19 August 2025 - Council Agenda Briefing

Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] baby. [Music] Hey Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Ooh. Ooh. [Music] Ooh. Ooh, [Music] I Yeah. [Music] Yeah. [Music] [Music] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Young. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Happy. [Music] Box. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Hey. [Music] Hey. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Oh, [Music] hey. Oh. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] La [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] baby. [Music] Not [Music] bad. [Music] W. Oh la. [Applause] La. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] Good evening everyone and welcome to the August 2025 council agenda briefing.

We acknowledge and pay respects to the traditional custodians of this land, the Wajuk people of the Nunga nation and their elders past and present. I would like to advise everyone that the audio and video of this meeting is being livereamed to YouTube and I request that everyone please turn off your mobile phones. I remind you that audio recording of the meeting proceedings and photography within the chamber is prohibited unless prior approval has been granted and councilors and city officers are reminded to disclose any declarations of financial interests and interests affecting impartiality and are requested to activate their microphones when addressing the meeting.

So with that we turn to item one which is the declaration of opening. Welcome everyone. I declare the meeting open at 1 minute past 6 p.m. Items for council. Agenda items 2 3 6 7 8.1 8.2 9 11 13 and 14 will be dealt with at the ordinary council meeting to be held on 26th August 2025. That brings us to item four, which is attendance. Item 4.1 is apologies. I haven't received any apologies for this evening. Item 4.2 is approved leaves of absence. Mayor Greg Milner, that's me. I have an approved leave of absence for the period of 24th July 2025 to 17 October 2025 conclusive. But I'm here tonight and Councelor Haley Prenville has an approved leave of absence for the period of 16 August 2025 to 20 August 2025 inclusive.

Item five is declarations of interest and there's a few this evening so please do bear with me. Mayor Greg Milner, that's me. I've declared a financial and proximity interest in item 10.1.1 as some of the proposed listings either include or are adjacent to or are across the road from properties that are owned or indirectly owned by persons who contributed to my re-election campaign in 2023. Mayor Greg Milner, me again. I've declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.4 for because over the years I've developed positive working relationships with many local sporting organizations and community clubs including some of the applicants mentioned in this item. Councelor Jennifer Nad has declared a proximity interest in item 10.1.5 as my property is opposite the section of Sir James Mitchell Park in proximity to the flag pole where this event will be conducted. On the previous occasion, the nocturnal event did not impact land in front of my property. I will not participate in the vote on this agenda item. Councelor Jennifer Navad has also declared an impartiality interest in item 10.3.1 as I do not believe there is a need to declare a proximity interest in decision-making on policy 7.2 two significant views. Because the policy is not an enactment of any decision relating to the land opposite my dwelling, I do not believe that the development of private land in the vicinity of my property would impact views from my property. Councelor Jennifer Nad has also declared an impartiality interest in item 10.3.2 2 as if agreed to by council the local planning policy trees will become an advisory direction for council decision-m in relation to development approvals on private property. I therefore declare an impartial sorry an impartiality interest on the matter because some community members may be concerned that a conflict of interest may be present. May Greg Milner that's me. I've declared an impartiality interest in item 10.3.4 as I know at least one person who lives close to the site of the proposed development. Mayor Greg Milner, me again. I've declared an impartiality interest in item 10.4.1 4.1 as I voted against council resolution number 725/140 titled removal of six trees planted on the south side of Lake Douglas during winter 2024 at the 22 July 2025 ordinary council meeting. I supported the revocation motion by Councelor Jennifer Navad being brought to council for consideration as set out at page 67 of the agenda. Councelor Jennifer Navad has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.4.1 4.1 as I voted against council resolution number 725/140 titled removal of six trees planted on the south side of Lake Douglas during winter 2024 at the 22 July 2025 ordinary council meeting. I have initiated a revocation of motion 12.1 passed at the 22 July 2025 ordinary council meeting and this has now been brought to council for reconsideration as set out at page 67 of the agenda briefing 19 August 2025. The focus of my concern this is still council nard's reasons is the process that has led to the decision taken regarding the six trees. I do not have a proximity interest or direct financial interest in this matter as my property is located on a different street and in a different location. I am making this declaration to clarify my position as I received a copy of correspondence indicating a community concern on my eligibility to participate in the decision making. Councelor Andre Brenda Brandis has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.4.1 as Mr. David Coldham, a resident of Jubilee Street, sorry, Jubilee Street, South Perth, contacted me on 21 July 2025 regarding this item. The views from Mr. Coldamp's property may or may not be affected in the future regarding the six juvenile trees proposed for removal. My decision-m on this agenda item will be unaffected as it will be based on merit. and Mayor Greg Milner. Me again. I've declared an impartiality interest in item 12.1 as I know a significant number of the city's many wonderful volunteers.

Councilors, does anyone else have any items that they wish to declare this evening? Councelor Brenda Brandis, a question. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I just have a question with regard to declarations of interest where a councelor has previously voted on an item. So, for example, tonight I heard 10.4.1. um was previously voted against um and then tonight it's resulting in a declaration of interest. Is is that correct? Should we be making those declarations or is it not necessary? >> Uh speaking in my personal capacity, I was erring on the the the side of caution, I guess, but Miss Fry, [Music] >> it's I mean it's up to each individual counselor how they want to declare their interests. So, >> Councelor Goodland. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I wish to make a impartiality um declaration uh in respect of 10.1.1 in so far as some of the owners of properties on the list are known to me. And I also wish to make an impartiality declaration in respect of 10.1.4 for um in respect of the South Perth Lawn Tennis Club in so far as uh my children and myself um were members of that club. >> Thank you, Councelor Quidland. Any other declarations, councilors? Councelor Brenda Brandis. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. And also a declaration um impartiality interest with regard to 10.1.1 draft heritage list. as I know um one of the individuals who whose property is on the list um and again my voting will be impartial with regard to this item. Thank you. >> Thank you Councelor Brenda Brandis. Councilors any further declarations this evening and I've just been advised by governance that Councelor Brunman Moore is an apology for the night. Uh all right moving on to item eight which is presentations. Item 8.3 is deputations. And this evening, folks, we we've got a big list. There's 17 speakers uh who will each have up to 10 minutes in total. Total being for each individual to address council. Now, that's uh that's a pretty hefty number of deputations. uh to ensure a respectful and efficient meeting. Uh those present who have requested to deputize on more than one item have been asked to limit their deputation on all the items that they wish to make a deputation on for 10 minutes in total. Uh I'm going to ask that everyone's insight and contributions and and and perspectives very valued. We're glad that you're making your voices heard to to your council. Uh but please try and be as concise as you can. Uh please be respectful to the city officers and if you feel that your points already been made by someone who's spoken before you, uh feel free to to not repeat any points previously been made by other deputations. So we're going to try and keep that consistent with previous meetings.

So with that, I'd like to begin by inviting and I hope I'm going to pronounce the name correctly here, Mr. Keithan Mathan of South Perth who is speaking against the officer recommendation at item 10.1.1. Welcome to you and uh please correct me if I've mispronounced your name. >> I may need a bit of advice on Oh, mic's on already. Thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor, council representatives, council administration, and other attendees. My name is Kadisan Mahesen. I'm a resident in the Millpoint ward and the owner of 49 Forest Street, South Perth. Thank you for allowing me time to address this meeting with a deputation in relation to agenda item 10.1.1 draft heritage list advertising. My property is currently listed as place number 85 on the draft heritage list advertising 44 Angelo Street South Perth. The street address of this property was changed to 49 Forest Street with council administration support back on the 11th of February 2025. I wish to bring to the attention of the council an inadvertent denial of due process in the previous council meeting on 24th of June 2025. As a result of this denial of due process, I lost my rights as a resident private property owner to object to my property's classification on the local heritage survey being changed without owner consultation or prior notice from council administration. Due to a mailing error that was subsequently acknowledged by council administration, I was not made aware of the changes proposed in the June council meeting to the local heritage survey whereby my property's classification was being amended from category 3 to a category 2. A number of private property owners who were in a similar situation to me were with the help of their local council representatives able to successfully achieve an amendment to the local heritage survey reclassification to prevent their properties from being classified into category 2. This was done on the basis of the council taking into consideration the adverse impact to individual property rights from the proposed classification changes. Unfortunately, as I was inadvertently denied the opportunity to also similarly object, my property's classification was amended to category 2 unopposed and has now subsequently been included in the draft heritage list advertising for approval in the upcoming council meeting without consultation and without due process. I'd like to note here for the record that back in February 2023, my property was submitted to Heritage Council of Western Australia for heritage assessment by council administration upon a petition by four local residents. The Heritage Council of WA wrote back with an assessment in Feb 23 that the property did not warrant heritage classification after taking into account my written objection and the lack of other factors that support preservation of the property. Subsequent to that, the council administration informed me of the inclusion of the property in the local heritage survey as category 3, which I was agreeable to. The property then remained as a category 3 item in the LHS until June 2025 when the change to category 2 happened without prior notice as I mentioned earlier and the opportunity to object the change. Coincidentally, the category change happened at a point in time when I had put the property for sale in the market. Without prior knowledge of the proposed changes, I was totally caught by surprise when potential buyers pulled out of the process or attempted to negotiate sale prices significantly below market value. The property is now off the market and will not be sold. I'm therefore an unfortunate example of the potential adverse impact to private property rights from the heritage listing process as was deliberated in the previous council meeting on 24th June 2025. This was further compounded by the denial of due process and changes to the LHS being made without owner consultation. After seeking the advice of director Shaw of council administration by telephone on the avenues available to me to red address this inadvertent uh denial of process. I approached council representative Haley Prrenville in writing for her help in bringing this to council's attention. Having understood the unfortunate circumstances, she graciously agreed to support me and suggested that the best approach after discussion with council administration would be for her to bring an amendment to the agenda item on 10.1.1 draft heritage list. I believe this amendment will be presented in the subsequent ordinary council meeting next week. Such an amendment would recommend the removal of place number 85, 44 Angelo Street, South Perth, from the draft heritage list advertising and restore my property's classification back to a category three in the local heritage survey. This would in turn grant me fair due process and the same treatment as all other private property owners who were able to exercise their right to be consulted and to be successfully object to be successful in objecting to their property being adversely affected in the previous council meeting. This would also be in keeping, I believe, with the council's previously demonstrated actions to protect individual private property rights. I therefore make this deputation in full support of council representative Prenville's proposed amends amendment to the agenda item 10.1.1 draft heritage list advertising. In an unfortunate instance that the council representative Prenville's proposed amendment is not included in the agenda and it's not part of proceedings in the upcoming council meeting. I then make this deputation against the officer's recommendation at 10.1.1. This is done on the basis that I've continued to be denied due process, denied consultation, and lost a voice in the objection to my property being included in the draft heritage list advertising without my consent. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much for your deputation. Councilors, does anyone have any questions for Mr. Mahan? >> No. Thank you so much for your deputation. >> Thank you very much. I'd now like to invite Miss Lena Jman and Prew Griffin of South Perth who are speaking for the officer recommendation at item 10.1.1. Welcome to you both and uh we look forward to your deputation. >> We did also submit a PowerPoint presentation. I don't know if you can see that >> governance. Is that ready to go? Oh, there we go. There we are. >> All right. Dear mayor, dear counselors, thank you for awarding me a chance to address you all tonight. >> Um, okay, just press the button. Fingers crossed. My name is uh Lena from Rogue Group and I'm here with David from our office and Prew Griffin from Hawking Heritage Architecture. We are here on behalf of Wesley College and we wish to speak on item 10.1.1 the draft heritage list. I am aware that you've seen our written submission that we sent through earlier today. However, I would like to take this opportunity to just reiterate our key points. Um I will focus on the planning implications this listing will have while PU will speak to you in more detail about the heritage values of the buildings itself. Okay. Did that work? >> There we go. Yep. Here we go. Perfect. Firstly, it should be noted that Wesley College supports the implementation of a heritage list and the inclusion of portions of the site within that list. The map on the screen, which you can also hopefully see counselors. Um, the map on the screen shows the existing portion of Wesley College that is listed under the Heritage Council of Western Australia state register of heritage places. As Prew will outline in more detail, the heritage values across the whole site have been considered when adding this site to the state register. However, it was determined that the buildings outside of that red curdilage are not essential to the cultural heritage values of the site. Accordingly, we request that council applies a more nuanced approach to the inclusion of the site within the heritage list as opposed to including just simply the entirety of the site. Um unlike the previous local heritage survey which includes all buildings, a heritage list carries statutory weight under the planning and development act. Minor works that were previously exempt from requiring a development application if undertaken outside of the curdage would now require development approval such as the installation of one solar p panel or the removal of a shade sail. This goes to show that the inclusion of the entire site adds an unnecessary planning layer without really providing greater heritage protection. Previous heritage assessments in relation to the site's inclusion on the state register suggests that the buildings do not have significant enough heritage value that would warrant additional statutory protection meas measures outside of that curdilage. Moreover, there are processes in place to protect the heritage on site already. Should works be proposed within that curdilage or located just outside of that curdilage like the aquatic center that was only approved recently. The impact of a development on the heritage significance of the curdilage will be given due regard to and assessed as part of a DA development application. This is a statutory process which includes the submission of a heritage impact statement and the referral to the Heritage Council of Western Australia. Accordingly, the process that is currently in place ensures adequate protection for the heritage buildings on site within that curdilage. Lastly, with the major development that is currently being undertaken at the site following a DAP approval for major alterations um to the sports ground of the college, the need for a nuanced approach becomes even more evident. Listing the entire site would mean that the new centinary building that is due for completion in 2026 would be a heritage listed building. Please click. Thank you. >> Oh, there we go. >> To summarize, we request that council amends the heritage list to only include the heritage curdilage of Wesley College that is also recognized under the state register of heritage places. Um, thank you. We're also available for questions after the deputation and I will now hand over to you. >> Okay. Shall I? Yeah. Can I that should be fine. Everyone can hear me. Good evening everybody. Um good mayor and counselors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Wesley College. My name is Pu Griffin from Hawking Heritage and Architecture. And as that presentation we provided earlier today shows, our practice was involved in the 2008 heritage assessment for heritage council which determined the inclusion of that portion of the Wesley College and I hope that I've got a little plan here showing you which that button that you try. There we go. So that was a plan prepared in 2008 clearly demonstrating which buildings and portions of the site are of heritage value. Our recommendation was upheld by the heritage council of WA and therefore 2009 state heritage um registration progressed. Since that time obviously there's been changes on the site but there's no reason to expect that any of those other new changes will be relevant to the state heritage listing. Um and you can clearly see the buildings that you probably can read more clearly on the paper provided which buildings are included in that boundary of the red line. um our arguments that the heritage list and oh I would note that in 2017 18 our practice also undertook the local heritage survey for the city of South Perth in which Wesley College was included again of and the whole boundary was denoted but since that time the heritage act from 2018 has made a much more controlled response needed by local governments and the inclusion of a heritage list with statutory obligations for property owners. Therefore, we suggest there is a need to be more nuanced in the approach to um inclusion on a heritage list. >> It's a little bit slow. >> So, just in summary, I know we're very pressed for time. So I would like to just say that the reasons why we feel the allocation of a heritage list a blanket statement across the whole site is inappropriate is that it diminishes the value the heritage value of these buildings which are on the state register by categorizing all places of the same value. Um also the lack of clarity around designating all buildings on the site being of one level of significance is not helpful for all stakeholders, the owners, city of South Perth and community. We feel that it's much better to be understood where those boundaries and levels of significance lie. And um but I would like to point out we do acknowledge that the site as a whole is a very important to the city of South Perth for the role it's played in the provision of education to the community since the 1920s. So very important the role that the school has played and we don't wish to diminish that but the physical fabric is only really the places on the local heritage survey which we feel is worthy of inclusion on the heritage list. So I think might just leave it there because we got limited time but we are welcome questions. >> Yeah. >> Thank you both for your deputation. Counselors, do we have any questions for Miss Jetman or Miss Griffin? That was easy. >> Uh thank you very much for your deputation. >> Thank you very much for the opportunity. >> All right. I'd now like to invite Miss Kathy Lees of South Perth who is speaking for the officer recommendation at item 10.3.2 and for the officer recommendation, sorry, the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome to you, Miss Lee. We look forward to your deputation. >> Good evening, mayor, councilors, and city staff. So, as the mayor just said, I'm firstly I'm speaking on item 10.3.2, to the draft local planning policy trees. And yes, I am one of the people that uh contacts you about every tree issue referred to by a former counselor, but I hope that doesn't mean that you will dismiss my comments out of hand. So, you will not be surprised to know that I'm very heartened to see a policy to seek development approval for the removal of trees on private property back on the council agenda again. I won't dwell too long on the reasons why I believe requiring development approval for large trees on private property is critical because I've printed pres presented this to you on numerous occasions before. But suffice to say our tree canopy cover in South Perth is flatlining at 16% despite significant planting in public spaces and streets because of the continued loss of trees large healthy trees on private property. and we urgently need to turn this around. So since the council voted last year to reject a tree retention local planning policy based on the Walga the WA local government association model, six other councils have adopted the Walga model model with more councils progressing it as we speak. The recent zorsey state administrative tribunal decision confirms the legal premise of the Walga model. It confirms what we have long believed that tree removal is development. The senior SAT member who made the judgment made a lot of statements that are relevant here. He recognized that significant trees are community assets and he talked to local governments in this state having chosen to in effect look the other way on such works for too long. He states that if the state government's target of increasing Perth and Peele's urban tree canopy is to be achieved, the battle to maintain and improve urban tree canopy is one that must primarily be won on private land. He said that the simple fact is that those who are charged with administering planning laws need to be much more cognizant of the community value that attaches to landscape and trees. The SAT member said the following in relation to town of Cambridge, but it can equally be applied to all councils purporting to have green leafy suburbs like ours. He said it was surprising and unfortunate the authority was not more cognizant of the town planning significance of substantial mature trees in preserving amenity, protecting character character and in maintaining a sense of place. So as we know the city administration have now put the draft tree policy before you to provide some criteria around when development approval is required for tree removal. Given the SAT decision, you as council are obliged to process to progress a policy. This is no longer up for debate. But despite being overjoyed to see the policy back on the agenda, I feel that what is being offered is a missed opportunity. It is not a pol positive policy that speaks to the SAT membmber's call for local authorities to be cognizant of the community value that attaches to landscape and trees. It is really disappointing that the policy is not wa based on the Walle model that was crafted by local government experts and has been adopted by the other councils. While the city's draft policy identifies when development approval for tree removal is required, it doesn't provide clear objectives to to guide the determination of tree removal applications. The model policy includes clear objectives for the community and decision makers that tree retention is to be prioritized wherever possible to preserve and enhance neighborhood amenity, character, and sense of place and for the many environmental benefits, including mitigating the urban heat island effect. The draft policy also only applies to trees with a minimum height of 8 mters and doesn't reference canopy width or trunk diameter as per the Walga model. So thus potentially excluding many significant trees. It doesn't address successive and um excessive pruning of a tree intended to kill significant trees. While when rejecting the Walga policy last year, some on council raised concern about the prescriptive nature of the maintenance pruning requirements in the the Walular policy. Other councils have adopted a modified version which is much simpler and avoids any confusion for land owners. There is no reason why this council could not do the same. When rejecting the Walga policy last year, concerns were raised about the administrative and financial burden it would place on the city. But this has not been the case for the five local governments who have been administering it for some time now. Walga have collected data from those local governments which shows the regulatory burden has been minimal and the imple implementation very manageable. Importantly, more than 60 large trees which would otherwise have fallen to the chainsaw have been retained as a consequence of the policy so far. So yes, proceeding with the policy is absolutely urgent, but I urge you to proceed with a modified policy that addresses the issues I've raised. A policy that is consistent with that being adopted by other councils, particularly in terms of size criteria and clarity for the community and decision makers on the objectives of retaining trees and this way consistent with community expectations. not modifying it at this point to align with what has now become standard practice or is now becoming standard practice and meets community expectations may result in the need for further advertising after the um for a modified policy at a later date and given we've been here so many times before surely none of us want to go through that again.

