24 September 2024 - Ordinary Council Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the September 2024 ordinary council meeting. We acknowledge and pay respect to the traditional custodians of this land, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation, and their Elders past and present.

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

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

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

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

Item four is attendance. Item 4.1 is apologies. I haven't received any apologies this evening.

Item 4.2 is approved leave of absence, and Councillor Glenn Kirkland does have an approved leave of absence for the period of 12 September 2024 to 13 October 2024 inclusive.

Item five is Declarations of Interest. Uh, bear with me because there are a few of them. Mayor Greg Milner, that's me. I've declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as I'm a former co-patron of the Wasps Hockey Club, and I've also attended a number of South Perth United Football Club events over the years.

Councillor Mary Choy has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as my sons attend Wesley College and have played for Wasps Hockey Club, and my husband is a Wesley College old boy and has also played and coached for Wasps Hockey Club in the past.

Councillor Hayley Prendiville has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as myself and my family are members of Wasps Hockey Club. My involvement extends to numerous committee positions, one of those positions being president. I'm currently Minky coordinator. I was a guest at a dinner at Wesley College recently.

Councillor Bronwyn Moore has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as my son attends Wesley College.

Mayor Greg Milner, that's me again. I've declared a financial proximity and impartiality interest in item 12.1 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.

Councillor Hayley Prenter has declared an impartiality interest in item 12.1 as one of the nominated persons for the local heritage survey review is known to me as a neighbour. I was a guest at a dinner at Wesley College recently, and my children attend Kensington Primary School.

Councillor Mary Choy has declared an impartiality interest in item 12.1 as some of the heritage places listed in the draft local heritage survey are known to me by past or present association, and some of the landowners, associates, or residents of some of the heritage places listed in the draft local heritage survey are or may also have been known to me.

And Councillor Andrew Brandis has declared an impartiality interest in item 12.1 as I know of someone who is not a closely associated person to me, and their property is on the heritage survey.

Does anyone else have any interest that they wish to declare this evening?

Councillor War, sorry, I'll also just add to that impartiality interest. My son attends Wesley College. That's it. Thank you.

And is that an item 12.1? Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you all. All right, folks. Any other declarations? I'm going to take that as a no. Okay. All right.

Item six is Public Question Time. Item 6.1 is responses to previous public questions taken on notice. That's nil for this evening.

Item 6.2 is Public Question Time itself. Before I open public question time, uh, I note that we've got 13 sets of public questions tonight, which is a lot. And judging from past experience, it might take us an hour, maybe an hour and a half, to to get through all of them. So for this reason, I'm going to be strict about preambles tonight, and I'm asking everyone to keep their preambles to one or two sentences max. I understand that the City's governance team has been in touch with at least some of you, so hopefully this won't be too much of a problem. Sorry, my bad. It's 12 sets of written submissions, but what I said still goes.

I'd like to start by inviting Miss Cecilia Brooke of South Perth. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, councillors, and all City staff. I speak on behalf of the City of South Perth Residents Association. I understand that Division 6 of the Local Government Act describes financial conflicts and how they affect elected members' participation in debates and decisions of council, and the Public Sector Commission has provided a guide that applies to the entire WA public service. You will also find similar guides and expectations that apply to the public sector across the whole of Australia. The guide seeks to reflect the community expectation that public offices carry out their duties fairly and without bias, and the decisions that they make are not affected by personal interest. Interest. The Public Service Commission recognizes that a poorly managed, perceived conflict of interest, where a third party could form a view that personal interest could improperly influence the officer's decision, whether or not that is in fact the case, can be just as damaging as an actual conflict of interest. My question: One, does public sector expectations regarding the implications to participation in matters where a perceived conflict of interest exists apply to local government and elected members?

Thank you for the question, Mr Bradford. Uh, thanks for the question. The Public Sector Commission provides guidance for public sector employees, not for elected members. The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries provides clear guidance to elected members in managing, uh, interest in matters before council. The expectation is all elected members will follow that guidance. Thank you.

Question two: What is the CEO's recommendation to elected members where perceived conflicts exist?

Yep. Uh, the C, the CEO and the City's governance staff always advise elected members to follow the Department of DGCI, uh, their guidance, and there's a, that guidance is publicly available. Thank you.

Question three: Does the CEO believe that risks declared tonight present a material risk to the decision before council?

Uh, thanks for the question. There are a number of risks, uh, to the city associated with the proposal, and these have been made clear in previous reports and also referred to in the current report. Some of those risks can be mitigated to an acceptable level, particularly in the short term. Others may be more difficult to address over the longer term. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Bradford, and thank you, Miss Brooke, for your questions. I'd now like to invite Mr. Max Mura of Como. Welcome to you. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Okay, I don't have a preamble, so, so right into it. Thank you. So, my question one, uh, is to the CEO, Mr. Bradford. Can the city explain the rationale for not charging commercial rates for the proposed lease of Collier Reserve to, uh, Wasps Hockey Club? This appears to be inconsistent with the state government's desire to charge commercial rates for the use of state land.

Thank you, Mr. Bradford. Thanks for the question. The, the resolution of council made it clear that Wasps would be responsible for the construction cost of the facility, and then all the repairs and maintenance of the constructed facility, inclusive of structural repairs. In most instances, where the city leases buildings to a sporting body, the city is responsible for structural repairs, and in these instances, a minimum rent is charged. For example, the total rent charged annually for the use of the WCG Thomas Pavilion at Richardson Park is around $45,000 a year. In the case of Wasps, given the significant capital contribution and the ongoing maintenance requirements, a lease fee of $1 is proposed. The state government will generally only request a commercial return where the land is being used for commercial purposes. Wasps will be required to pay for the use by senior terms of the planning services within the licensed area in accordance with the city's schedule of fees and charges. Thank you for clarifying that.

Okay, uh, my, I actually had three, but I've scribed one of my questions. So, question three is to the council. Can the council please clarify the rationale for further eroding the already limited amount of public open space being offered, uh, by offering an option to lease, uh, Collier Reserve to Wasps Hockey Club for a single-use sporting facility? It has been acknowledged at previous council meetings, um, that South Perth open space is currently well below the recommended 10% in policy number DC 2.3, Public Open Space in Residential Areas, being a mere 2.9% availability. I think the councillors will be debating that one fairly shortly, but in the meantime, I'll, I'll pass the question to Mr. Bradford.

Thanks for the question. Uh, council makes decisions on the use of public open space and other land, taking into account a whole range of factors, one of which is public open space. But I can't explain, uh, the decision, that decision any further than that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bradford, and thank you, Mr. Mura, for your questions. I'd now like to invite Dr. Louise Johnston of Como. You'd like to come to the microphone. Welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Last week, I came, I was, uh, going to talk about the environment, and this week I was also going to talk about the environment, but, again, more important issues have come up, so I won't be able to share the information about these guys.

I do need you to get to the questions, Dr. Johnston. I do have to be fair to everyone, of course, you do.

It has come to light that the Wasps Hockey Club drafted and shared several email templates with the Xavier Hockey Club, located in the Town of Victoria Park. These templates were then circulated to Xavier club members through an email sent by the Xavier club president, suggesting that the club support the WASP OTL project at Collier Reserve. The emails were specifically addressed to five councillors who voted in favour of the motion, as well as one councillor who was absent during the vote. Furthermore, members were encouraged to attend tonight's meeting wearing yellow and green to create the impression of strong public support, or a rent-a-crowd. One elected member reportedly received up to 100 emails raising concerns that councillors might be misled into perceiving strong support for the WASP OLT. Question: Given that Xavier Hockey are not party to the option to lease and are unlikely to be across the details, does the City view this attempt by Wasps to influence councillors by skewing the perceived public support for their proposed facility at Collier Reserve as appropriate?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, the City only became aware of those emails late this afternoon. Uh, the City does not have a view on their appropriateness or otherwise. Uh, and emails from community members are just one of the things that elected members would take into account when forming their views on matters before council. Thank you.

Number two: It has also come to light through Councillor Kirkland's Facebook post dated September the 8th, 2021, that he assisted Wasps in their distribution of letters outlining how the public could provide feedback through an online survey, which the City stated was conducted by a consultant on behalf of Wasps and Wesley College, and not the City. Can the City confirm whether Councillor Kirkland has submitted an impartiality interest relating to his assistance in the delivery of Wasps' consultation material at any point?

Thank you, Mr. Adams. So, to the best of our knowledge, Councillor Kirkland has declared an impartiality interest on all occasions that, on all occasions, that matters involving Wasps have appeared before council.

And my third question is, at the agenda meeting on the 17th of September 2024, post-deputations, the City urged councillors not to rely on their own spreadsheet analysis to try to understand and compare the City's range of recreational facilities, rather, instead, to seek the professional opinion and knowledge of the City in terms of utilization and best practice for each sporting. Question: Can the City advise have, or how many councillors have actually approached the City to better inform themselves since the agenda meeting?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, uh, each Friday, councillors receive a bulletin. Uh, receive a councillor bulletin, and last Friday, um, there was a bulletin article prepared by the City providing information on topics discussed at the agenda briefing, and a number of councillors have since submitted further questions on this item, and answers have been provided by the City. Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you, Dr. Johnston, for the questions.

Thank you. I'd now like to invite Miss Sonia Singh of South Perth. Uh, welcome to you. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Mayor, thank you. Good evening, all. My question is, if Collier Reserve is approved for Wasps and construction takes several years, how can the City and South Perth United Football Club work together to meet the club's immediate needs, since both are winter sports, hockey and soccer?

Thank you for the question, Miss Singh. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The City would review reserves to determine whether there is an alternative location. However, there is a shortfall of sports spaces to meet growing demand. The City would also seek to facilitate discussions between the club and Wasps to ensure, to enable users of the reserve until such time the construction commences. Thank you.

Could the City clarify the planned upgrades at Richardson Park, when they will be completed, and if the funding will go to both Richardson Park and Collier?

Thank you, Miss Singh. Thank you. So, sports lighting and all gender change room upgrades are proposed at Richardson Park. Change room upgrades are proposed at Collier Reserve. However, if the option to lease is granted, the City would not continue with the works at Collier Reserve, given the proposed development of a new pavilion. In terms of the upgrades to Richardson Park, the City is in the process of preparing the tender for the sports light upgrades. Thank you.

Will there be room for two soccer pitches at Collier during the construction? I think that was...

Thank you, Miss Singh. I, thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, the proposed lease area extends over the southern pitch and a portion of the northern pitch.

Okay, thank you, Miss Singh, and thank you, Miss Singh, for the questions. I'd now like to invite Miss Carolyn Burnett of South Perth. Welcome to you. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your questions. Thank you.

My questions, they all relate to the motion of OTL for Wasps Collier Reserve. Um, I don't really have a preamble, so I'll just get straight into it. The City noted its significant financial concerns regarding the Wasps proposed facility. The lease agreement offers no security in the form of bank guarantee, nor retention monies, as would normally occur in a construction contract, which would offer protection to the lessor, in this case, the City, should Wasps default on their obligations during construction. Furthermore, it appears the lessor has no protection against long-term operating and maintenance costs which Wasps may not be able to cover for the approximately $15 million facility. Could the City advise how they could recoup costs incurred should Wasps be unable to fulfill their obligations during construction and beyond practical completion?

Thank you for the question, Miss Burnett. Now, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the option to lease contains conditions precedent at Clause 5.1. Only when the conditions precedent are met will the club be able to enter into the lease. One of the conditions precedent is 5.1a, where the grantee demonstrating to the granter reasonable satisfaction that the grantee has secured funding for the development. Should the City be required to fund construction or future maintenance, the use of municipal funds would be required, as grant funding is not typically available for this purpose. Thank you.

At the agenda meeting last week, the City advised that Hockey WA had confirmed clubs playing home games at Perth's upgraded Perth Hockey Stadium are to be given primary access to night training for seniors and juniors, access to meeting rooms and function rooms at no cost, capacity to conduct summer hockey programs for juniors using free turf hire, no outgoings such as lease and licensing fees, staff and operational costs, no utility charges or cleaning costs, no repairs or maintenance costs, reduced higher fees, offer of club signage, access to scoreboards including messaging for club-specific messaging. Hockey WA will consider ability for revenue sharing and permanent display of memorabilia is also a possibility. Does the City believe this Hockey WA information provides the best outcome for Wasps, the City, and its 46,000 plus residents?

Thank you, Miss Burnett. Thank you. Yes, the City maintains that Wasps should continue to liaise with Hockey WA to determine how its needs can best be met at the Australian High Performance Hockey Centre. Thank you.

My final question: The motion for option to lease references Hockey WA's strategic plan 2021-26. Item 4.7 of the motion asserted Hockey WA does not represent itself as providing facilities for local clubs. This assertion is upended with the new Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan 2023-33. Their first priority now is to provide world-class hockey facilities at Curtin, using the committed $135 million from the state government, and accommodate nearby hockey clubs. Priority 1 rationale states: "Secures ongoing international venue status for PHS and retains the HAP, provides a home venue for three to five centrally located clubs, alleviates pressure to find suitable land for turf development in the central metropolitan area." Wasps is specifically named as a club to be accommodated. Does the City agree that this explicitly stated first priority of the Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan 2023-33 supports their recommendation to not grant Wasps the OTL at Collier Reserve?

Thank you for the question, Miss Burnett. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Burnett, and and thank you very much for the questions.

All right. Uh, I note that we've just gone over 15 minutes, so I'm going to use my powers to extend public question time for a further 15 minutes. I would now like to invite Mr. Jeremy Lowe of Como. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

My questions relate to the saturation of turf in the area. A planning application is currently under review by the City for Aquinas College to build a new hockey clubhouse and other school upgrades, with construction likely to begin early next year if approved. The Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan also notes the potential for additional turfs at Aquinas College in the City of South Perth, potentially a multi-purpose surface. It seems Aquinas is preparing to expand its turf offerings. Additionally, Commins College has a proposed hockey turf, including in their master plan. My first question: What is the minimum recommended population size for the provision of a hockey turf, and how can an oversupply of turfs impact the viability of these facilities?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Lowe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The development application for Aquinas College included proposed replacement of the hockey pavilion and the tennis courts. The recommended catchment ratio is one turf for every 75,000 residents. Viability is dependent on the number of players. If there is not a significant increase in the number of players, it may impact the viability of the synthetic turf. Thank you.

Can the City explain how it plans to liaise with all schools in the City of South Perth to implement a multi-government strategy of shared facilities most effectively?

Thank you, Mr. Lowe. Thank you. Um, the City liaised with Como Secondary College ahead of the 27th of February 2024 report on a previous report on colocated hockey facilities within the City, as it facilitates a specialist hockey academy, and the City had no other plans to liaise with other schools in the district.

Third question: The Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan 2023-33 states that the ideal scenario in the metropolitan area is to establish a series of well-distributed hockey clubs, each with a geographical brand. Given that the approving of the Wasps Turf could potentially increase the total of eight turfs in close proximity, with three at schools within the City and four at the high-performance centre in Curtin, does the City believe that leasing Collier Reserve to Wasps would help achieve this recommendation?

Thank you, Mr. Lowe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, the City maintains that Wasps should continue to liaise with Hockey WA to determine how its needs can best be met at the Australian High Performance Hockey Centre. Thank you, Mr. Lowe, and thank you, Mr. Lowe, for the questions.

