimately just boxing at shadows. This is a first step, asking for a report. It isn't even asking for a tender. It's saying, come to us, hear some ideas, and tell us what you think, and let's discuss it as council. So, I'm frankly gobsmacked with some of these objections. Thank you, Councillor Coveny. Councillors, I'm now putting item 12.2 to the vote. Please cast your votes. Just waiting on one more vote. All right, folks, even if you think you, ah, there we go. Very good. Okay, so Councillor Coveny's notice of motion 12.2 has been passed seven votes to two. For the benefit of those who are listening via YouTube, those in favour were, I will get that information very shortly, I hope. Ah, here we go. So, those in favour were myself, Mayor Milner, Councillor Nick Coveny, Councillor Glenn Credland, Councillor Blake Dusza, Councillor Jennifer Nard, Councillor Haley Prenal, and Councillor Bronwyn War. Those against were Councillor Mary Choy and Councillor Andre Brender AB Brandis. We now move on to item 12.3, which is a notice of motion from Councillor Blake Dusza, entitled Community Consultation for Tree Planting and Tree Removals. Uh, we have had a, a foreshadowed notice of motion from Councillor Brender AB Brandis, and also a foreshadowed notice of motion of C from Councillor Nick Coveny. I might throw to Mr. Adams at this point, because, uh, we've, this can be a little bit convoluted how we go through this. I suppose, before I do that, though, I'll first ask Councillor Dusza whether he intends to move his original notice of motion. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Noting the two foreshadowed motions in front of us, I've considered them, uh, both carefully, and happy to support what Councillor Coveny has proposed. So, I'm happy for the, for it to go to the floor, um, pending what you, what you rule. All right. That, that simplifies matters. So, maybe I'll, I'll just state my understanding, and if, uh, if I've got it wrong, uh, Mr. Adams can correct me, but the, the next foreshadowed motion in time received was Councillor Brender AB Brandis's foreshadowed notice of motion, that appears at page four, sorry, 74 of the agenda. Uh, if, for whatever reason, that motion were to fail, then we would move to Councillor Coveny's foreshadowed notice of motion. Have I got that right, Mr. Adams? That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Brender AB Brandis, do you wish to move your foreshadowed notice of motion? Yes, I do, Mr. Mayor. All right. If you can read the text as it appears at page 74, and then we'll see about a seconder. Okay. Um, yes, so the foreshadowed motion, um, I am proposing is that Council instructs the Chief Executive Officer to: One, not proceed with the proposed removal of verge trees, including olive trees, Olea europaea, identified in Carra under the Urban Greening Grants Program, apart from the trees identified as dead or dying, having epicormic shoots, are stunted, diseased, rotten, or have a trunk growth that is not perpendicular. Two, to identify alternative suitable locations within the city that meet the funding criteria to plant the trees that will not be planted due to the retention of the verge trees in Carra, as noted in one above. Three, to not plant verge trees in Waterford Crescent as part of the Urban Greening Grants Program where an objection has already been received from a resident or owner of the adjacent property to the planting of the tree on the verge, this being subject to review through the Urban Greening Strategy. And four, to modify the pruning regime of the olive trees in Carra to provide a greater canopy to be established. Thank you, Councillor Brender AB Brandis. Would anyone like to second Councillor Brender AB Brandis's? Councillor NAD. Thank you, Councillor Brender AB Brandis, the floor is yours for your reasons. Great, thank you, Councillor NAD. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the reasons for the change are, um, over the past few weeks, I've had extensive consultation with the community. There's been overwhelming feedback and support, um, that's been received from the residents of one away, low and loop, and Brang Circuit, and also the greater Carra, to retain the olive and other species of trees. The amenity identified for these mature trees is valued by the community. The trees are resilient and thrive following a severe summer and should be retained. The street management plan requires the removal of street trees to occur where trees are dead, diseased, or hazardous. The trees identified for removal as part of the Urban Greening Program are healthy, thriving specimens that provide a canopy that should be retained and continue to grow. With increased canopy cover, enhancing the tree canopy cover will assist in cooling streets and homes by providing shade, increasing biodiversity.

by creating habitat and nature corridors and enhance natural places that benefit our social, uh, psychological, and recreational requirements. State government funding received for the Urban Greening grants program should be pursued to support planting trees in Carow and Waterfed, as these have been identified with a low canopy cover.

The project provides an opportunity to commence reducing the urban heat impact in localities identified that are most affected. The urban Greening planting should be undertaken immediately to ensure plants have the greatest success in surviving.

The importance of this motion identifies that we have overwhelming support for the retention of the olive trees and other species of trees that were, were marked for removal. A significant part of that process also needs to consider that there are certain trees that are actually not fit for retaining, and there are a variety of characteristics that need to be considered for the trees that need to be removed.

The canopy cover is very low because the trees are regularly pruned. This is a significant cost to maintain the, the pruned shape and canopy cover, but it also does not allow the trees to actually get to a decent canopy cover to provide the cooling that is actually required and the shade. The significance of these trees are very important to the community, and they need to be retained.

The process for consultation has already been undertaken by the administration. There is no further need to, um, undertake any further, um, consultation in this process in my view. Having worked closely with the administration, the concerns about adjacent owners being consulted with regard to whether a verge tree can go on their neighbor's property will make this a very cumbersome, unwieldy process.

Last week, we heard that there were no further, um, examples of local governments that actually had this extensive consultation process, and for this reason, um, further consultation to this extreme would set a, a, a precedent which would be unworkable and very difficult. Delays in, um, executing this program and undertaking the tree planting immediately, um, could forfeit the grant program, um, and also miss the opportunity to plant trees within the, um, opportunity corridor of winter planting. So it is quite critical that this is actually undertaken urgently.

