28 October 2025 - Ordinary Council Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Oh yeah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Everybody feel Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat.

Everyone and welcome to the October 2025 ordinary council meeting. We acknowledge and pay our respects to the traditional custodians of this land, the Wajak people of the Nunga Nation and their elders, past and present.

I would like to advise everyone that the audio and video of this meeting is being 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 councilors and city officers are reminded to disclose any declarations of financial interests and interests affecting impartiality and are requested to activate their microphones when addressing the meeting.

So, that brings us to item one, which is the declaration of opening. Uh, I declare this meeting open at 1 minute past 6 p.m. Welcome to you all. Our first order of business this evening is the election of the deputy mayor. So, I'll now hand you over to the acting CEO, Mr. Matthew Scott, to conduct the election. Uh, Mr. Scott.

>> The election of deputy mayor is conducted in accordance with schedule 2.3 division 2 of the Local Government Act 1995. I have received two written nominations for the position of deputy mayor from Councilor Andre uh Brenda Abandis and Councilor Brahman Wall. Um are there any further nominations for the position of deputy mayor? I'm about to close nominations. Nominations are now closed. I will now invite um each nominee in a order uh for deputy mayor to speak for up to four minutes.

>> Uh, Councilor Brenda Robotus.

>> Thank you, Mr. CEO. Good evening, fellow elected members. It's with great humility and a deep sense of responsibility that I stand before you today, honored to be nominated for the position for deputy mayor. This moment is not about me. It's about us, our shared city of South Perth vision and the future that we are building for our community. Alone. I'm only one elected member and cannot achieve anything without working with all of you. Serving the community for the past six years, you'll know that I don't have political aspirations. I focus on the right outcomes through merit-based decision-making, which is not taken lightly. My decisions have been independent without fear or with favor and are not for my own advancement or appeasing individuals or groups. Through my moderation, I will continue to work on the good governance for our processes and decisions. In deliberating, I'll continue to consider the greater district and not only the ward from which I was elected. For the past six years, I've had the privilege of serving the city of South Perth community. Whether it's been through strategic approvals, ratepayer specific development applications, I've always approached my decision-making with three guiding principles: integrity, independence, and collaboration. Listening to diverse perspectives and bringing people together to find solutions. These principles are not just words to me. They are the core of everything I do. And as deputy mayor, I'll continue to uphold with an unwavering dedication. The role of deputy mayor is not just a title, it's a responsibility to be a bridge between the mayor and the council and the administration and the people that we serve. It's about ensuring every initiative, every policy, and every decision reflects the needs and aspirations of our community. I believe my experience, my passion for public service and my ability to work with everyone make me uniquely suited to fill this role. Over two years I've worked alongside many of you to achieve meaningful progress. Together we have achieved significant success, but there is still quite a lot more that we need to do and as deputy mayor I would look forward to working with you to achieve our city's priorities. If elected as your deputy mayor, I'll continue to work closely with our elected Mayor Milner and elected council members, the administration of whose expert advice and support for council has been very much appreciated, and the community we represent. Thank you.

>> Councilor War.

>> Thank you colleagues. It has been an absolute privilege to serve as your deputy mayor for the last two years and I'd like to begin by saying how proud I am of everything that this council has achieved together. We've navigated complex issues and made difficult decisions. And importantly, we've not only maintained civility and respect in the chamber, but we've demonstrated that we are capable of respectful disagreement and leading with integrity. For those of you who have served with me, you will know how hard I've worked to foster that environment. One where every single one of us can express their views openly, where disagreement can be handled respectfully and where the focus remains on what is best for our community. So, I'm seeking re-election not because I need the title, but because I care so very deeply for our community about and about our city and about the tone and integrity of this council. The role of deputy mayor to me is about being a steady hand. It's about supporting each and every one of my fellow counselors, ensuring fair process and maintaining balance in leadership. For those newer to council who don't know me yet, I want to be clear about one thing. I believe that it is the differences in our opinions that bring about the greatest opportunities and outcomes. That is my driving force. It's about listening to everyone and working together to appreciate the different perspectives that each one of us brings. We have around this table such an intelligent council with so many different experiences and I want to harness each of our strengths and work together for the benefit of our beautiful city. I've worked very hard to do this and I promise you that my commitment is and always has been to good governance, sound decision-making and respect for differing views. My record speaks for itself. Over the past two years, I've supported motions from every single counselor. I've worked constructively and I've advocated for transparency, accountability, and collaboration at every opportunity, and I am committed to ensuring that that continues. My day job is a local government lawyer and I've been doing this for over 10 years. I work right across the state from the biggest local governments in Western Australia and also the smaller regional and remote local governments. I have presented to councils on governance and I have represented councilors in two different inquiries and I've also assisted them in appeals to the state administrative tribunal. So my skills and experiences have given me front row seats as to what is wrong as to what went wrong in local governments who have found themselves in hot water and I understand the requirements of our duties and our obligations. So we have a real opportunity to model what effective governance looks like: respectful, balanced, and focused on outcomes for our community. I would love to continue working with each and every one of you to help us continue to build that momentum. So, if re-elected, I will approach this role with the same integrity, fairness, and commitment that I have shown over the past two years. I will continue to listen. I will continue to bridge divides where I can and to make sure that every voice around this table is not only heard, but valued. So, I thank you for the trust that you've placed in me so far and I would value the opportunity to continue serving you and our community. Thank you.