I'd now like to invite Ms. Christy Amo of Como. Welcome to you. The microphone is yours, and we look forward to your questions. Thank you.

So, if Wasps' option to lease is approved, the club would have a three-year period to secure funding and obtain the necessary approvals to exercise the lease. My questions concern the potential limitations this may impose on the City and the community regarding the planning and the use of green space. So, my first question: How might approving the option to lease impact the City's ability to consider or plan for urban greening improvements at Collier Reserve? Specifically, can these improvements still be implemented during the three-year period?

Thank you for the question, Ms. Amo. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The information released as part of the stakeholder engagement process for the urban greening strategy highlights the benefits of urban greening by improving the livability of the urban environment. This includes environmental, social, psychological, recreational, and economic benefits for our community, and reducing the heat island effect. The type of project, um, that could happen at Collier Reserve that would contribute to the urban greening would be similar to the recent plantings at Berrigan Reserve. The proposed lease at Collier Reserve would limit or eliminate the ability to implement such a project, both during construction and permanently. Thank you.

Okay. Director Adams indicated that if the lease option proceeds, the active space can still be licensed and booked for sports activities. Can the City please advise if this will still apply during the construction period, and if so, how much of the oval would be accessible for use by existing sports clubs and the community?

Thank you, Ms. Amo, and thank you, Mr. Mayor. The laydown area required during construction has not yet been determined, so we're unable to see how much of the area would be available at this stage.

Okay. And my last question: The City has confirmed that no specific environmental study has been conducted on the proposed hockey development, including the impact on black cockatoos which roost on adjacent land at Collier Park Golf Course, or the potential heat island effects of the turf and surrounding facilities. The only environmental requirement is the tree management plan that Wasps must submit. Will a tree management plan have the scope to address all environmental considerations and requirements of this proposal?

Thank you, Ms. Amo. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, yes, there is, and there is a requirement in the lease for the Wasps to comply with any future environmental management plans of the City. Thank you, Ms. Amo, and thank you, Ms. Amo, for the questions.

Thank you. I'd now like to invite Mr. Michael Nind of Cloverdale. Uh, welcome to you. If you'd like to come to the microphone, we look forward to your questions.

Good evening, Mayor, councillors. My name is Michael Nind, in case you want to remember that should we be back here again. As the City may be aware, Hockey WA recently released its Strategic Facilities Plan 2023-33. The executive summary states: "Hockey participation levels in WA have remained relatively constant over the past five years, despite the state's population growing by more than 6% in that period. Meanwhile, the number of synthetic turf installations in the metropolitan area has increased by 40%. This growth has now effectively saturated the market, and further turf development could now jeopardize the viability of existing installations, particularly in the metropolitan area." Question one: Given that four turfs at the Curtin High Performance Hockey Centre would be located less than a kilometre from the proposed Wasps turf at Collier Reserve, can the City comment on the potential financial risks this oversaturation may pose to the viability of the Wasps turf, and consequently to the City?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Nind. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Building a high-cost, single-user asset on Crown land vested in the City presents long-term financial risk for the club and the City should the club be unable to generate sufficient funds to maintain the turf.

Thanks. The Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan identifies a home venue for three to five centrally located clubs, including Wasps, Victoria Park, Xavier, and Curtin University, as a top priority to alleviate the pressure of finding suitable land for turf development in the central metropolitan area. Can the City confirm whether that this information supports its recommendation not to grant the option to lease at Collier Reserve to Wasps?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Nind. Sure. Thank you. Yes, it does.

Question three: Wasps have indicated that securing state funding through the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund is unlikely due to the PHS upgrade. The City has also informed us the state government will assess the current provision of turfs, especially with a $135 million commitment to the nearby Perth Hockey Stadium at Curtin. As a result, the state is unlikely to fund a duplicate project in such close proximity. The Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan identifies six priority projects over the next 10 years. Can the City confirm whether the Wasps Hockey facility in the City of South Perth is one of those six priorities?

Thank you, Mr. Nind. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The proposed facility at Collier Reserve is not one of the six priorities. Development of additional turfs at the Australian High Performance Hockey Centre is a priority. Thank you, Mr. Nind, and thank you, Mr. Nind, for the questions.

I'd now like to invite Ms. Kate Pooley of Como. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Okay, good evening. At last week's meeting, Director Shaw highlighted the the challenges of creating new public open spaces. She explained that while the City can acquire freehold land at market value to address the district's shortfall, this is particularly difficult in an inner-city context and would likely be cost-prohibitive. Recent residential land sales in Como show an average price of about $1,500 per square metre, suggesting that the market value of 12,000 square metres of land could be around $18 million. While acknowledging that this market estimate is only approximate, would it be reasonable to conclude that it will be unfeasible for the City to acquire a similar sized parcel of land in Como to offset the loss of accessible space at Collier Reserve?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. Uh, yes, there appear to be limited financially feasible opportunities for the City to acquire large areas of open space within the City. Thank you.

The option to lease states that Wasps would only pay $1 per year in rent, which is inconsistent with section 2.1.5 of the DFS. The DFS projects a 10-year hockey facility model that suggests that Wasps and Wesley College would pay a lease of $220,000 per annum for the first year, and this would increase by 3.5% annually thereafter. However, under Councillor War's option to lease motion, Wesley College is not listed as a lessee. Therefore, this private school, which doesn't pay rates, would benefit from the exclusive use of the City's public land at no cost. Why was the $1 rent applied for the lease, and does the City consider excluding Wesley College from the lease to be best practice?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, the lease has been negotiated with Wesley South Perth Hockey Club as per the council resolution. There doesn't appear to be any need to include Wesley College given the purposes for the operations of Wesley South Perth Hockey Club. The question regarding rent has previously been answered by the CEO.

Representatives from five community groups, including the City of South Perth Residents Association, South Perth Tree Canopy Advocates, South Perth United Football Club, and Friends of Collier Reserve, have all voiced their opposition to the Wasps hockey development, which serves to benefit only one sports group and one private school. Does the Mayor and the City believe this collective community opposition further supports the recommendation not to grant the option to lease at Collier Reserve to Wasps? Again, I think the councillors will be debating that question amongst others fairly shortly, but for the time being, I'll, I'll send that to Mr. Adams.

Yeah, so the City's recommendation is consistent with previous recommendations to council and reflects the professional opinion of staff. Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you, Ms. Pooley, for your questions.

Thank you. I'd now like to invite Ms. Joanne O'Connor. Folks, uh, just a gentle reminder that under the standing orders, no clapping, no booing. We, we just listen to what people have got to say. Um, so hopefully I won't have to say that again. Welcome to you. Microphone is yours. Questions.

So I might confuse myself, so bear with me. So, number one: As a ratepayer, it concerns me that City funds were allocated to the Hockey DFS, yet the City had no involvement in its production to ensure an objective and balanced approach. Community members have raised concerns previously about the way the, uh, consultation process was carried out, and review of the DFS has raised concerns over quality of content, particularly with regards to the capex estimate, lack of funding detail, and in the absence of a business, uh, further quality concerns were also raised over the inclusion of profound statements such as "people prefer to park on verges and stuff than walk." I'm aware the DFS is an inherited issue for the current administration, but can the City please advise, for the benefit of its residents and the current council, if the approach to co-funding studies of this nature would be recommended again?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, the, the funding for the DFS for Wasps was a decision of council in November 2020. The City will recommend approaches to feasibility studies depending on the individual circumstances that apply each time, but generally, where a facility is to be considered on land controlled by the City, the City would control and fund the feasibility study. Good. Thank you.

Number two: Clause 5.1b of the option to lease states the grantee demonstrating to the granter reasonable satisfaction that the grantee has secured funding for the development. And for the benefit of residents, could the City please expand on this by explaining the level of funding detail to be provided by Wasps in order to satisfy the City under this clause?

Thank you, Mr. Adams. So, the City would have to be certain that Wasps have sufficient funding to complete the construction of the planned facility, which would require detailed, um, costings and evidence that funding is guaranteed. Uh, this would normally include, um, detailed plans, a report from a qualified quantity surveyor, signed grant funding agreements, bank statements, financial statements, etc. Thank you, Mr. Adams.

And Miss O'Connor, just before you proceed with your third question, the latest tranche of 15 minutes has expired, so I will move a motion that public question time be extended for a further 15 minutes. Seconded by Councillor Brandis. Councillors, please cast your votes on a motion that we extend public question time for a further 15 minutes. And that was unanimous. Thank you all. And please continue, Miss O'Connor.

Number three: A deputation last week eloquently conveyed community concern over impartiality, optics, and council integrity regarding this option to lease. If strong associations cloud councillors' ability to separate themselves from the facts at hand, two councillors here tonight, I'm advised, attended the Wasps funding meeting on the 26th of May recently. Can the City advise whether attendance at such an occasion demonstrates an arms-length approach, its best practice, ensures transparency, and maintains council's integrity, which in turn reflects on the City?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, to our knowledge, all elected members have declared impartiality interests in accordance with DGCI guidelines. Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you, Miss O'Connor, for the questions.

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

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, councillors, and staff. I support the City of South Perth Administrator's report to the council that the option to lease Collier Reserve to the Wasps Hockey Club does not proceed for the reasons outlined in their report. If this were to go ahead, a significant community asset would be lost to many other sporting groups and the community that use this area and will incur significant future financial risk upon the City. Question one: How is progressing a proposal to possibly allow a synthetic turf at Collier Reserve, a public open space, consistent with the City of South Perth's proposed Urban Greening Strategy?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, the, uh, are as yet unconfirmed, however, the proposed development at Collier Reserve would likely reduce the options to enhance urban greening.

Question two: At the council meeting on the 23rd of the 6th '23, at item 10.1.1, which discussed a motion on whether to allow Wasps Hockey Club to build a synthetic turf at Collier Reserve, the Mayor, Greg Milner, excused himself from this discussion as he was the co-patron of Wasps. How then is Councillor Prendiville allowed to participate in this discussion at item 10.1.1 when she has declared that she is a member of Wasps, involved in various committees, including that as past president, and, uh, she is the current Minky coordinator of Wasps?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, as per the City's previous responses in relation to impartiality interests, there's no requirement for elected members to leave the room. DGCI guidelines require elected members to declare an impartiality interest and to vote on the matter.

If members of other sporting groups, such as the South Perth United Football Club, can travel to various sites away from their home ground to play their sport, is it the City's view that it would be reasonable to expect Wasps to do the same?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Adams. So, there are numerous, uh, sporting clubs in the metropolitan area that are required to travel to more than one location to play their home games. Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you, Mr. Rosenberg, for the questions.

I'd now like to invite Mr. Barry Drake of South Perth. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you, and we look forward to your questions.

My name is Barry Drake. I live at Unit 3, Number 2 Senior Crescent, South Perth. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, councillors, officers, leaving members of the gallery, and everybody listening on YouTube. The preamble to my questions is very simple, straightforward. They are designed to alert the public of Western Australia to the fact that the City of South Perth is trying to exclude use of Sir James Mitchell Park.

Mr. Drake, we've been through this. Mr. Drake, I'm speaking. Don't try and speak over the top of me. Not appreciated. We've been through this a great many times previously. Public question time is for questions, not for statements, not for deputations with a question mark on the end. Please proceed to your questions.

Question number one: This is about Sir James Mitchell Park, not... I gather, ask the question, please. If another school, other than Wesley College, asked the City of South Perth Council to have their sporting fields on Sir James Mitchell Park, would the City spend $50,000 of ratepayer money on a feasibility study?

Thank you for the question, Miss Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The May 2015 South Perth Foreshore Management Strategy recommends that Elm Street be developed as a high-quality junior sports events and recreation area. The City will be undertaking the actions for this node, including investigating the demand and opportunities for junior sport and geotechnical investigation. The City was therefore always intending to undertake this body of work regardless of Wesley College indicating they would seek use of the space. Should the site be developed for this purpose, thank you, Miss Shaw.

Your second question, Mr. Drake. Well, the answer of my question last month because Wesley asked the question. Mr. Drake, I will turn off your microphone if you don't obey the rules, like everyone else. Please ask a second question.

Question number two: How many councillors declared an interest when the request for Wesley College to have sporting fields on Sir James Mitchell Park was voted on, and they resolved to spend the $50,000?

Thank you for the question, Miss Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, declarations are contained within the minutes. Council resolved to fund the entire $50,000 towards the study and did not accept Wesley College's proposal to contribute 50% towards a study. So, Wesley got away without spending any money.

Mr. Drake. Question number three: When a council declares an impartiality interest, who decides if the interest is a financial one or not?

Thank you for the question, Miss Shaw. Ah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. It is the responsibility of the individual elected member to disclose an interest. The Local Government Act 1995 defines the type of interest, including financial and proximity interests. There is a publicly available Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries guideline that provides clarification on the declaration of interest. Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Mr. Drake, for the questions. Mr. Drake, your time is done. Please resume your seat.

I'm now going to check with the governance team to see if there's any questions in the tray that have been received late. That's a no. Okay. In that case, I now close public question time at 6:45 p.m.

All right, that brings us to item 7, which is confirmation of minutes and notes. Item 7.1 is minutes. Item 7.1.1 is the ordinary council meeting held on 27 August 2024. So, I'm about to seek a mover and a seconder that the minutes of the ordinary council meeting held on 27 August 2024 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record. Moved by Councillor Coveney. Thank you. Can I have a seconder, please? Councillor Brandis. Thank you. Councillors, does anyone oppose this? No. Okay, then I declare the, the minutes carried unanimously.

Item 7.2 is notes of briefing. I'm about to call for a mover and a seconder to move that council notes that the following council briefings and workshops were held. Item 7.2.1, concept briefings and workshops. Item 7.2.2, council agenda briefings, 17 September 2024. Can I have Councillor Coveney? Thank you. Anyone to Councillor Prendiville for seconding? Thank you. Councillors, does anyone oppose this? No. Okay, then I declare that carried unanimously.

Item eight is presentations. Item 8.1 is petitions, which is nil for this evening. Item 8.2 is gifts or awards presented to council. That's nil for this evening. Item 8.3 is deputations, and deputations were heard at the council agenda briefing held on 17 September 2024.

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

Uh, thanks, Mr. Mayor. All reports were discussed at the September council agenda briefing, noting that the Community Recreation Facilities Plan report has been removed from the ordinary council agenda to allow for a third council briefing to be held on that topic. I also note that for item 10.3.2 on tonight's agenda, the Planning and Development Local Planning Schemes Regulations of 2015 were amended and took effect on the 19th of September. The change that, that one of the changes that that introduces is change of terminology that changes from that introduces unhosted short-term rental accommodation as a land use in the zoning provisions, uh, in place of holiday accommodation. The City will be preparing a scheme amendment to reflect changes in terminology that will be presented to council soon. And in relation to item 10.3.2, the, the where, holiday accommodation is used, the term unhosted short-term rental accommodation will be substituted by the City. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

So, with the exception of those items to be withdrawn for discussion this evening, reports will be adopted by exception resolution, and by this, I mean that the officer recommendation will be adopted as is, without discussion or amendment. The following items have been withdrawn for discussion this evening. That, that's item 10.1.1, Response to Notice of Motion, Sports Spaces, Collier Reserve, Option to Lease, Wasps Hockey Club. The reason for that is there's both an officer recommendation and an alternate officer recommendation for consideration. Item 4, sorry, 10.4.2 has also been withdrawn. That's monthly financial statements for August 2024 and carry forward budget adjustments. The reason for that is an absolute majority is required for paragraph two of the officer recommendation. And item 10.5.4, entitled Policy Review, has also been withdrawn. The reason for that is, is Councillor Mary Choy has an alternative motion. Councillors, does anyone wish to withdraw any other items for discussion this evening? That's a no.