The other aspect that is really important is for the trees that are actually not planted, identifying in, in consultation with the grantor where these trees could actually be planted. Counselors, I feel that this motion, um, provides everything that is required to move this program forward and also supports the administration to undertake it in an effective, efficient way and without any additional, uh, impost on the community. Um, I ask you to consider this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brenda AB Brandis. Councillor Nard, you're the seconder. Would you like to speak? Yes, thank you. May, um, I was looking at both of the, um, the foreshadow motion and the alternative motion. They're very similar in nature. Um, I guess the thing that made the difference for me was that I thought that, um, Councillor Brenda Brandis's, uh, foreshadowed motion was a bit cleaner in terms of, uh, the consultation procedures. I felt that, um, I considered, I didn't feel it, um, that, uh, uh, Councillor Coven's, uh, process nominating 10% of the program would just make it, um, very, um, complex and maybe unnecessarily so. We also thought the reasons for the change, uh, I would recommend, uh, Councillor Brenda or Brandis's reasons, uh, to you as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor NAD. Is there anyone who would like to speak against the, uh, Councillor Brenda or Brandis's foreshadow notice of motion? Councillor Dusa. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Mayor. Um, firstly, I want to say I agree with the first bit of the motion. Um, it's very similar to the intent of my original motion, which was, um, primarily aimed at saving the Carow olive trees, and I think regardless of what happens tonight, um, that will be achieved through this motion or through Council Coven's motion. So, um, I, I want to firstly say that I welcome that, um, outcome. Um, but the current motion in front of us isn't, isn't the answer. Um, I think Councillor Coven's motion is better in charting a middle ground on, on this issue. Um, we, we won't forfeit the grant, um, that was potentially an issue with the original motion, um, that's not being moved, so it's, it's, um, a redundant argument. Um, in terms of consulting adjacent, uh, neighbors again, not relevant because the word, uh, in Council Coven's motion is adjoining, not adjacent, so that's been, um, tightened up. Um, Councillor NAD mentioned the 10% might be unwieldy, but that's only a cap. That is the maximum potential, um, objections, um, which will be sort of exceeded to. Um, I'll quickly address the two key flaws I see in Councillor Rees's motion. The first and, and fatal flaw is with regards to the drafting of clause three. So it says, um, it, it will deal with objections already received. Now, this, this confines the scope of the motion significantly, and from my discussions with the city, I understand these objections to only be a handful. The issue is the letter the city sent out to residents didn't actually, uh, ask for feedback. It wasn't consultation, it was just an FYI, and, uh, in, in some instances, was perceived by residents as being a bit heavy-handed. Furthermore, Councillor Brer AB Brandis's motion says, um, he, he qualifies this consultation by saying, quote, it's up for review in the strategy anyway, so potentially kicking the can, uh, down the road. So basically, the motion is saying, we won't consult you, and if you haven't already written back, even though we didn't invite you to write back, tough, too late. And those few people who did put in objections, well, when we review the strategy, we might end up ignoring you anyway. Now, this isn't a small program. This is, uh, about 600 new trees, 300 of which you'll be in Waterford. Now, for context, according to data from Population ID, in 2021, there are 929 properties in Waterford. Under this grant, if there were, uh, the full contingent of 300 trees rolled out, that's 300 out of 900 properties affected, one and three properties, a third. This is not a small, um, sort of operational program. It's a mass strategic issue which needs a strategic response, which is consultation. And I feel potentially, um, the original motion I lodged would potentially be to own Rous. I accept that, but I, I think what Councillor Coven is proposing is a sensible middle ground, which allows for the grant and the rollout of the program to continue with only minor consultation, um, consultation being, uh, putting this information up on the city's channels. The second issue with the motion is clause 4. Now, I think this interferes in the operational detail of the pruning regime. How much we prune trees, I don't believe is, is our remit as counselors. I, I think this is Council strangling into operational territory. My council's going, going to inspect every olive tree to ensure we're happy with the pruning. I mean, it's, it's unworkable, and I don't think, despite Councillor Brenda Ban's great intent, I don't think it's, it's a, it's a viable option. So I'm happy to reiterate that I have supported, um, you know, the, the tree protection provisions in the local planning scheme debates in the past, but I feel the way we address this, this issue, uh, is through Councillor Coven's motion. I think the motion put by Councillor Coveny, um, is a sensible compromise. It retains the grant, it doesn't require any further letter consultations, it, it ensures that we guarantee 90% of the program to proceed, and the other 10% which is capped at 10%, we might not even get that many, um, objections, but that 10% will not be removed, it'll just, just be relocated. So I think that is a much more sensible, viable option, and if we truly support consultation, I think we will go with Councillor Coven's motion, and that's why I want to be supporting Councillor Brer's motion. Thank you, Councillor Souza. Councillor, is the Councillor Brenda Brandis, you've spoken, so I'm assuming this is a question? Yes, Mr. Mayor. I've got a few questions. Um, with regard to the process of consulting with, uh, adjoining neighbors with regard to verge trees, um, can the administration please advise of the issues with regard to this, um, and also if this could result in, uh, trees not being planted? M, um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I might need to seek some clarification on the question. Um, are you asking that question in relation to your foreshadowed notice of motion, or are you asking that question in relation to something else? Thank you, Director Amo Primo. I'm asking that question, um, in response to comments made by Councillor Dua. So the comments were to the effect that, um, the consultation is now an easier process because it's not adjacent, not adjacent properties but adjoining properties, and my concern is that whether you have one, two, or now three, um, uh, different individuals to consult with, you're still going to create a very complicated process. So my question to the administration is, how difficult would it be to administer this for the planting of nearly, you know, 600 trees across the city? Would this result in delays? Could it result in arguments? And, and how would you deal with it if you had one or two in support of a tree and a third one not, or vice versa? That was a long question. Uh, M. Primo, do you want to have a step at that? Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I would interpret, um, adjoining, uh, landowner as the same way we do in the local law as to the property the, um, person has the right to make use of the verge. So we would only consider the views of one, um, owner or occupier of a property, so that wouldn't be multiple. Um, in terms of the mechanism for consulting with it, it is through channels which we wouldn't normally use for consultation. Um, so we would be relying on people proactively engaging with the city rather than sending direct letters to them. Thank you, Miss Amo. Follow-up question, Councillor Brenda Brandis. Yes, Mr. Mayor. So part of that question was, if there were differences in opinions of the adjoining neighbors with regard to the planting of a tree, how would that be dealt with? Because, um, you know, we've got roughly 600 trees to be planted. Would this slow down the process, or who would be the adjudicator? M. Amo. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Actually, reading the foreshadowed notice of motion, it says the property owner, so that would mean it would only be the property owner singular, unless it was a corner block where there was multiple properties, but mostly there would only be one property owner. We would have to do consider the view of. Councillor Brenda Brandis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Amo Primo. So would the, um, additional consultation require resulting delays in this program? M. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The wording of the notice of motion isn't time-bound. So my interpretation of it is that should council proceed in that direction, we would continue with the program, and where we received an objection, we would then have to remove a tree that was planted, um, and relocate it somewhere else. That's how I read the wording. Thank you, Miss Amo. Any further questions? Yes, Councillor Brenda Brandis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just with regard to, um, the tree pruning. So my conversations were with the administration that, um, of course, we're trying to achieve a greater canopy cover to address the heat island effect, um, in the area, and part of that process would be to therefore modify the, uh, the pruning regime. So in consultation with the administration, this seemed like a better way forward. It achieves two outcomes. It achieves cost savings, um, which, uh, I understand quite significant, um, probably in the vicinity of nearly $35,000, $350 a tree by 100 trees, so it's, it's a significant cost saving, but also it achieves the canopy outcome. So the, the importance of this motion, if the administration could confirm, is, is that appropriate, um, and would they consider this beneficial, uh, to ensure that they could actually, uh, change and modify the pruning program to achieve the desired outcomes? M. Primo. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So there are a reasonable number of trees in the area that, um, could be have a modified pruning regime to increase the canopy cover. There are also a number, um, where they're in a very narrow, um, section of verge, and they would still require a reasonable amount of pruning to, um, keep the roadway clear, um, and we would just have to see over time how we were able to prune them to improve the canopy, but there is also some that, um, we would be able to increase the canopy of, and I think that's evident by the ones that, um, we haven't been significantly pruning there. Thank you, Miss Amo. Further question, Councillor Brenda Brandis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Amo Primo. With regard to, um, this motion, um, I have considered, um, the ability to remove trees that are not only dead, dying or diseased, but have epicormic shoots, are stunted, rotten, and have a trunk growth that is not perpendicular. Could the administration please confirm if the other criteria that I've actually listed, um, are applicable to trees within this area that planting is considered as part of the Greening grants program, um, and also, um, if this actually provides the right level, um, of direction for tree removal? You, M. Primo. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, there are around 20 trees that fit into the C category that are in paragraph one that the city would be seeking to, um, remove and replace with something that would, um, ultimately provide a better canopy. Um, those trees that I mentioned that were in a very narrow part of the verge, um, most of them would not be covered by this, um, and there are a few of them, but, um, they could be dealt with at another point in time. Thank you, Miss Amo. Councillor Brenda Brandis, another question? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Amo Primo. Um, a final question, um, with regard to this motion, is there anything that is, um, not workable, um, or reasonable that should be considered for amendment, um, by the administration? Thank you, M. Primo. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Now, having, um, had some time to consider this, and the implications of it, um, we have also had staff look at where we might, um, place the trees that, um, in an alternative location, and we believe that, um, substantially, that this is workable. Thank you, Miss Amo Prima. So councilors, is there anyone? Oh, Councillor Coveny, can I speak against? Mr. Mayor, you can. Uh, thank you. The way I see it, there's critically one difference between, uh, Councillor Brenda Brandis's motion and mine, or its consultation. And, um, I'll explain why I say that's important by a brief rundown of the history as, as far as I understand it. The city secured a grant and started planting trees, uh, in particular suburbs, and the feedback that, uh, Councillor Dua received was, uh, some people were not happy because their olive trees were being removed, or some people didn't want trees on their verge. And so, uh, Councillor Duza brought a motion that effectively said, hold up, let's pause, and let's get some consultation. And the feedback from the administration last week was, we're concerned about doing mass consultation by letters because we need to get the trees in quick, or else we're going to lose a grant or not plant them all. The previous notice that residents received was a letter saying, we are doing this, and it didn't invite, uh, consultation, it didn't invite objections. So the intent of my motion, which I foreshadow, is to say, okay, well, how do we short-circuit this consultation and how we make sure trees are planted? And that's putting it on social media channels and putting it on the website. This is a quick, cheap, easy way, um, to reach a lot of people. Um, and by capping complaints at 10%, we might not even get that much, but by capping it at 10% and saying if you do complain, we're still going to put it somewhere else, you still fulfill the grant. That's how I see it being different, and, and that's how I see it being critically different, whereas Councillor Brenda Brandon's motion to says, if you've complained, even though we didn't invite complaints, we're not going to do anything about it. So that's why I object to this motion on that basis only. Thank you, Councillor Koveny. Councillor Choy, speaking or asking a question? Um, I've got some questions since we're comparing the motions. I did send these in beforehand. If I can please ask those because I need to make a decision on which one I'm going to support. Far away, thank you. Um, so the first one is in relation to, um, Councillor Coveny's alternative motion, which I now understand is, is the foreshadow motion in place of Councillor Tuser's. It says that it instructs that no further trees be removed but for trees identified as dead, dying, or diseased. And so I'm just wondering about those residents who may want their tree removed and or replaced with a different species the city may be offering, but then can't give to them if this motion is endorsed. M. Primo. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. As the motion stands, have passed, where someone wants, um, an unviable tree removed and replaced that is not dead, dying, or diseased, then the city could not remove and replace the tree. Uh, thank you, through the chair, to Director Primo. Um, so also, what about when a tree poses a health and safety risk for other reasons, as from time to time I recall they reportedly do? How will the city have to respond in accordance with this motion if endorsed in these and other types of circumstances? M. Primo. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. If the tree was to be replaced as part of the urban Greening grants program, then strictly in accordance with the potential council resolution, the city should not, um, remove it. However, if it posed a significant safety risk and the city would remove it as part of the routine operations anyway. C. Thank you, U, Mr. Mayor, through the chair again, Dr. Primo. Um, does not paragraph two of the, of this motion contradict paragraph one, whereby in the first instance, it instructs that no trees be removed, but then subsequently also instructs where new trees are planted and a complaint is received, the, the city has to relocate the tree? M. Primo. I'm, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I read it, paragraph two would appear to contradict paragraph one, as paragraph, um, two provides the city with no timeline on when the complaint is received. The only limit being that when the city reaches 10% of the program, um, it's also noted that the cost of relocation of trees, which could be up to 59 trees, being 10% of the program, would not be funded through the grant program, and it's not provided for within the city's pro, um, budget. And given that there is no specific time frame for a complaint to be received, it could also compromise the health and viability of that tree relocation, and such action might also be in, um, breach of the grant funding agreement. Councillor Choy. Uh, thank you, D. Primo. What constitutes a new tree planting, please? M. Primo. Um, I guess that depends on the context. We would consider a new tree planting is to put a, a, a new tree into the ground. So any effective tree that we put in would be a new tree planting. Uh, I'll give Councillor Choy another question, and then I'll throw to Councillor Toa. Yeah, thanks. Um, through the chair, in premise, I just, I'm going back to that question then. Like, I guess what I was getting at was, how long would a tree be considered a new tree planting? Like, if someone's going to complain, could they complain in two weeks, a month, three months, six months? What's a new tree planting that's, that, in terms of duration, is there a kind of a time frame? No. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, there is no time frame. There is no definition for that. All right, Councillor Souza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just a point of clarification. The way I understand Councillor Coveny's motion is, new tree plantings are confined to the urban greening grant. That, that's the text of the motion, is that correct? M. Primo. Um, I think the question, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the question relates to, um, the new tree planting, um, relative to the complaint. So yes, the new tree planting, I read it as interpreting the trees under the urban Greening grant program, but there's no connection then as to how long someone has to make a complaint about when that tree is planted. So if that tree is planted as part of the program, it is subject to potentially being, um, requested to be removed. But is that in one week's time after it's been planted? Is it in one month's time? Is it a year's time? There's no, um, direction within the notice of motion as to how long someone has to make that complaint. And, um, so any tree potentially under the urban greening grants program, um, we could have to remove at any point. Councillor Brenda Brandis, question? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just with regard to, uh, the consultation that's already been undertaken, um, can you just give us an indication of how many weeks that's been so far? M. Primo. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, the letters were, um, put into the mail on the 22nd of June. I believe they're processed by Australia Post on the 23rd, and we know some of them were delivered, um, from the 24th onwards because we did receive feedback on those letters, um, starting on the 24th of June. Thank you, M. Amo. Councillor Choy, and then I might say a few words because this is, this is going far longer than I ever anticipated. Councillor Choy, I thank you. I've got two more questions before I decide on what whether I'm going to support this. I'll let you ask one before I speak. Councillor Jo. Okay, so the alternative motion specifies tree plantings on the urban green grant, and it relates to, as it must do, um, to Councillor Deusa's original motion, which is swapped out now anyway, that doesn't make any difference. Which grant program applies to the Manning Ward, namely the three locations specified, Carow, Warus, and E Coov, and Waterford? And so if endorsed by council, with the instructions are set out in the motion, only apply to these Manning Ward locations, or to be applicable to all future tree plantings and removals throughout the city of South Perth District? M. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The, um, the notice of motion, as it's written, refers to any plantings under the urban Greening grants program. All right. I'm, I'm, I'm going to say a few words because I think we might be getting a tiny bit off track here. I would have been fine with either of Councillor Brenda Brandis's or Councillor Coveny's motion. Um, it's clear that council has an appetite to plant more trees on public land, and council verges are a pretty obvious place to do that. I don't want the city to lose the urban Greening Grant. I don't think anyone here does, but I don't think either of the two motions potentially before us risks that. Like Councillor NAD, and until some of the questions were asked in this chamber, I didn't initially see much difference between the broad intent of the two motions. I was originally leaning towards Councillor Coveny's, uh, motion, but that's only because I know that we have families with adult children that use the verge to park cars when maybe they've got four, maybe they've got four, five cars in the family, and personally, I'd rather see an unwanted tree relocated rather than broken or or removed in the dead of night. I don't think we're going to get many requests, assuming we go down Councillor Coveny's path. I don't think we're going to get many requests for relocations from our residents. It does happen, but I think I can count the number of times it's happened where someone's approached me during my seven years on council on the fingers of one hand, and have three of those fingers change. There's obviously some problems with Councillor Coveny's motion, and I'm not a big fan of of policy on the fly, so I am going to go with Councillor Brenda Brandis's motion this, so at least we can put this issue to bed and move on. But I would like to think that if a request was made to the city administration that, hey, you know, I've, my kids have got nowhere to park anymore, can you help me out? That would not be considered unreasonably under the circumstances. That's where I'm at. Um, those are the reasons why, um, hopefully that brings, if, if anyone else is sort of in two minds, hopefully that will help some people bring this issue to a resolution. Councillor Choy, your second question? Uh, sorry, Miss. No, I didn't have any more questions. I just wanted to now make a comment because I've now asked my questions to help me weigh up the two. Well, you can speak. Motion? Yes, thank you very much. Uh, so firstly, I acknowledge Councillor Blake, sorry, Councillor Dusa's, uh, time and efforts in initial drafting and tabling of this motion on behalf of his constituents, some of whom have obviously raised concerns with the city's rollout of the urban Greening grants program, and noting that the city appears to have taken on board some of this feedback already. Um, I agree from feedback received myself that, that where trees have been planted on verges or other public land near residences, including the species of tree, and reported clumping of trees together in one location, there is going to be some discontent, and hence the importance of any tree plantings near residences being given careful consideration of their surrounding impact. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned tonight, the city has been led down the path of compulsory infilling, with space constraints, to the average new build, which residents are trying to squeeze in as much of their lifestyle and family needs as possible. However, given the responses and feedback received from the city as to the implications, um, of Councillor C's motion, I cannot support it. Um, but I do ask the city if they could please take on board all the feedback received because obviously a lot's been said and a lot's been asked, um, between last week's agenda briefing and tonight on this subject, and hopefully collectively between the residents and council members, um, there, there could be some sort of alleviating of concerns and and community to site on on the subject. So out of the three motions received on this subject matter this evening on this item, um, Councillor Brenda AB Brandis's motion seems most reasonable and practical. The instructions are measured in that they address residents' concerns as raised in the council agenda briefing last week, whilst also balancing the needs of the city and broader community, and it also avoids the risk and implications outlined, um, in both Councillor Juser's and, um, then Councillor C's motions. This motion, Councillor Brenda Brandis's motion also has the benefit of officer endorsement, which means it must be doable from the city's perspective. So I commend Councillor Brenda Brandis's insight and his drafting and bringing up this motion as an alternative option for council, and I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councillor Choy. Councillor Koveny, just a single question, Mr. Mayor. I think you'd said that you'd hope that if someone had asked for a tree to be, uh, replaced and moved somewhere else, that the city would do it. Um, can we have the administration's response to that assumption, please? M. Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The administration will always seek to work with residents, um, where there's concerns raised, and we would, um, work on trying to find a resolution that, um, meets all parties' needs. Thank you, Miss Amo. Councillors, is there anyone else who wishes to speak, either Councillor Credland? Um, I've heard some discussion about, um, motion A, B, and C, and which one's best for various reasons. Unfortunately, we can only look at the motion that's in front of us, and, um, debate that one. So all I'm going to comment on, um, is Councillor Brenda or Brandis's one. Um, now, in respect of the four paragraphs there, I don't, um, I, I probably would have used the word request rather than instruct in the, um, top line to the Chief Executive Officer, but that's just a matter of style. For myself, um, I don't have a, um, problem with paragraph one, um, uh, trees identified dead, dying, stunted, diseased, rotten, as I said to, um, the other councilor, that probably describes me in many ways too. Um, uh, I don't have a problem with, um, count, sorry, paragraph two either. Um, I do have an issue with paragraph four, and I think it was well identified, um, uh, by Councillor Souza. I think it might be a little bit much to, um, be telling the city how to carry out their pruning regime. I, I think perhaps we could suggest that we'd like to achieve a greater canopy from the pruning, but that's not really the big issue I have. The big issue I have is paragraph three, and the problem I have with that is earlier this evening, and this is what intrigues me, is because earlier this evening, we had the, uh, tree retention policy, which was supported by Council Brenda or Brandis, and what that did was effectively prevent people on their own private property from removing trees. And here, um, in this, this particular paragraph three, it will prevent the city from planting trees on its property or the community property simply because someone, uh, adjacent has said they don't like it. Well, my view is, if we are going to increase our tree canopy, we need to deal with what we can, and that's our property, community property, and we can stick in trees on our property, and if people don't like it, well, that's kind of bad luck, in my view. Um, I think I think our rights in respect of planting trees on our property are far stronger than our ability, especially with the current state government, of stopping other people from doing things on their property. And that, that's why I can't support this particular motion, and I'm not, not making any comments about anyone else's motion being better or worse or anything else. Thank you, Councillor Credland. Councillors, is there anyone else who wishes to speak either for or against Councillor Brenda Brandis's, uh, foreshadowed motion? No. In that case, Councillor Brenda AB Brandis, you've got five minutes to wind up and rebut any arguments made against your motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, firstly, with regard to paragraph three, I, I am in violent agreement that, uh, we should not be not planting trees on, um, council property. If a tree is identified for a particular verge and there is a strategy in place, it needs to be influent. So I, I understand that what has actually happened here is something a little bit more peculiar where it's actually been given, um, consultation and consideration for members of the community not to plant. I was concerned initially by by the, uh, original motion that came up that actually would have allowed a greater, um, prevention of tree planting on verges, and for that reason, there are only nine, I think, or seven, um, owners that have objected to the planting of a tree, and that would be subject to review through the Urban Greening strategy, and that is the process that we need to go through, something more strategic. So I think we agree on the exact same thing with regard to the differences. There's actually a lot, um, it's actually not one difference, and it's not just the consultation period. So firstly, it's the removal of the affected trees. My motion, point one, identifies all the categories that, uh, to instruct the, um, administration to remove trees. They do not just have dead, dying, or disease trees, there's other varieties as well. Another point of difference is the pruning. The pruning has been an ongoing, um, event which is resulting in a very reduced canopy cover, not allowing trees to reach their maximum height and shade and canopy. So, look, for that reason, it is important that this difference is actually addressed. So one of the, um, um, comments with regard to the administration's review was that we need to increase the canopy cover. I have taken that into consideration. The costs is a side effect. So if you reduce the pruning annually, um, you can reduce the costs. I mentioned earlier, it's about $350 per tree on 100 trees. Um, there might be some ongoing maintenance, but, um, there is a significant cost saving to the administration as well. So for that reason, this is a very important point of difference. The consultation is significant. You know, my, I don't see the need to do any more consultation. The community had four weeks, and the feedback we've received is from the people who want to provide the feedback, and a lot have not. So therefore, to avoid the confusion, um, with regard to, um, the consultation period, um, there being no specific time frame to end that process, and also to address the issue with regard to trees that are unwanted, to remove and relocate, this is making it a very cumbersome, unwieldy process. And I agree, if we have a strategy, if we are going to plant trees on verges, it should be the administration that undertake that, without, um, having to consult for, um, residents or their neighbors or their adjacent, um, um, residents that want to object. So the administration have confirmed this motion is acceptable. It's actually quite workable. Um, there is, there is nothing that needs further consideration and allows a way forward and, and a way forward immediately without any further consultation, without any further confusion, without any, um, um, additional conflict, as to how to deal with trees that have not been, um, wanted or need further consultation. So I think the important thing is, um, this notice of motion allows this to move forward immediately, and also, uh, ensures that we do actually achieve the green grants program funding, and there is no further consultation that is required with my motion. So for this reason, um, I put this to you and, and ask you to consider it. Um, it is a reasonable, um, motion. It addresses the issues and takes into consideration strategic outcomes with regard to future consultation, and hopefully this does not set a precedent, which is not what we want with regard to planting trees on verges. Thank you.