So next item 10.4.1 4.1 the revagation of the removal of six trees planted at Lake Douglas. So I'm only going to speak briefly to this item because there will be more discussion on this at the special electors meeting next week. But needless to say, I support the revocation motion. But what I want to reiterate tonight is some of the key reasons why I believe the decision to remove the trees last month was wrong and why the decision should be revoked. So firstly, the decision was an ad hoc decision made to benefit a minority at the expense of the majority. The community opposition to the decision was not a case of eat the rich. It was about equity for all on public land and best environmental outcomes for our future generations. The decision was related to an operational manner matter that should never have been brought before the council. It was a decision that undermines the technical expertise and day-to-day operations of the city staff. With respect to suggest that the reasons for the decision were based on science and expert advice are a slap in the face to the city staff and their expertise. In any case, it is important to note this advice has been disputed by other expert advice and trees are absolutely important for habitat creation, water quality and the overall ecological health of our wetlands and to set suggest otherwise is absolutely wrong. While it was argued that the decision would not set a precedent, it was in itself based in part on a precedent. That being what was in my opinion a very bad decision by council last year to halt street planting in Signia Cove, Carowara and Waterford as a result of the objections of a few. So despite statements to the contrary, this latest decision to remove the six trees on the foreshore is undoubtedly setting another bad precedent. The public outcry against >> 60 seconds, Miss Le. >> The public outcry against the decision has been loud and widespread. It should not be dismissed or minimized as being that of the same people who contact us about every tree issue. And on this I believe that the council should be welcoming the input of representative community advocate advocacy groups not suggesting they're a nuisance. The decision ignores uh feedback from community consultation undertaken for the urban greening strategy that saw the majority of people wanting more trees not less on the forore. The decision to remove the six trees has resulted in major reputational damage to the council and is now time to work work towards repairing this damage with the first step being to revoke the decision next week. Thank you. >> Thank you for your deputation, Miss Le. Councilors, do we have any questions for Miss Lees this evening? Councelor Kitland. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um my question um maybe a couple uh relate to your deputation in respect of uh 10.3.2. Um now you said five or might have been six local governments have adopted the WGA model. >> Yes. >> Uh or you may have said the modified model. I'm not sure. Um do you have do you know which councils they are? >> Yeah. So um the model is just that it's a model um so they have made some minor modification to it and and some of them addressing the maintenance issues and other um things to make it simpler and more palatable for the community. The councils are um Needlands, Cambridge, um Vic Park just recently did it. Um Bassinadine, Freemantle and Peppermint Grove, but also Coburn are moving to do it. Mosman Park are moving to do it. Uh Claremont are moving to do it. Um and Bays were water are also looking at a form. >> Uh the other one's Calamanda, but theirs is slightly different again. >> All right. Um, and you said a modified. Has Welga put out a modified version? And have they have these all adopted the modified version put out by Welgger or have they all adopted their own? >> Walga has been waiting to um see um to have a number of councils do it before they modified it. So, no, they haven't modified it yet, but my understanding is they will do that very shortly. The the main um change that's been made has to been to the maintenance pruning. So in instead of uh including things like the uh diameter of the branch that's to be removed, it's uh simpler in terms of um referring to um pruning that effectively damages the the tree so that its shape and um its survival are at jeopardy. >> Okay. Um my recollection of last year when the Welga model came up was that the city expressed concerns or perhaps councilors did um in respect of two things. One was pruning uh and the other one I think was the cost. Um so you've spoken about the the pruning modifications. Um part of your um presentation was that the regulatory burden on those councils was not as high as um had been expressed by concerned either councilors or admin last year. Do you have any information to share with us in respect of that? Uh well, Walga have put some data out and I believe that uh city staff are on the urban urban forest working group that Walga presented data to so it should be available. Um but my understanding is >> are you happy to share it separately if you can find it? >> Well, I think it's probably best if um director Shaw makes that available. >> Um I can speak to Walger about sharing it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's all my questions. >> My understanding is that the number of applications has not been substantial. I think it maybe is about 60 overall, but don't quote me on that. And half of those have been um trees included in larger development, so not tree removal on their own. So there were DAS that the city would have raised or that local governments would have received anyway. And across five councils, that's not a large number. Thank you, Miss Le counselors. Councelor Brenda Brandis. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Miss Lees. Um with regard to the proposed um policy that we have now, if we were to change anything with regard to um the criteria that um development approval would not not require for a tree, would you consider that canopy and uh trunk circumference would be the key criterias or would there be anything else that would >> that's what's been adop that's what's in the Waler model and that's what the other councils have adopted. So the 6 m canopy width >> or the 1.5 m trunk circumference and the 8 m height. >> Thank you, Miss Le. And one final question um with regard to uh species that are included on the local area weed register. Um not sure if you're overly familiar with the detail of that, but is there anything in there of concern that might be appropriate for retention or is everything acceptable to be excluded? >> I haven't looked at that in any detail, I'm afraid. >> Thank you. >> Any further questions for Miss Lee's counselors? No. Thank you for the deputation. >> Thank you. I'd now like to invite Miss Brunman David of South Perth who is speaking against the officer recommendation at item 10.3.2 and for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome Miss David. We look forward to your deputation. >> Thank you mayor. Good evening councilors, mayor and um city staff. Thank you for the opportunity. Um yes. So I'll be echoing a lot of the comments that you've just heard um Ms. Le's make. So I'll try and keep this quick. But in respect of the draft local planning policy trees, it is heartening that um the council is considering this again. We don't need to talk again about how important trees are to the um the health of our environment and our property values of course. Um just to um provide a bit of background um from year dot I suppose councils have been proceeding on the basis that they couldn't stop the removal of trees on private property and given that there were increasing community concerns about the loss of trees on private property the Western Australian Local Government Association drafted a model policy which you've just heard heard has been adopted by six local government areas so far. The policy was meant to um give effect to um classifying the removal of trees as works or development for which a development application was needed. Walga worked on this with um its working group which I understand um included some city of South Perth staff and um took expert legal advice on the wording of that um and um as you've heard from Miss Lees it's been has been adopted and it seems to be working um which is great. Then along comes the matter of Zoroi versus the town of Cambridge. This is a decision of the state administrative appeals sorry the state administrative tribunal um who and the um deciding member found that contrary to everyone's belief that councils couldn't regulate the removal of trees on private property. He found that councils did in fact have that power. Um which is terrific. Um and um as a result, the policy we have before us is no longer similar to the Walga model adopted by those six councils. It's been flipped in a way given that we can now regulate the removal of trees. We are seeking to exempt trees that don't need to be regulated for um everyone's, you know, to make it easier for people with large mature trees on their property. I have some concerns about this. The first of which is that um I believe that a single SAT decision is a shaky foundation on which to proceed. Um and even in the written material that accompanied this motion in tonight's agenda is the um uh sentence on the basis that a DA may be required to remove any tree that that's a summation of the the count of the the case. So even um in considering the case it sounds a bit um equivocal. We all know that legal decisions have been can be overturned. This case probably won't be overturned um because it's one of those rare ones where um the applicant succeeded um and the but the local council the town of Cambridge actually got something out of it as well which is an acknowledgement of their power in the matter. So neither party has any reason to appeal the decision. But it may be that um there is a future um episode where a um you know um reference is made to the SAT for a a ruling um and a different SAT member may find that they interpret the relevant rules and legislation differently. Um, and we all know from the US and Row versus Wade that it's um that these matters can be overturned. Um, my second uh concern is that the policy does not consider pruning. To my mind, the easiest way to get around what we presently have before us uh would be to for a property owner to successfively prune a tree until it was no longer there. So, I think we have to consider that um if this is to be a um a proper policy which is going to um encompass all of the trees we want it to. And finally, as you've um heard Miss Lee's mention, the model policy adopted three different measures of um assessing an important tree. And this was the um the height of it, um its canopy width, and the um diameter of or circumference of its trunk. Um and the policy we have before us only has one of those measures which is um the 8 m height. So um again I just don't think it goes far enough. Um and in relation to those measures um those measures are in the Walga policy the that policy has been adopted by a number of um local governments. It's also being considered for adoption by more local governments. So, you're going to have some local governments out there that have certain criteria for trees that should be preserved and then the city of South Perth will be out here with different criteria. And I just think that leads to um to confusion in in um society and um I mean it's just going to be difficult for um developers. I think we should think about the developers. So, that's all I've got to say about that. In relation to item 10.4.1, the revocation motion. Um, again, I'll be brief because we all know we've got a uh elector special meeting next week. Um, and um there's going to be a lot said next week, so I'm sure you'll hear more. I'd just like to remind the council that according to the local government act, you've got a responsibility to consider the environment, climate change, and future generations when you make these decisions. And I'd really like you to bear that in mind when you're thinking about these trees. Yes, it's only six trees and yes, there are arguments about other um plantings which may have environmental benefits, but certainly removing trees doesn't seem to me to fall within the consideration of climate change, the environment and future generations. Thanks very much. >> Thank you, Miss David, for your deputation. Councilors, any questions for Miss David this evening? No. Oh, Councelor Kred Lampton. >> I think I got my answers from the previous presenter, but um in fairness, do you want to comment on any of the questions I asked Miss Lee? >> Um no. Um I I think Miss Lee's covered them all adequately. Um or more than adequately probably. Councelor Brenda Brandis. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you very much, Mr. David, for your deputation. Uh, similar question, and again, I don't know if you're overly familiar with the content of the local area weed register. Was there you're not okay? >> I'm not concerned about it. you know, um similarly to the um the matter of the six trees on the on the foreshore, we have to um give credence to the people that we um allow to make decisions about certain things. Um council should trust its administration staff to determine which plants should be planted where and when and how. And similarly, if a body has been charged, a presumably expert body with determining weedy species, then I think we need to trust them. There's a reason they're weedy species. Yes, they may be, you know, great trees in our environment, but they're probably not trees that um we should invest a lot into. And I mean that's that's very that's heartbreaking to say because it may mean that we lose some simply because they're on a particular list when frankly you know they're not harming anyone. Um but you know for consistency sake you know trusting the experts that that's um that's the side I would come down on. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. And just a final question with regard to trees that would have a canopy of 6 m. Uh I'm sure we've got quite a few examples. I can think of maybe a lot of jackaranda trees and coral trees, but uh and they're they're throughout the city. Are there any other varieties that you think would actually benefit from that six me canopy uh cover? >> I'm not a um expert on tree names, but along Cud Street there are some um very spreading trees with I think red flowers. Um pointas. Yes. I mean, they certainly fall within that category. They're certainly not high, but they're very wide. And I can think of one in particular that um shades a bus stop, which is just a a beautiful size when it's in flower. >> Wonderful. Thank you very much, David. >> Thank you. >> Any further questions, folks? >> No. Thank you very much for the deputation. I'd now like to invite Ms. Heidi Schmidt of South Perth who is speaking for the officer recommendation at 10.3.2 and for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome Mishmid and we look forward to your deputation. >> Thank you. Good evening. I've tried to condense everything together because we have so many. So bear with me. I may still edit in process. Okay. I come here tonight to deputize in support of 10.4.1 4.1 and as the mayor said 10.3.2 it's put together for brevity. I take this opportunity to represent co-span the city of South Perth advocacy network a new group that was formed a couple of weeks ago. This community group is comprised of residents of the broader city of South Perth community. As our name suggests, advocacy is at the heart of what we do. Let's take a minute to recap how we got here tonight. We're all aware of the original motion by former Councelor Coveny. Its purpose simply to achieve the removal of six saplings on the south side of Dougl of Lake Douglas which was strategically planted by the city to align with the longitudinal boundaries of properties backing onto the public open space from Jubilee Street public land. It was presented to us as a quote trees versus Mona unquote I mean views argument. Such was the backlash to this original motion once released via the agenda that Councelor Coveny promptly amended his motion prior to the agenda briefing massaging the narrative to include replacement low-level native planting. In this case, 135 m of it. This in no way detracted from the fact that the six small healthy trees had to go to maintain views all under the guise of wetlands planting. And how we could we forget the turtles. They too were used as justification to remove the trees that was all over Facebook for fear of kamicazi style attacks from birds perched in said trees once they matured. As we know, that new narrative was well and truly debunked by Ian Barlow and the Wallyabup Wildlife Warriors who hosted a turtle community education session at Lake Douglas on the 10th of August. It was completely outrageous that community groups had to again act quickly and host an event like that to correct the new narrative being spooked by some council with the apparent support of independent advice nobody has seen. The real experts presented that day and spoke with scientific authority about the benefits those trees will provide the turtles in time. They shelter in the roots of mature trees and that protects them from the birds. In fact, providing sanctuary for them as they create their nests to lay eggs in the years to come. But remember, this was never an issue about turtles or wetlands. The issue came to council about views and trees. That's it. The fast this has become reflects so poorly on our council with the community and the wider community all over WA and some in the eastern states covered this too expending considerable effort on an issue that the city should have been allowed to deal with operationally. There appears to be an increasing habit of some council interfering with and micromanaging operational matters via ill-conceived motions and the unnecessary creation of further policies. One could suggest on this occasion in Milpoint Ward, it's proven

advantageous for these residents to have friends in high places. The outcome being that council has in fact interfered with the city's operational capabilities. $30,000 was quoted to remove the trees and install the new low-level planting from unbudgeted funds. We recall the extra $25,000 former councilor Kovven and councilor Blake Duza incurred for the rate payers over the infamous olive tree debacle last year. Again, how is this effective use of rate payer funds?