Okay, in that case, I'm going to call for a mover and a seconder shortly to carry the following items by exception resolution. Bear with me. Item 10.1.2, entitled RFT 4 of 2024, Replacement of Concrete Slab Footpath with Init Concrete. Item 10.3.1, entitled Draft Carra Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan. Item 10.3.2, Proposed Change of Use, Multiple Dwelling to Holiday Accommodation, Lot 6, Number 6281 Mill Point Road, South Perth. Item 10.3.3, Draft Local Planning Policy, Waste Management Advertising. Item 10.4.1, Listing of Payments, August 2024. Item 10.5.1, Internal Audit Review of the Internal Audit Log. Item 10.5.2, Quarterly Activity Report. Item 10.5.3, Audit Register Progress Report, Fourth Quarter Update, including External Audit Interim Report. And item 15.1.2, Execution of Payments Direction Deed and Adoption of the Revised Charter for the Operations of the Rivers Regional Subsidy. Could I Councillor Brandis, sorry, Mr. Mayor, I think there was a mistake in item 10.4.2 because that needs the absolute majority, but you, um, included that as part of on-block voting.

Uh, okay, thank you for the pickup. So, so it's 10.4.1 that's going through on block, and it's 10.4.2 that's been removed because it needs an absolute majority. Thank you for the pickup. Okay, is everyone with that? All right, great. So, with the, with 10.4.1 being the one that's going through on block, uh, can I have a mover, please? Councillor Coveney. Thank you. Seconded by Councillor Brandis. Councillors, does anyone oppose any of the items intended to go through on block this evening? No. Okay, then I'll declare that carried unanimously.

So, those items have just been passed by exception resolution in accordance with Clause 5.5 of the City of South Perth Standing Orders Local Law 2007, and the officer recommendations have been accepted by council. We will now be moving on to those reports identified to be withdrawn for discussion. The first of which is item 10.1.1, Response to Notice of Motion, Sports Spaces, Collier Reserve, Option to Lease, Wasps Hockey Club. There's an officer recommendation and an alternate officer recommendation. Would someone like to move either of those?

And Councillor War, please tell us which one you're moving. Sorry. Um, I'd like to move a motion to defer this item.

All right. Uh, you're entitled to give your reasons as to why you'd like to do that. Should I have it seconded first? All right. Well, does anyone wish to... Councillor Coveney, uh, is seconding a motion to defer. Um, Councillor War, you get to specify your reasons, but otherwise, there's no debate on the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, councillors. I am moving to defer this item for two months to be brought back in November of 2024. Over the last few weeks, we've all heard from so many people in our community, and we have received emails, deputations, and information from the administration, and this is clearly a matter of great importance and requires proper consideration by council. It is clear that whatever decision is made on this, it will impact many people within our community. So, my reasons for deferral: First, council would benefit from a presentation from Hockey WA. I note that there was one scheduled two weeks ago, and that was cancelled. We also heard from Wasps last week, and what they said was very different to the position that we heard from the City administration, and I think it is imperative that council are properly informed from Hockey WA itself so as to properly understand the offering there and its position with respect to Wasps, and accordingly, it is appropriate that we receive this presentation. My second reason is that, in my view, the City would benefit from an opportunity to obtain and consider independent legal advice concerning the officer's recommendation before us and the functions of the CEO under section 5.41 of the Local Government Act. At present, I am uncomfortable with what council are being asked to consider, and it is my view that it is contrary to Clause 16 of our Standing Orders Local Law, Regulation 10 of the Local Government Administration and Regulations, and my view is that considering this matter may cause this council to fall into error. I believe the process that we are being asked to engage in is contrary to the standing orders of the City of South Perth and the requirements of the Local Government Administration Regulations. The consequences of this could be significant, and I am concerned that proceeding at this time could have the result that the City could open itself up to legal consequences, including Supreme Court litigation. And third, it is clear to me that council has required additional time to consider the terms of the option and the lease. These are two very carefully drafted documents by an excellent law firm.

And the officer's recommendation has failed to properly engage with the terms of the lease and provide advice on those terms, as one would expect. Rather, we have been presented with information regarding negotiations and the city's view as to the high-performance hockey center. With respect, the officer's report ought to have been focused on the terms of the option and the lease and considering this matter. And the absence of proper recommendations on the outcome of the motion is concerning. So, in this regard, I consider it is only appropriate that the council has be afforded a proper opportunity to consider these documents in detail and obtain their own independent advice, if necessary, and for the city to reconsider its recommendation consistent with the outcome of the council resolution in February to negotiate an option to lease. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor W. Councillors, there's no debate on a motion to defer. I'm simply going to put the proposal that we defer this item for two months.

Councillor Choy, a question?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Am I able to ask a question?

I don't think so, but I'll check with Mr. Adams.

Ask a question?

No, far away. Okay, thank you for that. Um, look, I believe the city received, um, certain undertakings and a commitment by Hockey WA for the WAS Hockey Club, um, as outlined by the CEO Bradford at last week's Council agenda briefing, and that all elected members have been provided that correspondence. Is that correct, Mr. Bradford?

So the city has had a number of conversations with Hockey WA, and they are reflected in the reports that have been provided and the emails that we've provided to elected members. Um, the exact specific provisions of what will be offered to clubs is still a subject of discussion between Hockey WA, the state government, Venues West, and the clubs. And so there will be changes and things to, but what you've been provided, um, reflects, uh, the current status of what Hockey WA have told us would be offered. Uh, and the briefing that we were seeking to provide, um, was to, and I wrote the email to Hockey WA requesting it, to cover the same material that was presented to clubs and the city earlier this year, so that council had the opportunity to hear it from Hockey WA directly from Hockey WA. I don't expect anything new to be introduced to that briefing. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

Councillor Brenda Brandis, uh, yes, Mr. Mayor. I have a question.

Far away. Okay. Um, so if this item was to be deferred for a couple of months, uh, would the administration be able to indicate whether they feel that more new, more information, new information, or better information, uh, might come to hand that might assist us with decision-making, um, given that we are aware of the $135 million offer, and we're we're aware of, um, the WA's position with regard to this option?

Mr. Bradford. Uh, I, I don't expect any particular new information to become available in the next two months, noting that, uh, I think in the February report, we said the discussions between Hockey WA, Venues West, the government, and the clubs are going to take six to twelve months to flesh out what will happen. Of course, that's still that duration is still going, and so things will continue to evolve to the extent that the club negotiating with Hockey WA, but I don't expect anything material to change. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

I guess I'll ask one question myself, and, uh, I wasn't prepared for this. Counts, without breaching any legal professional privilege or compromising any legal professional privilege that might exist, does the city have any idea what Councillor Ward is referring to in terms of the legal problem she alluded to? I guess that's to Mr. Adams.

No, we haven't been provided with any advanced notice, so I'm unsure of what exactly Councillor Ward is referring to.

Any further questions, councillors?

Councillor Choy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just following on from your question again, without, um, wanting to compromise, um, the city's, uh, legal position, um, is it City able to advise whether received any legal advice to date on the lease proposal or this item or motion?

Mr. Adams. So the, the advice that we've had relates to the, uh, preparation of the lease and the option to lease documents. So I'm sort of any, um, legal advice outside of that, um, you know, is normal for us. When we prepare leases, to have them done, um, by, um, a legal firm, and that's the, um, the way that this lease and option to lease was prepared. Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Bradford, just to be clear, um, the lease was prepared by lawyers, um, and their advice is encapsulated in the drafting of the terms that they said was appropriate for the lease, and involved several conversations and emails backwards and forwards between the administration, lawyers, where we questioned things or they inserted things, and then when after WASPs were given the opportunity to provide feedback, there was further consideration of what WASPs required and changes were made. That was all done with ad hoc advice by the lawyers who drafted the lease.

And I guess one, Councillor Brenda Brandis, another question.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Question again with regard to, um, the, I suppose the process. So my understanding is that, um, the, the presentation of this item tonight before us, um, followed due process, and followed what was actually actually requested of the administration, and the inclusion of the recommendation by the city is is appropriate with regard to putting up a motion. Could I have that confirmed, please?

Mr. Adams. So, um, as far as, um, I'm concerned, um, we carried out everything that was required of us from the notice of motion, which included bringing it back to council for a decision, which is, um, the way that we presented it, um, in a report with a recommendation, and in fact, there's two recommendations. Um, I don't believe that, um, the, the recommendation, the officer's recommendation, um, changes anything in terms of, um, what, uh, has was required to be carried out, um, under the previous resolution. We've done everything that was required. Thank you, Mr. Adams.

And I guess one more question from me, building on Councillor Brenda Brandis's previous question, is there any reason why councillors shouldn't be able to vote on this item and make a decision tonight?

In my view, now. All right.

Any further, quick, Councillor Ward?

Can the administration please advise what Clause 16.1 of the standing orders states? It deals with revoking a decision, and the effect of passing the officer's recommendation tonight will be on the February 2024 motion.

Mr. Adams. I think I know what the answer to this one is, but I'll be guided by the administration. So, as we said last week, and we're not revoking a decision of council because we've carried out everything to that was required of us under, um, what council asked us to do with that, um, decision. So, um, I'm not sure how you would argue that we're attempting to revoke a decision because everything to do with that decision has been carried out. I'm inclined to agree, Councillor Ward.

Okay. No applause, folks. I've got to be fair to everyone. All right. Any further questions on on the proposed deferral, councillors? All right, then I'm simply going to put Councillor Ward's motion that we defer this item for two months to the vote. And I'm waiting on one more vote. Hopefully, it's not me. No. All right. So the motion for the is tied, four votes to four. Uh, that means that I have a casting vote that I'm going to cast, and I cast against the deferral. I believe we should resolve this matter tonight. For the benefit of those listening via YouTube or in the gallery, those who voted in favour of the deferral were Councillor Nard, Councillor Prenal, Councillor Ward, and Councillor Coveny. Those against were myself, Mayor Milner, Councillor Brenda Brandis, Councillor Dua, and Councillor Choy. Yes, I think I got that right, didn't I? Thank you. All right. So, uh, we have an officer recommendation before us on item 10.1.1. We also have an alternate officer recommendation before us. Would someone like to move either of those items, and if so, would they like to say which, which of the two that they're moving?

Councillor Ward, and perhaps you can tell us which one you're moving, please.

Sure, I'll, uh, move the alternate recommendation then.

All right. Uh, does anyone wish to second the alternate officer recommendation? That's Councillor Coveny. Councillor Ward, the floor is yours.

Thank you. In February, this council debated and adopted the motion to proceed with the grant of an option to lease. The terms needed to be negotiated to fulfill the long-standing strategic direction of the City of South Perth. The land at Coler Reserve is designated as a sports space for playing fields and ovals, and that the City of South Perth has for an extended period supported the relocation of WASPs to this site since at least 2012, and in particular, in its meetings of March 2013, March 2019, July 2019, November of 2020, and July of 2023. Furthermore, this is consistent with the city's adopted plans, including the Community Recreation Facilities Plan 2019 to 2033 and the Strategic Community Plan 2021 to 2031. These plans identify the need for additional sports infrastructure, particularly synthetic hockey fields, to address gaps in playable sports spaces within the district. The high-performance hockey centre has been there since 1984. It regularly undergoes upgrades, and right now is no different. Over the last 15 years, it is clear that Coler Reserve has consistently been identified as the most suitable location for a synthetic hockey turf, grass fields, and club rooms. This was a key recommendation in the Community Facilities Plan in 2019 to 2033, adopted by Council on the 25th of June 2019. But we discussed all of this in February. Right now, we are presented with an option and a lease that we are asked to consider. Regrettably, we do not have an officer's report that substantially deals with the terms of the option and the lease upon which this decision is to be made. So each councillor has been left to their own devices in how to understand this recommendation. I think I have a better chance than most because as a lawyer, I deal with these leases from time to time. However, in the absence of a report on the terms, I have reviewed the draft option and lease and provide you with my summary. In my view, the lease and the option are drafted by a top-tier law firm with a wealth of experience and are heavily weighted in favour of the city. So my comments are as follows: In respect to the option, that is only open for a period of three years. The WASPs are required to meet these criteria as condition precedent to exercising the option: A, obtaining approval for any future development from the city; B, demonstrating to the city's satisfaction that they have secured funding for any future development; C, the city approving, in its sole discretion, a tree management plan prepared by the WASPs for any future development; D, the city approving, in its sole discretion, any future premises plan, licensed area plan, and lay down area plan; E, WASPs demonstrating to the satisfaction of the city that it has negotiated in good faith with other users for an interim agreement for the grant of a sublease or license for a minimum sized area determined by the city, enabling it to be sublet at peppercorn rent; and F, obtaining consent from the Minister for Lands for the lease, as required by the Land Administration Act. In respect of the lease, WASPs is required to obtain funding to the satisfaction of the city. WASPs is required to repair and maintain the property and rectify any and all defects. The city has no obligation to do or pay for anything. WASPs accepts all liability for the risks and the works and is required to take out and maintain insurance as stipulated by the city. Upon termination, the lessee is required to remove and make good all improvements to the premises unless requested by the city for them to remain. There is provision for a bank guarantee contained within the lease at Clause 15. However, the amount of the guarantee is unclear, and it appears to me that this may still be in negotiation. Put simply, the terms of this lease host so heavily in favour of the city that I'm surprised that the WASP lawyer would recommend that they enter into it. However, WASPs are what I would classify as sophisticated clients who are legally represented and capable of understanding the terms of the lease and option and have indicated that they're willing to enter into it. So, in terms of risk to the city, I would dare to say that there is zero risk to the city in entering into these documents. The condition precedents are so substantial that, in my view, all risk has been mitigated. And not surprisingly, because this was the carefully considered resolution of the February 2024 meeting. However, my biggest concern is that good governance requires consistency of approach. Not only has this matter been consistently supported by this council in its meetings of March 2013, March 2019, July 2019, November 2020, and July 2023. Furthermore, it has been adopted into the city's strategic plans, and most alarmingly from a governance perspective, it is proposed that we deal with the WASPs on significant, significantly different terms to every other club in this city. In fact, the only inconsistent decision was in June of 2023. Tonight, this council must deal with the terms of the option and the lease on its merits, nothing more and nothing less. I caution the consideration of irrelevant factors.

Councillor Ward, that's five minutes, but I will move a motion that you be granted a further five minutes. Can I have a second, please?