Councillors, thank you, Councillor Brenda Brandis. I'm now putting Councillor Brenda Brandis's notice of motion to the vote. Councillors, please cast your votes. All right, so Councillor Brenda or Brandis's notice of motion has failed. It's four votes to five. For the benefit of those who are listening via YouTube, the votes were as follows: Those in favor were Councillor Brenda AB Brandis, Councillor Choy, Councillor NAD, and myself. Those against were Councillor Coveny, Councillor Credland, Councillor Souza, Councillor Prenal, and Councillor War. Uh, Councillor Coveny, you have foreshadowed your, uh, your notice of motion. Would you like to read that now, and then I'll see about a seconder? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, my foreshadowed notion of motion, uh, reads as follows: The council instructs the CEO to continue with tree plantings under the urban Greening Grant, but with the following minor modifications: One, that no further trees be removed, including but not limited to olive trees, but for trees identified as dead, dying, or diseased. Two, if a property owner immediately adjoining the council verge, when you plant trees, provides a written complaint to the city, the city relocate the tree to an alternative suitable location, with relocations to be capped at 10% of the program. Three, paragraphs 1 and 2 herein be forthwith advertised on the city's website and social media channels in lieu of mass letter consultation and other advertisement. And four, at the conclusion of the program, a summary of the outcome at paragraph 2 herein be presented to council. Thank you very much. Councillor Coveny, would someone like to second that motion? Councillor Souza. Uh, Councillor Kiny, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I commend the city for proactively seeking and carrying out the urban Greening Grant. However, the community feedback, as expressed through Manning Ward Councillor Toa, is that removing healthy established olive trees in lieu of new established, unestablished trees is counterintuitive to the purpose of the grant, and B, there should be more community consultation. I commend Councillor Toa for his original motion, which sought to halt the program until such time as that community consultation occurred. However, as identified at the agenda briefing, the plantings are of a time-sensitive nature, and in not carrying out the program, we risk the grant itself. There are several practical reasons why some people might not want a verge tree. For example, we're in a housing crisis, adult children are staying at home for longer, and verges provided much-needed additional parking. Other reasons include things like maintenance, utility lines, space constraints, allergies, fuel obstructions, and root damage. This motion aims to strike a balance between ensuring appropriate planting occurs, the grant itself is not lost, there's at least some community consultation, minor amendments are made based on that community consultation, i.e., the relocation cap at 10%, and the full program is rolled out, given any unwanted trees are relocated. Thank you, Councillor Kiny. Councillor Souza, you'd like to speak? Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll could be very brief because it's getting late. Um, this motion is, uh, a win-win. It's a sensible compromise. We retain the grant, we don't have to undergo extensive letter mailer consultation, we just put a simple post on the city's website, and we are guaranteeing 90% of the program is rolled out, and the other 10% if we get even 3, 4% of objections, it's capped at 10%, and that cap is not for removal but for relocation. So I think this is a sensible compromise, and I encourage councilors to endorse it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Souza. Um, I might ask a question of M. Primo here. Uh, you all know that I hate drafting policy on the fly. I really, really do. But I was listening during the debate, and it seems like there might be a couple of tidy-up things that, if Councillor Coveny and Councillor Souza were willing, um, I might at least put out there for council's consideration. So here's my question to Miss Amo Primo. Um, Miss Amo Primo, do you think this notice of motion would be improved by at paragraph 1 inserting the words "subject to paragraph 2" at the very start of paragraph 1, given what you'd said previously about your concerns about the drafting? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do believe that that would, um, resolve that ambiguity. All right. And would paragraph 2 be improved by putting some sort of a time cap in terms of when any objection has to be received by from a resident, rather than sort of having that with no sunset clause? Um, yeah, it certainly would. What would you suggest? Um, well, the question for me is, is the intent to have us plant trees and then remove them, or is the intent to receive that feedback prior to the tree going in the ground? Um, because I think there are risks around planting them and then trying to relocate them. Um, would two weeks be reasonable? We would be seeking to commence that program, um, essentially, um, if we can get two planting crews out there, we can probably, um, complete the program within four to five weeks, but that really means we need to start planting next Monday if we're going to get through the program in time to, um, get the grant acit time frame. Um, if we had two weeks, um, we would probably start, we would have to take the risk to start planting, um, and run the risk that there may be some that we had to relocate, but that's probably what we would have to do to meet the grant requirements. All right. Are there any other amendments that you, you'd suggest that might make this more administratively workable, um, having to sort of a short amount of time to consider it? Um, they're probably the two fundamental issues with it. Um, one of the other concerns I have is that advertising it on the, um, paragraph three refers to advertising paragraphs 1 and 2. Um, I think we would want to make what we advertise, um, very clear that it applies to specific plantings because we run the risk that our standard annual winter planting program also gets caught up in this process, and people who are receiving a tree as part of the annual winter planting program outside of the urban Greening grant program, um, believe that this communication on the website and social media is also targeted at them. Can, can that be handled administratively, or would that require a specific amendment to this notice of motion? Uh, whether they, I think the challenges around the channels that we're using to communicate that they are not directed at the specific people. No, so we would need to be very clear that we were referencing trees planted in specific streets. However, I, I anticipate that we may receive feedback from the community beyond that. Yes. Um, so I, I think that this notice of motion is going to create a significant amount of administrative work for, um, the city's teams. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Coveny, would you consider amending paragraph one to have the words "subject to paragraph 2" comma in front of the words "no further trees"? Paragraph 1, and would you consider adding the words "within 14 days" after the words "written complaint to the city" at paragraph 2? Yes, I would. Mr. Yes, I would. Mr. All right, Councillor Suza, you okay with that? All right. Uh, well, in that case, shall we assume that those amendments have been moved by Councillor Coveny and accepted by Councillor Duza? Did everyone get the gist of those proposed amendments? Sure. So unless Councillor Coveny and Councillor Souza correct me, uh, the foreshadowed notice of motion from Councillor Coveny in front of us now reads at paragraph 1, "subject to paragraph 2," comma, and then it reads, "no further trees be removed," as per the original drafting. And then at paragraph 2, second sentence, halfway through, sorry, the second line, halfway through the second line, after the word "city," but for the comma, insert the words "within 14 days." Everyone good with that? Mr. Bradford, I'm not going to suggest any further amendments, but, uh, to limit the risk around the advertising on the website and social media, I would suggest that we will be very specific about this planting under this grant in these streets, and then that would, that, that's that would at least limit the opportunity for people. Why I think it will still happen, but at least limit it. Is everyone happy if the administration works on that basis, assuming this motion is carried? Mr. Bradford, if you read paragraph three strictly, it says paragraphs one and two be advertised on the city's website and social media channels. What that would say is that no trees are going to be removed, and if someone complains about a tree in the next 14 days, we won't plant one. That could happen across the city. So in order to limit that, minimize the risk of that occurring, and not needing any, we would administratively advertise it in a way that is very specific to say we are conducting a street tree, a tree planting under this urban grant in these streets, and these conditions apply to that only. Councillor Choy, I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just ensuring that that doesn't actually need to be written into the motion for it to be effective as a council resolution? No, we've just clarified that that can be done from an administrative perspective. Right. I've got a couple of other questions if I may. Far away, thank you. Um, so how will the resident know about the 14-day complaint mechanism other than what C. Br. has just outlined? And what if they're a landlord with the tenant living in the property or a FIFO worker, or this don't receive it in 14 days is a very short period of time for someone to be notified and get back to the city about a tree? M. Primo. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, the city has already sent out letters notifying of the planting, um, now four weeks ago, um, to both occupiers and owners of all of the properties. Um, so whilst they wouldn't know about the 14-day time period unless they see it through the media channels or on the website, they will have already received a letter, and in the experience of the administration, whilst I acknowledge that the letter didn't explicitly invite feedback, our experience is that where somebody has a strong objection to what is happening, they will provide us with that feedback irrespective of whether the letter invites it or not. So I would anticipate that the majority of people who wish to provide us with feedback saying they don't want a tree, um, they will have already done so, um, and they do have that, they do, they have already received a letter. So they've had a, they've had a month to contact the city and query it, and I would anticipate that most.