>> Thank you. Um, I will actually move to the front because we now need to start the voting process. As we have only two um nominations, um the voting should be relatively simple. Um the ballot papers for the position of deputy mayor have have been prepared in accordance with regulation 11A and 11B of Local Government (Constitution) Regulations 1998 with the nominated councils listed in alphabetical order. I'll in will take each ballot paper by initiating it and handing them out to each elected member. Councilor voting is conducted in secret and there is a voting booth for council at the council's entrance um of the chamber for your convenience. Instructions on how to vote are on the ballot paper. Just to ensure that the ballot box is empty, so there's no additional ballot papers. Let's hope everyone saw that. I don't think there's a need to lock the ballot box. Um, and I will start going around handing out ballot papers. And obviously, as I've said before, there's a booth um in the council ch um council exit um for councilors to use. Once you've um completed your vote, please come fold it and place it into the ballot box. Once all councilors have made their vote, we'll then do the count. Your vote um secrets. Um, if you probably best if you come and put it in the B yourself. All electants are now voted. Just give a bit of a shake to the box. So, lucky shape. Um, how I'll conduct the vote is I'll simply just have two piles. One for um, Councilor Bren and one for Council War. And obviously the largest pile is going to be declared. So I have two piles. I have four votes for Council War and I have five votes for Councilor Brenda. I therefore declare following the secret ballot that Councilor Brenda is elected deputy mayor for the city of Southport. We'll invite the mayor now to swear Councilor Brendon Branerson. We'll now swear in Councilor Andre Brenda Brandis as deputy mayor for the city of South Perth for a period of two years. Councilor Brenda Brandis, could I get you to please read that oath?

>> I, Andre Brenda Brandis of 21 Brandon Street, South Perth, have been elected to the office of deputy mayor of the city of South Perth. Declare that I take the office upon myself and will duly, faithfully, honestly, and with integrity fulfill the duties of the office for the people in the district according to the best of my judgment and ability and will observe the code of conduct adopted by the city of South Perth under section 5.104 of the Local Government Act 1995.

>> Very good. If I can get you to sign there and then I'll witness your signature.

>> Congratulations, Deputy Mayor Andre Brenda Blind Brandis. Thank you. Thank you folks. That brings us to item two of the agenda which 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. Uh I'd like to note that the uh the city of South Perth Residents Association, known as COSPRA, is winding up after many years of active service for our community. COSPRA has been active in advocating for a range of issues over many years in the local community and I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the council and the city of South Perth to thank COPRA for their hard work and dedication. Uh we will hear from Miss Cecilia Brooke at item 8 when she presents a presentation to council. At this point uh I I'm obliged to present this month's mayoral report. For those members of the gallery who uh who might not be aware, Council passed a motion at the October 2024 ordinary council meeting. Uh and that motion resolved that at each ordinary council meeting I'm to present a report of the mayoral engagements and meetings attended by me in my capacity as mayor since the last council meeting. So the uh the first part of that report that uh requires me to present a summary of the events attended and the persons met with by me in my capacity as mayor since the last council meeting. Uh councilors, the last council meeting was held on Tuesday the 23rd of September. So in accordance with council's resolution, I'll begin from Wednesday the 24th of September. And as some of you know, I was on council approved leave until the 17th of October. So uh this edition of the mayoral report will be a mercifully short one.

Thursday the 25th of September. On Thursday the 25th of September, I attended and spoke at the launch of the 2025 Bookbuilders, sorry, Bookbuilders Challenge book launch, which was held at the South Perth Community Hall. The Bookbuilders Challenge is an inspiring literacy and creativity program designed to empower young people to become published authors. The program guides students through every stage of the publishing journey, covering writing, illustrating, editing, printing, publishing, marketing, and distribution, all under the guidance of celebrated independent author Christine Brown. It was a real privilege to be uh a part of the book launch and I'd like to congratulate our district's very talented budding writers.

On Friday the 26th of September, I attended Ko Primary School for the school's annual peace assembly. I was invited to speak on the topic of peace and how everyone in our community has a role to play in helping to ensure that our community is a peaceful, welcoming place where everyone is treated with kindness and respect. I always enjoy the opportunity to visit and engage with our our local schools and students. And I'd like to thank Ko Primary School for inviting me to their peace assembly.

On Sunday the 28th of September, I opened the 14th Classic Carnival at Wesley College held in partnership by the Rotary Club of Ko and Wesley College. I've had the privilege of opening the Classic Carnival each year for six years now. And I'm pleased to report that the carnival has raised over $200,000 over the years for very worthy charities. This year's beneficiaries included uh youth mental health research through Australian Rotary Health. So well done to everyone involved there.

On Tuesday the 30th of September, I met with acting CEO Matthew Scott. And as uh you know, I I meet with the CEO or the acting CEO at least once a week to discuss local government affairs and the performance of the local government's functions in line with section 2.8 of the Local Government Act. And uh in an effort to try and reduce the length of this report, I'll note that I met with Mr. Scott on the 7th of October, the 14th of October, the 21st of October, and today for the same purpose.

On Wednesday the 1st of October, I attended a clubs club meeting hosted at the John McGrath Hall by our local state member of parliament, Mr. Jeff Baker. I was invited to speak about the various resources available to community organizations and sporting clubs throughout our city. Uh always love the clubs clubs meetings. It's a great opportunity to hear from a wide range of our local sporting clubs and community organizations. And once again, I I thank Mr. Baker for the invitation.

On Saturday the 4th of October, I was entire sorry I was invited to attend and speak at the opening of the new A green at KO bowling club. The opening of the the brand new A green represents the completion of stage one of the club's rejuvenation. It was supported by financial assistance from the WA state government through the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries, as they then were, uh community sporting and recreation facilities fund, together with grant funds from the city of South Perth, and it was a real delight to see the the new A Green in use by club members.

On Sunday the 5th of October, my wife and I attended the South of Perth Yacht Club 2025-2026 opening day. Uh, some of you may know that I serve as vice patron of the South of Perth Yacht Club.