Councillor Praval. Thank you, councillors. Please vote on a motion that Councillor Ward be granted a further five minutes to speak. Waiting on one more vote. That was unanimous. Please continue, Councillor Ward.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tonight, this council must deal with the terms of the option and its lease on its merits, nothing more and nothing less. I caution that consideration of irrelevant factors may cause the council to fall into error. The question of granting the option and the lease was discussed and decided in February. The only relevant considerations are the terms within the documents themselves. Last week, we had many deputations, and over the last few weeks, I have received hundreds of emails, and I have carefully considered each concern raised with me. I apologize, I have not been able to respond to each. I am aware of my obligations, and I do not have any material interest in the outcome of this item. I have read all of the documents provided to us. Folks, please be fair. Councillor Ward is speaking. Uh, I want to listen to what she has to say. I'm sure the other councillors do as well. Um, please, let's, let's be respectful and listen to the speaker. Apologies, Councillor Ward. Please continue.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have read all of the documents that have been provided to us, and I have also read the historical meeting minutes and the entirety of the feasibility study, not just the officer's report in the deputations and council questions. I do want to address a few matters raised. First, I note that there were some suggestions of costs of a of a possible future development, and to that I can say, at present, we do not have any development application in front of us. To that end, we do not know what any future development might look like or what it might cost. It would be improper of us to consider these matters as they are not before us, and we do not have any information of what a future development might be upon which we could make a proper informed decision on. Second, financial risk. The option and lease before us again are not development applications. They present no financial risk to the city. They're merely the allocation of space. Third, wildlife. Black cockatoos. To the option and lease will not impact on bird life. This may become a very proper consideration of a future development application. Fourth, the high-performance hockey centre. The option to lease is able to operate side by side with WA's negotiations for the high-performance hockey centre. Indeed, this was the very reason for the option rather than the lease, and it was the reason for providing three years so those negotiations can be fully explored. I trust that the WASPs will continue to do so. Five, tree loss. Again, the option to lease does not affect trees on Coler Reserve. This will be a relevant consideration for any future development application. No tree will be permitted to be damaged by virtue of the option to lease. Six, exclusivity. The option to lease is to WASPs. WASPs, as I understand it, is open to any person who wishes to become a member and welcomes all persons as visitors. It is not exclusive. It is a community club. Furthermore, the condition precedent requires WASPs to engage with another community group to allow it to use the facility at peppercorn rent. Seven, Wesley College. Wesley are not a party to this arrangement. Any future funding arrangement between Wesley College and WASPs ought to be dealt with at the appropriate time. And eight, Como Secondary potential future turf. I am aware that Como Secondary College was built in 1969 and had little to no funding since then. I am aware that it is a hockey specialist school and has had plans for a turf over an extended period, but the vagaries of any future redevelopment of the school are presently speculative and do not impact on the option and the lease. And finally, traffic, parking, and amenity considerations. These are all proper considerations for assessment of any future development application. We cannot use these in our decision-making tonight because we do not have any proper information in front of us about this at present. The option to lease does not present any change to traffic, parking, and amenity, and so therefore, these ought not be a relevant factor for consideration. So tonight, my fellow councillors, I implore you to focus your consideration and decision on the matter that is before you. That is the option and the lease. Tempting as it may be to conflate this with other issues, it would not reflect good decision-making. The item in front of us requires the assessment of the terms of the documents, nothing more and nothing less. WASPs are well aware of the risks ahead of them, and if a future development application is brought to council, then that will be the time for considering the factors relevant to the application at that time. For now, future development is a mere hypothetical situation. We don't know what might be presented, if anything. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor W. Councillor Coveny, you're the seconder. Uh, would you like to speak at this juncture?

Yes, please, Mr. Mayor.

Please proceed.

I'm a firm believer that to understand the aspirations and concerns of our community, we need to listen with an open and independent mind. Our welcome spirited debate, especially on the issues that our community cares so deeply about. Our community has democratically elected us as its decision-makers. Leadership is about making decisions, sometimes hard decisions, where not everybody agrees. I have and will continue to listen to our community, being both people in this room and at home. There are merits to both sides of this debate. I explain now where I presently sit after having carefully considered both sides and weighing up the outcomes. I hope that you will listen and accept that opinions which differ from your own are also valid. The largest and oldest sporting club in our city seeks a single home. They believe, based on examples of other successful clubs in WA, that a single location will provide them with their best opportunity to function. They say having all their members in one area they control will improve camaraderie, volunteer rates, membership, and revenue through displaying sponsorship and bar sales. Further, that will guarantee travel times for home games no longer very long. I understand the arguments against the relocation of a turf nearby, loss of open space, displacement of user groups, financial risk, unknown state position, cost of the city, feasibility results, community support, a prior council decision, removal of trees, and there are currently two turfs being shared between several clubs. And whilst this new facility will provide for turfs, it still doesn't remedy the WAS predicament of game time because they aren't guaranteed access at all times required. Whilst the turfs may be shared by the local clubs, Curtin University, and the state and national teams, each of those groups have men's and women's teams and teams at different age levels. We're talking about 80 teams trying to share four turfs. Where do we realistically think the WASPs are going to sit in a hierarchy with the state and national teams? They are still economically stifled by not running the bar and needing to pay to play. It doesn't overcome the fundamental issue of not being a single location. I don't find it acceptable to split a family between two homes, especially in one of those homes is a share house without a guaranteed bed. If this was such a good deal, again, my apologies, Councillor Coveny. The standing orders are quite clear about the gallery remaining silent. You're making it difficult for us to hear, and we're here as decision-makers on behalf of the community. So can we please keep the sniggering and the chuckling? Just knock it off. It's, it's, it's not respectful. It's, let's all act like adults, please. Please continue, Councillor Coveny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If this was such a good deal for the local clubs, then why both of them still in pursuit of their own single homes? If the lease is granted, there will be a loss of open space, but that's the case for any club with specific turf requirements or even indoor or sports courts. The question is, is the loss outweighed by the benefit? I ask you to consider not what do we lose, but what do we gain? A new neighbour, a new community, maybe even a friend. There is misinformation being spread in the community that the WASPs will fence off all of Keeler for themselves. If that were true, I'd be signing the petition against it myself, but it's not. Keeler is 35,000 square metres, adjacent to Collins Oval, which is 35,000 square metres, adjacent to Bellerive Reserve, which is 19,000 square metres. In other words, a total space of 990,000 square metres, and Ryde Reserve is across the road. The WAS proposed synthetic turf is about 5,000 square metres, and whilst the clubhouse size is unknown, their current pavilion is about 1,000 square metres. So we're talking about 6,000 square metres lock and key over an area size of about 990,000 square metres, or 6.2% or 13.3% if you adopt the exclusive use footprint of 12,000 square metres. Neither footprint comes remotely close to our golf courses, tennis clubs, and bowling greens, many of whom have significantly less members and locals. Our two golf clubs are collectively 2.1 million square metres. Our three tennis clubs are collectively 36,000 square metres, and our three bowling clubs are collectively 26,000 square metres. I don't see why we make room for them but not the oldest and largest sporting club in our city. If the WASPs were granted a lease, some existing user groups may be displaced, as would be the case for any group relocating to a space already being used. But Keeler isn't actually home to the football, the cricket, or the baseball. It's overflow. Clubs like football will have its needs better met if the WASPs relocate because it frees up Richardson. WASPs must collocate, so their collocated facility will benefit, and the WASPs are open to sharing using their turfs, so they too will benefit. There are eight active reserves in the city. The formal utilization at Keeler is 3%. That is between three and six times less than all the other reserves in the city, except for Como. In the February agenda report, Keeler was described as being one of three reserves least likely to impact existing users. Respectfully, we can't live in an inner-city suburb and expect the block next door to stay vacant forever. We must learn to share. In relation to financial risk, the construction phase is managed by the WASPs being prohibited to build until they prove they have the funds to do so, and the maintenance phase risk is managed by the WASPs requiring a bank guarantee in addition to their own fundraising. Half the build is to be funded by Wesley, and presumably the WASPs.

That's five minutes, but I will move a motion that you be granted a further five minutes. Can I have a second, please?

Councillor Praval. Thank you, councillors. Please cast your votes on a motion that Councillor Coveny be granted a further five minutes. And that was unanimous. Please continue, Councillor Coveny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In addition to their own fundraising, half the deal is to be funded by Wesley, and presumably the WASPs are eligible for grants and loans. The city gets a new asset for free and frees up another asset at Richardson. Other clubs have made this work with Melville Hockey Club having twice replaced their synthetic turf at their own costs. Like many projects in this city, support from external stakeholders is required before it can proceed. Whilst we don't know whether the state government will support the relocation, we do know, we do know that the lease won't be signed if and until they do. I do feel for the residents who will have uncertainty for up to three years, but I also feel for the WASPs who've had it for more than a decade. WASPs seek a contribution for lighting, removing power lines over the reserve, and more parking. The city is not compelled to contribute anything, but regardless of this relocation, why wouldn't the city do these upgrades to improve the amenity of its existing users? The city recently obtained grant funding for many of its sports reserves. Is there not a possibility for further grant funding in the future? The feasibility study does say this project is viable. The site has room to accommodate an artificial turf and club rooms. Water use of the synthetic turf is at or below current levels of the reserve. The sport sliding design is compliant. Opportunities for existing clubs are enhanced by freeing up Richardson. Noise negligible. Community engagement: 558 in support, 49 against. Sustainability modelling shows that the WASPs were viable to manage the facility, and the study concluded that Keeler was the only viable option for a single home for the reasons I've already explained. I don't share the administration's view that the study didn't address particular requirements, but in any event, further responses were sought and provided. I struggle to understand the argument that this relocation is not broadly supported in the context of those survey results, but also in the results of the last local government elections, noting residents on both sides of this debate publicly supported and opposed particular candidates. I do accept that some residents, particularly those that live nearby to Keeler and some special interest groups, are against the relocation. There have always been some residents who live nearby to any public open space who object to new users. There are always particular residents who object to any new facility in the city, and there are always particular residents who object to the loss of trees. I am not saying your views are not valid. I'm just saying that some of their views are may be philosophical and not restricted to this particular motion. There are only one in five inconsistent decisions in relation to the relocation, and that was the four-three decision not to proceed in June '23. In March '19, Council unanimously resolved to support the WAS feasibility study to relocate to Keeler. In July 2019, Council unanimously resolved its Community Facilities Plan to work with the WASPs to relocate to Keeler. In July '23, notwithstanding knowledge of the new Hockey WA development, Council unanimously resolved for the city to work with WASPs to find a single local home. And in February '24, Council resolved four-three to grant an option to lease at Keeler. Over the years, we have had different councillors with different backgrounds, some with a particular affinity to keeping things as they are, and others with a particular affinity towards development. Councillors have looked at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. To suggest that a councillor has come to a view inconsistent with your own does not mean that they are not listening, and it doesn't mean they are not corrupt. It disregards the enormous time and effort that the people who have put their hand up to try and make a community, try and make our community a better place. It dissuades good people connected in our community from putting their hand up in the future. I listened and relistened to the deputations and read and read the studies, reports, and decisions. Some residents take issue with the Mayor and Council appendable voting, notwithstanding their compliance with the local government laws and the fact that the three practicing solicitors on Council reached the same conclusion. The relocation will result in the loss of some trees, and some say habitat of cockatoos, and I agree that trees and cockatoos should be retained where possible, but we do live in an inner-city suburb, and unfortunately, we need to weigh up the loss of a few trees with the alternate benefit. The WASPs are required to plant more trees to mitigate some of that loss. In conclusion, after weighing up all the arguments, I do support the relocation for the reasons I've outlined. Thank you, Councillor Coveny.

Councillors, is there anyone who wishes to speak against the alternate officer recommendation?

Councillor Brenda Brandis, uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've actually got a few questions.

Far away. Um, thank you. My first question is just with regard to, um, some of the comments made by Councillor Coveny. So, with regard to grant funding, um, my understanding that grant funding in, in this instance may be complicated or may not proceed, um, given that, uh, there is a proposed facility for $135 million, Perth Hockey Centre, that's going to be developed, and, and also there are other conditions with regard to achieving grant funding, including, um, shared facilities, as this is something the state is actually trying to achieve in best utilization and sharing of costs and infrastructure. If the administration could please, um, provide some comments with regard to that.

Miss Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund, um, has general guidelines associated with grant applications, um, and the Department of Sport, Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries has included in the guidelines that there would be co-located in shared use facilities. The advice that we previously received from the department was that they would be unlikely to provide additional grant funding for such a facility, given the proximity to the Australian High Performance Hockey Centre. Thank you, Miss Shaw.

Another question, Councillor Brenda Brandis.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Director Shaw. Um, with regard to the actual lease itself, I've got a couple of questions. So firstly, were any, um, proposed amendments suggested or discussed with councillors and the administration on that lease agreement, um, or were there no conversations with regards to any proposed amendments to the lease agreement?

Mr. Bradford. I'm not quite sure what I'll have a crack at answering. So the only discussions on the lease agreement were between us and our lawyers, and between us and WASPs.

Thank you. Thank you, CEO Bradford. And a following question, just with regard to the lease as well. So obviously, um, the WASPs have obviously had discussions with the administration. Were there any, um, serious contentious points that would have resulted in, um, the WASPs or or their lawyers, uh, not wanting to proceed with the lease as it stands? Because I understand we've got to a point that it's fairly amicable at this point in time, but maybe some minor parts which aren't acceptable to everyone, but it's not actually a sticking point. Thank you.

Mr. Adams, should I send that your way?

As stated in the report, we believe we reached in-principle agreement. There are obviously some things that, uh, we, uh, proposed to put in the lease that was weren't, um, entirely happy with, and, uh, we, um, negotiated an outcome where they weren't in the lease, and then there were some other things that were wanted in the lease that WASPs, um, didn't want in the lease, and they stayed in the lease because we felt that, um, they were there to protect the city and the state interests.

Mr. Bradford. Uh, the, the lease is actually pretty similar to other leases that we have for on Crown land, and, and they do represent, um, clauses that protect the interests of the state and the city. Thank you, Mr. Adams and Mr. Bradford.

Any further questions, Councillor Brenda Brandis? All right. Uh, I guess I've got one, uh, for the moment, uh, question that is, uh, I think if I heard Councillor Coveny correctly, I think he referred to a bank guarantee being provided by WASPs, but, uh, at least the copy of the lease I'm looking at says at item 16 of the schedule that a bank guarantee isn't applicable. Have I misunderstood that?

No, um, whilst the lease refers to a bank guarantee, the schedule does not, um, have an amount for bank guarantee in there, so there is no bank guarantee applicable to it.

All right, thank you. Uh, councillors, is there anyone who wishes to speak against the alternate officer recommendation?

Councillor Brenda Brandis. Sorry, another question, Mr. Mayor. Um, so just with regard to, uh, the conversations that we had in the agenda briefing last week, there was obviously, um, a lot of conversation with regard to, um, the Perth Hockey Centre being able to provide virtually everything that the WASPs were were needing, apart from, you know, having the the grass, uh, playing field. So would the city be able to confirm that everything that was an issue previously, including revenue streams, and their space, and the schedule of their their games, was something that, um, the, um, WA Hockey were actually going to be considering?