People who want to object will have already done so. Thank you, Miss Primo.

Councilor Choy: Uh, thank you. Through the chair to Director Primo. Um, so what will the city do if more than 10% of residents complain and seek their tree to be removed?

M. Primo: Um, in lieu of any specific instruction from Council, we would, um, simply be able to take the requests as they were received. And once we reach 10%, um, which is around, which would be around 59 trees, um, we would then respond to any further requests by saying that the, the Council resolved to put a cap on it, and we won't, um, be honoring their request. Thank you.

M. Primo: Councilor Choy?

Councilor Choy: Uh, thank you. Through the chair again to Director Primo. Um, so will the city be required to notify the state government of this Council endorsement, if it, if this motion is endorsed? And will that tree removal and or relocation, um, potentially be in breach of the funding, the grant funding?

M. Primo: Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, City officers had discussions with WGA, um, who were administering the grant funding, um, at the time of the initial notice of motion and the contents of that, um, and also had further discussions, um, when they, with the contents of the agenda that was published on Friday. Um, it's unclear, and we haven't asked a specific question, as to whether digging up a tree that we've already planted under the program and relocating it, um, would be an issue. Um, I think administratively, it will be a challenge for us because we are required to submit a shape file with locations of every single tree that we've planted under the program, um, and we're required to have all of that information, um, reviewed and submitted for the grant acquittal process. So, um, time is not on our side with this process, um, and there may be some challenges. Look, ultimately, um, if we don't plant all the trees, um, that we have funding for, or we're unable to do it within the time period, we may end up having to return some of the money, potentially. Thank you.

M. Primo: Councilor Choy?

Councilor Choy: And then I'll go to Councilor Nadd. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And again, to Director Primo. So, I understand that, um, any tree removals will not be covered under the grant program because it's a tree planting, um, uh, program. Um, so what would be the city's budget then? Like, how much would, how much does each tree take to remove and relocate?

M. Primo: Um, look, if, if we're putting in the 14-day time period, then, um, the tree wouldn't really have had the opportunity to be established. So, um, obviously, there's a double cost of planting because you're planting it somewhere else. Um, it would depend on the circumstances because each verge location is different. It's not like planting in, in a specific area, but it would, it would come out of our general tree planting program. Thank you.

M. Primo: Miss Primo. Councilor Nadd?

Councilor Nadd: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What would be the consequence of us not passing this, um, motion? How would that impact the city?

M. Primo: Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the Administration has clearly heard feedback from the community on this matter. And, um, if Council didn't pass this, um, notice of motion, um, we have had communication from people who want to retain the olive trees. We know who those people are. And we have had a very limited number of people who would like an olive tree replaced with something else. Where we can consider that a tree that is not, um, likely to thrive and ultimately be able to provide canopy, um, then we would work with that resident and potentially replace it. And where we have, have received, um, objections, and we've discussed those with, um, the resident, then we would seek to find an alternative planting location. So we would certainly, um, we would certainly work with the residents based on the feedback we've had. I think the difference between, um, the notice of motion that's being considered and what the administration would do in practice is, we wouldn't seek to further advertise it because I think that is likely to, um, complicate it. But we would work with the residents based on feedback that we've had from them and seek to find a resolution.

Mr. Bradford: To be very clear, we have, we could have handled the whole communication better. So we'll cop that, absolutely. Um, and as Director Primo says, we will, if there's no notice of motion, we've heard the feedback, we won't remove an olive tree if someone doesn't want it removed. And, and those few that we have, have requested, and, uh, we will work with the residents. You know, if we turn up and want to plant a tree and someone says, I don't want a tree, then we'll work, have a discussion why and see if we can work through it. So, you know, we, we actually have a pretty good track record of working with people. I mean, this communication around this program, I think was a, was a bit of an own goal in part because of the time pressures around submitting the grant and having to get it completed in a certain time frame that meant the project timelines, time frames were kind of, um, shortened for some aspects of it. But we always seek to work with residents where we can. Thank you.

Mr. Bradford: Councilor Choy, another question or speaking?

Councilor Choy: Uh, just a couple of questions, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um, so just following from, uh, Councilor Bradford's comments there, um, so that's heartening to hear. So does that mean that this notice of motion is not really required then? Because if we don't risk the funding and the city will take into account feedback anyway and do its own consultation, then maybe that's just the best way to go to take an undertaking from the city?

Mr. Bradford: Uh, I think that would have been my position about two weeks ago when we started to get the, um, the issues raised that we could have handled this administratively for the large part of the concerns. Thank you.

Mr. Bradford: Councilor Credland, just one question, and I'd like to just, um, do some closing submissions very briefly because I know it's like 9:30. Um, I know it's somewhere else, but what was the actual total amount of this Urban Greening Grant?

M. Primo: It's just over $77,000.

Councilor Credland: All righty. Uh, does anyone else wish to speak either for or against this, uh, foreshadowed motion? Councilor Credland.

[Music]

Councilor Credland: Um, again, I'm just looking at this motion. Um, I have no difficulty with paragraph one, but I can't, um, support paragraph two, simply because, um, I don't think it's appropriate for us to be telling the city, we're instructing the CEO, um, to relocate trees that we have planted on our land, um, to an alternate suitable location. I think it's just not a good idea. Um, and as far as relocations being capped at 10%, um, I, I know that it's unlikely, but what happens if we get 15%? Um, I've heard the director say, well, it's the first 10% who are the lucky ones, they'll get their tree, uh, relocated and get to get the additional warmth, um, as we, um, go through that, um, global warming. Um, I trust the city, um, and I think as the CEO has said, um, they've got the message in respect of the presentations or deputations about, um, perhaps just, um, involving themselves a little bit more personally with the people with the olive trees. Um, and I think we need to be very careful about sending out messages that we will plant, then relocate trees, or even give people the, um, ability to have a veto over what we do on our land for the community. Thank you.

Councilor Credland: Councilor Brandis.

Councilor Brandis: Yes, a question, Mr. Mayor. Just with regard to the number of responses that we've received for not planting trees, do we, do we have that number and, um, which of the suburbs they're located in?

M. Primo: Should I send that to you?

M. Primo: Uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the number as of today was, um, 12, and they are all in Waterford. Thank you.

M. Primo: Director Amo. Thank you, M. Amo. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against?

Councilor Brandis: Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to speak to this item.