On Monday the 6th of October, I met with acting CEO Matthew Scott and the city's communications team. Uh, as most of you know, I I meet with the city's communications team once per week to discuss current and upcoming communications by the city, potential third-party media relevant to the city, and my my duties as spokesperson on behalf of the city. And uh once again, in an effort to try and get the length of this report down, I'll note that I also met with the city's communication team on the 13th of October, 20th of October, and 27th October for the same purpose.

On Thursday the 9th of October, I attended and welcomed everyone to the city's emerging artist awards exhibition launch. The Emerging Artists Exhibition is the city's biggest cultural event and it provides a platform for young and early career artists to showcase their talents, unlock professional opportunities and connect with our community. And I also had the privilege of presenting some of the emerging artist awards to some very worthy winners.

On Friday the 10th of October, I attended and participated in the opening of the new Sock and Co. showroom on Mill Point Road in South Perth. The event, which also marks the the company's 60th anniversary, featured the unveiling of the spring and summer jewelry collection. Sock and Co., as many of you know, are a local family-owned business, and it was a it was a pleasure to help cut the symbolic and I guess literal ribbon with owners Lexi and Chris Slitch.

On Saturday the 11th of October, I attended the South Perth Lawn Tennis Club to open the 2025/2026 season with club president Nigel Mcome. As many of you know, I try and make myself available to the various sporting clubs and community organizations in our city to better understand their needs and get a perspective on what the city might be able to do to help keep making our city a better place to live, work, and play. I always enjoy opportunities to engage with our wonderful sporting clubs and community organizations and I thank the South Perth Lawn Tennis Club for the invitation to attend and open the club season. But as some of you know, uh there actually three clubs that had their opening day all on the same day. So I also attended and spoke at the Hensman Park Tennis Club's season open day. I serve as the patron of the Hensman Park Tennis Club and they're celebrating their centenary this year. So that was pretty special. And I did manage to get to the tail end of the Manning Tennis Club's season open day. I had an opportunity to meet and have a chat with the club's new president and a catch up with the club captain. Uh we really do have three great tennis clubs in our community.

On Monday the 13th of October, I had coffee with incoming CEO Liz Ledger at local cafe Store Espresso.

On Tuesday the 14th of October, acting CEO Matthew Scott and I met with District Superintendent for the Cannington District Office of WA Police, Superintendent Amber Harvey to discuss a range of community safety issues.

On Wednesday the 15th of October, I helped welcome our guests at the city's emerging artist awards social sundowner. And the annual sundowner is an opportunity for us to connect with local businesses, community groups, and stakeholders while acknowledging and and thanking them for the amazing work they do to make our city such a wonderful place to live.

On Thursday the 16th of October, I attended a meeting with incoming CEO Liz Ledger and councilors in the council's lounge, giving elected members an opportunity to meet and build a rapport with Miss Ledger before she commences as CEO in December.

On Tuesday the 21st of October, I met with Brett Jackson of APC Collective in Preston Street, Como to listen to an update on the redevelopment of Preston Street. And also on Tuesday the 21st of October, I presided over the swearing-in ceremony for our new and re-elected councilors in this council chamber.

On Wednesday the 22nd of October, I attended and spoke at the topping out ceremony for the new purpose-built student accommodation development by Exile Group at Keeny Place in Waterford. That new development will feature 916 beds and commercial spaces. Uh well, commercial spaces in addition to the 619 beds, not 69, 916 commercial spaces, and will be operated and managed by award-winning operator Yugo. So we're really looking forward to seeing that development come online and provide accommodation for students attending Curtin University. Also on the same day, I attended the Clonard Aboriginal College Class of 2025 graduation and awards ceremony. I always love attending the graduation ceremonies for schools in our district and I do take this opportunity to congratulate the graduating class of 2025 and wish them the very best in their future endeavors. Also on Wednesday, 22nd October, I served as presiding member at the October council agenda briefing meeting.

On Thursday the 23rd of October, I met with newly elected Councilor Jacqueline Rosan at local cafe and restaurant Our Ruby Girl in Como. And also on the same day, I attended the Aquinas College 2025 Senior School Presentation Evening and was pleased to help present some awards to some very worthy students.

On Friday the 24th of October, I caught up with Karen Vernon, mayor of the town of Victoria Park, at local cafe Hoopla in Kensington. Also on Friday the 24th of October, I attended a lunch with a number of people including newly elected Lord Mayor uh Bruce Reynolds, Mayor Patrick Hall of the City of Kwinana, Mayor Terresa Lines of the City of Gosnells and Mayor Filamina Piferati of the City of Bayswater, among others. Uh I have mentioned in previous reports that I do try and catch up with the mayors of neighboring local governments or local governments that the city shares strategic interests with every so often. And on uh Monday the 27th of October, I attended the induction seminar on the office of the CEO and corporate services director uh presented to councilors, which I think uh brings us up to tonight's ordinary council meeting.

The second part of council's resolution requires me to present an overview of the key issues, initiatives, and matters that I've been addressing in my capacity as mayor since the last council meeting. I did spend a little bit of uh that time on leave, but the main issues that I've been considering are: Number one, how elected members can work better with each other and with the city administration to deliver on our community's priorities. Number two, how can we help deliver indoor sport court access for our community? Number three, how we can help ensure that the transportation infrastructure in our city keeps pace with the predicted future increases in our city's population. And number four, what are the most cost-effective, practically effective uh measures that the city can take to assist WA Police and the state government to keep our community safe? So, uh I think that's that's the mayoral report. Uh that brings us to item four, which is attendance.

Item 4.1 is apologies. There are no apologies for this evening.

Item 4.2 is approved leaves of absence. And there's there's nil for this evening.

All right. That brings us to item five, which is declarations of interest. And this is a long one, so I'm just going to take a sip of water. Ah, strap in, folks. Here we go.