As a community, we're rightly proud of where we live and we wish to promote it in a positive light. The most recent media coverage in the latest WA Today article is >> I don't mean to interrupt, but I I do have to correct the record there. It was a majority council decision uh regarding the trees in Waterford and >> correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. I acknowledge that. >> Thank you. The most recent media coverage in the latest WA Today article, one of many, detailing members of the community that gathered at Douglas Lake where they were watched and photographed by the business partner and Liberal Party campaign manager of our very own deputy mayor. That's outrageous.

The motion to remove the six saplings has been the gift that keeps on giving. That is, if the council enjoys prolonged negative press, we as the community do not. We deputize tonight advocating for good governance and decision-making. Our community deserves nothing less. There is a real opportunity here for council to lead positively with clarity and conviction and to build trust by standing firm in its commitment to shared public assets for the whole community, not just a few. Thank you. >> Thank you for your deputation, Miss Schmidt. Councilors, any questions for Miss Schmidt this evening? That's a no. Thank you for the deputation.

I'd now like to invite Mr. John Basset of KOMO who is speaking for the officer recommendation at item 10.3.2. For the recommendation at item 10.4.1 and for the officer recommendation at item 10.4.4. Welcome to you Mr. Basset and we look forward to your deputation. >> Thank you. It's certainly a packed agenda and I probably in another time would have been here speaking um in uh support of the the heritage listings or also in support of the changes to childcare center conditions. But as the mayor has stated, um I'm going to speak in relation to a series of uh agenda items and I'll try to be as brief as possible. Uh it's worth noting that the heatwave ranks third on the list of significant risks in council's local emergency arrangements which is on item 10.1.3. It's worth recognizing that the World Health Organization, for example, has stated that excess health uh sorry, excess deaths for people over the age of uh 65 due to heat waves has increased um 85% between 2004 and 2021. This is a a significant issue that we face into the future. Um so one of the most uh effective ways of reducing the impact of heat waves is through tree canopy coverage uh which lowers ground temperatures and provides shade. This has been discussed many times here at these meetings. Uh as we've seen from councilor Nad's motion item 10.4.1 4.1 and the calling of the special electors meeting next week. Tree plant tree planting and retention has become a contested area in our local uh sorry a contested issue in our local area. I support the motion but ask why is the existence of six trees being so so hotly debated and getting so much media attention. We should be fight we shouldn't be fighting over six trees. We should be working to retain 600, 6,000 or 60,000. We need to establish a more mature canopy as as pos um as quickly as possible over the next decade or we'll face the consequences of the ongoing heat waves. That's not just my opinion. Um ABC reported uh in the news last week that King's Park staff are currently planting 20,000 climate adapted species to prepare for a drying future. And I had a suggestion in relation to the local um planning policy for trees uh under item 5. A that has already been discussed here and um I think the um proposal about canopy coverage is probably better than what I was suggesting. Um so I'll move on um to come back to the tree retention being a divisive issue um and leads to the broader concern. Does the wider community understand why the city should commit to a minimum 30% canopy coverage? Council is in a position to take a more educative role uh through its advocacy strategy, which is an item 10.4.4 by providing learning resources that help residents understand the value of canopy coverage. Advocacy should not only be external um but should include engagement with the residents of our local government area. The fact that these concerns span multiple agenda items suggests that council lacks a clearly defined urban canopy strategy, one that could guide consistent informed decision making across all related issues. Thank you and good luck for the rest of the evening. >> Thank you for your deputation, Mr. Basset. Councilors, any questions for Mr. Basset this evening? No. Thank you for the deputation.

I'd now like to invite Mr. Phil Knight of KOMO who is speaking for the officer recommendation at item 10.3.3. Welcome to you Mr. Knight. The microphone is yours and we look forward to your deputation. Thank you and good evening. Um I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. The amendments proposed by the city in respect to LPP2.4 are broadly supported. However, the comments below address concerns regarding the city's feedback on the submissions received. Number one, land use permissibility in respect to the local planning scheme. Number seven, the issue here is the discretionary nature by the city for the recommendations and approvals of child care premises and residential zones. What factors and criteria is this discretionary use based on? For instance, what prior public consultation slash engagement will be undertaken? What data and reports etc will be required and or reviewed by the city? Will this information and the reasons for the discretionary recommendations/decision be made public as part of the community consultation prior to any approval being granted? A codified process or at least a checklist of key issues is recommended to ensure the discretionary approach is as broad and all-encompassing as possible and clear to all stakeholders. The point being that transparency of process is paramount in any consideration by the city for a recommendation/approval of a child care premises particularly in a residential zoned area. And I'd like uh to note here that the location of a child care premises in a residential zoned area is not supported.

Number two, noise attenuation. The acoustic report referred to in LP2.4 needs to be in accordance with the associ association of Australasian acoustical consultants requirements. That is it should be the benchmark for all acoustic studies. And this should be prescribed in section 5.7. At the very least, this should be prescribed as a comparative. The acoustic report should also include noise contour diagrams and assessment of the existing noise environment. Does the city have the capacity or technical expertise to rigorously interrogate the data contained in the acoustic report rather than accept its comments on face value? If not, an independent third party should be engaged by the city to verifi verify the contents in the report. This information should be made public as part of the city's recommendations prior to any discretionary decision being made. The sentence that the city can investigate concerns regarding non-compliance with conditions of approval is too late in the process. Identified issues and risks likely to lead to non-compliance need to be clearly identified, document, and resolved by the city before any approval is given.

Number three, site inspection. A formal detailed report on the findings by the city officer who conducts the site inspection should be made publicly available. Number four, traffic management. It was stated that quote during the assessment process the city may my words it's a discretionary word require an independent review of information submitted quote this should be will require it should be compulsory for all applications similar in principle to the design review panel as independent professionals providing expert advice on the design quality of development proposals and built form planning instruments 5.3E needs to be extended to include safety of access not only from the parking area but from footpaths and roadways etc.

Number five hours of operation as the extended hours in LPP 2.4 will align with the department of planning lands and heritage draft position statement on childcare premises. It will at least be consistent. However, the operation lays overall are long, particularly in a mixed-use and more specifically a residential zoned area. This is why the concept of a child care premises and a residential zoned area is not supported. In any event, a report by the city on its findings should be required and be publicly available prior to any recommendations or approval being granted. Now final comment, an issue of concern in the application of discretionary use by the city in its current form is that the process leading to approval of a child care premises is not sufficiently transparent. Greater transparency and rigor is required at every stage involving community consultation/engagement and reports initiated by or on behalf of the city being made publicly available prior to any recommendation for or approval being granted. The consequence the consequences of getting it wrong, particularly in a residential zoned area, are immense. And I've had firsthand experience of where this almost happened. Personally, along with a number of other residents, my wife and I had to endure a frustrating and stressful process over more than 12 months regarding an application for a child care premises for 86 children and 15 staff to be built midblock in Park Street, Como in a residential zoned area. The city and two responsible authority reports twice recommended the approval of the child care premises even though key aspects of the proposal relating to noise, size, scale and bulk, amenity, parking, traffic management and overshadowing and the cumulative effects of all these issues did not comply in some way with the city's own LPP2.4 or the DPLH draft position statement on childcare premises that's currently being finalized. The city made these decisions based on several discretionary decisions that were unknown and unable to be reviewed or considered by residents and stakeholders. Fortunately, my DAP that included two South Perth counselors twice voted unanimously 5-nil to reject the proposal. My point is that the city's discretionary use function needs some decision-making structure built into it. It's much too random at present, relies on a trustless mentality. It needs more transparency in checks and balances put in place, including a review mechanism to enable stakeholders the opportunity to comment on discretionary decisions prior to any recommendations or approvals being granted. Uh, thank you for listening this evening. >> Thank you for your deputation, Mr. Knight. Councilors, any questions for Mr. Knight regarding his deputation? Councelor Souza. >> Uh thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you Mr. Knight for your presentation. Um, you mentioned a point around noise attenuation. Um, the feedback mentions there's an independent report done. Can you just please uh clarify what um what the concern was and how that could be addressed >> in regard to the issue we had >> noise attenuation. you touch on that >> regard the issue we had at Park Street or >> um >> well I mean yeah I I guess both both the issues you experienced in Park Street and the two um rejections by council and then furthermore uh with regards to this policy >> I think the problem with the the whole noise issue was that there seemed to be discrepancy as to what model was was going to be used there was um a consultant's report that came in saying one thing and then we did a a very random uh desktop u what for one of a better description desktop um uh review of that and it was challenged there was two different views as to you know whether or not the data was really acceptable given its location. So I I think u having been through this whole process it appears that the uh or the AAAC the association of Australasian acoustical consultants seem to have the best um benchmark I guess which is what we're saying here and having been through the Park Street exercise where as I say there was two you know two different lines of um assessment if you will it it just needs to be as I say the whole thing needs to be codified somewhere where I think it it would make a lot more sense for people when they're reviewing it to understand you know that the the figures that are provided in these reports any further questions councilors no thank you very much for the deputation I'd now like to invite Miss Angela Mahoney of KO who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. 4.1. Oh, sorry. My uh I have skipped over one. I will come back to that gentleman afterwards. My apologies. You're you're good, Miss Mahoney. Uh welcome to you and uh we look forward to your deputation. >> Could I just ask um counselors that aren't that are absent um do they generally listen to the recording or they do them minutes or >> I don't know. >> It's it's up to each individual counselor. I I know that when I'm absent I I listen to the recording. >> Okay. Um, I represent myself and my family were over there. Steven and I, um, we're 30-year residents of the city of South Perth and our three children, Finn, 21, Holly, 19, Ree, 17, who lived here their whole lives. We support the motion to revoke the decision to remove six trees from the South Perth foreshore. Um, we we support retaining these plantings, having more plantings, and retaining as much established trees and vegetation as possible. Um, we we are nature lovers and as are the over 800,000 people who visit the Perth Zoo and the five million over 5 million people who visit Kings Park every year. Western Australia's stunning natural be landscapes and unique wildlife attract tourists. They bring money into the state and they create jobs. Um, in the area we've been apocalyptically basically clearing the private land um for many years now. Um, I walk around every day. I see it. It's really disheartening. Um, we have been a apocalyptically clearing natural places all over the state. Um, David Adenburgh says we're globally we've cleared nearly half of the world's forest and we are clearing still clearing over 10 billion trees a year. He said that in 2020. So um, because we have taken out so many trees and because we burn fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is building up in our atmosphere. Trees help to regulate the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. atmosphere. They absorb carbon dioxide through their leaves and store carbon in their trunks, branches, bark, leaves, and roots. And climate change is happening because of this buildup of carbon dioxide. Trees release oxygen for us to breathe. They are an important player in the water cycle that gives us fresh water to drink and in the nitrogen cycle that makes the soil fertile. They take pollutants from motor vehicles out of the air such as ozone, carbon monoxide, nitro nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants make us unwell. They give us heart and lung conditions and cancer and they shorten our lives. Um in this area we have busy freeways and highways with lots of cars making pollutants. So we need trees to suck up those pollutants and turn it into oxygen and um put it into the soil and the and the water and um the healthy um nutrients basically. Um, trees need animals to pollinate their flowers, disperse their seeds, fertilize the soil and to keep the number of pest organisms that damage them in check. Trees provide animals with homes, food, breeding and roosting sites, and safety from predators. How many animals in our in our neighborhood must perch on street lights, nest on mobile phone towers, and in artificial nesting boxes? or like um the corrants that fly away the black the little corrants that fly away from the river because they've got no trees to perch in at night. I go to McDougall Park and go in the trees there. How often has the council had to insecticide fog for mosquitoes because we remove trees that the microbats lived in. The microbats can eat up to a thousand mosquitoes a night. The lakes behind the Jubilee Street homes are freshwater lakes. So animals are naturally drawn to these lakes because it means survival. Tall trees are needed for birds of prey to scope out prey but also to roost and nest away from aggressive birds like ravens and rainbow lorikeets. Birds of prey they eat insect and rodent pests. Uh they keep the ecosystem healthy by eating sick, dying and dead creatures that can spread disease. Old trees need to remain in place as they are life support systems for many many organisms. They are large carbon sinks and they take 100 to 200 years to form nesting hollows. The Corymbia calophylla, the marri that is subject to removal, will be an important food source and breeding site in the future if not rem removed, especially for the endangered black cockatoos if they are still around by then. The paper bark trees and the peppermint tree that is planted and then earmarked for removal will provide food, homes, nesting sites and safety for invertebrates, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, lichens, mosses, all sorts of things. Um, I was a turtle tracker in uh this from September to to February 2023 2024. I witnessed several cats stalking the birds. I saw dogs. I saw lots of ravens attacking the birds. Uh so basically they need trees to be able to flee up high. Like the low-level vegetation wouldn't support. Yeah. Um, uh, and I've also been told there's foxes there, but I haven't actually seen those. Uh, Australia is in the top five for extinction of animal and plant species and in the top 10 for endangered and threatened species as so says the international union for conservation of nature. We're on the red list. Thousands of trees have died or been removed due to polyphagous shot hole borer and the five toprainomi dieback v dieback fungus and other introduced pests and diseases. Long hot summers, fires, building works and draining ground waters have killed many too. Despite what Mr. Cobney said that turtles need trees too, tree roots clean the water and hold the banks. They break up the large expanses of lawn that is on the foreshore. So they have the soil because they need to be able to the eggs need to be able to breathe through the soil and the babies need to be able to get back out. Um, and uh branches near the water they give the and the ones that like near the in the water and near the water let the adult ones um bask in the sun. Um, in the extreme heat of summer the adult ones they bury themselves in the mud and under the leaf litter and logs and branches. So, they need trees for that. Um, they use the shadows and the canopy cover of trees to hide from predators when leaving the water to nest. It should be noted also that turtles are apex aquatic predators cuz um, Mr. Coy said that you shouldn't plant trees cuz birds attack the turtles, but turtles actually eat birds as well. So, it's all part of nature. Um, because we have cleared private land, public land is the only place we have left to keep habitat and plant more habitat. It should not be a question of trees versus 135 square meters of low-level vegetation. Habitat means both. You need all the strata of vegetation. PL um public land belongs to the many, not the few. Trees, lakes, the river, the animals and the animals that live there are the view and they're the thing that we should value, not property prices and how much you have. Houses next to the river are highly sought after and houses in general are s highly sought after in the present climate. If you especially if you ask people living in their cars, things like population changes, global financial crises, mining downturns, COVID and natural disasters can negatively negatively affect housing prices, not trees planted near a lake on a riverbank. The six trees are planted in an area where the path is underwater. I walk there and I have to go off the path onto the grass and it's soggy like it's full of water. It's saturated. that the nearby houses don't want rising damp and mold growing from this. It is bad for your health. The fine tree roots, they take the water deeper into the soil and hold the soil in place. They reduce surface runoff and transport water up their trunks and out their leaves into the atmosphere. The trees act as windbreaks, noise absorbers and privacy screens. They cool the area and provide shade in summer. All of these are of benefit to these residents. This area needs more trees, not less. The council planted the council workers planted them in line with the boundary fences and plan to uplift the trees as they grow. They had no obligation to do this as it is public land and they've been in for over a year. Uh trees have been vandalized in this area. Do we reward people for doing this? The council used to put up metal trees in the place of vandalized trees while a new one grow in order to try and discourage this behavior. Most of the houses on Jubilee Street that back onto the river are not small homes. They are residences that take up the whole block have multiple stories from which to obtain a view. They also block the views of the neighbors who live across the road from them. The city of South Perth has a lot of high density housing. Many dwellings have no have small or no backyards. These public places get people, especially children, off devices, outside, climbing trees, and exploring nature, which is extremely good for their physical health and mental health and makes them value nature. Uh, we need to counteract the damage of private land clearing through protecting planted and established trees and vegetation and planting more on public land. I know that these six trees, and I've noticed all the plantings around that the city's been doing, it's really good like in on um all the different parks. It's really like lifts my heart like when you see it all cleared and then you see plantings. It's sort of it's good. Um >> 60 seconds miss. >> Okay. Um these six trees and the other plantings throughout the city of South P will benefit all members of the community and future generation. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much for your deputation. Uh folks, uh appreciate the the passion and the enthusiasm, but we're we're not going to be uh clapping or showing approval one way or the other. Uh it's it's it's going to be the same for everyone. Uh councilors, do we have any questions for Miss Mahoney this evening? >> No. Thank you very much for your deputation. All right. Uh I'd like to invite Mr. Alia Jacob of South Perth who is speaking against the officer recommendation at item 10.3.4. Is Mr. Jacob here? >> Yes. >> Ah well welcome to you sir. >> I just wonder if anybody else has any objection on the >> not on 10.3.4. Uh, no. >> You're the only person to make a deputation on this item, sir. >> Welcome to you. The microphone is yours and we look forward to your deputation. >> Thank you. >> Good evening to all. Um, I'd like to start with uh just presenting this photograph and if you may have a look at him. >> I can't. >> Well, uh perhaps perhaps if you give that to the governance officers after your deputation and it can be circulated by email uh that that might be the best way. Well, I have an issue because there is a picture on the um don't know the actual number. Are we >> Oh, I do apologize. I've been advised that the photographs you're holding right now have already been distributed to the elected members by email. So, we have received them. >> I did receive an email from Fiona. Is Fiona here by any chance? >> Uh yes, Miss Mullen is here. I I might remind you though, Mr. Jacob, it's deputations tend not to be too interactive. This is your opportunity to present to council. >> Sorry, it's my first time. >> Of course, >> I've been here before and I shouldn't be here in the first place if this was all taken care of. The picture clearly represent a full city view with the glimpses of uh of my um you know of the river which have been blocked totally. Now, I'm here um to simply, you know, can't speak as eloquently as the previous speakers here, but um I'm having trouble um understanding how I was not notified of the development. Now given the fact that I have uh engaged um Matt Matt uh uh what's his name is is a value from South P Germany >> Matt Germany maybe >> Germany that's right that's right thanks for correcting me the u at the time that uh he came and give his opinion the the property in number 18 which is adjacent number 16 is actually right next to um Olive Lane. Now there was inquiries with the city of South Perth regarding the development which you know there was an old lady very nice lady living there and sooner or later this would have happened. Now the I was literally assured by and Matt was involved in this uh that you know the property will be built within the slope that is um you know with accordance with um you know Olive Lane. Now clearly when it's it hasn't been inspected by anybody because my photograph shows that number six number 18 is actually higher the footpath and all that. There's a slope directly but the the builders have built it uh bigger than than what it is on 16. Apart from the 3 meters um that that we contesting here um that was not approved. Um there's an issue here with the with the the starting point and uh let me just uh mean meaning the the height. Okay. Well, it exceeds um 8 m, but where do you start your 8 meters from? And there was a a case which was uh done versus the city of Swan 2008 where you know there was literally saying that natural ground uh must be respected and measured from. So I I just don't understand how it was not looked at right from from from day from day one. Now I'm not talking about the the actual amendment that they asking which were not approved in the plans talking about original originally how it was um approved and not even anyone looking at the starting point. So I don't know what sort of remedies um you know you guys can do but I'm been completely um you know stunned by what is happening and over the the period of time that I've been ignored with with emails and and what have you and it's just as if you're expecting a person to go away. Now I'm I'm the only person who is being affected by this totally 100%. And um I invite the council to come and have a look at the well it's evidenced there the slope between 18 and 16 and how it was built. I've got all the photographs, but someone needs to be on site and that's not a problem. It can be arranged. Now, the notification that I never received, you know, it's also in violation of, you know, close, you know, planning policy 6.1 64. um you know, you've got regulations here and you know with all with all fairness with all the the the the speakers before me I mean they're so eloquent and and I'm I'm surprised that uh it's like no stones left unturned and and yet my you know I've been completely ignored as far as uh damage to to the views that it could cause by this development just completely ignored as if it doesn't exist and this is beyond my my imagination. I'm a simple guy. I like to live a simple life. But again, you've got all the rules and regulation to do that. And yet, I'm experiencing um you know this uh this effect which which very much uh um you know it's a big impact. Now, as far as you know, South Perth is is well known to have the one of the best views of city of and and river. No other suburb is like that. And yet everybody's competing for one single cm of view and and you've got policies in place, you know. I mean, here significant views 7.2 to uh you know require proper assessment from all effect uh vantage point yet no officers report you know was used no photos were were placed. It's like uh you know this is like a selective and very misleading and Um I know that we're here for the uh approval of the extra development you know for for what you don't want to do retrospect retrospective retroactively whatever it is you know struggle with the language as well but I object you know utterly object for that happening you know and and there should be some remedies Yeah. Um you know the the retrospective approval that you you know it's like you you're promoting to build first and then approve later and it's just like unheard of. This is 2025 you know dark ages and you know the the planning >> 60 seconds remaining Mr. Jacob. Sorry. >> 60 seconds remaining for your deputation. I've got to be fair to everyone. >> So, sorry. Just all over the place here with my paperworks. Um so I like to say that you know you've uh received no notifications or you have notification failure um you have um you know uh the amenities and views you know which are very important to some of us. It feels like just stealing from one and giving it to another without a thought given. And and that's exactly how I feel because I mean also paying for those views as well. >> Mr. Jacob, I'm I'm so sorry. I've got to cut in there. That is 10 minutes and I do have to be fair and consistent to everyone. Uh councilors, just just so you all know, the the photographs that Mr. Jacob are referring to were were emailed to elected members on Monday at at 3:27 p.m. So, you'll be able to find those in your inboxes. >> Mr. Jacob, if there's anything else that you'd like to say to your counselor, please hold on, let me finish. >> Please feel free to email us. Our email addresses are on the city of South Perth website, but I do have to be fair to everyone and and allow everyone a maximum of 10 minutes. I think previous speakers took more time than I had given the Mr. Jacob. No, no, no. That's that's not the case. I I I try very hard to be scrupulously fair. >> It's recorded as well, do you know? So, >> it is which is why I'm confident that >> So, would you like me to drop those >> Mr. Jacob, please? Okay, I'm I'm going to ask the counselors if they've got any questions for you, but please don't speak over me because otherwise it'll it'll take longer for everyone. Counselors, do you have any questions for Mr. Jacob this evening? No. Okay. Um, but Mr. Jacob, please do feel free to to contact us but by email if there's any other points you'd like to make and thank you for your deputation this evening. >> All right. Thank you.