Mr. Bradford, I'll start. I don't think WASPs would agree that, uh, that what is being offered represents what they, what they want. But we've made it clear in terms of stating what Hockey WA has said is likely to be offered to clubs. The specific details on access and associated services for local clubs is subject to ongoing discussions, as I said, between Hockey WA, Venues West, and the clubs. But Hockey WA has indicated to us that the clubs were intended to be offered access to turfs with no outgoings, license fees, staff or operational costs, maintenance costs, utility charges, and reduced hire fees achieved through providing volunteers to be ground controllers, scoreboard operators for training sessions and fixtures. And clubs would also have the ability to conduct summer hockey programs for juniors using free turf. And the other things that we mentioned are all things that Hockey WA still intends for clubs to be offered and are subject to the ongoing discussions. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

Councillor Choy.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I've got a couple of questions. Just, uh, first one, um, following on from Councillor Brenda Brandis's question, as far as the city administration are aware, and I guess during your time, have any other clubs been offered similar or the same standard of, um, provisions that has been offered to the WAS Hockey Club in relation to basically a ready-to-go facility? Just to clarify, Councillor Choy, are you talking about the proposal for Coler Reserve, or are you talking about the proposal Perth Hockey Stadium?

Perth Hockey Stadium. As far as the city is aware, have any other clubs been offered anything similar in terms in relation to their sport or their activity? Is there anything else that exists in the, you know, nearby precincts, districts, that, um, has been made available to other clubs?

I'm not sure I understand completely. Are you asking have other hockey clubs been offered?

No, no, other sporting clubs. Has it been anything else that's, okay, obviously the answer is going to be no from what I'm gathering. That's fine. Thank you. I'll move on to my second question, if that's okay.

Far away. And, uh, then I think Councillor Coveny had his hand up after that. Um, I believe the city and all elected members are aware and have had access to the Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan 2023 to 2033, which prioritizes the WAS Hockey Club relocation to the new Australian High Performance Hockey Centre. And I'm just wondering, does the city have any comments on the plan as it pertains to this item, please?

Mr. Bradford, should I send that your way?

Yeah, I'll have a go at it. Um, so we received, uh, extracts of the plan in following a meeting with Hockey WA in July this year, but not the complete plan. We received access to the complete plan, uh, last week. Having said that, uh, uh, the plan has been in development by Hockey WA for over a year, and their advice to us, uh, reflects very much the recommendations and the findings of that that are now articulated in more detail in that facilities plan, and goes to things like, um, the overall demand for for turfs in the metropolitan area, which is reflected in previous reports that we've made, the, uh, need for turfs to be viable, and the size of clubs necessary to sustain viability from from from a turf perspective, um, and also obviously the Perth Hockey Stadium development, which I think in the published version of the facilities plan, it indicates there might be three turfs. That was under discussion, I think, for a period. Hockey WA to, as far as we know, have confirmed that four turfs will be built. So whilst, uh, we've only had access to the facilities plan for a relatively short period, uh, the advice from Hockey WA that has been given to us is consistent with all of the things that are in that report, and we've reflected that in in the advice we've provided to elected members. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

Councillor Coveny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Hockey WA plan circulated on Friday refers to between three and five local clubs using the new facility. We were previously told it was three clubs utilizing the facility. Can you please shed some light on this?

Miss Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So WASPs is one of the three home clubs that are currently using Perth Hockey Stadium, and they received priority booking times for training sessions on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the senior and junior size, depending on the fixture obligations of their home games, and how it's scheduled at the venue. Um, so the current Perth Hockey Stadium provides access to the two international standard playing services, but the revised proposal for the new Australian High Performance Hockey Stadium, um, provides additional opportunities for the three clubs, being WASPs, Curtin, and Xavier, to, uh, use the facility and grow hockey. And the reason being is because they're providing the four, um, turfs and the two, um, additional playing pitches that they can use. So there's capacity for the existing three clubs to utilize the new centre with additional capacity to grow. Thank you, Miss Shaw.

Councillor Coveny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to confirm the answer to last week's, one of last week's questions, which was, can you confirm that Hockey WA hasn't publicly guaranteed the WASPs game time for every time they need it?

Miss Shaw, or Mr. Bradford?

No, Miss Shaw. Thank you. No, they have, and that would be subject to future fixtures by Hockey WA and the negotiations with the clubs. Thank you, Miss Shaw.

Councillors, what are we? Oh, we're back to against. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the alternate officer recommendation?

Councillor Nard.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Hockey WA's strategic facilities plan, um, overall indicated that hockey numbers, uh, have not changed over five years and have also suggested rationalization of artificial turfs and the use of multiport spaces with those turfs. They also took into account, uh, prospective school, uh, turf aspirations, and they also consider that, uh, there isn't a need for any further turf, um, arrangements in the inner-city areas, and that would be better if those were devolved somewhat. Well, I recognize WAS Hockey Club is well patronized, offers all ages playing teams, and has a long history of residence in the City of South Perth. That really is not an argument for claiming Coler Reserve as a new home when we know there is a myriad of tiny, uh, sporting groups that also warrant some consideration. I understand that should a synthetic turf be seriously considered, Richardson Park could actually be a feasible solution for that kind of an installation. Richardson Park train station remains ungazetted as a metropolitan transport initiative, so that would suggest Richardson Park is still an acceptable arrangement for WAS Hockey for some time to come. The proposal for WASPs at Coler Reserve will effectively tie the city to at least a 24-year commitment. I recognize large programs do need lead time, but visualizing the city even ten years from now would suggest that residential density will have increased quite considerably, and that we will be seeking every opportunity to have green space working to offer a livable environment for a growing city population. I note that the proposal for the 43 replacement trees in the documentation suggests that the trees would be placed on reserves, and that was a general description, not really saying located on Coler Reserve, so we may have the eternal issue of shifting the problem to some other city location. 43 mature trees, some of which are pines that offer a summer diet for black-tailed cockatoos, will need to be removed, and of course, replacing mature trees with saplings is somewhat an exercise in cynicism. And, uh, for those reasons, I, um, oppose the proposal. Thank you, Councillor Nard.

Councillors, is there Councillor Choy, a question or speaking?

I just have a question, please, Mr. Mayor.

Far away. Thank you. Just referring to a point raised by Councillor Nard. Um, I recall the city providing, um, some advice a bit a while back now, so I'm just wanting to see if this is correct or not, and I haven't, we haven't discussed it since, I don't believe, um, that the WAS Hockey Club were able now to install synthetic turf at Richardson Reserve if they so wanted to, but they didn't want to. That was my recollection. Can someone just remind us of what happened there, please?

In response, sorry, in response to a previous notice of motion, the city did look at other locations within the city, uh, and I don't have it in front of me, but in terms of Richardson, the original feasibility study for Richardson considered placing a turf in between the two hockey grounds, um, and that was determined as being not viable for a range of reasons. More recently, we had a suggestion by somebody who was actually involved, had knowledge of that, um, original feasibility study, and they suggested another location in in Richardson that would be closer to the the freeway side. Uh, so that was identified as as a possible location, but in, in our consideration, we did no detailed consideration of that, and I think in the report, we noted that there would be significant issues in considering any of the alternate sites, including Richardson, and that particular site of Richardson, it was quite complex in terms of land tenure and things like that. So that's about as far as we went. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

Councillor Brenda Brandis. I think was first there, uh, speaking or asking a question.

Asking a question. Far away. Uh, and this question follows on from, um, Councillor Bradford's response. So just with regard to, um, Richardson Oval, I understand from last week's agenda briefing, um, that the South Perth Baseball Club, it was noted that it was a winter sport, so therefore, you know, relocating it to Richardson might be acceptable. Could I please have some clarity whether that is in fact correct, and also whether there is actually capacity, um, at Richardson Oval, um, with competing, um, clubs and, um, scheduling to accommodate, um, the South Perth Baseball Club?

Miss Shaw, should I send that in your direction?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the question from last week, the preamble to the question was, could another winter sport, and it was referring to South Perth United Football Club, which is a winter sport, and then it said the baseball club. So South Perth United Football Club, as a winter sport, could potentially relocate to Richardson, but the baseball club is a summer sport, and therefore would not be able to go to Richardson because the cricket plays there. Thank you, Miss Shaw.

Councillor Brenda Brandis.

Thank you very much, and thank you, Director Shaw. So with regard to the baseball club, are there any options available to it with regard to this?

Miss Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We haven't looked into that further to see where they could be accommodated.

Mr. Bradford. Anything to add? Or the baseball could still be at least partly accommodated at Coler here and Collins Oval.

All right, thank you. Don't have to move.

Councillor Coveny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to clarify, does the city carry a financial risk for every club building on its land over the asset lifecycle?

Mr. Adams, should I send that your way?

Yes, so obviously, um, any asset on our land, um, requires, uh, the, um, city to, um, maintain it or, um, you know, have some place, um, some strategy in place for replacing it or, um, using another asset at the end of its, um, useful life to deliver the same services that are being delivered by that asset. So, um, all of the buildings on city land, um, do have some financial impact on the city. Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Councillor Coveny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, if the oldest club in our city, 90

Years suddenly decides to go belly up, uh, and it can't meet its maintenance costs in the long term. Can the city manage these costs with a bulldozer, Mr. Adams or Miss Am Prima? So, I mean, you know, the risks are what they are. I mean, how you deal with them in the future is a matter for a further council decision. But it's unlikely that an if an asset is built on C land that, um, if it's still got useful life, that the city's going to go and knock it down. In more, in more cases than not, the council or and the city would decide to, um, keep the asset running and delivering a service to the community. Um, so, um, it would be unlikely that an asset such as that with life left in it would simply be, um, bulldozed. Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Councillor Choy: Yes, thanks, Mr. Mayor. May I just wanted to turn back to my follow-up question from, um, uh, what I asked before about the synthetic turf of Richardson Reserve? As no real investigation has been undertaken, is it a possibility then, if this motion was to fail, that that is something that the city could further investigate?

Mr. Bradford: So, if this, if council resolved not to proceed with Colia, it would be open to council to decide to look at other options. Having said that, the city has recommended Perth Hockey Stadium as the likely site, uh, and also given that we have done a desktop review of other sites within the city and identified, I don't have the list in front of me, identified a number of possibilities. But I think we highlighted that each of them would have significant issues and each would require the relocation of existing users. So I think the reality is that there are very few spaces in the city, uh, that are suitable for hockey turf on land that is controlled by the city. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

Councillor: Is there someone who would like to speak in favor of the alternate council recommendation?

Councillor Pral: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, we have heard from a large cross-section of our community, and we've heard from elected members many times about this, uh, this topic. I would like to just acknowledge, um, the passion from the community, from everyone that has been involved in this item. My inbox, as I'm sure like other elected members, has exploded, um, which, uh, either way, I think is fantastic to hear from so many passionate members of our community. Um, I, like others, have done my best to respond to all of the emails. I do apologize to those residents if you didn't get a response, um, but it is hard to keep up sometimes. Please be rest assured that everything is read, everything is appreciated, um, that has been received, uh, tonight. I speak in support of this alternate officer recommendation, and I will speak to the points on the recommendation. I have previously spoken at length, length, uh, on other points on this topic, but I believe, uh, for this evening, it's important to stay on task, and our role is to deliberate and vote on what is in front of us. Um, a couple of points I'd like to make. Um, one of these has been consistency, and this has been touched on by some of the other elected members as well. Um, our consistency is, um, uh, is an element of vital importance, and as we look back on our history of, uh, this topic in particular, our city has supported this hockey club's endeavors for their future sustainability for over a decade. Um, we go back to 2012, um, where we, the City of South Perth, has, uh, approved contribution towards the search for this facility, um, covering the three elements that the club has from the very beginning told us and everybody that it requires for its future. They were told to look further than Richardson Park, expanding their search. 2015, they commissioned GHD to undertake a feasibility study on Richardson Park. 2019, we're approving applications, um, to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries for assistance in this feasibility study at Colia, um, and I note it was ranked as number one as a first priority. Um, and the response from the city was positive, noting the growing nature of the sport, its movement away from grass, and we know all of this. Um, unfortunately, um, for the hockey club, although Richardson Park may now be reconsidered as a possibility, they were told to move away from that and focus their efforts on Colia Reserve, and they were told this by the city. So that's what they did. Um, I think one of, well, the only inconsistent decision that was made was June last year. Um, there were some issues that arose through this process, and I think through the option to lease motion from February in 2024, a lot of this was, um, uh, was resolved. Um, there were a few, few things such as area being available for use by members of the general public for activities such as walking, dog exercise, other passive recreation facility activities were not in use, um, by WASPS. And again, in this motion, um, the financial risk was touched on, being that the club must demonstrate to the city's satisfaction it has secured funding. This has resulted in this, uh, option and this lease document that we see in front of us here. We are in September, we have the lease. Lot of work has gone into this, and I want to acknowledge and appreciate all the back and forth, um, and the work from the city and the club that has gone into this. It's a thorough document, um, and from my understanding and my reading through it, it, um, there are elements in there that free up the city from a lot of this risk.

Just like to touch, uh, on the high-performance hockey center. There has been contradicting information. We have heard from the city, um, that, you know, the offerings that the association and the high-performance hockey center will be offering, and we've heard different things from the club and different things again from other members of the community. I think it's unfortunate that we're not going to get the opportunity to hear directly from the association prior to this vote, but so be it. Um, we have heard also many people stating that this, uh, solution at the high-performance hockey center is the best solution, and it is a solution, and to some, it's the best solution. But it needs to be noted that for the hockey club, it's not the best solution, and they've made that very clear. And it's not for us or for anyone to sit here and say, of all that is...

Councillor: Five minutes. So I will move a motion that you be granted a further five minutes. Could someone? Councillor Coveny? Any seconding?

Councillor Coveny: Seconded.

Councillor: Thank you. Councillors, please cast your votes on a motion that Councillor Pral will be granted a further five minutes to speak. And that was unanimous. Uh, please continue, Councillor Pral.

Councillor Pral: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, like I said, I just think it needs to be noted that although there are many solutions on the table, and some are best for some, uh, groups of the community, and some are best for others, um, the high-performance hockey center has a great offering, um, and we are lucky to have that in Perth. Um, but it needs to be noted that it's not the best solution according to the hockey club, and I think the WASPS are the best people to recognize the best solution for them. That being said, um, going through this lease, the document, I believe, lands all of the risk on the hockey club and not really on the city. It covers things like, um, the liable costs or expenses in relation to the premises or anything occurring on the premises, the development contributions towards development, financial or otherwise, and all risks associated with the development work, including, without limitation, financing, designing, constructing, all landing on, um, on the club itself. The, uh, and also removal of improvements, provision to make good is outlined in point eight of the lease as well. So for these, uh, the lease itself, and what's in the alternate officer recommendation that we are deliberating on this evening, um, I support this alternate officer recommendation. Thank you.

Councillor: Thank you, Councillor Pral. Councillors, Councillor Brandis, question or speaking?

Councillor Brandis: Question. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Um, could the administration just please, uh, advise with regard to those last comments made by Councillor Pral, with regard to the lease and, um, obviously the proposal is the development by WASPS, and therefore some of those, um, items that would be attached to their development, uh, for this lease, would should reside with them? Um, could the administration just confirm that that's, uh, appropriate, um, given that the city would not be, uh, developing and constructing the site, and then therefore it's appropriate they reside with, with WASPS?

Councillor: Sorry, Councillor Brandis, I didn't quite understand that question. Um, could you have another go at that, please?