All right. So, Mayor Greg Milner, that's me. I've declared a financial and proximity interest in item 10.1.1 as some of the proposed listings either include or are adjacent to or are across the road from properties that are owned or indirectly owned by persons who contributed to my re-election campaign in 2023.

Councilor Steven Russell has declared a financial proximity and impartiality interest in item 10.1.1. As my property is on the heritage list, adjacent properties to my property are on the heritage list. I know of persons whose properties are on the heritage list.

Councilor Brahman Moore has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as I have been contacted by, met with, and spoken to several residents affected by this item. None of them are known to me personally. My son attends Wesley College. I attend St. Mary's Church.

Councilor Jacqueline Raison has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as one of my children is about to complete year 12 at Wesley College and in recent years I have participated in strategy think tanks at Wesley College with other business leaders. At no time have property or heritage matters been discussed with me. On this basis, I am comfortable that I do not have any conflict of interest and can consider this agenda item impartially.

Councilor Kathy Lees has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as I know people who own property on the draft heritage list and I previously requested that a property that the council resolved to remove from the draft list prior to advertising be considered for heritage listing. Despite this interest, I believe I can sorry, I can consider this item with impartiality.

Councilor Andre Brenda Brandis has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as I know of someone who is not a closely associated person to me and their property is on the draft heritage list for adoption. The impartiality interests will not impair my decision-making, which will be based on merit.

Councilor Haley Prrenal has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as I have had communication with some of the homeowners and those connected to sites included in this item.

Councilor Tim Howling has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.1 as on 27 October 2025, for the purpose of better understanding the submissions made by the Royal Perth Golf Club, St. Columbus Church, and Wesley College, I spoke with the following individuals: One, the president of Royal Perth Golf Club, Mr. Irons, in relation to the occasions on which the course is remodeled. Two, Mr. John Robertson in relation to the 1986 building and the status of buildings located on different titles. And three, Mr. Ross Baron to confirm that the buildings identified in my proposal correspond with those of heritage significance included on the state register. I declare this interest in the interests of transparency and accountability. I confirm that notwithstanding these discussions, I will consider the matter before council on its merits and in accordance with my obligations under the Local Government Act 1995 and the model code of conduct.

Councilor Brman Moore has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.2 as my son attends Wesley College. I note that Penrose College is not a party to this transaction. However, noting it is likely to be used by Penrose College and out of an abundance of caution, I disclose that my daughter attends Penrose College and I am a board member of Penrose College.

Councilor Jacqueline Raison has declared an impartiality interest in item 10.1.2 too. As one of my children is about to complete year 12 at Wesley College and in recent years I have participated in strategy think tanks at Wesley College with other business leaders. Our family has not been involved with the rowing program at Wesley College and at no time have rowing or boatshed matters sorry, have rowing or boatshed matters been discussed with me by the college. On this basis, I'm comfortable that I do not have any conflict of interest and can consider this agenda item impartially.

And Mayor Greg Milner, that's me again. I've declared an impartiality interest in item 10.4.3 as I know a number of the nominees.

All righty. Uh any further interests to declare, councilors? No. Okay. All right. We move on to item six, which is public question time.

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

Item 6.2 is public question time itself. So, I now open public question time at 6:34 p.m. We've received four written submissions prior to tonight's meeting. And I'd like to begin by inviting Mr. John Robertson of South Perth. If you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you and we look forward to your questions.

>> Uh, thank you, Mayor and members. Um, I've got three questions. Um, the first question is effectively relating to uh what's referred to as the parish center or the church center at St. Columbus. Um, and drawing on the material that was used um to present to council. Uh, there appears to be some material that was taken from a 2006 report where it was clear from that material that no one's actually been inside the church center or parish center. Um, it's a 1986 building with um no cultural um history to it. Uh, and the building is very unfit for purpose. So against the background that no one's actually inspected the internals of both the presbytery and the church center, um, in those circumstances, can the council be satisfied that it has the appropriate built heritage significance and cultural heritage significance in order for it to be listed?

>> Thank you for the question, Mr. Robertson.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I had some advice here in the sense that the statement of significance in the draft heritage list reflected the place, statement of significance in the state register of places. But in hearing your question, I understand you're referring to a different place that may not be on the state heritage uh list of places. Um, and in response to that, I would say that the previous versions of the local heritage inventory had all places reviewed. However, not all places had internal inspections, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the place um wasn't considered to be of cultural heritage significance for the purposes of assessment. Um, and so on that basis, it was included in the former inventory. When the city undertook its review of its local heritage inventory, we reviewed the existing places on that inventory and undertook inspections of the place, but did not go inside that place. Um, but it was still considered to meet the threshold in terms of um cultural heritage significance for inclusion in the survey.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Your second question, Mr. Robertson.

>> Um, the second question is in relation to uh what appears to be errors on the state heritage register. Um, that document appears to aggregate the adjacent land title which belongs to the Sisters of St. Joseph, which is at 16 York Street. Um, because the actual listing refers to it as the St. Columbus Catholic Church Group and St. Joseph's um convent. Um, they're actually on two separate titles. Um, and it appears that the Sisters of St. Joseph may not have got the requisite uh notice of the draft heritage listing because of the fact this has all been treated as one title. And just in accordance with regulation 83, uh, can council be satisfied that the Sisters of St. Joseph have had adequate notice and been able to engage in the process if they were not given separate notification of what's actually happening to their site, which appears to be aggregated with the St. Columbus Church site.

>> Thank you for the question, Mr. Robertson.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, the city cannot modify or make corrections to the state register of places as this is administered by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. The Heritage Act 2018 provides for changes to entries in the state register of heritage places and also defines the requirements for removal of registered entries. It is open for council to remove the place from the draft heritage list prior to adoption. The city can undertake a further place-specific review of the place in consultation with the owners and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage in relation to the state register of places prior to potential inclusion in the heritage list.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw, and your final question, Mr. Robertson.