Now like to invite Mr. Jeremy Lynette of South Perth who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome to you Mr. and we look forward to your deputation. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, counselors. Um, I'm here to speak uh for the uh proposal to revoke the uh proposal to remove the six trees um south of Douglas Lake. Um whilst I um appreciate the comments um on the environment and and on the need for tree canopy, my primary driver for being here is um cost and and the the use of rate payers money. So um I've got really really two points. one justification for spending the money um which um I'm just going to um reference uh councilor Cognney's um proposal a couple of times and the second one it does this uh did this proposal present value for money for the rate payers? So, on the cost side of things, um $30,000, $3,000 for removing six trees, $27,000 for um planting low uh vegetation. Now, um what wasn't mentioned, I don't think previously was the sunk costs. So, we've planted six trees, we've maintained six trees. there's likely to have been costs involved with uh establishing those trees. So that the total cost isn't just about the $30,000. It's it's whatever the cost was to get us this far. It's the $30,000 and then it's the maintenance. So I'd argue that the maintenance costs are probably higher with theund maintaining 135 square meters of low vegetation than than it is with six trees. Um, but we're probably talking uh it's probably a $50 $60,000 question, not a a $30,000 um question that we're trying to answer. So, does this present value for money? So, 135 square m just to get people's understanding, perspective, it represents pretty much one person's or one backyard. So, it's 13 m by 10 m. It's a backyard of probably, I would estimate, 30 plants for $27,000. So, um I don't support spending $27,000 to plant 30 low um um sort of low height um plants. I don't understand how you can actually get to $27,000. Um I'd certainly do it for a lot less than that if you if you need plants planting. Um, now, um so the the cost is totally unjustified. I'd I'd challenge you to uh give me a breakdown or give the rate payers a breakdown. I'd really like to see that. Um, so value for money uh really just isn't there. So with any decision like this, there has to be justification. say justification for spending the $30,000. I don't I don't believe um council CNY um put together a a convincing argument to spend that those dollars. So I think he had a couple of arguments. Um, so the primary one is around the views and I think the view um side of things has been overstated. So the trees um council Cobney mentioned were between 4 and 30 m. Now that's a huge range. It represents um the difference between maybe a single-story building and a 10-story building. 13 m is a very big tree. So but when you look at it when you look at the submission there's six trees only one of them is above 10 m. So one tree is 15 to 30 m. The other tree the other four of the six trees are maximum 6 m. Now the um residences along Jubilee Street. Someone mentioned before that they're huge buildings. These are sort of four-story buildings. Um, you could on the third and fourth floors. I I've no doubt even with a fully matured trees here, you you still got a really good view. So I think the views have been totally um misrepresented and overstated and I I think I I'm not sure whether this has been explained to the residents, but I I don't I think it's um misinformation. So I think the, you know, the decisions been based on uh really a a a blow up of something which, you know, doesn't justify the time effort and certainly doesn't justify $30,000 of rate money. So I'd like to um I'd like to challenge challenge that that there is even a problem to solve. And um I'd like to also go to one of councilor Kovny's points and it's probably key. He he said this and I don't think it was actually minuted but he said that anyone who buys or builds a home I'm paraphrasing um with a with a view has a reasonable expectation to maintain that view now. I I don't think that's correct. Um uh it might be an expectation but it's not a right and you know anyone who builds anywhere or has a always carries a risk that their view um their amenity will be affected by not just trees but developments by rezoning by buildings high buildings going up next door or in another region. So, we all live with that um that risk um and the people on Jubilee Street should be no different. So, just because they've spent quite a lot of money and invested a lot along that street, um they haven't they may have bought themselves a nice house, but they haven't bought um some sort of guarantee that their view is maintained. and and we we uh the rate payers um you know, we should not be paying to um maintain people's view. Now look I don't think in reality their view is going to be impacted anyway. I don't think they properly understand it. I don't think it's been explained to them. It does actually um present in the in the minutes um what's actually going on. Uh but I I think there's just the decision that was made at the council meeting on the 22nd of July. I think that was um a poor decision and it it really didn't properly look at the facts and the the numbers. So uh I think that's that's uh all I had. I'd like to see that the decision is revoked and um yeah um and and write the um the wrong that was done at the last council meeting. >> Thank you very much for your deputation, Mr. Lynette. >> No worries. >> Councilors, any questions for Mr. Lynette this evening? >> No. Thank you again.

I'd now like to invite Ms. Ko of KO who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. 4.1. Welcome to you, Miss Poe. We look forward to your deputation. >> Thank you. Okay. Good evening, everyone. On behalf of the friends of Collie Reserve, I wish to express our strong support for item 10.4.1, revocation of the decision to remove six trees planted on the south side of Lake Douglas. As council will recall, we oppose former council councilor Coven's notice of motion to remove the trees because it was ad hoc, ignored professional planning advice, risked setting a concerning precedent, and placed the interests of a few residents above those of the wider community. We stand by these views, which mirror broader community sentiment. This is evidenced by widespread media coverage and strong public response reflecting a prevailing view across the city and beyond that the decision was not in the public interests and that it raised serious concerns about governance. It must be pointed out that the decision was not unanimous and was supported by four counselors, one of whom is present today, one who has resigned and two are apologies today. To be clear, the original motion sought to remove six saplings solely to preserve the private views of a few Jubilee Street residents. And it is misleading to suggest, as councilor W has, that it was motivated by long-term ecological considerations. This issue is not nuanced, as councilor Prrenville has asserted. It is in fact straightforward. The city's own tree removal request web page clearly states a tree will not be removed due to views, meaning the decision to remove these saplings was inconsistent with the city's own guidelines on handling tree removals. I respectfully remind councilors that their duty is to base decisions on facts and not to construct narratives that justify preferred outcomes. Equally, elected members are bound to uphold the city's governance framework. With this in mind, I would like to highlight three key excerpts to serve as a timely refresher for some councilors while further reinforcing the case for the revocation motion. First and foremost, the governance framework makes clear that and I quote, "Whilst counselors may be elected from an individual ward, their primary obligation is to represent the interests of the broader community within the city. It is not appropriate for individual counselors constituent concerns to interfere with their decision-making processes in providing good governance of the city as a whole." End quote. In this context, it is reasonable to assert that former councilor Kovven, who represented Milpoint Ward, raised and supported a motion that primarily benefited just a dozen of his >> I might cut in there, Miss Po. Um, we can absolutely disagree with positions that that individual elected members took. That's that's absolutely all right, but I I probably won't allow suggestions that councilors have done the the wrong thing. I I probably shouldn't allow that. >> Sure. By contrast, the broader community responded with a petition signed by 664 electors requesting that council rescind the decision via an elector special meeting. The significant disparity with 12 residents seeking tree removal and 664 advocating for its reversal demonstrates that the decision reflects neither the interests of the city as a whole nor the principles of good governance. To put this in perspective, the figure of residents seeking the removal represents only 2% of those who oppose the decision and barely 0.03% 03% of the city's total population of over 40,000. This demonstrates that the priorities of an absolute minority are being placed above those of the broader community. The governance framework further states that, and I quote, good governance is effective, efficient, and sustainable. The city should implement decisions and follow processes that make the best use of available employees, resources, and time to ensure the best possible results for the community." End quote. It is important to note that removing the six saplings, which were planted based on professional advice from city staff, would cost rate payers an additional $30,000 on top of the original planting costs. replacing them with low vegetation would not provide the same benefits as the trees. For these reasons, the decision does not make effective use of employees, resources or time and would not achieve the best possible outcomes for the community. It must also be expressed the optics of councilor war seeking supposed independent advice suggest a lack of confidence in the city's own qualified staff. We believe that allowing councilors to shop for opinions that suit their own narratives risks making governance selective rather than strategic. The risk to good governance is also compounded by the precedent it sets. The city has confirmed that there are currently no mechanisms to prevent councilors from submitting similar tree removal motions in the future. While the city notes that estimating the potential financial impact of such motions may be difficult, it also acknowledges that given the district is bounded on three sides by the Swan and Canning Rivers, a high number of properties would have used over the foreshore. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that repeated approval of such motions would be an in an inefficient use of city resources and undermine achieving the best outcomes for the community. Finally, it is important to highlight and I quote the governance framework is underpinned by the city city's integrated strategic planning framework and other strategic documents. This statement underscores that decisions decisions should be decisively guided by endorsed strategic plans. Yet council's decision to remove the six trees contradicts not one but three endorsed strategic documents. The urban greening strategy, the South Perth foreshore strategy and management plan and the strategic community plan. It defies the principles of good governance and disregards the city's own strategic priorities. In closing, while this matter may seem to concern only the environment, its implications are in fact far broader and more consequential. It is about maintaining the integrity of council decision making and ensuring elected members act in line with the city's governance framework, endorse strategies and the wider public interest. The city of South Perth is home to over 40,000 residents represented by just nine elected members. With recent resignations and extended leaves and apologies, the burden of decision making increasingly falls on even fewer councilors, making it all the more crucial that every decision is made transparently, fairly, and in strict accordance with established processes, which in this case it clearly was not. Councilors are entrusted with significant authority to shape community well-being not just for today but for generations to come. Allowing decisions that disregard strategic priorities and the broader community interests undermines the trust and sets a concerning precedent. We urge council to support this revocation motion to restore public trust, uphold good governance and protect the city's reputation. Thank you. >> Thank you for your deputation, Miss Poe. Councilors, any questions for Miss Poe this evening? >> No. Thank you for the deputation.