Councillor Brandis: Yeah, so, um, Councillor Pral indicated that there were certain aspects in the lease which were unfair or inappropriately, um, burdened on WASPS, and some of those refer to, you know, additional, um, costs, make good, or, um, any other liabilities sort of attached with the actual, uh, development. So if the city could advise if this is fairly standard and appropriate, given that the WASPS are actually developing or would be developing, uh, and constructing, um, this infrastructure? Thank you.

Mr. Adams: Yes, so, um, we, uh, only put into the lease, um, uh, clauses which we felt were appropriate in terms of protecting, um, the city's interests. I, I would, um, disagree with the comments that say that they go too far. I mean, they do, um, put, um, a lot of the risk back onto the club, but, um, I guess that, as you say, is because the club is the one doing the development, the club is the one requesting the development, and, uh, the club, um, needs to be, uh, responsible for, um, addressing, um, those risks rather than, um, the city being liable for those risks. Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Councillor Choy: I think was first, then Councillor Pral, uh, speaking or asking a question.

Councillor Choy: Question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Far away. Um, look, there's been repeated mentions of consistency tonight, and I'm just wondering, um, because I recall that the city has already addressed this, um, in terms of that things have changed over the course of time since this was first presented to council, I think back in 2020, um, and new information, new opportunities have arisen, and perhaps that's why, uh, those changes have been made, and, you know, we've had to be flexible and, um, and move with those changes and recommendations that have come forth from the city. Is that correct?

Mr. Bradford: So, let me say, is the question that there have been changes since the, over the time this has been considered? Yes, there have been changes. Uh, the, I, well, before my time in the city, I think one of the guiding factors for certainly the 2016 decision to look to Colia was the desire, the potential for a South Perth train station, um, and that, I think a South Perth train station is still likely to happen at some point, but the urgency for that has, has, has gone. And in any case, the actual impact on Richardson Park of, of a train station is something for future consideration. So, so I think that's changed. Uh, the biggest change from my perspective is that I think, uh, yes, the Perth Hockey Stadium has been subject to, uh, upgrades at various points in time, but importantly, after the detailed feasibility study was delivered, I think in late 2022, after that, um, the state government first announced they were bidding for, uh, the retention of the high-performance hockey center, I think in October 2022, and then in December, I think the 2nd of December 2022, it was announced that it had been retained. For me, that's the single biggest change that has occurred, and that has, that has, uh, been reflected in the city's advice. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.

Councillor Pral: I think you had your hand up as well. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify earlier. I know, um, Councillor Brandis mentioned, I think I referred to the, um, uh, items in the lease as inappropriate or, um, I just want to clarify that that's not what I said or meant. I just, I was just outlining that it was putting risk back onto the club and not the city, but I didn't, I didn't want to make any mention that I believe that those, um, areas of the lease were inappropriate at all. Thanks.

Councillor: Thank you for clarifying that, Councillor Pral. Councillor Coveny, a question?

Councillor Coveny: Good question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A few questions. Is it correct that there's been no material change in circumstances between the June '23 ordinary council meeting to date?

Mr. Adams or Mr. Bradford? Oh, what circumstances? Any material change in circumstances that would affect this motion since June 2023? Did you say that's right? When this came back to council after, I think the feasibility study?

Mr. Bradford: So, we've received more information from Hockey WA on what they were offering. Trying to think what else may have changed. Director Shaw might have some additional points.

Director Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It was confirmed in February of this year that there would be four turfs developed, which would provide the access.

Councillor Coveny: Thank you. I understand that the briefing meeting last week, we were told that there's been no material change in circumstances since February '24. Is that correct?

Director Shaw: Yes, that's correct.

Councillor: All right. Uh, councillors, up to against. Okay. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the alternate?

Councillor Choy: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I initially prepared a lengthy speech for tonight's discussion, but I've chosen to forego that in light of the fact that this item has come before council multiple times already over the years, for which I've already spoken to the issues as I saw them, and which unfortunately, um, appears unchanged. In fact, we've just discussed tonight and gone over again tonight the new information and new facts that have, that have, um, and opportunities that have arisen over the last, um, year. So, as educated and insightful individuals, we all understand the nuances of what is being proposed and the inherent risk of proceeding with this alternative recommendation again, and against the officers' recommendation. We are fortunate to be surrounded by engaged and knowledgeable residents, too many of whom have invested considerable time and effort in crafting and presenting detailed submissions for this council to consider and aid in our decision-making. These contributions have addressed a wide range of issues related to the proposal at hand, from the increasing demand and challenges associated with the provision of club facilities, both single and shared, best practices in project management, to environmental impact assessments. The city has provided us with important information and further advice on this proposal too, including potential project management challenges and financial risks, both known and anticipated. Unfortunately, no environmental impact studies have been undertaken for this proposal, nor, I recall, anywhere requested, and this lack of impact knowledge and verification does raise concerns. Although we did hear this evening that the city's proposed urban greening strategy will likely be impacted, throughout our discussions, it's become increasingly clear that public open space is a diminishing resource in South Perth, particularly in Colia, as, as highlighted by the statistics presented by officers last week. Our local government will undoubtedly face growing pressure from the community in the coming months and years regarding the use and potential rationalization of public open spaces across our district. The state's infill mandate has not helped matters. Additionally, we must be continuously mindful of the issue of expectation and how our actions and statements, both as a local, as a local government entity and as individual council members, can influence community perceptions and aspirations. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the contributions of the WASPS Hockey Club, the Friends of Colia Reserve, and others in the community who have participated on this item and aided in our discussions and deliberations. It has been truly valuable, um, to hear from everyone and gain that all-round perspective. I trust that through our debate tonight, by carefully considering all the evidence and testimonials presented, we'll make a decision as a council that serves the best interest of the community and this local government. Thank you.

Councillor: Thank you, Councillor Choy. Councillors, is there any anyone who would like to speak in favor of the alternate officer recommendation who hasn't already spoken?

Councillor: No.

Councillor: Is there anyone else who would like to speak against?

Councillor Brandis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I support active recreation and the role it plays in the community, and the significant role that the WASPS and Wesley College contribute to the city. I support the WASPS Hockey Club having a permanent location with a collocated hockey facility. The lease option is not feasible. I do not support the lease option for many reasons, but summarized with regard to waste, cost, environment, and exclusivity. I also support a community that considers public open space as invaluable for many reasons, and the requirement that this retains public access for passive and active use. The officers' recommendation is clear, and it was in July '23, February '24, and now September '24. I understand the city's concerns and have no valid reason to oppose their recommendation. There are numerous existing users at Colia Reserve: the South Perth Junior Cricket Club, the South Perth United Football Club, the South Perth Baseball Club, two occasional soccer groups, a multitude of local people using it to recreate actively, people walking their dogs. The space is invaluable. Currently, we have about 43,000 people living in the city, and it's expected to increase to about 62,000 people by 2050. This is a 43% increase in our population. Under the Perth appeal at 3.5 million, currently the active public open spaces are around about 5 square meters per person, and with this population increase alone, it will reduce to about 3.3 meters, and this is below the recommended guidelines of 6.5 meters for active public open space. And this will further reduce with exclusive area closed off for the proposed WASPS hockey stadium. That's 12,000 meters that will be lost. Colia has 2.97% public open space under the local planning scheme, and city-wide it's only 4%. The loss of the public open space on Colia Reserve will reduce Colia's public open space by a further 7.5%. The city is established with limited to no opportunity to access or acquire additional public open space. Environmental sustainability has not been considered. This project didn't consider sustainability measures in context of heat island impact, the scale of the concrete infrastructure, the synthetic turfs, and the waste of resources in replicating facilities and playing turfs. Taking into consideration, uh, there will be a Perth Hockey Center within 1 kilometer, there could potentially be additional turfs at the Colia Secondary College, as with Aquinas. The environmental, the environmental sustainability has been disregarded to this effect. The loss of trees is a concern. We heard from the South Perth Tree Canopy Advocates, and the city's tree canopy cover is less than 16%. Approximately 40-plus mature trees will be removed for this development. The size and the scale of the canopy cover to, uh, replace that will take a significant time. The adverse environmental impact and effects with regard to the synthetics were raised in the agenda briefing, and this included urban heat, permeability of water, toxicity to soil microbiology and contamination runoff, and we should not be increasing, um, these type of facilities when shared uses could be replicated on one location. The proposal does not consider environmental impacts to the threatened black cockatoo. The habitat impact assessment has not taken into consideration the loss of habitat vegetation and the fragmentation of habitat that impacts the endemic black cockatoo. Any local development impact that is likely to have a direct impact on cockatoos, either through roosting or foraging, should be given a high priority. This impact on cockatoos may be due to loss of vegetation, increased heat island temperatures, artificial lighting, or car strikes with regard to the increased vehicle activity, and this is not uncommon in the city. The Perth Peel Carnaby population makes up a majority of the species, and the Kip Park roost is the most populous south of the river on the Swan Coastal Plain. The feasibility study does not...

Councillor: That's five minutes. But I will move a motion that you be granted a further five minutes. Seconded by Councillor Souza.

Councillor: Thank you. Councillors, please cast your votes on a motion that Councillor Brandis be granted a further five minutes to speak. And that was unanimous. Thank you, Councillor Brandis. Please continue.

Councillor Brandis: Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Um, the physical study is not considered environmental sustainability in context of the endemic threatened black cockatoos. This development is a high cost to the ratepayers of the city and also a financial risk. The city is expected to incur significant capital costs with this development, which would otherwise be no cost if shared facilities at the proposed Australian Hockey Center were considered, and some of those costs, we've heard about. So long-term renewal costs, subsequent operating costs, infrastructure costs, car park lighting upgrades, these are all costs that would actually be borne by the ratepayers of the city, which could otherwise be not incurred at all if the shared facility was going to be used. This option represents a very high cost for a single-use asset on Crown Land vested in the city. The opportunity cost for the city in incurring these additional capital costs, which could otherwise be saved, could very well impact other infrastructure developments, including the possibility of multi-use indoor sports courts or the upgrade, um, of other existing infrastructure, which we are aware that there are quite a lot of aging infrastructure in the city that does need capital expenditure. The estimated $14.8 million cost for this proposal, um, is a concern. The financial viability is a concern. We only have one major donor of $200,000, and the likelihood of achieving, um, state grant funding, as we've heard tonight, is highly unlikely, given the fact that this would be a single-use asset, and the development of the Australian Hockey Center within the 1 kilometer would negate any additional grants for this project. So the financial viability is a concern. Um, we also need to consider this in context of there's been no escalation to the cost. So if we look at the ABS Building Construction Industries, so from Quarter 2 2023 to Quarter 2 2024, one year, there's an 11.5% increase in the construction indices, and that's only one year. Now, it might not be the same rate of, of increase over the three-year period we're talking about, but even if it was only 11.5% over the entire three-year period, cumulative compounding, we'd be talking about an additional $1.7 million. So, and that is something that has not been factored in. This is a single-use development, um, and the project is not justified on that basis. I consider $15 million to be a very high price to pay for hockey pitches in one location when you have the access to all of this for free under a state-of-the-art facility for $135 million, which is going to be covered, including operating costs and all capital costs. The city have previously advised that, uh, Hockey WA have indicated that the following would be provided to WASPS, including significant access to fixtures, um, priority access for training for junior and senior teams, meeting rooms, function rooms, um, the conduct of the summer holiday hockey programs. There will be no outgoings with regard to lease and license fees, and no repairs or maintenance cost, to name a few. Other alternatives do present themselves which have not been given due consideration at this point in time. The Colia Secondary College, which is in desperate need of funding and capital injection, um, also the Aquinas College, um, potential development there as well, uh, where it's been indicated that Councillor Brus, potential for a multi-purpose category four service surface turf is on the agenda. The community have spoken. The community have spoken about financial viability, environmental sustainability, the loss of open space, community recreating aspects, and also the loss to the other clubs and sporting groups, the endemic black cockatoo, the ongoing city capital costs which could be, could be avoided if the sharing of the Australian Hockey Center was to be used. We've heard from user groups including CPRA, the South Perth Community Group, the Friends of Colia Reserve, South Perth Tree Canopy Advocates, and the South Perth United Football Club. They've all spoken in favor of retaining that public open space, um, for these reasons. I cannot support, um, this motion. Um, I consider that the best option is before us with regard to the Australian Hockey Center. Um, I have considered this based on its merits. That's time, Councillor Brandis.

Councillor: All right, councillors, is there anyone who wishes to speak either for or against the alternate officer recommendation who hasn't already spoken?

Councillor Souza: Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wish to speak against. Firstly, just want to say it's great that we have so many people, um, turn up tonight. I think it's important and local democracy is well served by having, um, what's been at least for the, for the most part, a respectful debate, um, with, with, um, very firm views expressed on both sides, a robust debate. But I hope we can get some resolution on this matter tonight. So, firstly, want to say I'm not, um, affiliated to the Friends of Colia Reserve or the WASPS or any group party to this issue tonight. I, I come to this issue with an open mind. In fact, when, when council was considering, um, to end this process, um, in July, June 2023, um, I actually voted against that and supported the WASPS to keep the issue going, um, in order to give the WASPS more time. However, in my mind, in the last 15 months, there have been significant changes in the policy environment. Three, three major things pop to mind for me. The first is we have more clarity around the access and use of the high-performance center at Curtin. The second is the, um, escalating costs, as Councillor Brandis has mentioned. And the third is the potential for, um, Comen Senior High School to have turfs of their own. And, um, and you add to that the fact that Aquinas might also potentially have some, after pouring $135 million into the Curtin, um, facility, I think it's extremely unlikely the state government would fund anything further hockey-related in a nearby radius. I think WASPS would also, um, understand and agree with that. And as I've mentioned, the, the fact that Comen and Aquinas might get further turfs, again, speculative, I agree, but the fact that that's even been considered would further add weight to the fact that, um, saturation of turfs would undercut fiscal viability going forward. Now, the costings in 2022 were about $15 million, and given the escalation in material costs and building costs, this would probably be closer to $17 million, and at the end of the three-year option to lease, should that proceed, it might even get up to to $20 million. And if we assume Wesley cover half of that, it still leaves $7 to $10 million for the WASPS to find. And I, I don't envy this task. It is, it is an invidious task, position that WASPS are in to find that amount of cash, and I commend them on securing $200,000 to date, but $7 to $10 million is, is a long way off. And even, even some, a group as well-resourced as, as a council like us, as the City of South Perth, would struggle to find and justify, um, $10 million plus of cash on a single infrastructure bill. My guiding principle, um, my North Star on the seven years of being on this council has always been responsible financial management, and a big part of that is being mindful of long-term financial risk. Having done my due diligence and carefully listened respectfully to both sides of the debate last week, I unfortunately can't support the option to lease proceeding. And it, it pains me to say this and do this, it really does, because WASPS is a fantastic club, and I was moved by the personal experiences relayed last week, and in the past, WASPS have unfairly been thrust into this, this tense public debate, and I did support them in, in June, July last year, but my duty is, is to the city as a whole. I, I really wish there was a different set of circumstances. If there was no high-performance center going forward, and no potential for Comen Senior High School or Aquinas building their own turf, um, this is a different ball game. This is a slam dunk for WASPS, but that's not how the cards have fallen, and I'm really sorry, WASPS, um, I'm really sorry for WASPS that this has occurred in this way, and I guess that's the irony in terms of the difficulty of public life. We have to make tough decisions like this, and that's where I agree with Councillor Coveny. This is not something that I think any counselor on this council has come to, um, easily. I think public service is about making these tough, these tough calls, and we have to, um, sort of make them and stand by them because we can't always please everyone all the time, and I can only deal with, with the issues in front of me and, and the merits as they stand, and in discharging my duty to, to protect the city's best interests and the best interests of the ratepayers, um, I, I can't support the option to lease. Thank you.