Councilor Brandis: Okay. Uh, look, I am supportive of, uh, the olive trees not being removed. And, um, any tree that's thriving, that can cope with the heat and the severe summer, it's incredibly important that we retain it. It's a healthy, mature tree. Maybe not the ideal tree to be planted at the outset, but some of them have been there 20, 25 years, so it's important to retain them. Um, I don't support, um, an extensive process which allows consultation, as Councilor Credland has said, with regard to choosing the tree, relocating the tree, or not having the tree. Uh, I do not agree with that. But unfortunately, we have gone down a process where we've just been advised it's 12 to date that have already advised they're not wanting the tree to be planted. Um, I prefer a strategy, um, which is what I alluded to previously, you know, if, if we're going to, um, plant trees, we have a strategy. The administration undertake that, um, and then can deliver on it in a timely, efficient manner without extensive consultation. That's the way it should be. Um, look, so there, there are certain things, as I said before, I do not, uh, agree with this foreshadowed motion, including the, the, um, the input from the administration with regard to reducing the pruning and saving costs with regard to to relocation of trees, um, with regard to the additional extensive consultation period, even though we've had already four weeks' consultation. This is an administrative nightmare. So, look, I do support the retention of the olive trees. I, I door-knocked extensively in the area, and there's roughly about 85% of the people that we spoke with that were keen to retain those trees. So it did show overwhelming community support. Yes, I agree this probably shouldn't have been brought to council, um, in, in the, uh, initial stages. It should have been dealt with administratively. So I, by and large, do not agree with quite a lot of what is in this motion, but I am supportive of retention of the olive trees. Thank you.

Councilor Brandis: Thank you, Councilor Brandis. Does anyone else wish to speak either for or against? No. Uh, Councilor Coveny, you've got five minutes to, uh, to wind up and rebut any arguments made against the motion, if you'd like to do so. I'll be back for seconds. Thank you.

Councilor Coveny: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, if the grant's about $70,000, 10% of $70,000 is $7,000. If the city's position is that there's already been sufficient advertisement and that's garnered 12 responses, then I would suspect that it's, um, significantly less than 10%, and we're only talking about a few dollars. So I don't think that there's a significant financial or operational, significant financial or operational impact by this motion. Um, ultimately, this arose from Councilor D'Souza standing up for his community, and that should be applauded. Um, we will ultimately get the learnings of what went right and what went wrong with this at paragraph four, um, with the summary outcome that proposes. Thank you.

Councilor Coveny: Councilors, I'm now putting Councilor Coveny's foreshadowed notice of motion on item 12.3 to the vote. Please cast your votes. Okay, so the votes are in. Uh, Councilor Coveny's foreshadowed notice of motion was carried five votes to four. For those who benefit listing via YouTube, I will say who voted for and against presently. All right. So those in favor of Councilor Coveny's motion were Councilor Brandis, Councilor Coveny, Councilor Souza, Councilor Prenter, and Councilor. Those against were Councilor Choy, Councilor Credland, Councilor Nadd, and myself. So that was carried five votes to four. Uh, where does that bring us? Bear with me. My desk is absolutely covered with papers. All right. Uh, that brings us to question 13, sorry, item 13, which is questions from members. Uh, item 13.1 is responses to previous questions from members taken on notice. That's nil. Item 13.2 is questions from me. Members, are there any questions from members this evening?

Councilor Choy: Uh, thanks, Mr. Mayor. This was provided on notice. Um, what is the current ability of non-hospitality traders to apply for a trading license to trade in off-street parking bays or other public thoroughfare spaces, please?

Councilor Choy: Sorry, Miss Shaw, should I send that in your direction?

Miss Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the City's Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law 2011 already provides for the use of the thoroughfare for trading, subject to approval. An application for the use of a car parking bay for trading or displaying wares without any constructed element is unlikely to be supported by the city as it would not otherwise include the necessary safety features to the carriageway itself. Um, should traders seek to include a constructed element, the city could consider such an application in the same way it assessed the proposed parklet. Thank you.

Miss Shaw: Councilor.

Councilor Choy: Thanks. It's me. Just one more question. Um, so just wanted to know what was happening with the May Gibbs playspace area down at Winds Apart because I understand there is some sort of, um, gumnut cubby house, but it may not, I've been told it's not completed. So I'm just wondering, was there any other elements going into that, or was that it?

Mr. Bradford: I think we'll have to take that one on notice.

Mr. Bradford: All right. Any further questions, councilors? Councilor Credland?

Councilor Credland: I've got a big list. No. Um, you notice I kept a straight face. Um, now, uh, they both relate to trees, believe it or not, because I thought I'd bring up that topic. Um, now we've got the Billy Gren Oval in general area down there, and I've noticed, uh, there have been some dead trees, sorry, some trees removed, and there's some clearly dead trees which I guess may be removed. My question is, are they dead as a result of the, um, um, quite attractive landscaping that's occurred down there, or are they dead because they are about to be removed because they've been infected by the polyphagous shot hole borer? And in relation to that, um, is there a safe way of removing the dead trees, by our contractors, that won't actually just spread that shot hole borer somewhere else?

M. Primo: If you know.

M. Primo: Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, they're not. It's not shot hole borer. Um, we've got a number of trees across the city that have died due to the summer conditions, and they will be removed, um, as and when we are able to get contractors in to do that. And my last question, relating to the same area, um, there are some spaces for new trees, and there is a decline in the number of, um, the tall, uh, pine trees in that area and around Penrose and so on, which, although not indigenous, they are, um, part of the history of that coastal area going back to World War II, and part of the food source for those big black, um, whatever they are, with red-tailed cockatoos, or yes, yes. Um, are we considering, we as a city, considering replacing some of the, um, spaces with, um, some of those same species of pine tree?

M. Primo: Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, replacing pine trees with pine trees is a little bit of a tricky proposition because whilst we recognize, um, the value that they provide, um, for the cockatoo food, the water demand is such that, um, we have to be very careful about what locations that we put them in so that they are sustainable going forward. Um, we have planted a small number within the golf course, but we have to be pretty selective about the location because, um, they're not really suitable for the climate, um, going forward. Thank you.

M. Primo: Miss Primo. Any further questions, councilors? No. Okay. All right. That brings us to item 14, which is new business of an urgent nature introduced by a decision of the meeting. That's nil. Item 15 is when we would ordinarily close the meeting to the public if there was any reason to do so, but there is not. Which brings us to item 16, closure. So before I close this meeting, I'd like to thank everyone for their attendance and participation. I declare this meeting closed at 9:44 p.m. Thank you all and good night.

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]