I'd now like to invite Dr. Sue Gilead of Salt Point who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome to you Dr. Gilead. The microphone is yours and we look forward to your deputation. >> Thank you. Good evening everybody. It's a long night, isn't it? Um, and hello to councilors and to city officers. Uh, as chair of the Sod Point Community Group, it is for the sake of good governance that our group wishes to support the revocation motion for tree removal as well as the development of a policy for consistent decision making regarding the planting and removal of trees on public land. We see this motion as an opportunity for the city and the council to review its leadership and governance practice and do something very different to what we're currently seeing. We will also make some related comments on the role of community groups like ours in support of the city's advocacy strategy and advocacy priorities. Item 10.4.4. The SPCG gave a deputation at the 15th July agenda meeting not only to endorse urban greening strategy but also to speak to our concerns about the need for good governance. It is the latter which brings us here again for a revocation no motion tonight and a special electors meeting next week as well as an ordinary council meeting next week. At each of these meetings, the fate of six saplings will be deliberated upon. There is a choice for council tonight and next week. Either the battle continues on in public with displays of dysfunctional disunityity, or council will instead seize the opportunity to change CHTAC, trust its city staff and make a decision which not only reflects its endorsed urban greening strategy, but also the majority of the community's wishes. depending on the choice made unfavorable media coverage which we've seen in recent me weeks culminating culminating with waking up to yesterday's WA today expose that will continue or with a changed approach we might see a return to robust healthy council representation and cooperation and hopefully some positive media coverage to accompany

It is for each of the meetings. Community members who deputize or ask questions will have invested considerable effort and time preparing. Their advocacy is exactly what the city is calling for in the draft advocacy strategy at 10.4.4. Its stated priority is to grow the city's community groups' understanding of advocacy importance and their capability to successfully advocate for their needs.

In the last decade, community groups in South Perth have grown in both number and sophistication and are already demonstrating a strong capacity for effective advocacy. There'll perhaps be more to come. One of the 11 prior so tonight's agenda, uh, was tonight's agenda item 10.4.4. Four also states the advocacy strategy ought reflect the community's confidence in the council's leadership and vision, encouraging the community to also advocate for the city's priorities.

One of the 11 priorities for the advocacy strategy is urban greening. Let's sit with that for a second. The first pillar of the urban greening strategy, endorsed six votes to one at last month's council meeting, spoke to the removal of trees on city land as only to be considered a last resort. As we know, this strategy was just a little over an hour old when former Councillor Cavney moved to remove six saplings from public open space. The irony of this was lost on no one.

Advocacy from the community to the city and councilors regarding items on the agenda comes in many forms: conversations, deputations, questions, emails. As a community group, we feel it was disingenuous and offensive of former Councillor Kovny to describe those who emailed him against his motion as having largely been the same people who email us all about every tree issue that comes to council. For us, it's fitting that tonight's revocation motion appears on the agenda under strategic direction or leadership. Of interest, it's assigned a risk rating of medium. It's the same risk assigned to former Councillor Coven's amended motion for tree removal. The suggested mitigation of that risk was for council to support the city's recommendation. That did not happen.

So here we are with a revocation motion, but a new opportunity for council to unck its own goal. Given we know trees are a divisive issue, we argue that good decision-making is required from tree planting through to tree removal. Indeed, we understand that Jubilee Street residents were consulted prior to the tree planting on Douglas Lake. For us, good decision-making starts with local area consultation before trees and other vegetation are planted. If we can get that right, we hope to see far fewer public skirmishes like this one, with decisions on which vegetation being agreed to by a majority of impacted residents.

We ask you, Councillor Nvad, if you may be agreeable to widening your motion to include developing a policy for consistent and relevant decision-making, not only for the removal of vegetation, but also for the planting of vegetation on public land. Ideally, this policy can be advertised for a standard period of consultation to garner the majority view and acceptance.

In our deputation on the 15th of July, we highlighted a series of walkbacks by councilors on city office recommendations over the last 12 months. Not all were associated with the environment by any means, but one was the draft local planning tree retention policy, July 24. We note an observation made in tonight's revocation motion that says the city of South Perth comprises mainly private land. There is a certain irony in the rigor with which canopy cover is defended in the public space, yet a lack of foliage cover and lack of biodiversity in the private space lags far way behind. We suggest this hypocrisy stems from the dominant status quo versus changing community aspirations.

Given there's been no previous requirement to consider or protect existing trees without development applications on private land, it naturally follows that the community's energy and advocacy, there's that word again, will be directed towards the protection of trees and the canopy provided on public land. So unless there are changes to local planning policy such as what we see at item 10.3.2, two, the divide between community and council will only grow. On the other hand, there is the opportunity for council to repair its July 24 decision and support and perhaps even modify item 10.3.2 next week.

This revocation motion notes that the significant view policy does not apply to public land. For clarification, the significant view policy is concerned with the sighting and design of residential development to support an appropriate balance between access to views of significance from existing residential development. It's very clear that the significant view policy concerning residential development on private land is not to be conflated with tree obstacles on public land. These six saplings have morphed into an opportunity for this council, via revocation and special electors meeting, to regroup and focus on what it means to act in the broader community's best interests through good governance. We look forward to seeing you all again next week. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Dr. Gillot, for your deputation. Councilors, any questions for Dr. Gilead this evening?

>> No. Thank you very much for the deputation. I'd now like to invite Mr. Peter Scott of Como, who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1 on behalf of Ms. Cecilia Brook of South Perth. Welcome to you, Mr. Scott. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your deputation.

>> Um, thank you very much, and good evening, all. Um, I'm presenting this deputation on behalf of Cecilia Brook, who's sunning herself in um, the Gobi Desert in Mongolia as we speak. Uh, she rang me tonight and said it's very, very hot and her air conditioner's broken. So, it's not good. Um, firstly, and this I'm speaking as Cecilia here. Firstly, I'm in support of the City of South Perth's officer recommendation of July 2025. read trees at Douglas Lake on Sir James Mitchell Park. And secondly, in support of the revocation of the council's decision that has been presented for this month's consideration. I obtain I obtained the view of a landscape architect with respect to this item since council's decision, and I will quote her assessment.

As a landscape architect with a strong environmental focus, I appreciate that the city is aiming to strengthen its urban greening strategy and that wetland vegetation has valuable ecological benefits. However, I don't believe this justifies the removal of canopy trees, especially in such prominent public open space like the South Perth foreshore. From a design and planning perspective, canopy trees and wetland planting serve different, complimentary roles. One should not replace the other. A balanced public landscape includes shade, habitat, filtration, and amenity. If the trees, tree species selected was unsuitable, the solution should be replacement with a more appropriate canopy species, not removal without canopy replacement. While views are often um, a point of tension, public land management must prioritize broader community environmental outcomes over private visual amenity. There is a concerning precedent here. If removal of healthy trees to preserve views becomes acceptable practice, it could have serious implications for the future greening projects across the metro area. I truly support your advocacy and believe this issue is about far more than six saplings. It's about the values that guide how we shape our shared public spaces. As I said before at the July ordinary council meeting, my husband and I live opposite Sir James Mitchell Park on Milpoint Road, directly up from the boatshed restaurant. Should this motion pass, I and many other rate payers living with the river views of both Swan and Canning Rivers could respectfully go to council and request trees to be removed to accommodate our personal wishes. Indeed, any rate payer would have the right to request trees to be taken out for a variety of circumstances. It is imperative that there is consistency in implementation of the SJM foreshore plan or for any other urban greening plan within the city. Once approved, any alteration to these plans to satisfy the wishes of a few residents should be strongly avoided unless there are compelling reasons for removal of trees. The July decision has set a dangerous precedent for the future administration of the city's urban greening strategy while compromising the pleasure of all users of our open space, whether South Perth residents or visitors. I urge elected members to support the motion to resend the July resolution. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Uh, councilors, uh, just before you go, Mr. Scott, uh, I appreciate you'll be answering maybe in Cecilia's capacity, but let's see if anyone wants to ask you a question.

>> And that's a no. Okay.

>> So, thank you very much for the deputation. I'd now like to invite Mr. Oliver Crossweight of South Perth, who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome to you, Mr. Crossweight. I hope I've pronounced your name correctly.

>> Close.

>> Close.

>> Okay.

>> Uh, welcome to you. We look forward to your deputation.

>> Mayor, councilors, and officers, thank you for the opportunity to speak supporting council mead's motion to revoke the resolution which resolved to remove six trees planted on the south side of Lake Douglas. Council's decision to remove these trees is difficult to understand for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are so few of these trees, so why are they a bother to anyone? Secondly, of the six, the five paperbarks and peppermints are not large trees, around 6 m. While the gum tree is not expected to grow anywhere near its full height because of the foreshore soil conditions and is therefore likely to only reach the lower end of its 10 to 30 m height range. For former Councillor Cavini's assertion therefore that these six trees would quote grow to between 4 meters and 30 m, end quote, was somewhat misleading, given that of the six, five would grow no taller than 5 or 6 m. Thirdly, the majority of these six trees would grow to be about the same height as similar trees that already exist around the lake. That is, they would be no more an obstruction than what exists there now. Fourthly, it's apparent that the six trees have been planted by city staff in accordance with what I understand is a longstanding policy, that is in fingers in line with side boundaries of adjoining properties to minimize visual obstruction. It is worth noting also that the gum tree has been planted in line with two mature trees that currently exist to reduce impact on adjoining owners. Fifthly, of the adjoining properties, one is vacant land. One has a two-story house that is somewhere between somewhere around 5 m high. Two have three-story houses somewhere between 10 and 12 m high. One has a four-story house somewhere between 10 and 12 m high. And one has a five-story house somewhere between 12 and 15 m high. The point being that nearly all of these houses provide vantage points to Perth city well above the expected height of at least five of the six trees. And if the gum tree reaches anywhere near 30 m, property owners will have the opportunity to look under its foliage through to views of the city skyline. In any case, views at ground level to the city from these properties are not entirely obstructed. Sixthly, it is well known and accepted that adjoining owners do not own the rights to the views to the city, a point some might say was grudgingly accepted by the mover of the motion to have the trees removed. Seventhly, the former counselor is reported to have compared the Mona Lisa to the Perth city skyline, saying that quote, "You wouldn't cover up either. You would leave it for all to enjoy." End quote. Except that the "all" he is referring to around are a dozen adjoining residents in Jubilee Street and not the 10 million who annually view Leonardo's iconic painting or the many thousands who visit Sir James Mitchell Park. Perhaps a good way to grab a headline, but a very poor way to justify the removal of six trees on public parkland. Eight. Councillor War has said that the trees are less appropriate in this area. Yet, the many existing trees surrounding the lake demonstrate that they do perfectly well and that the six trees would fit nicely with low-lying bushes and other forms of ground cover that the councilor has suggested should be planted. Councilors who supported the removal of the trees have acknowledged that the issues raise complexities which they found difficult to deal with. But caving into self-interests of a few only makes matters worse for future decision makers. Going down this path only creates an unrealistic and selfish expectation, leading down the proverbial rabbit hole, which can only be offset by adhering to good policy and good governance. Given the above, I ask councilors to revoke the motion to remove the trees or, at the very least, consider other options in line with Councillor Neard's current motion on the matter. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much for the deputation. And and how do I pronounce your surname correctly?

>> Crossweight.

>> Crossweight.

>> Yep.

>> I should have got that right the first time.

>> Uh, councilors, any questions for Mr. Crossweight?

>> Nope. Thank you very much for the deputation. I'd now like to invite Mr. Graeme Hills of South Perth, who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome to you, Mr. Hills. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your deputation.

>> Uh, yep. Thank you. Um, I'm speaking for in support of the repercussion. However, most of the comments I was going to make have already been covered by the other participants in this matter. So, I'm happy to resend my position and give the council back some time.

>> Very gallant of you, sir. Well, uh, in that case, I'd now like to invite Ms. Christy Lowe of KOMO, who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome to you, Miss Low. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your deputation.

>> Good evening. Um, I also probably want to repeat a few things, but I'll keep it short and sweet. So, as a mother, a ratepayer, resident, teacher, and community member who cares deeply about the future we're shaping for our children, I believe decisions about our public spaces must be guided by long-term thinking, not short-term preferences. Trees on public land are not just landscaping, their legacy. The use of public land must serve the public good. It is not the role of councilors to prioritize the views across public land for a few over health, comfort, and the future of many. The evidence is clear. Residents across the city of South Perth overwhelmingly support more trees on public land, including along the foreshore, not fewer. These trees were planted on public land for public benefit and should be protected as such. By voting to remove these trees, some councilors have failed to uphold their statutory obligations to act in the public interest and for the good of the community. This undermines trust in council processes and sets a troubling precedent for how decisions are made. I strongly support Councillor Nad's motion to revoke the previous decision. It reflects good governance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to the well-being of future generations. Let's ensure that our public spaces remain green, welcoming, and resilient for everyone through good governance and for the good of all. That's it.

>> Thank you for your deputation, Miss Low. Council Lewis, any questions for Miss Low this evening?

>> No. Thank you again for your deputation. And I'd now like to invite Miss Gemma Spencer of Kensington, who is speaking for the recommendation at item 10.4.1. Welcome to you, Miss Spencer. We look forward to your deputation.

>> Oh, sorry.