Councillor: That's almost five minutes for me. Would someone be kind enough, uh, I think Councillor Brandis was first, seconded by Councillor Coveny. Councillors, please cast your votes as to whether I'll be granted another five minutes to speak.

Councillor: That was unanimous. And, and thank you, councillors, for the indulgence. It's not clear to me why Hockey WA and WASPS have what appear to be such different positions, but we are obliged to make decisions based on the information before us. WASPS have argued that their needs can't be properly met at Perth Hockey Stadium. They've argued that the survival of their club depends on a collocation of a clubhouse, grass playing fields, and synthetic turf fields. I absolutely accept that access to synthetic turf playing fields is a need for a modern, financially sustainable hockey club. I accept the arguments that WASPS have been losing players to rival clubs that have better access to synthetic turf. I might be wrong, but I'm not as persuaded that exclusive access to co-located club rooms, grass playing, sorry, grass playing fields and synthetic turf is a strict necessity for a modern, financially sustainable hockey club. Can certainly see why that's an advantage, and I can see why WASPS would want it, but I don't think I can disregard what Hockey WA has had to say. I, I won't go on too much longer, um, but I, I will note that I would have required a substantial guarantor to WASPS' obligations under the option and the proposed lease, preferably one with fairly deep pockets. Councillor Pral, I think quite rightly noted that most of the risk under the proposed transaction was sitting on WASPS' shoulders, but WASPS probably don't have sufficient assets to meet their potential obligations under the lease in the event that things go pear-shaped. That, that is absolutely not a criticism of WASPS. It would be surprising if a local sporting club did have assets of that scale, but I don't think that absolves council of our responsibility to ensure that the city has adequate security against obligations owed to the city. So, to conclude, um, if the high-performance hockey center was not going ahead, my vote may well have been different, albeit with some proposed changes to the draft lease. If Hockey WA wasn't offering WASPS the terms that they seem to be offering to WASPS, noting that, you know, nothing's certain or agreed at this stage, again, my vote may well have been different. I have a great deal of affection for WASPS, that's, that's no secret. Um, I've, I've always, you know, been upfront about that. I, I have a great deal of affection for, uh, great many of the sitting sporting clubs and associations, but I, I have a duty to do what I, I think is in the best interests of our community as a whole, regardless of the personal affection that I have for WASPS. I will be voting against the alternate officer recommendation. Then, um, someone, I'll foreshadow the officer recommendation. If the alternate officer recommendation is not carried, then I will be moving the officer recommendation. That's all we've, we've all spoken. Councillor W was the was the mover of the alternate officer recommendation. If she would like to do so, Councillor W, you have five minutes to rebut any arguments made during the debate.

Councillor W: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, we have, uh, heard a lot of statements that have been made on behalf of other organizations and other government departments and the like, um, and it is unfortunate that this council will not have the opportunity to consider information from them directly. Um, I note that a lot of things that have been raised tonight I would consider irrelevant, and, uh, and as I said earlier, this, we do not have any information before us in respect to funding. We don't have a detailed costing. We don't have a development application before us. We don't have information from the high-performance hockey center as to what has been or what has not been offered, other than what has been told to us, uh, secondhand. This, I think my colleague, uh, Councillor Souza, Souza, thank you. My colleague Councillor Souza said that we must deal with the issues in front of us, and he is 100% right. We must deal with the issues that are in front of us, and as I said earlier, the issues in front of us are the option and the lease. We do not have a development application in front of us. We do not have an application for construction of anything. We do not have an application for removal of trees. Uh, we do not have any, um, costings or any anything in front of us that can enable us to make a decision on those grounds. I do note that, uh, that Councillor Brandis spoke in respect to the loss of public open space, and I do 100% accept the, uh, public open space, um, issues, but as a result of infill development, that is something that will continue. However, every time you lose something, you gain something, and we're not losing public open space to a development or more housing when we're losing a public open space to gain an active sports space, an active sports space, then we are gaining a community facility. And, and I applaud you to consider that. But once again, I'm just going to come straight back to it. Tonight is about an option and a lease. So again, tempting as it may be to conflate this with all of the other issues that have been raised, it does not reflect good decision-making. The item in front of us requires the assessment of the terms of the documents, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you.

Councillor: Thank you, Councillor W. Uh, councillors, I'm about to put the alternate officer recommendation to the vote, noting that I have foreshadowed that if the alternate officer recommendation fails, I will be moving the officer recommendation. So, with that in mind, please cast your votes on the alternate officer recommendation.

Councillor: All right, the votes are in. The alternate officer recommendation has been lost, three votes to five. Those who voted in favor were Councillor W, Councillor Coveny, and Councillor Pral. Those who voted against were Councillor Brandis, Councillor Choy, Councillor Souza, and myself, Mayor Milner.

Councillor: Okay. Uh, no, no, no, folks, folks, that will be deeply disappointing for a large section of our community. Let's be respectful, even if, you know, some people in the gallery might be happy with the result, there are a large number of people that are not happy with the result. So, I indicated that I would move the officer recommendation. That's the one that's appearing at page eight of the agenda. Uh, I'll see if anyone's willing to second that.

Councillor Brandis: Councillor Brandis.

Councillor: Councillors, I don't have anything else to say that I haven't already spoken. Um, I haven't enjoyed having to make this decision, but I've done what I think is in the best interest of the community. Um, the, the arguments have been made on both sides, and with the alternate officer recommendation having not been carried, then it remains to carry the officer recommendation. That's all I've got to say.

Councillor Brandis: Councillor Brandis, anything that you'd like to say?

Councillor Brandis: No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've said enough tonight. Thank you.

Councillor: All right. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the officer recommendation?

Councillor Coveny: Just a question, Mr. Mayor. Do we, in relation to point two of this item, in relation to the CEO continuing to work with WASPS and Hockey WA to provide a home at the high-performance center, is there, is there not already a requirement for the CEO to do that? So, in not passing this motion, that still continues regardless.

Mr. Adams or Miss Shaw, who should I send that to?

Mr. Adams: Mr. Adams. Yeah.

Councillor: I'm not sure if that was...

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, there's no obligation for the city to continue to work with the WASPS to facilitate discussions between the WASPS and Hockey WA. That was provided there, should council seek to, uh, request the CEO to continue to have those discussions, and to, I suppose, represent WASPS in discussions with Hockey WA as to their access requirements to the Australian High Performance Hockey Center. So, if it was the case that that section had have been removed, it would have been the case that council would have resolved not to grant the option to lease, and the city would not engage further with WASPS about their potential location or use of the Australian High Performance Hockey Center. To just be clear, we're not representing WASPS in discussions, but, but, uh, we think that from a community perspective, that Hockey WA or the local clubs and the city should be working together to get the best outcome for all, all concerned, and we think that's a valid thing to occur. Thank you, Council. Sorry.

Miss Shaw: Thank you, Miss Shaw.

Mr. Bradford: And Mr. Bradford.

Councillor Coveny: Thank you. Sorry, just to be clear. So, if council doesn't resolve this motion, then the city won't be a part of the discussions with Hockey WA and, while in relation to the center, uh, the city will continue to have discussions with Hockey WA. We have offered to participate in discussions with Hockey WA, so thus far they have declined that offer. But we think it is in the interest of the entire community of South Perth, of the city, WASPS, and Hockey WA to work together for the best outcome at Perth Hockey Stadium, but also at Richardson Park as well.

Councillor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Bradford. Councillors, is there anyone who wishes to speak against the officer recommendation?

Councillor W: Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I'm, um, going to raise a point of order, and I have raised this earlier, and I do, um, appreciate that perhaps people didn't quite understand, um, but I find myself in a very difficult position at the moment, because the motion that was passed in February requests the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a deed granting an option. The recommendation that is provided to us now is resolves not to grant an option. Clause 16.2 of the standing orders says that the council or committee is not to consider a motion to revoke or change a decision where at the time the motion is moved or notice is given, any action has been taken under Clause 16.3 to implement the decision. And then the sub-clause two says the council or a committee may consider a motion to revoke or change the decision if the motion is accompanied by a written statement of the legal or financial consequences of carrying the motion. So, I, as I raised earlier, I am concerned about the legality of the officer recommendation, and for that reason, um, I will be abstaining from voting on this item.

Councillor: I don't think you can abstain from voting, Councillor W. To leave the chamber if you require me to do so. Well, it's not me, it's the Local Government Act that says pretty clearly that a councillor can't abstain from voting. Uh, it can if it's unlawful, though. I, I'll defer to Mr. Adams on this, Councillor W, but I don't think the officer recommendation is unlawful.

Mr. Adams: So, I believe that, um, the last decision that council made was, uh, with regard to the option to lease and the lease agreement. So, council have already voted on that. So, um, going with the officer recommendation, um, in my view, doesn't, um, revoke anything. So, as I previously stated, um, that the previous motion that referred to was to prepare a lease and an option to lease, and I would have thought the purpose of...

Bringing it back to council was for council to vote on, um, whether to proceed with it. Council just voted not to. Um, so, um, I don't see how the officer recommendation, um, which is not to proceed, can be revoking, um, that particular motion.

Thank you, Mr. Adams. Uh, Councillor War, if, if you wanted to leave the chamber, I understand, subject to anything that Government saw or Mr. Adams has to say, that is an option available to you. Is, is that something you wish to do now?

Yes, I will. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

All right. I'll give you a moment. I probably should have asked this while, um, while Councillor War was still in the room, but, uh, that's permissible under the Local Government Act and the, uh, relevant regulations. I know the Department of Local Government doesn't like it, but, uh, if she's on the room, she can't vote. All right. Thank you.

Well, in that case, councillors, is there anyone who wishes to speak against the officer recommendation? No. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favour? No. Um, well, there being no debate, uh, I'll simply put the officer recommendation to the vote.

All right. So the, the votes are now in. Um, the officer recommendation has been carried unanimously. Thank you, councillors. Again, folks, please, uh, some of you may be quite pleased by that decision, but there's, there's a substantial number of our community who will be bitterly upset with that decision. So let's, let's not, let's not celebrate what in the chamber. Uh, I think now might be a good idea, uh, to have a 10-minute adjournment. Um, it's, we've been at it for a while now, so I'm going to ask everyone to reconvene in the chamber at 10 minutes to 9.

All right, folks. We, we're reconvening. So if people can please take their places. The next item to be withdrawn for discussion this evening is item 10.4.2, entitled Monthly Financial Statements, August 2024 and Carry Forward Budget Adjustments. Uh, there's an officer recommendation before us. I haven't received any amended or alternative motions. An absolute majority is required for paragraph two of the officer recommendation. Is anyone willing to move the officer recommendation?

Councillor Coveny. Thank you.

Someone to second?

Councillor Brenda Brandis. Thank you.

Councillor Coveny, uh, the floor is yours if you would like to speak.

No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, uh, and Councillor War hasn't returned to the chamber yet. If we need to note that for minutes. Uh, Councillor Coveny, nothing to say.

Councillor Brenda Brandis?

No, nothing further to say, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Does anyone wish to speak for or against the officer recommendation?

No.

Uh, in that case, there being no need to, uh, for Councillor Coveny to wind up, I'll simply put the officer recommendation for the vote. Councillors, please cast your votes on item 10.4.2.

And that was unanimous. And, and Councillor War has rejoined us. So, uh, that one's done. Moving on to item 10.5.4, entitled Policy Review. We do have an alternative motion from Councillor Choy.

Councillor Dusa.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move into German. But before I do, just want to clarify with governance that, um, an adjournment of debate is the, the preferred option as opposed to a deferral for, um, for this item. As Mr. Bradford just said, the debate on this item hasn't yet started. It hasn't been moved or seconded. We could, uh, defer at this stage. Is that what you'd like to do? Will, would you specifically want an adjournment for some reason?

Well, I mean, provided that there's no, no issues in terms of, um, time frames, I'd like to propose we defer this item to come back at next month's OCM.

Right. Uh, I will ask a question at this point. There's, I know we have to do a review of delegations every 12 months, but policies, I don't think we have to. There's, there's no reason why a deferral would be problematic.

No.

Okay. You'd like to defer this item until the, the next ordinary council meeting. Okay.

Is anyone wanting to second that?

I, I saw two hands go up there. Councillor Dard and Councillor Choy.

Far away.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'm just wondering, could we defer it to a workshop? Because I think there may be some queries around a couple of the policies.

I don't think we can direct the, the administration to do that as part of a procedural motion, but I have no problem with it administratively. Mr. Bradford? Mr. Adams?

If it's the, we will include discussion on this at one of the workshops we've got scheduled between now and next month's OCM.

That would be great. Thank you.

All right. So, uh, Councillor Dusa has moved a deferral of this item into next ordinary council meeting. Councillor Nad seconding. All right. Um, Councillor Dusa, you are able to speak and give your reasons, but otherwise, there is no debate. If you'd like to speak and give your reasons.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Very briefly. Um, we've had a massive, um, night tonight regarding the, the wasp's proposal that's been, um, at least for myself and I, I assume the majority of councillors, the majority of our workload over the past couple of weeks. Um, I haven't been able to give due consideration to this item, so more time, I think, is in order for us to give, um, valid consideration to this issue. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Dusa. Okay, folks. It's a procedural motion to defer until the next ordinary council meeting. That means that there's, there's no further debate on the item. I'll simply put the council's motion that we defer until the next ordinary council meeting to the vote. Please cast your votes.

And that was carried, seven votes to one. Uh, for the benefit of those listening via YouTube and for the minutes, uh, those in favour were Councillor Brenda Brandis, Councillor Choy, Councillor Dusa, Councillor Nad, Councillor Prenal, Councillor War, and, and myself, Mayor Milner. Those against were Councillor Coveny. Uh, the item has been deferred until next ordinary council meeting. That concludes item 10. We now move on to item 11, which is Applications for Leave of Absence. I haven't received any ahead of the meeting. Does anyone wish to?

Councillor Brenda Brandis. Yes, please, Mr. Mayor. Um, if I could, um, apply for a leave of absence from the 23rd of October until the 30th of November, inclusive.

Right. 30th of November, inclusive. Was that October or November?

Sorry? Yes. So from the 23rd of October until the 30th of November.

Of November. Okay. Any other leave of absence applications, folks?

No.

Okay. In that case, I will shortly call for a move and a seconder that the leave of absence application received from Councillor Andre Brenda Brandis for the period of 23 October 2024 to 30 November 2024 inclusive be granted. Could I have a move, please?

Councillor Choy.

And seconded by Councillor Coveny. Uh, councillors, does anyone oppose this?

No.

In that case, I all declare that carried unanimously. We now move on to item 12, which is Motions of which previous notice has been given. Um, item 12.1 is a notice of motion from Councillor Andre Brenda of Brandis, entitled Local Heritage Survey Review, Independent Consultant Review. I have declared a proximity and financial interest in this matter, which means that I will need to leave the room for the duration of the debate and the vote on this item. Um, under the circumstances, I, I'll ask Councillor War to please take my place as presiding member, and if someone could remember to come and get me once the item's done, that would be very much appreciated. I'll see you all soon.