>> Uh, the final question is in relation to the status of the Planning and Development Act, which is the governing act that um from which the legislation has been made and whether um the um uh these regulations are overreaching in terms of um the Planning and Development Act when it goes into uh the requirement for cultural heritage. It is a bit of a technical question, involves statutory construction, but it does appear um that there is a bit of an overreach um in relation to the inclusion of cultural heritage as uh something that is made pursuant to the empowering act, which is the Planning and Development Act. Your views?

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Robertson. The Planning and Development Local Planning Schemes Regulations 2015 are subsidiary legislation to the Planning and Development Act. The act provides for the creation of subsidiary legislation and the deem provisions, which includes the creation of the heritage list. The term "cultural heritage significance" is referred to in the requirement for a local government to establish and maintain a heritage list within the regulations.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Mr. Robertson, for the questions. I'd now like to invite Mr. Sha Fairfell of Royal Perth Golf Club of South Perth. Uh, if you'd like to come to the microphone, welcome to you and we look forward to your questions.

>> Uh, Council Worship, counselors, thank you for the opportunity to um ask you some questions this evening. Um, as you would be aware, the um, Royal Perth Golf Club is seeking a deferral of the proposed heritage classification um of the course until after we've um completed some improvements that would um ensure that the non-playing portions of the venue are more in keeping with what would have been there originally. So on that basis um whilst the club is supportive of the notion that the club and course has significance to the community, is council aware that given the many changes to the course, particularly within the first 20 to 30 years, there are no elements of the current golf course that the club has been able to document that are original and that therefore are worthy of conservation?

>> Thank you for the question, Mr. Fairfell.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The city acknowledges that changes to the course have occurred since its establishment. The golf course is included for aesthetic value as a well-maintained and landscaped parkland with mature trees adjacent to a river landscape, which together form a pleasing environment and is a landmark in the streetscape. It is also included for historic value, being the oldest golf course in Western Australia, and for the social value of the place.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Your second question, Mr. Fairfell.

>> Thank you. There is a view that the previous classification of the course within the municipal heritage inventory would have been more appropriately been um a classification as a historic site without built features. Would this council agree that a category 3 classification, some to moderate significance, be more appropriate as there is nothing worthy of conservation of the site, which is a general requirement of the category 2 classification as per the guidelines?

>> Thank you for the question, Mr. Fairfell.

>> Uh, thank you. The club rooms were a category D under the former local heritage inventory, whilst the golf course was a category B. The draft heritage list reflects the inclusion of the golf course only as the equivalent category 2. It is open to council to remove the place from the draft heritage list prior to adoption.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. And your final question, Mr. Fairfell.

>> Uh, thank you. And would the council consider deferring the adoption of the complete heritage list or the inclusion of the Royal Perth Golf Club as a category 2 rather than potentially a category 3 until further discussions between the city and the club have occurred.

>> Thank you for the question, Mr. Fairfell.

>> Thank you. It is open to council to defer the item. However, the city's preference is for council to adopt the adopt the heritage list to ensure compliance with the Planning and Development Act 2005. Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Mr. Fairfell, for the questions.

>> Thank you.

>> I'd now like to invite Dr. John Basset of Como. Uh, welcome to you. The microphone is yours and we look forward to your questions.

>> Thank you and good evening. Um, and I'd like to congratulate Deputy Mayor Brenda Brandis um for uh moving to this position. Um, I'm going to ask a couple of questions in relation to heritage, like everyone else, it seems. And um, this is a process that has been running for two years now, close to two years. Um, in that time, there were points where it seemed like Councilor Brenda Brandis was the only body who really supported heritage within the previous council and so we, and I'm sure many of us behind me, thank for that. Uh, so my question is in relation to heritage and um, you all heard me uh criticize the um, the altering of uh categories by individual councilors um in contradiction to the process um established by the council last week. So I was somewhat surprised to hear in uh response to a question from Councilor Howling that Ms. Shaw stated that um the Collie pine plantation was rated as category 2 by the independent heritage consultant, but council had changed the category because of implications to DA applications. Um, I found that quite surprising. The pine plantation was assessed as category 2 due to its rarity and historic value. And yet it seems like the council officers have taken a position of changing the category. Um

>> Mr. Basset, sorry, Dr. Basset, I I do have to be fair to everyone. You're starting to engage in debate a little bit and and that's, you know, that's fine, but that's for deputations.

>> Question. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Please. Um, so um, my question is um, firstly, could you explain the uh logic behind what the council officers have done and uh give us an indication why uh the Collie pine plantation should not be category 2.

>> Thank you for the question.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Whilst the city recognizes the historical significance and rationale of the independent heritage consultant to change the category of significance, given the age and ongoing management required of the trees, the city recommended the place be modified to category 3 only. Council adopted the city's recommendation in this respect.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. And your second question, Dr. Basset.

>> Um, my second question is for you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, you regularly state that you're working on um uh how elected members can work better with each other and the city administration. Considering the actions of some councilors in uh circumventing the process of review as established by council, do you feel you've failed in that endeavor? And more importantly, um how do you propose to improve upon that working, improve upon those working relations into the future?

>> Thank you for the question. Uh, I do feel obliged to point out that I haven't actually been in the council chamber during council's deliberations on either the local heritage survey or the heritage list because I've consistently declared the same financial and proximity interest in the relevant agenda items and I've also refrained from discussing those matters with my fellow elected members for the very same reason. Equally, I I can't comment on item 10.1.1 of tonight's agenda for the same reason. So, I I am going to ask acting CEO Matthew Scott to respond to the balance of your question.