>> Good evening, everybody. Um, I'm speaking um in terms of the um voting. I'm sorry, I'll start again. I'm in agreeance with um council motion. Um, just want to um the upcoming motion which relating to item 10.4.1, 4.1, which seeks to revoke the early decision to remove six healthy trees at Lake Douglas has strong community backing. This issue is smart about far more than six trees. It is about the values, priorities, and integrity of our council. The I'm spending more than $30,000 of ratepayer money to remove healthy established trees and plant low-level ground cover simply to be a handful of landowners worried about losing a city view in the distant future is unacceptable. This additional cost comes at a time of substantial rate rises when residents expect council to exercise fiscal discipline and direct funds to projects of real community value, not cosmetic works that serve the interests of a privileged few. Where is a community consultation, environmental assessment, and business case for this last-minute idea? Um, important initiatives with clear community benefit remain on the drawing board, including the wetlands redevelopment of the old drain site and the coup street seawall upgrade. These projects have broad support and will deliver long-term environmental and recreational value. They should be prioritized ahead of unnecessary tree removals. Diverting funds away from these priorities erodes public trust in council's ability to act responsibly and deliver on commitments already made to the community. Public assets must not be sacrificed for private interests. We must not overlook that the original decision was driven by a desire from a very small number of residents to preserve distant views into the future. Setting such a precedent. Removing healthy trees in public parks to serve to serve private outlooks is dangerous and short-sighted. It undermines equity, damages fairness, and risks normalizing the erosion of public assets for private gain. The six trees at Lake Douglas provide critical shade, improve air quality, and capture carbon and support bird life. They form part of the foreshore's character and are valued by all who visit. In the context of climate change and rising urban heat, removing healthy trees is the opposite of responsible environmental management. Replanting may sound like mitigation, but no new tree will deliver equivalent canopy, cooling, or habitat for decades to come. The City of South Perth has made public commitments to expand the urban canopy, show leadership in sustainability, and safeguard foreshore environments. Removing healthy trees for non-essential reasons contradicts these commitments and undermines community confidence. Supporting the revocation motion is an opportunity to demonstrate consistency, integrity, and genuine leadership. The issue is bigger than six trees. It is a test of whether council will protect public assets and uphold fairness or set a precedent where the interests of a few outweigh the needs of the many. We urge the council to support council neard's revocation motion. Keeping these six trees standing at Lake Douglas will demonstrate sound financial management, strong environmental leadership, and fairness to the whole community today and for generations to come. Revote to save these trees. Revote to put a stop to these unfair situations where the wishes of a few take precedent over the needs of the whole community. And more importantly, revoke because it is the right thing to do. That's my That's it.

>> Thank you very much for the deputation. Councilors, any questions for Miss Spencer this evening?

>> Councilor Quidland.

>> Uh, it's not a question uh for Gemma. Uh, it's simply I hadn't uh noticed her name on the back of the deputation. So I simply wish to uh expand my declaration of interest. Our kids play sport together.

>> Thank you, Councilor Kredland. Councilors, any questions for Miss Spencer?

>> No. Thank you very much for the deputation. Folks, that concludes item eight. Uh, but before we move on to item 10, which is the draft August report, I I do know we've been going at it for a little while. So, I am going to call a a brief 5-minute adjournment for people to freshen up, stretch their legs. Uh, it is currently 8:18 p.m. I'll see everyone back here at 8:23 p.m. Thank you.

[Music]

Right, folks. Welcome back. Uh, we we're currently at item 10, which is the draft August reports. Uh, I will in a moment hand you over to the acting chief executive officer, Mr. Matthew Scott, to take us through the balance of the draft August reports. But given the the amount of interest in item 10.4.1, uh, we might move that one to the top of the queue so that those who are here specifically for that item can have a relatively early night in in the grand scheme of things. So uh, Mr. Scott, if perhaps we can kick off with 10.4.1 and then return to the uh, the usual order.

>> Through the chair. So um, item 10.4.1, revocation, Councillor Jennifer removal of six trees planted on the south side of Lake Douglas during winter 20 uh 24. This report is to consider the motion submitted by Councillor Jennifer Bvard and supported by two additional councilors to revoke council resolution number 0725140, removal of six trees planted on the south side of Lake Douglas during winter 2024, considered by council at its meeting held on the 22nd of July 2025. The motion also requests the chief executive officer to arrange a workshop for elected members to develop a policy to provide a consistent decision-making path for addressing requests for tree removal from public land prior to any decision being made on any tree removal on public land until that time.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Councilors, do we have any questions for the city administration on item 10.4.1? Councillor Kredland.

>> Um, we just sticking with 10.4.1. Are we doing 10.3.2 as well at the same time? I only ask because some of the presenters spoke about both of them at the same time.

>> That's a fair point. I'm happy to do that.

>> Um, so I don't know if you need to read out the other one or not.

>> Oh, no. We we will. But before we get to that, I'll I'll just make sure no one wants to ask any questions on 10.4.1. I guess that's a no. Okay. Uh, perhaps if we can move to 10.3.2 next, please. Mr. Scott.

>> 10.3 point sorry 10.3.2, draft local planning policy trees. A recent state administration tribunal decision has confirmed that depending on the context, trees may constitute works for which development approval is required in accordance with the planning and development act 2005. The city has therefore prepared a draft local planning policy trees to exempt certain tree removal from requiring development approval and to provide guidance as to matters to be considered where application is made to remove a tree. The purpose of this report is for council to consider the adopting a draft local planning policy trees for the purpose of advertising.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Councilors, any questions? Uh, I think Councillor Brenda Abbrandis was ahead by a smidge there. Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. With regard to the criteria, um, it was it was spoken about tonight that it doesn't include uh the criteria in the the Walga model. So, and specifically with reference to the tree canopy um and also the trunk uh circumference, I just uh wouldn't mind an understanding as to why we deviated from the WGA model and haven't included those as criteria.

>> M sure.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So when council previously considered the draft local planning policy tree retention in July last year, that policy was drafted uh largely consistent with the WGA model template. Council resolved to not adopt that local planning policy. Um, and as a result of that, under the local government administration regulations 1996, the city can't represent effectively the same item. So there would first need to be a resolution from council to revoke or change that decision. Um, so similar to the other item that is on the agenda tonight with the motion, it would require at least a third of the number of officers, including the vacant seats. So before the city could even contemplate um presenting a policy that was consistent with the wala model template, that would first need to occur. So notwithstanding that um some of the findings from the SAT case that was discussed as well earlier tonight and is discussed in the report reiterated that the circumstances of that case meant that the local planning policy did not make tree damaging activities works that constituted development and that the works necessary to remove the chew tree were based on the orthodox principles of planning law, development that require that were required long before that local planning policy was adopted. And so what that's effectively saying is that notwithstanding the town of Cambridge had the WOWA um template policy adopted, that wasn't the sole basis for forming the view that tree removal constituted works that otherwise required development approval. So on the assumption that any tree could potentially be considered works that require development approval, the city has formed the view that it is presenting a draft local planning policy that prescribes criteria that otherwise exempts certain types of trees from not requiring development approval. Um, and I think one of the presenters um pointed out tonight, it's effectively the reverse of the WGA template. Um, if it's adopted by council, the effect of the policy would be that the city would not be either requesting a development application or undertaking enforcement action against anybody that removed a tree that was otherwise exempt um as outlined in the criteria that's contained within the policy. So in terms of your question related to um canopy and the like, a lot of that criteria was contained within the wagger model template, which has previously been presented to council in the past when we were considering um trees that could otherwise be exempt. One of the key criterias was effectively the height. And I think for the most part, the community, when considering whether a tree would be significant in the landscape and would have an impact on the amenity, would be the visual prominence of that tree and its overall height. So that was considered to be the starting point about where we would consider that a tree would otherwise be exempt or not. So it is open to council to modify the exemption criteria contained within the draft local planning policy. However, I would just caution against that requirement that council has previously considered and has resolved to not adopt the welcome model template, and any other subsequent decisions that would need to be made ahead of reconsidering a policy like that.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Uh, Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Director Shaw. Council previously considered a few years ago uh for LPS7 um tree protection policies, and in that we actually supported both uh a canopy and also a height um limit with regard to trees. I can't recall if we included included a trunk circumference, but I know definitely canopy and height were included. So, we obviously did previously reach a determination as council to to introduce canopy um cover as well. So, I think it would be uh wise to also include canopy cover because as we've also heard tonight um quite a few trees aren't um covered by the height factor. Poniana, the coral tree, and quite a lot of jacaranda trees. So, are there any other varieties of trees that we've got in the city um that would benefit from actually having the canopy dimension included as a criteria? Because I I can think of two, but they're the only two I can think of.

>> Mich, uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the city hasn't considered every species of tree and the extent of the canopy cover. Um, from a starting position, we were looking at um, we've got a SAT decision that effectively says that every tree potentially could require a development application. And so it was our priority to then establish hopefully some criteria around where we would otherwise not require a development application. Um, and so it's obviously open to council to consider the criteria that's contained within the draft policy. Um, I might, if you don't mind, also speak to the reason that we have presented this policy at this point in time, and that would probably lend to some of the criteria itself. Um, as you're aware, we're going into caretaker um period in September. Um, following which, should council consider a draft policy like this at its October meeting, the regulations require a minimum of 21 days advertising for a local planning policy. The time that it would then take for us to undertake advertising and consider any submissions received would not be long enough for us to make the December agenda um for council to consider it. There is no um ordinary council meeting in January. So the earliest that council could effectively form a position, should it choose to do so on this matter, would be February next year. The SAT decision was made, I think it was the 28th of July or near the end of July, and so we're already in a position where um there could be an expectation from the community that we would be undertaking enforcement action for removal of trees on private property. And so the intent of presenting the draft policy to council for this council meeting um is to ideally have some strategic guidance from council to give direction to the city about where we would or would otherwise not undertake enforcement action for tree removal on private property.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillor Kredin, did I see your hand go up earlier?

>> Uh, you did, Mr. Mayor. Um, and I'm glad I was second, uh, now because some of those, uh, answers were useful. Um, now, um, as I understand Director Shaw's answer, um, the reason we can't go back to the Welga model and apologize, I just got a lolly just before I was called. um is because about 13, 14 months ago, there was a decision not to adopt um depending on how you categorize it, either a tree retention policy or the Welga one. Uh, so the that brings in the revocation provisions of the act uh and the regulations uh which means that >> you didn't decide. Hold on, folks. I might let Councillor Kitlin finish asking his questions, and it's it's not interactive at this point anymore.

>> Yes. Um, uh, which means that you need one-third um of nine, three people to support um a motion to change uh that, and you need a majority, which is five, to pass such a policy. So I I understand you correctly, and respected that that's why we can't or that's the practical impediment to adopting a Welga tree retention policy at this stage.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, that's correct. If the city was to present a policy that was um effectively a duplication of something that council has already resolved not to adopt um, we would first require that decision to be revoked, and then that policy could be represented. I may ask a question at this point myself, and uh, and I admit I could be imagining it, but I do sense that maybe there's some conflation of the the WOWA model policy for protection of trees on private land and the purpose, or at least what I understand the purpose of this policy is, which is to at least partially resolve the uncertainty created by the Zorsey decision ision and basically create a policy that says that for trees that are less than 8 m in height, there is no requirement for a development approval because if we don't have a policy like that, potentially Zori means that we should be going around prosecuting people that remove trees of say 2 or 3 or 4 meters in height, or alternatively, we should be receiving development applications from people that want to remove trees of two or three or four meters in height. Am I misunderstanding that?

>> I thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, no, that's correct. It would be open to interpretation to determine whether or not a tree required development approval or not. Um, and the factors that would be considered would be um the impact of the tree on the streetscape. Um, the height and maturity of the tree itself. They were all considerations that were discussed in the Zorsey case itself. Um, the policy that's been presented on the agenda is effectively setting some parameters around that. So it's not open to off individual officer interpretation as to which tree requires enforcement action, which one requires a development application or not. The reason that I pointed out um the comments that were made in the SAT case about the local planning policy at the town of Cambridge effectively having no bearing on whether tree removal could constitute works or not is to point out that you don't necessarily need to have the WOWE adopted policy to otherwise provide the guidance because you can have a policy that otherwise exempts it by working in reverse. So whilst the WGA policy was specifying a certain tree required development approval, this policy would specify certain cases the tree would not require development approval. So they effectively have the same effect, except this policy does not require a revocation motion.

>> All right. And just to make sure I understood one of your your earlier comments, uh, if council were to not pass this policy or something similar next week, then we head into caretaker mode where all other things being equal, we don't make major decisions. That would mean there would be an extended period where the city administration would be effectively without guardrails, without strategic guidance, without a policy to deal with situations similar to the Zorsey situation.

>> Yes, that's correct, Mr. Mayor. So for example, if um no policy was adopted and we received an inquiry that a a large tree was been removed, the city already has the ability to undertake enforcement action. We have delegation to be able to commence a prosecution. However, there would be no guidance as to whether it would be appropriate to commence a prosecution action other than the individual officer's own interpretation of what's considered a tree that is impacting the landscape or should require development approval or not.

>> Thank you for the clarification, councilors. Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could I just have a bit of clarification um with regard to the requirement to revoke the other decision um because whilst they're somewhat achieving the same outcome um they're coming from a different place. So this is obviously coming from the requirement uh to to go through a development application to remove a tree whereas the other one didn't have that requirement. So from my understanding, this is obviously uh something that has flowed through from a SAT case. So surely this should be quite different from what we proposed before, even though ultimately there are similar outcomes. Should should this really require revocation?

>> Should I direct that to Miss Shaw or Miss Prior?

>> Thank you M.

>> This draft policy does not require a revocation motion before it can be adopted. The council that was previously considered by council and council resolved not to adopt was largely based on the WOWA model template. And so given there's already a decision to not adopt effectively the WGA model template, before we could or council could reconsider adopting a WGA model template, it would first need to pass a motion to revoke or change that decision in accordance with regulation 10 of the local government administration regulations. But notwithstanding that requirement, this draft policy effectively does the same thing in reverse. The WGA policy prescribed that tree removal constitutes works that otherwise require a development approval and set parameters for what constitutes tree damaging activity and what constitutes a regulated tree that otherwise requires a development application. This draft policy assumes that any tree could require development application and has therefore prescribed exemptions where we wouldn't otherwise ask for a development application.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Uh, I might give Councillor Kredland a go and then I'll come back to you, Councillor Brenda Brandis, assuming you still want to go. Councillor Kredland.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, now, um, I was just going to ask for Director Shaw's, uh, comments, um, on some of the, um, information that came out, um, in the presentations of Miss Le, uh, and Miss David, um, in their presentations and also in response to my questions. Um, now I wasn't sure the exact number, but it was either five or six local governments have already adopted the WGA model in some form, and a number of others are currently considering it, and um, I'm just going to say all of this and just ask if you've got some comments on it first. um that the the the model has been adopted in a change form, as I understood it, largely in relation to pruning changes, perhaps other things. Um, and that uh, the regulatory cost or burden has been lower than um, we as a council or administration or both feared last year when we considered it. Um, I don't, and there seemed to be a a suggestion that you had information on that last point. Those were the kind of things that I got out of those answers and presentation. Just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on any of that. Michelle.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I appreciate that. Um, in terms of the criteria that's contained within the policy, most local governments that have adopted the WGA template have not varied the height requirement, but they have um reconsidered or removed provisions related to tree pruning. But what is important to note is that the application of the policy itself varies between the different local governments. So for example, um Netherlands applies to residential um coded land, R20 or below. Bassendines um relates to their second policy that they've drafted relates to R25 to R80 coded land. Bassendine's local planning policy applies to development applications over $100,000. Um, Cambridge has privately owned all residential land, as does Peppermint Grove. Fremantle um applies to industrial zone land and residential coded land under R30. Coburn um is considering the draft. Baze Waters considering it as is Norom, and Victoria Park has just adopted theirs, applying to all zone land from memory, except where there's local land reserved under the scheme. So the application varies, but predominantly it's low density residential land that it applies to, and the criteria in the WGO policy in terms of what constitutes a um regulated tree has largely remained the same, with the exception of the tree pruning provisions.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councelor Kland.

>> Just a second point about the data as well. Sorry. So when council um considered the the effectively the WGOer template in July last year, one of the key concerns that we had was the ability for us to determine where the trees that met the criteria was on private property. We had set parameters under um our flyovers from Arbor Carbon as to where um set prescribed trees of certain heights actually were, but we didn't have the level of um specificity related to the canopy size itself and the heights of those trees. Since the time that that's happened, the CS CSRO has released it's um, it used to be called urban canopy, I think it's called Urban Eye now, which has been incorporated into um landgate slip layer, which is effectively where we can pull our data from that relates to our GIS system. So we now have access to data that can relate to set parameters for tree heights, which we didn't have in July last year.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councelor Kland. So that means that the, just summarizing or boiling that down, that means that we don't expect it'll cost us as much as we did last year now because we've got better data.

>> That is correct.

>> Any further questions, councilors? Uh, I think Councillor Souza was first there.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just with regards to page 40 of the agenda, um, there are four, five listed exemptions. Um, the fourth is the public works exemption. Just want to want to clarify uh the scope of of this exemption um in terms of the fact that sort of arising from the Zorsey case is relatively recent, whether um the public works is um with regards to being defined under the Public Works Act or the uh Planning and Development Act, and uh, if that needs any further drafting uh work.