Right. Uh, thank you. Um, we have item 12.1, being a notice of motion from Councillor Brenda Brandis, uh, relating to the local heritage survey review, independent consultant review. Now, I note that we, not only have the notice of motion in front of us, but we also have a suggested officer recommendation at page 70. Um, so if somebody could please, um, move one of those motions and let me know which one they intend.

Councillor Brenda Brandis. Yes, I'll actually just move the notice of motion that I put forward.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Brenda Brandis. Do I have somebody to second that?

Councillor Nad. Thank you.

Councillor Brenda Brandis, you may speak for motion.

Okay. Uh, thank you very much. The notice of motion with regard to local heritage survey, independent consultant review, is that Council one, requests the Chief Executive Officer to appoint an independent heritage consultant to review the public nominations received per agenda item 10.3.1, Local Heritage Survey Review, 27th of August 2024, Ordinary Council Meeting, during the call for nominations to determine their classification and inclusion in the local heritage survey, and two, amends the 2024-25 budget to include an allocation of $80,000 for the independent heritage consultant to review and assess the public nominations received for the local heritage survey. Thank you.

Uh, Councillor Brenda Brandis. Councillor Nad, did you wish to speak?

Thank you, Councillor War. Sorry, my apologies. Carry on, Councillor Brenda Brandis.

And thank you very much, Deputy Mayor. The reason, uh, for this change are firstly, the 28th May 2024 Ordinary Council Meeting report recommended endorsement of the draft local heritage survey and proposed place records for advertising, but was deferred for another workshop to be facilitated prior to the 27th of August 2024 OCM, where the matter was further debated and adjourned until the December 2024 OCM. At 27 August 2024 Ordinary Council Meeting, the administration noted the expectation for me, Councillor Brenda or Brandis, to separately present a notice of motion providing direction for the engagement of an external independent heritage consultant to undertake a review of the new place nominated properties for inclusion in the draft local heritage survey. Community members have invested a significant amount of time nominating properties for consideration and inclusion in the draft local heritage survey, and have also prepared the listed local heritage properties with neighbouring metropolitan local governments. The comparison of the city's draft local heritage listing to neighbouring local governments has raised concerns as to the assessment process and consequently categorization of nominated properties. Of the 33 new place nominations, only two have been identified for a categorization level two, and none have been identified for categorization at a level one, prior to the endorsement of the draft local heritage survey, the proposed place records for advertising at the December 2024 Ordinary Council Meeting. A review by an accredited heritage consultant should be undertaken to ensure an independent and objective assessment is undertaken to confirm the appropriate categorization of new place nominations prior to the endorsement of the draft local heritage survey, the proposed place records for advertising at the December 2024 Ordinary Council Meeting. A review by an accredited heritage consultant should be undertaken to ensure independence and improved governance around the review process for potential properties to be included in the local heritage survey. The review should provide independence as to review methodology, be based on objective criteria, criteria, and confirm the categorization appropriateness of new place nominations. I'm quite aware with the, with the procurement process that that may not very well be achieved in December, and that the review process is not necessarily, um, a, a result that would actually defer the actual advertising, um, that will be taking place, um, and that they're the reasons for this motion tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brenda Brandis. Councillor Nad, would you like to speak now?

Thank you, Councillor War. Um, I really was only going to be quite brief about this, and that was to say that, um, because there's been a level of contention and somewhat disappointment, I think it's important that we have, not only confidence in in the current review process, but they were also being seen to be, um, doing it correctly. And therefore, I think, um, if this were to, uh, go ahead, then it's still a pretty good investment for, um, a level, an extra level of transparency. So that's why I'm quite keen to have this happen. Thank you.

Uh, now, is there anybody wishes to speak against the motion?

Councillor Coveny. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Last week, a motion was passed for council to allocate $200,000 in the 25-26 budget for concept plans for Cou Street, no, to at the for show for a recommendation that the administration had made themselves several years prior. Councillor Brenda Brandis's reasoning for voting against the motion was that it was not within the budget cycle and that we've had many workshops around budget time. Now, council's indulgence is sought to allocate a further $80,000 of a budget which has already been set for an exercise our administration has already undertaken. I can't support this motion in good faith. Respectfully, I don't see it as a good use of ratepayer funds, especially outside the budget cycle. Thank you.

Councillor Coveny. Does anybody wish to speak for the motion?

Question. Oh, yes. Councillor Pille. Question. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Um, just for some clarification. Our, the, what has been done so far is we have, um, the group of dwellings that, um, the administration had put together, and that was to go out for advertising, and we have $10,000 in the budget currently for any independent reviews. Um, can the administration please just clarify if that's correct, and where does the $80,000 come from that's in this notice of motion here? Thank you.

Councillor Pille. Director Shaw. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So, what's happened today is that the city has undertaken a review of all of the existing places that are currently on the local heritage inventory, and all we've done is we've changed the category of those places to the new terminology. So where they were category B before, they are now Category 2, and so on and so forth. The recommendations of those, um, categories were initially prepared by a lady called Kathy Day, who's from Heritage Today. They were then further reviewed in 2017 by Hawking Heritage Studio. So all of the existing places that are on the inventory have been prepared and reviewed by an independent heritage consultant. The city has then undertaken the first step in the process for revising and reviewing the local heritage survey, as it's now known, and what we've done there is we've done the first step with which is the public call for nominations. So members of the public have provided submissions on places that they think should be included in the new survey or amendments to existing place records. We've then reviewed those nominations in accordance with the local heritage survey guidelines and having regard to the existing category of places that have been recommended by the heritage consultant in the last review. So the city has followed the process correctly in preparing the draft. The $10,000 that has been set aside for this process is such that where, when council resolves to advertise the local heritage survey, if there are any objections received to the categories, we would then use those funds to have a place-specific review by an independent heritage consultant to see whether or not there, there needs to be a change, and that would give the benefit that the city would be removed from the process in terms of what it's initially recommended and what an independent consultant would then recommend based on the advice received during the submission period. In terms of the, the $80,000, that would require an absolute majority because the city has not budgeted for that. Thank you, Director Shaw.

Councillor Prenderville. Thank you. Following on from that, if this goes out for advertising and then we receive, that's when we receive, um, all of the, um, opinions and sort of thoughts from the community, and then it gets reviewed again. Would, would you advise that maybe if you were to review, uh, where there, where those places ended up on the heritage list, um, we could get an independent review once that's all finalized, once we've got that feedback back from the community?

Thank you. Director Shaw. Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. So this isn't seeking to advertise the draft local heritage survey. So that was deferred until December. What this is seeking to do is to have an independent heritage consultant review the, uh, nominations that were received during the initial call for nominations process to determine whether the categories that the city had recommended for inclusion in the local heritage survey were accurate. If, when council resolves to advertise the draft local heritage survey, there were further objections received to the recommendations that were either put forward by the city, or if this, um, goes forward for the heritage consultant, there would still be cause to have a separate consultant review and peer review the heritage consultant's work as to that category. And the reason that that would be important is because otherwise it wouldn't be a separate independent process at that point in time. It would be a case where we have had a consultant prepare something, sent it out, and then double down on what our appointed heritage consultant had recommended, despite any submissions received, and we would need to have considered any submissions received and responded accordingly, which is we've set out to undertake the process in the way we have. Thank you, Director Shaw.

Uh, councillors, does anybody, uh, wish to speak for or against the motion, or any further questions? Councillor Choy, are you speaking for or against?

I'm, yeah, speaking for. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. The council has sought and endorsed, as I recall, independent assessments or reviews on many items that have come before council, and, um, especially where there has been community concern or query as to process, transparency, and accountability. Um, I recall there has been here with deputations and questions made on this item when it was last raised, and to me, this is no different here. Um, the city has also said previously that when it comes to, um, the budget and, uh, budget allocation, that yes, whilst it's preferable, uh, for all expenditure to be accounted for at budget setting time, it is also up to council if we, um, wish to, um, you know, add something to the budget during the financial year. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Choy. Uh, Councillor Blacka, do you wish to speak for or against?

Against. Um, um, yeah, against. Uh, look, I, I commend Councillor Brenda Brandis. I think it's, it's, um, a very nobly intended motion, but I don't think, uh, this is really at the core of what we should be focusing on, um, as, as, as a council. I think, um, if you ask, um, any ratepayer, what are their top five issues, heritage wouldn't be in the top five, or very few would say that. Um, I think if we, if we drop, um, $80k on something like this where we've had a couple of deputations, um, I don't think that's a proportionate response. Um, I agree with Councillor Coveny, I don't think this is an appropriate, um, expenditure of ratepayer funds, and therefore, I, I won't be supporting it. Thank you.

Councillor Dusa, does anybody else wish to speak for or against, or any further questions?

No. Sorry, I have, um, a couple of questions for Director Shaw, please. Um, I note that the $80,000, uh, that was proposed for an independent, uh, heritage consultant to review the, uh, draft place records. Could you please provide me with, um, the scope of, uh, the works that you had anticipated, um, for those costs? Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So typically for an independent place review, a director of heritage rates is around $300 to $350 an hour. Each individual review would take approximately five hours to undertake, and we had 49 nominations submitted through the process. Um, depending on the complexity of the nomination and whether any further, um, information or research is required, that cost could escalate, um, and that wouldn't, um, include any reporting time from an independent consultant to provide that advice as well. So, yes, it is possible that, um, once, if this goes forward, if we went out to quotes, that we could receive a lesser figure. However, I would consider that $80,000 would almost be a worst-case scenario if we needed to engage, um, a consultant for all 49 submitted nominations. Thank you, Dr. Shaw.

And just one more. Did you obtain a quote for that figure?

Uh, yes, we did. We, um, sought advice of an independent heritage consultant as to what the figure would be.

Oh, thank you, Dr. Shaw. And, um, just finally, I note that at the last meeting, when this item was, um, was discussed, you stated that we had in-house staff who had heritage qualifications. I'd be grateful if you could just detail some of their qualifications and heritage experience.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor. Yes, so we have, um, qualified planners who have, which obviously covers heritage as well, with honours Town and Country Planning, Urban and Regional Planning, History and Geography, and Human Geography. We're accredited planners with the Planning Institute of Australia and the Royal Town Planning Institute. Thank you, Director Shaw. 40 odd years between us.

Thank you. Um, councillors, are there any further questions, or does anybody else wish to speak to this motion?

No.

Okay. Councillor Brenda Brandis, would you like to sum up?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. The nominations identified 33 properties by the community for inclusion in the protected list as category one or category two places. Of the 33 new place nominations, only two have been identified for categorization level two, and none have been identified for categorization at a level one, prior to the endorsement of the draft local heritage survey, the proposed and, and proposed place records. A review by an accredited heritage consultant should be undertaken to ensure independence and improved governance around the review process for potential properties to be included in the local heritage list. The review should provide independence as to the review methodology, be based on objective criteria, and confirm the categorization appropriateness of new place nominations. Tonight, we've heard that, um, heritage is not a primary concern, um, of the community, and it's probably not the top five categories. Um, I beg to differ with that. Um, the city needs to actually have a better focus with regards to heritage, its consideration for, um, the, the streetscape and the preservation of entire sections of this city that need to be given due consideration. We can't dismiss heritage as being an out of the top five and therefore should be disregarded. We need to make these decisions like we do with trees and and considered tree protection as well. They're difficult decisions, but we actually do need to make these. Uh, Dr. Brogan, in a deputation on, on this item, identified a considerable number of properties in the central metropolitan local government that have been categorized as category one and two. So he referred to the City of Vincent, you know, with 287 listings, City of Bayswater, City of Fremantle with 9919 listings, Town of Victoria Park, City of Stirling, City of Subiaco, which is a relatively small local government and has 64 listings, and this is in contrast to City of South Perth with 46 category one and two list of properties. I'm concerned that the local heritage review isn't achieving either the exposure or the community feedback, possibly due to complacency. It is for this reason this motion provides the opportunity for an independent review for good practice to determine and confirm properties that should be given due consideration as category one or two. Good practice includes the engagement of a qualified, experienced external consultant to determine whether a place meets the threshold for inclusion in the local heritage survey. The use of an external consultant mitigates actual and perceived bias in considering qualifying properties meeting the inclusion threshold and engages a third-party verification to support positions taken by the administration, and this is no different to other processes where we actually do get third parties involved who have got the expertise, including finance. We engage with a finance consultant to walk us through the budget process as well. We have external auditors and internal auditors. An external heritage consultant provides additional assurance and independence to this process. Ideally, the independent consultant would review prior to advertising, and this would ensure a consensus view before further comment or criticism. This motion is focused on delivering an audit assertion of completeness, in other words, have all the properties that have been nominated been given due consideration for appropriate categorization protection, and this contrasts the alternative motion that is limited with a much narrower focus. You have one minute remaining.

Thank you. The alternative motion only considers landowners that dispute a classification or or information in the draft place record during advertising. The draft local heritage survey, it would be expected the likelihood of landowner disputes would be limited generally to those that are in a protection category, and therefore this assertion is considering the, the exemption of only those that would be categorized as a one or two. I am concerned that we focus on heritage within the city, but not considering it with regard to suburbs, entire streets, or sections of streets collectively, and collective heritage value. We should not be focusing purely on one single building as a specimen item for a particular period or type of design for inclusion. We need to actually do considerably more. So whilst heritage is a difficult and contentious subject, it's critical to the history and fabric of the City of South Perth. That's time.

Councillor Brenda Brandis. Thank you. Thank you, councillors. I'm going to put this to the vote now, um, and just noting that this does require an absolute majority.

Okay. And that motion has been lost, four votes to three. And those voting for is Councillor Brenda Brandis, Councillor Troy, and Councillor Nad. And those against were Councillor Coveny, Councillor Dusa, Councillor Prenal, and Councillor War. Thank you. If somebody could, uh, please get the Mayor and bring him back.

All righty. I've just returned to the chamber, and for the benefits of those, oh, that's already been read out, or not? Ah, good. Excellent. Right. That brings us to item 13, which is Questions from Members. Uh, item 13.1 is Responses to Previous Questions from Members Taken on Notice, and responses to questions from members taken on notice at the August 2024 Ordinary Council Meeting can be found in the appendix of this agenda. Item 13.2 is Questions from Members. Any questions from members for the administration?

Councillor Choy.

Thanks, Mayor. Look, there's cameras in the room, so I'm just wondering if the cameras are now operational, if we're waiting till January to switch them on, and if there are any notice requirements if they are operational, um, for people who make deputations and questions. I think I did read something about that.

Miss Fry. So we're hoping to go live with the cameras in October for the October meeting.

Yeah. Thank you, Miss Fry. Any further questions for the administration this evening, councillors?

No.

Okay. That brings us to item 14, which is New Business of an Urgent Nature Introduced by Decision of the Meeting. That's nil for this evening. Item 15 is when we would close the meeting to the public if there was any need to do so, but there's not, so we won't. And that brings us to item 16. So before I close tonight's meeting, I'd like to thank everyone for their attendance and participation. I declare this meeting closed at 9:21 p.m. Thank you all and good night.