>> Um, council decisions are made collectively and independently based on information and recommendations provided by the administration. While the administration provides professional advice to support informed decision-making, council is not bound by those recommendations. As long as council decisions are made lawfully and in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and relevant policies, this should not be considered as circumventing established processes. Accordingly, this is not viewed as a failure of leadership on the part of the mayor. The mayor remains committed to promoting respectful, constructive, and transparent working relationships between elected members and the administration.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott, and thank you, Dr. Basset, for the questions. Uh, I'd like to invite Ms. Lena Yetman of Rogue Group South Perth to come to the microphone. Ah, here we are. Excellent. And just while you're approaching the microphone, Miss Yetman, uh, I will use my powers under the standing orders to extend public question time by a further 15 minutes. So, uh, we won't run out of time while you're asking your questions. Welcome to you. The microphone is yours. Uh, we look forward to your questions.

>> Thank you very much. I'm Lena Yetman, as you pronounced correctly. I represent Wesley College as their planning consultant, and with me is Laura, the Director of Finance of Wesley College, and I would like to ask the counselors questions regarding agenda item 10.1.1, the adoption of the heritage list. I am aware that you may have seen the questions prior. However, I would like to repeat question one. Does council appreciate that Wesley College campus is in part already listed on the state register of heritage places and therefore awarded heritage protection, and that the proposal before you this evening, if adopted in its current form, would represent a heritage listing that is not consistent with the state register entry.

>> Thank you for the question.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council has been advised that Wesley College is included in the state register of places. The statement of significance in the draft um heritage list is the same as the state register of places.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Uh, your second question, Miss Yetman.

>> Yeah. Would it not be more appropriate, because Wesley College does not resist the heritage listing of the buildings with recognized heritage value, that the proposed listing on the city's heritage list be consistent with the state heritage listing in terms of the extent of the recognition and the boundaries. Cadastre versus statement of significance.

>> Thank you, Miss Yetman.

>> Uh, thank you. Um, the statement of significance is the same as the state heritage list. The draft heritage list refers to the place in respect to the lot details. Whereas the heritage listing refers to the place in respect to the lot details, lot details, and shows a portion of the site on a map where the buildings of cultural heritage significance are located. These details are reflected in the statement of significance. It is open to council to remove the place from the draft heritage list.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw, and thank you, Miss Yetman, for the questions.

>> Thank you.

>> Okay, I'll now just see if there's any late questions in the trade. No, there's not. Thank you. In that case, I now close public question time at 6:51 p.m.

That brings us to item seven, which is confirmation of minutes and notes.

Item 7.1 is minutes. Item 7.1.1 is the ordinary council meeting held on the 23rd of September 2025. So I'm about to look for a mover and a seconder for a motion that the minutes of the ordinary council meeting held 23 September 2025 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record. Could I have a mover, please? Councilor Brenda Abrandes. Thank you. A seconder. I guess I'll second. Oh, Councilor Duza. Thank you. Uh councilors, does anyone oppose this? No. Then I declare it carried unanimously.

Uh 7.2 is notes of briefing. I'm about to call for someone to move that council notes that the following council briefings and workshops were held. 7.2.1 concept briefings and workshops and 7.2.2 council agenda briefing 22 October 2025. Could I have a mover? Councilor Brenda Brandis. Thank you. Somewhat a second. Councilor Douza. Thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose? No. In that case, I'll I'll declare that carried unanimously as well.

Item eight is presentations.

Item 8.1 is petitions. That's nil.

Item 8.2 is gifts or awards presented to council. And uh at this stage, I'd like to invite uh the City of South Perth Residents Association, COSPRA, through longtime leader, I think it's fair to say, Mrs. Celia Brooke, and Mr. Peter Scott as well with her. Uh they they have a banner from the 2014 COSPRA campaign that opposed the proposed state government's plans for the local governments to amalgamate, in this case, South Perth and Victoria Park. Uh Mr. Cecilia Brooke, uh you're at the microphone, so welcome. Uh you have five minutes. Uh we'd love to hear your presentation.

>> Mr. Mayor and counselors, at the winding up of COSPRA, I thank the city for the opportunity to provide some history as to how the association played a pivotal role in the defeat of the Barnett government's attempt to amalgamate several metropolitan local councils. On Friday the 7th of February 2025, it was 10 years since the vote was taken by the residents of the City of South Perth and the Town of Victoria Park, the Town of East Fremantle, the City of Fremantle, the City of Kwinana, and Cockburn on their support for his proposal to amalgamate these councils. All came back with a resounding no to the proposals. In March 2014, the City of South Perth council had a special residents meeting to discuss the forthcoming amalgamation proposals. At the end of the meeting during question time, I put my hand up and said the only way that Colin Barnett was going to take any notice was to have a meeting on the steps of Parliament House. Several weeks later, the former mayor Daty rang me asking if I was the person who suggested the rally. I said yes, and she asked me to contact Mr. Malcolm Mumry, who, while not a resident of the city, had an active involvement in the anti-amalgamation initiative. Malcolm invited me to his place for a coffee and suggested I form a residents' association South Perth. Mr. Mumry and others, including Mr. Ian Kerr and the late Professor Colin Latcham, supported me throughout the formation of the association, for which I was and still am extremely grateful. A community meeting was held on the steps of Parliament House with the former Honorable Tony Simpson, the then Minister for Local Government, with 2,000 people attending. Instead of wide-ranging amalgamations, it was as it was proposed, it came down to the Kwinana, Cockburn, Fremantle, East Fremantle, and Victoria Park/South Perth councils. The first task in setting up the association was in drafting and printing a short flyer to hand out to the public, announcing a meeting with the purpose of setting up a residents' group. A small number of people attended our first meeting in the city hall, and from there it was decided to hold a public meeting at the Como Bowling Club. A meeting was held with Mr. John McGuire, the former member for South Perth, and former councilor Glen Creedland, taking questions from the floor. A total of 3,000 flyers were printed and delivered to the whole community to let them know of the meeting. The Como bowling club was packed to overflowing. A motion was passed from the floor that a draft petition be prepared to send to the government requesting they abandon their plans for the amalgamation of any councils. In just two weeks, we had 2,000 signatures. And on August of 2014, Mr. McGrath tabled the petition in parliament on behalf of the community. Another motion was also voted on.