>> Michelle.

>> Uh, thank you. So the exemption itself within the draft local planning policy has been created under the regulations, which sits under the Planning and Development Act. The actual list of exemptions for public works is contained within the Public Works Act. You can create a local planning policy that refers to items contained within any other document, but the head of power itself for what is what constitutes public works for the local planning policy is not the Public Works Act because the Planning and Development Act is the head of power. Hopefully that makes sense. But effectively, how that would be applied is that the definition for public works is mentioned in the policy, and then we would look at the the schedule contained within the Public Works Act as to what constitutes public works as that relates to private property. It would be very rare, I think, that you would come up with a situation where there would be public works being undertaken on private property. I think it would likely be limited to um sewer sewage works and um water mains or um power transmission lines, most of which already have an easement over them anyway.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just having a look at the criteria that we've got included in this draft local planning policy. Um, I'm just wondering, do we not have enough difference between this and what we did not approve um as a council last year for the tree protection policy, and and I'm going to bring it back to the um, can we include based on the difference between this and what we did not accept last year. Can we include a canopy criteria as well?

>> Mich,

>> thank you, Mr. Mayor. If you don't mind, I might actually take that question on notice, and I will investigate that further to see if there's a comparison between the policies and to what extent it would otherwise trigger that regulation. As the policy is drafted at the as it's currently drafted. Um, I do not believe it requires a separate motion or resolution to revoke the previous policy because this is substantially different to what was previously determined by council.

>> Thank you, dire. Y. So, I'd be after I'd be seeking just literally if we included a canopy criteria um would this substantially be different enough to not require us to do the revocation as well? Thank you. Y, thank you. And I think a final question with regard to this um one of the u criteria that's been listed is the local area weed register. Um, I have not had a good look through the weed register lately, and I would just be interested in uh, if there are any trees in there that we would consider that whilst they might be in the weed register, may be appropriate for attention. So some of those trees may be more adaptable, better suited for the changing environment, climate, and thrive, you know, things like um Kajariina, Cunningham, those sort of trees, which did thrive on our foreshore before we uh built the black swan habitat. So, just those sort of things. Are there any trees like that that you are aware of that we could carve out um and include?

>> Michelle,

>> thank you, M. Again, I'll take that one on notice because I'd also like to um liaise with the city's park services to see whether or not there are any other environmental impacts associated with planting those species, and I know that um mention was made tonight of um points, I think it was, but they are short hole bora um hosts, so that wouldn't be ideal.

>> Thank you, Shaw.

>> Thank you, director.

>> Councilors, any further questions on this item?

>> No. Uh, in that case um, we'll we'll go back to the start, as they say, uh, and and proceed to item 10.1.1. Now I've declared a financial and proximity interest in 10.1.1, and in the absence of deputy mayor war, I'm going to invite Councillor Glenn Kredland to come up and take my spot. Well, I suppose I should ask, does anyone have any questions on this one first, because it all becomes redundant if we don't. Does anyone have any questions on item

10.1.1? We do. Okay. So, Councillor Kredland, if you could please take my spot for the duration of the questions on 10.1.1, and uh, I will see you all shortly. All right, we've got rid of the mayor. Seems like a coup. Okay. Um, I'll hand over to the CEO to read out what this item is.

>> Thank you, Councillor. Um, item 10.1.1, draft heritage list in brackets advertising. The City of South Perth is required to establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places within the scheme area that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of built heritage conservation. This report presents a draft heritage list for the purpose of advertising.

>> It would seem that we have a question. Councillor Brenda Brandes.

>> Thank you, Mr. Presiding Member. Um, I have a question with regard to the um, amendment to this item. Uh, I, I understand um, Councillor Printal is making one further amendment with regard to the categorization of um, property. We had a deputation on tonight in the Milpoint ward. My question is um, for the administration, have we undertaken a review or an independent study and confirmed that the recategorization is appropriate based on our criteria?

>> Uh, CEO, who's that to?

>> Director Shaw?

>> Uh, thank you. Um, yes, the, the original letter that was sent to the landowner had the city's recommendation of a category 3 for that place. Um, during advertising, the city engaged the independent heritage consultant to review any places um, on the survey that was requested where any submissions had been received. Um, and as a part of that, the independent heritage consultant had then recommended that this place be changed to a category 2. The letter that was then sent to all of the landowners to let them know that the place had been changed and that the heritage survey was being considered by council for final adoption unfortunately was wasn't received by the landowner because the address of that property changed during those two time periods. And so when the amendment was made by council um, to remove other places where um, landowners had requested they be changed um, this gentleman did not have the same opportunity to do that and therefore council resolved to adopt the place at it as a category 2 in accordance with the independent heritage consultant's recommendation. So from the city's perspective um, we recommend that it would be a category 2 in accordance with the recommendations. However, um, the reasons that were provided by council for changing other categories from two to three in the past related to matters that weren't necessarily um, heritage based, but it was open to council to do that because the heritage act provides the ability for um, decision makers to choose to change the category of a place for the local heritage survey for reasons outside of heritage considerations. And so from memory, the reasons in support of that um, were to do with um, impact on private property rights, land values, etc.

>> Further question.

>> Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Presiding Member. Thank you, Director Shaw. Uh, based on what we have got before us tonight um, quite a significant number of um, recategorizations that have been put through as an amendment. Does the administration consider it appropriate that um, a workshop is undertaken with uh, the elected members again to to maybe articulate the importance of the categorizations and also the significance with regard to um, the buildings that we would like to have some protection around because I, I'm just concerned that um, the amendments to these categories um, and I did ask the question weren't made based on evidence uh, and considering heritage characteristics and qualities but uh, just a response to residents. Thank you.

>> Yes. Over to you, Director Shaw.

>> Uh, thank you. My recommendation for that is no. And the reason being is because council has already gone through the process of um, having the city recommend a category of places, having them reviewed by the independent heritage consultant, and then council has resolved to make a decision on what those categories actually are, which has informed the heritage list itself. The reason that I would be reluctant to recommend um, a workshop and further extend out this process is that as previously advised, the city has no heritage list right now and so there is no statutory protection afforded to these places. My preference would be that council adopts a heritage list in whatever form it chooses in terms of which places and then um, in future council could consider whether or not if it chose to do so whether it wanted to change the category of places as part of the local heritage survey and reinvestigate whether they should be modified on the heritage list itself. The city's preference is that in the first instance we create a heritage list which is a requirement of the act.

>> Further question.

>> Thank you, Mr. Presiding Member. Thank you, Director Shaw. Yeah, it's the following question. So my, my intention wouldn't be to delay this process um, because I, I realize that we are um, you know, without heritage listing and survey but subsequently undertake a review and um, a workshop with the elected members so that we can maybe achieve some better outcomes with regard to heritage and uh, protection. I'm, I'm not sure what the question is there, but uh, do you want to respond to that, Director Shaw?

>> Uh, thank you. Yes, the Heritage Council's review of local heritage survey guidelines provides the ability for place-specific reviews outside of a general review of the local heritage survey. So following adoption of a heritage list, ideally um, council could have the option of reviewing individual places and having an independent heritage consultant review those actual specific places with a view to then revisiting whether or not they should be amended or included or not in a heritage list.

>> All done. All right, I think that takes us on to the next item and the return of the mayor. Oh, no. Sorry. You're all there by yourself. Um, and I missed you.

>> And no one's listening.

>> Well, I am now. Councillor Nad, you have a question.

>> I was just wondering about the um, places that the heritage um, places that were to be removed from the list. Will we still have um, the history of that uh, conserved in the documentation? Uh, that was a point I was concerned about uh, previously when when the decision was taken. So will we know what disappeared?

>> Director Short.

>> Uh, thank you. Yes, you will. Via the local heritage survey which is a catalog of places demonstrating cultural heritage significance. Um, and as you can see from the heritage list, um, it doesn't provide as comprehensive background and history and information of the place because all of that is already contained in the local heritage survey which council has adopted.

>> Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Um, that'll complete this item and we'll have the mayor back. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you for waiting for me, folks. Uh, I assume we're up to item 10.1.2 now, Mr. Scott.

>> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Through the chair. Item 10.1.2, to propose closure and amalgamation of road reserves near Co Street Centre-missions. The purpose of this report is for council to consider authorizing a request being made to the minister of lands for the permanent closure and amalgamations of portions of the road reserve near Collins Street Centre, South Perth, following advertising.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Councillors, any questions for the administration on this item?

>> No. Next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> Item 10.1.3 endorsement of the city's updated local emergency management arrangements lemur plan for local recovery plan, sorry, and local recovery plan. This report seeks council's endorsement for the city's updated local emergency management arrangements plan and local recovery plan to provide guidance on how the city will coordinate and operate during the recover recovery phases of local emergencies.

>> Thank you. Any questions on this item, councillors?

>> No. Next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> Item 10.1.4. Department of Creative Industries, Tourism, Sport, Community Sport, and Recreation Facilities Fund, CSRF, Small Grants Program. Each year, the Department of Creative Industries, Tourism, and Sport calls for applications via its Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund, CSRF, to invite eligible community groups and local governments to apply for funding to assist with sport recreation um, infrastructure projects. CSRF applications must be presented to the relevant local government to request its in-principal support for the project, including the financial contribution requested by the applicant under the CSRF program. Three applications, all external applicants, are presented for the current round of C CSRF for 2526. One, Manning Bowling Club bowling green synthetic conversion project. Item two, South Perth Cricket Club practice wicket net replacement project. And item three, South Perth Lawn Tennis Club patio extension project.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Councillors, any questions on this item?

>> No. Okay. The next item, pardon me. So the next item is 10.1.5. But I am conscious that Councillor Nevada has declared a proximity interest. Um, did, did you wish to leave the room while any? Well, are there any questions first?

>> Yeah. Any questions, folks? Oh, no need for Councillor Nard to leave the room then. Um, if we can move on to uh, item 10.3.1, please, Mr. Scott.

>> 10.3.1 draft local planning policy 7.2. 2- significant views adoption. The purpose of this report is for council to consider adopting draft local planning policy 7.2 significant views following advertising.

>> Any questions, councillors? Councillor Nad.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really just wanted to ask about the notification processes um, which I had um, inquired about today um, from Director Shaw. So um, would you be able to clarify that again um, the notification to the people around um, in terms of views?

>> For sure.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so just for clarification in respect to this specific application or more broadly?

>> Yeah, just as a general principle.

>> Okay. So um, the council has adopted local planning policy 6.1 advertising of planning proposals um, which effectively requires um, advertising of development applications to um, affected owners and occupiers. Um, so in this specific circumstance, 198 letters were sent to nearby surrounding owners and occupiers advising them of the proposal. I think it's important to note um, that with respect to the development application at 16 Swan Street um, the substantial development that had commenced and has been developed on site is deemed to comply with the residential design codes and therefore the image images that were provided that shows the obstruction to the views of significance could have occurred regardless of the policy. The trigger for requiring assessment against the policy is a is as a result of the variations to that from the subsequent application and works that had been undertaken outside of the approved development application.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Any further questions on this item, councillors?

>> No. Next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> 10.3 amendments to local planning policies. Adoption. The purpose of this report is council consider adopting amendments to local planning policy 6.3 developer contributions for public art and public art spaces. Local planning policy 2.4 child care premises and local planning policy 1.1 residential development following advertising.

>> Thank you. Any questions on this item, councillors? Councillor Kitland. Um, my uh, question is um, I guess similar to my last question uh, to Director Shaw about uh, responses we'd had from presenters and tonight we had Mr. Phil Knight who was um, obviously one of the people who was um, near the um, childcare center that wasn't approved um, by the DAP and he read out quite a few uh, comments. I think it was something like five and it might be in his submission um, for I guess improvements generally as he saw them to um, city's um, uh, he calls it discretionary powers. Um, but I think it probably more relates to um, the child care premises policy and I was just wondering if there were any comments the um, city staff want to make on what he said about what should change in that policy. That's all.

>> Mich.

>> Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, some of the first comments were to do with the land use permissibility which is contained within the local planning scheme. Um, the land use permissibility is currently a discretionary use within the residential zone which means that the city has to accept a development application and assess it against any applicable local planning policies or state policies. So um, in the absence of child care premises being an ex or not permitted use in the residential zone, we effectively can't ban them in the residential zone. Um, when we've considered in the past whether or not we could try and make them an ex use in the residential zone um, the department of planning has advised that they wouldn't support that. A scheme amendment to to try and do that wouldn't be supported and the draft position statement on childare premises prescribes that they should instead be a uses within the residential zone. So once that position statement has been finalized by the department, the city would be looking to initiate a scheme amendment to bring the land use permissive permissibility in line with the position statement. The effect of that would mean any development application received in the residential zone would require advertising. It would be mandatory. We already advertise them anyway because they don't comply with the requirements of the separate local planning policy. The other comments that were made were relation to um, noise attenuation and the requirement for the acoustic reports. We receive acoustic reports in support of the application which are assessed not by the planners but by our environmental health officers in in accordance with the environmental um, noise protection requirements which set parameters around the distance and proximity to a noise sensitive um, land use. So that varies between the development applications as to where the receiver point actually is and how that's modeled. And so to address those concerns, we require a pre um, acoustic consultants report which has the modeling which is assessed. And then as a condition of development approval would typically require require a post assessment be undertaken to confirm that the measures contained within the acoustic report and the modeling was correct. And if for whatever reason it isn't, measures are installed into the development application to mitigate any noise attenuation issues that may have resulted from that. If we have concerns with the um, the quality or the detail that is provided in the acoustic report, um, we'll usually go back to the applicant and request that their consultant update the report consistent with what our concerns actually are. Or we have the option of having having it independently peer-reviewed anyway already. So we can do that. Um, some of the other comments I think were around um, just more broadly the um, access and location criteria. The traffic impact assessment assesses things like access in comparison to footpaths and pedestrian movements and access ways etc. But I think overall the deputation was more around how can we ensure that it's not really a discretionary assessment and that it's um, fixed rules and unfortunately in the absence of providing provisions like that in a scheme which the department no longer allows um, it is discretionary and each application is assessed on its individual merits.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillors, any further questions?

>> No. Next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> Item 10.3.4, amendment to development applications in brackets additions and alterations for four grouped dwellings, closed brackets, lot 22, number 16, Swan Street, South Perth. The purpose of this report is to consider an application for development approval for additions and alterations for four group dwellings on lot 22, number 16, Swan Street, South Perth. The item is referred to council in accordance with delegation from council DC 690 local planning scheme number seven as the development seeks a discretion against local planning sch uh policy 350 significant views and draft local planning policy 7.2 significant views for the reasons outlined in the report is recommended the application be approved subject to conditions.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Any questions, councillors? Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, we had a deputation this evening from um, Mr. Jacob um, concerned about his loss of views. Um, I'm just wondering what engagement we've had with Mr. Jacob and if we've actually seen his concerns.

>> Should I send Miss Melon?

>> Um, thank you to the chair. Um, yes, as Miss Shaw has actually just um, responded in in answer to a previous um, question, um, Mr. Jacob would not have received a consultation notice in relation to the original development application because there were minor variations and it was only advertised to immediately adjoining neighbors. This current development application was advertised in accordance with LPP 6.1 advertising and planning proposals and 198 letters were sent um, seeking views in relation to this development. So Mr. Jacob did receive a development uh, sorry, consultation notice in relation to the current application but not in relation to the initial. I think he's also made comment um, in his submission that he he wasn't aware of the development until development commenced. That would be correct in that um, he wasn't previously consulted and obviously his members will be aware. Notification is not provided when development is due to commence unless a developer actually wishes to undertake that themselves.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Miss Melon. Councillor Benderus. Uh, thank you. Just a couple following on questions. Um, Mr. Jacob raised concerns about the the the lay of the land and how that was impacted by this development as well. Um, so I'm just wondering if you could comment on that. And the other aspect um, is with regard to um, the potential application of um, local planning policy if if that would be impacted. I'm, I'm guessing it probably wouldn't, but just your comments with regard to that as well, please.