To have a formal meeting to officially form the association to fight to save the city of South Path from amalgamating with the town of Victoria Park. This meeting was held on the 26th of June 2014, and the City of South Pens Association, as we know it today, was formed.

At the meeting, a committee was elected with myself as chairman/chairperson, Mr. Robin Moulder, secretary, Mr. Ali Salvendi, the secret treasurer, and a handful of committee members.

By now, it became apparent that money was needed to run the campaign, and a letter went out to every household within the city on the 23rd of December, 2014, requesting donations. The response was amazing, and some people donated $1,000 or more, others $5 to $10. Amazingly, we raised just over $11,000, which enabled a widespread advertising campaign.

The vote was originally to be held on the 31st of January, which fell within the school holidays. I was advised to write to the minister, which I did, and the date was changed to the 7th of February, 2015, which is an historic day for South P. We had banners and crews designed by the former councilor Colin Colum with skits from the South Perk South Park TV show, as we were to be the city of South Park. And over a period of three weeks, we also advertised in the Southern Cassette.

The city of South Perth's contribution was by way of banners around the city urging people to vote, as council had resolved to take an impartial position. A total of 27,000 flyers, all printed from donations, were distributed across the city and handed out at shopping centers. Despite the summer heat, our wonderful volunteers, which came from everywhere, achieved the impossible over one weekend, and all flyers were delivered.

The voting outcome was amazing. There were 50.83% return ballots with 77.6% voting number. An incredible result, given that 30% of voters in South Perth were living in rental accommodation and many owners living overseas. East and Quinana plan ran campaigns for Victoria Park, and Coburn chose not to. Um, sorry, of the total no vote, the councils which included Vic Park, uh, was 62% voted no, and Koburn, 83% voted no. Free Metal didn't bother because they thought it would be a done deal. A truly amazing result when local government elections generally have little more than a 30% participation, and we all know that.

The resulting result that led to the government to abandon any further plans for local government amalgamations throughout the metropolitan area. It can be assumed that the majority of residents saw that government's initiatives would only serve to further dilute their influence on matters closer to their immediate neighborhood. I've only touched on some of the work that cross and sympathetic volunteers were engaged in during that period, but I hope the background has served to show you now that, um, that to show you that not within the city boundary of Victoria Park, that we are not within the city boundary of Victoria Park and under the name of the city of South Park.

Regretfully, the association is in the process of winding up following a decision at a special council meeting last month after deep soul-searching. The number of committee members has declined steadily over time and it has not been possible to recruit new members to the committee positions despite substantial effort. Due to several factors, including health, work, and family issues, the existing committee members found themselves unable to perform the duties that they believed were required to adequately meet the objectives of the association. I am sure this has, I'm, I'm sure that, uh, this has provided existing and new counselors, particularly anam, an example of what people power can do.

"Could we please present the banner now?"

"Thank you much, folks. Uh, there's the, the, the banner, uh, which is being unfilled from 2014."

"May we turn around?"

"Absolutely. Yes. You beat me to it, folks. I was, I was about to propose that, uh, councilors, staff, community members, uh, we can all thank COPRA for their many years of service to our community. Um, thank you again. It is greatly appreciated. Trust. All right. Uh, thank you all. The next item is item 8.3, which is deputations. Deputations were heard at the council agenda briefing held on the 22nd of October 2025. That brings us to item nine, which is the method of dealing with agenda business. So I'll now seek confirmation from the acting chief executive officer, Mr. Matthew Scott, that all the report items contained in tonight's agenda were discussed at the October council agenda briefing and a correction was made to item 10.1.1 to remove a place that should not have been included in the draft heritage list. Mr. Scott."

"Uh, yes, I am happy to confirm and for the benefit of the public, I just think just need an explanation in regards to the correction to item 10.1.1. Um, subsequent to the briefing forum and in responding to councilor queries, we, the administration, reviewed the advice from the independent heritage consultant for the local heritage strategy. Place number 86, 39 Ansley Street, South Perth, was recommended as category 3. Notwithstanding, this place was erroneously included in the local heritage strategy as a category 2 and subsequently included in the draft heritage list. Whilst no objections have been received from the landowner, it is recommended this place be deleted from the draft heritage list prior to adoption."