>> Miss Melon. Um, thank you to the chair. So the ground level of the original development application was assessed in relation regard to the residential design codes um, in relation to natural ground natural ground level um, and was considered to be in compliance with the height limits at that time. What we're considering in this current application is the amendments to the previously approved development. So we're not actually obviously considering the development again. It's merely the amendments to that approved development. So it's those small elements um, that as we referred to in the report do not actually increase the overall height. They're fairly lightweight structures um, the city considers there's no further impact on significant views than would have been achieved by the proposed sorry by the approved development that's taken place. These are just minor variations to that previously approved development. So in essence the city considers that it is compliant with the significant view policy, the current policy and the draft policy as well. Thank you, Miss Mullen. Councillor Kland.

>> Um, thank you. Um, my um, question is uh, to Miss Mullen and I, I just wanted to make sure that I had understood this correctly. Um, so uh, this particular uh, development um, had put in a development application that was approved. Uh, they commenced building. Um, then someone complained about their building said it was inconsistent with the previous development approval. Um, city liaised with the um, builder or developer and uh, they then put in an application to amend it because they were building different to what was approved. And then um, and the changes are marked in the uh, the red on the um, part paragraph B of whatever the attachments are to show the changes which are an increase in size but not height of the top story. Is, is that what's happened?

>> Um, yes, thank you through the chair. Yes, that's correct. Um, and uh, then the presenter tonight is upset because he wasn't aware of the original approval and he um, wants us to not allow the amendments. Um, um, but we would have no power in any case to affect our original or whoever it was the delegated decision maker's approval of the original development.

>> Miss Melon.

>> Uh, thank you to the chair. Yes, that's correct. We're only looking at the amendments to the original approval. Um, the, the gentleman making the deputation tonight is aggrieved by the development as a whole. Um, the city considers that the amendments to the previously approved development are relatively minor in nature albeit they are sufficiently different to require a development application to regularize. Um, however, they would officers do not consider that there's any further impact on surrounding residents other than it being addressed by uh, condition than the previously approved development.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you, Miss Melon. Councillor Navard.

>> I'm just hoping you'll allow me to ask this. Um, are you aware of what had been on the site uh, prior to the the new development? Was it, was the site occupied or was it um, empty?

>> Miss Melon.

>> Um, thank you through the chair. My recollection is it was approximately it would be a maximum around two stories, but um, that's my, that's my recollection. There was there was certainly development on the site previously that was demolished in order to permit this development.

>> Any further questions, councillors?

>> No. Next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> Item 10.3.5. Collia Park Golf course development appointment of the construction contractor. The purpose of this report is for council to grant approval for club lengths management prior limit to engage the construction contractor for the kia park course kia park golf course development in accordance with the executed development services agreement. The preferred construction contractor has uh, was identified following a competitive tender process. This report requests council to approve the engagement of the recommended construction contractor which will be subject to a value engineering process and confirmation of the developer costs at or below $19.8 million in accordance with the approved development services agreement. I will note that there is confidential um, attachments attached to this and if council wishes to discuss those, it's best that the meeting be closed.

>> Councillors, does anyone have any questions? Noting that if it's in any way relating to the confidential attachment, we'll we'll deal with that behind close session. But I suppose I should ask if anyone has any questions at all. But that looks like a note. So, uh, next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> Item 10.4.2, Listing of Payments, July 2025. This report presents to council a list of the accounts paid under delegated authority between 1st of July 2025 and the 31st of July 2025 for information. It also includes the purchase card transactions between 1st of June 2025 and the 30th of June 2025 in line with legislative requirements.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Any questions, councillors? Councillor Nabad.

>> Thank you. Uh, Mr. me. This was actually um, a question on notice. Um, but if I can just read it out and then um, it's um, to do with uh, the payment listing for um, synergy um, where there is there are two entries 1350784 and 1 3 0 1 0646 and I was just asking about what percentage of city power is derived now from alternate power sources. What percentage uh, reduction in power costs the city enjoy as a result of the alternative power sources being in place? Um, and I asked that it not include the installation costs of the alternate power sources. And then my third question was factoring the installation costs of the alternate power sources and the depreciation in value of the equipment. Is there likely to be an annual saving on the city power bills?

>> Thank you, Councillor Nad. Um, Miss Ammo, is that one I should send in your direction?

>> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So approximately 10% of the city's contestable energy consumption is provided through solar PV. Um, that's installed across four of the city's facilities. Um, the cost saving is approximately $50,000 per annum and I've used approximate numbers um, due to commercial confidentiality of our agreement with Synergy. Um, the payback period for solar PV systems is approximately 5 years.

>> Thank you, Miss Amo. Sorry, it's getting late. Uh, all right. Any further questions on this item, councillors?

>> No. Uh, next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> 10.4.3 monthly financial statements, July 2025. The monthly financial statements are provided within attachments A to I with high-level analysis contained in the comments of the report.

>> Thank you. Any questions, councillors? Councillor Brenda Brandice.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'm just wondering if the mini golf reporting um, is available and will be included um, for the ordinary council meeting. I can't locate it in in this version tonight. I don't know if it's there. So it's the mini golf reporting.

>> Mr. L through the mayor. Um, the mini golf reporting was actually removed through a resolution of council uh, at budget adoption. Um, yeah, so um, just by way of u reminding council.

>> The substance for that was um, the fact that we're going into this um, renovation period at the golf course um, and those figures would be largely distorted um, and coming out on the other side we would obviously expect to see a completely different >> um, picture of the mini golf.

>> Counc. And just one more question with regard to rate debtors. Um, we haven't raised the debtors or issued the invoices for rates yet, have we? I know they're they're lagging and delayed, but we haven't raised the invoices yet, have we?

>> Mr. L through the mayor. Thanks for the question, Councillor Brandes. Um, we um, have struck Rage rates um, was just an administrative process um, to follow. So um, the entry is is is in the city's accounts um, and we were just walk working through the process of actually issuing the notices.

>> Thank you, Mr. Lock. Any further questions, councillors?

>> No. Next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> Uh, 10.4.4 Advocacy Strategy and Advocacy Priorities 2025/26. This report provides the council with the City of South P's draft advocacy strategy in brackets the strategy and the draft advocacy priorities for 2025/26 for endorsement. This strategy outlines the city's approach to advocacy and will provide high-level direction to the city for the city to secure support and funding which aligns with the city's aspirations and priorities. The draft advocacy uh, annual advocacy priorities 2025/26 provide focus advocacy areas for this financial year. Thank you. Any questions on this item, councillors?

>> No. Okay. Uh, next item, please, Mr. Scott.

>> 10.4.5. Proposed council meeting schedule 2026. This report seeks council's endorsements for the City of South Perth 2026 meeting schedule.

>> Any questions, councillors?

>> No. Okay. That winds up item 10. Uh, we move on to item 12 which is motions of which previous notice has been given. The first is item 12.1 a notice of motion from Councillor Brahman Moore entitled development of a volunteer code of conduct. Councillors any questions for the administration? Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just with regard to this item um, I had a look through the existing code of conduct which uh, covers volunteers, contractors and also staff. Um, I felt that that um, code of conduct was relatively sufficient. Um, can the administration please advise why we'd need to create a complete separate code of conduct just for volunteers?

>> Should I direct that to Mr. Scott?

>> For the chair? I'll take that uh, through the chair. I think the commentary in the report associated with the motion of notice suggests well strongly uh, the it provides the administration's view that we do have a code of conduct that does cover um, various um, representatives of the of the city including employees, volunteers, contractors as you previously said um, it would be a duplication.

>> Councillor Brenda Brandis. Thank you very much, Mr. CEO. Following on from that uh, question, um, have we had any issues with regard to the code of conduct that hasn't worked for us recently that might require amending, changing, or separating?

>> Mr. Scott.

>> Through the chair, I'm not aware of any code of conduct issues um, since my tenure, that being only a month, two months. Um, but I'm not aware of any previous major issues associated with the current code of conduct.

>> Thank you. Any further questions, councillors? I guess I'll ask one. Um, was the substance of this notice of motion discussed with the administration before the notice of motion itself was raised?

>> Uh, through the chair? I don't believe so.

>> Okay. Thank you. Any further questions, councillors? No. Uh, okay. We move on to item 12.2. 2 uh, another notice of motion uh, from Councillor Brunman Moore entitled oversight of non-standard or charge it sorry or changes to lease for/ partnership terms. Councillors any questions on this item? Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. May. Again, it's going to be a very general question. Um, is this really necessary? Um, I, I am concerned that we see leases that come up for renewal and most of those are, you know, for community groups and um, are somewhat standard and we do also get them externally reviewed. I'm just wondering, is this another level of work that is not really necessary given that we actually uh, approve leases as they come up for renewal.

>> M Shaw or Mr. Mr. Lok.

>> Through the chair. Um, that is correct. It would add a level of administration. Um, you may also note that um, we have responded to propose a workshop um, in terms of the suggested officers recommendation and we're hoping through that to clear out any ambiguity that that may have come about and that may have um, arisen over the over the last period of time. Um, but yeah, your remarks with regards to the fact that council do get to approve all leases um, is is correct.

>> Thank you, Mr. Lok. Uh, Councillor Kland.

>> Um, I think twice over the last four months I've asked about um, uh, I think it's the Komo Croquet um, club which is still waiting on um, renewing its lease. Um, is there any reason why um, its lease hasn't been renewed and why it's being offered um, or there are discussions about significantly different conditions for it than it it has had previously. For example, a suggestion that it should pay rates um, for the property um, that it occupies and has for I don't know about 90 years for the first time. Um, and that it would only be provided with a lease for five years. Is any of that part of um, a plan for example to move and this has been raised previously uh, and was rejected by council move the croquet club away from its current location or to impose um, significantly higher costs on that um, fairly smallish club?

>> Uh, Councillor Kitland, ordinarily questions like that would be asked at item 13 of the ordinary council meeting itself, but maybe can you let us know what relevance that question has to item 12.2?

>> Um, it has absolutely direct relevance and and quite obviously so, Mr. Mayor, because it it relates.

>> It's it's been a long night. Humor me.

>> Well, I, I will humor you. Um, because if you have a look at the title of the motion item, it's oversight of non-standard or changes to lease terms. My question is about um, whether or not um, the city is doing that now uh, given that the advice we just got is that um, that perhaps this is not necessary because uh, the suggestion is it's not happening. So, um, my question is a follow on to Councillor Brenda Abrandis' and directly relates to the title of the the motion.

>> You'll have to forgive me. I, I thought, I concede I might be mistaken. I thought your original question was asking about the status of the lease of the KO Croquet Club. What is your question?

>> I think everyone heard it. Um, and it, well, if you want me to repeat it all, I will.

>> Please.

>> Uh, I said over the last four months I've asked at least twice in respect of the um, uh, the lease for the Komo Croquet Club which has not yet been renewed uh, and it is now on a month-to-month lease. So my question was um, why um, is that so? Why is the club being offered um, a short-term lease? Uh, as I understand only 5 years. Um, why is it being given different terms or suggestions that there would be different terms to those that have ever been used with it? For example, that it pay rates over the property that it has occupied for 90 years. And is this part of um, a move, as has happened previously, um, to cause the croquet club to move from its current location?

>> I'll allow it, Mr. Scott.

>> Through the chair, I'm sorry, we'll have to take that on notice. I'm not familiar with what the current negotiations status is with that particular lease and um, we'll provide um, council with a a response to those questions.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Any further questions, councillors? Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've been thinking about this uh, item a little bit longer, so I do have more questions now. Just to understand um, how many commercial leases do we have um, as opposed to all of the community leases um, just to get a bit of a feel for where we might have something that's a bit more non-standard as opposed to what we offer to the community. Do we have any indication on commercial leases that we provide?

>> Who should I send that to? Thanks, Mr. Lop.

>> Through the chair. Um, compared to the number of community leases and and and um, the the quantum of commercial leases for the city is is quite small. I stand to be corrected but I believe it's below 10. Okay.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Lok. Yeah. So just uh, leading on from that, we we h we have very few commercial leases. Um, virtually all the other leases we've got are community groups, not for profits. And from what I have seen over the past few years, um, the leases are relatively standard and the administration went through a process of um, engaging with an external party to stand standardize standardize those leases and the charges are fairly low uh, for most of those. So I'm, I'm, I'm still a little bit unclear as to why we need to undertake this piece of work. Does the city maintain a register um, of leases uh, including annual variations amendments um, and track that?

>> Mr. Lok.

>> Um, part of the um, there is a register but part of the work that is referenced in in in in the um, the body of the report and refers to to work that the city is doing is to work through that um, register and clean it up and standardize it and get a concise view of exactly where um, and what the city's position are in relation relation to all the various leases um, because a lot of them are quite old as well and there's a difference in timing of of when they were entered um, into and and and various parties were involved in in in bringing them into existence.

>> Okay. Thank thank you, Mr. Lok. Um, so just continuing on from that, so understanding whether we actually need to go through a process um, for things like standardizing terms and conditions when I, I understand that's all fairly standard. Um, but also then works through a process which also outlines variation amendments from standard lease terms when they're all fairly standard. Um, is this work somewhat superfluous? Because when, as I've mentioned earlier, we receive leases for approval um, they've already been reviewed um, we've had a review mechanism in place and we're approving something that is similar to the other community leases, so is, is this completely superfluous?

>> ML.

>> It's a, it's a rather a subjective answer that um, that you're asking me to give. Um, I believe that if there's if there's not clarity as to what the city's processes is, um, we don't have a problem with providing clarity, we would prefer to do it in the context of a workshop rather than a report to council.

>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lok.

>> Thank you, Mr. Lok. Any further questions, councillors? I guess I'll ask the same question that I asked in respect of the uh, the last item. Um, did the originator of this notion of notice of motion discuss the substance of the notice of motion with the administration before raising the notice of motion?

>> Again, my understanding is uh, no.

>> All right. Thank you. Councillor Brenda Brandis.

>> Sorry, one final question. Um, for this piece of work, uh, it could be substantial if we need to completely reinvent everything, um, including standard terms, conditions, um, the process, um, working through a framework, um, and recommendations through the to council. How much time impost would this incur on the city? And would we need to engage external advisors to undertake some of this work? In particular, I'm talking about if we need to build a framework and also look at future lease guidelines to be established, it's quite extensive.

>> Mr. cop through J. Um, the city does have internal resources that are um, well suited to be able to deliver this work at this point in time. Um, we don't believe that we would need to engage external resources. Uh, however, it would take a substantial investment of time on on city from city staff.

>> Any further questions, councillors? Councillor Kredland.

>> Um, I raised this as a point of order and this is in respect of um, uh, the the question from you, Mr. Mayor, that um, I don't know whether it was designed to but indicates that um, this is a notice of motion that has come from nowhere. It's a frolic of um, Councillor War on her own. Um, I would say that in all fairness, um, given the number of questions I have asked about clubs and their leases over the last four or five years and all of the discussions about the radically different lease that was prepared for um, um, Wasps to that, prepared for every other club um, that this city has a lease with and also the correspondence with the CEO amongst others in respect of uh, the contract arrangements for Mr. Saraphini. Uh, I would have thought um, that there has been significant um, communication with the city in respect of these matters and it, it shouldn't be suggested to those listening that this has come um, has fallen from the sky as something that the administration is not aware of.

>> Councillor Kredlin, number one, the standing orders don't apply to a council agenda briefing. Number two, I'm not sure we should be getting into debate at uh, at a council agenda briefing, but thank you for your comment. Any further questions, councillors?

>> No. Okay. In that case, and this is when we would ordinarily go to item 15 uh, if there was any reason to close the meeting to the public, but there's no reason to, so we won't. And that brings us to item 16, closure. So, uh, before I close the meeting, I'd like to thank everyone for their attendance and participation. I declare the meeting closed at 9:43 p.m. Thank you all and good night.