"Thank you, Mr. Scott. So, with the exception of those items to be withdrawn for discussion, reports will be adopted by exception resolution. And by this, I mean the officer recommendation will be adopted as is without discussion or amendment. The following items have been withdrawn for tonight. The first is item 10.1.1, entitled draft heritage list adoption. The reason is, uh, Mayor Greg Milner, that's me, and Councilor Steven Russell. We've both declared a financial and proximity interest, and I think Councilor, uh, Russell also declared an impartiality interest, and also because Councilor Tim Howling and Councilor Kathy Lees both have an amendment. Item 10.3.1 has also been withdrawn, that's entitled proposed home business art and tattoo studio, lot 2, number 71 Strickland Street, South Perth. The reason for that is Councilor Tim Howling has an alternative motion. Item 10.4.1, entitled chief executive officer evaluation committee, has been withdrawn. The reason is we need an absolute majority for that item, and it also requires elected member appointments. Item 10.4.2, entitled audit risk and improvement committee, is also withdrawn. That requires an absolute majority and also elected member appointments. Item 10.4.3, entitled appointment of community members to the City of South Perth audit risk and improvement committee, has been withdrawn. Once again, we need an absolute majority for that one. And we also need to appoint the community members. Item 10.4.4 has been withdrawn. That one's entitled City of South Perth Arts Advisory Group. We need some elected members for that one. Item 10.4.5 has been withdrawn. That's the City of South Perth Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Group. Once again, we need elected member appointments for that item. Item 10.4.6, entitled City of South Perth Inclusive Community Advisory Group, has been withdrawn. We need an elected member appointment for that item. Item 10.4.7, entitled Local Emergency Management Committee for Canning for/Southper, has been withdrawn. Uh, we need elected members for that one as well. This will be a theme, folks. Item 10.4.8, entitled City of South Perth Public Health Advisory Group, is withdrawn. Once again, we need an elected member appointment there. Item 10.4.9, entitled Western Australian Local Government Association Southeast Metropolitan Zone, has been withdrawn. We need elected appointments for that one as well. Item 10.4.10, entitled Metro Inner Development Assessment Panel, has been withdrawn. We need elected member appointments for that one. And item 10.4.12, entitled monthly financial statements September 2025 and carry forward budget adjustments, has been withdrawn. Uh, and just for something completely different. We require an absolute majority for that one as well for, well, part two of that resolution. Councilors, does anyone want to withdraw any other items for discussion?"

"Councilor Russell."

"Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 10.1.2."

"So, 10.1.2, which is proposed lease of lot 500 on deposited plan 430041 for a boat shed. That's been withdrawn for discussion as well this evening."

"Okay. Let me just amend my notes. All right. Uh, any other items to be withdrawn for discussion this evening, councilors?"

"No. Okay. All right. In that case, I'm about to call for a mover and a seconder to carry the following items by exception resolution. Those are 10.1.3, entitled RFT3 of 2025, provision of sports lighting upgrades at Challenger Reserve, George Bernett Park and Richardson Park. Item 10.1.4, entitled RFT 4 of 2025, provision of electrical services. Item 10.3.2, proposed scheme amendment number two to local planning scheme number seven, rezoning to residential, lot one, number three avenue Kensington. Item 10.4.11, listing of payments September 2025. Item 10.5.1, entitled quarterly activity report. Item 10.5.2, entitled audit register progress report fourth quarter update. and item 10.5.3, entitled policy review. Can I have a move, please? Councilor Russell moving. Thank you. And Councilor Raison seconding. Thank you. Uh, councilors, does anyone oppose?"

"No. Okay. Uh, well, in that case, uh, 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'll now be moving on to those reports identified to be withdrawn for discussion this evening. The first of which is item 10.1.1, entitled draft heritage list adoption. Uh, councilors, as you know, I've declared a financial and proximity interest in this item. Uh, I will now leave the chamber and I see that Councilor Russell is doing the same. Uh, but before I do, I'd like to invite Deputy Mayor Andre Brenda Brandis to take my place as presiding member for the duration of this item. And if, uh, someone would be kind enough to come and get myself and Councilor Russell once this item is concluded, well, uh, we'd both be grateful. See you shortly."

"Evening council. We are at item 10.1.1, the draft heritage list for adoption. The City of South Perth is required to establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places within the district that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of building heritage conservation. This report presents the draft heritage list for the purpose of adoption. The officer's recommendation before us tonight is that council adopts the heritage list as contained in attachment A, subject to the deletion of the following place: Place number 86, 39 Ansty Street, South Perth. Do I have a mover for the officer's recommendation?"

"I will move the officer's recommendation for the purpose of bringing it to the floor."

"Thank you. Can I call for a seconder to second the officer's recommendation?"

"To explain that we need to move this recommendation amendments."

"With regard to the two amendments before us tonight, Councilor Howling has, uh, one amendment and Councilor Lees has a second amendment. In order for the amendments to be brought to the floor, we need to actually move the substantive motion. Uh, so I am asking for a seconder for the officer's substantive motion."

"Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duza. Councilor Duza."

"Yep. So, we have two amendments before us tonight and, um, with the order proceeding, uh, Councilor Lee's amendments would be amending, uh, Councilor Howling's amendments. So, I'd be asking, um, if, uh, Councilor Howling wanted to move his amendment."

"Thank you. Do I have a, well, would Councilor Howling like to first introduce his amendment?"

"Thank you. Um, the amendment as circulated in 10.1.1 is an amendment to the substantive motion that council adopts the draft heritage list as contained in attachment A, subject to the deletion of the following places: Place 86, that's 39 Any Street in South Perth. Place 36, that's 40 Cud Street, Wesley College. Place 39, that's 25 Forest Street in South Perth, St. Columbus Church, and place 50, uh, Labashier Road, South Perth, which is the Royal Perth Golf Club, and request the city, uh, the chief executive officer to undertake place-specific reviews, including consideration of the built form of the following places in the local heritage survey and, where relevant, ensuring that the statement of significance is consistent with the state register of heritage places. That's for place 86, 39 Ansty Street in South Perth. Place 36, that's 40 Cud Street in South Perth, the Wesley College. Place 39, 25 Forest Street in South Perth, that's St. Clber's Church Group. Place 50, that's Labashier Road, South Perth, the Royal Perth Golf Club. And place 85, that's 44 Angelo Street in South Perth."

"So move."

"Thank you, Councilor Howling. Do I have someone who would like to second the amendment motion?"

"Thank you, Councilor Printville. Councilor Howland, if you'd like to provide your reasons with regard to this amendment."

"Thank you. Um, everybody will have realized that there's been quite a considerable amount of discussion which has taken place, at least by way of email and the like, and I thank you, the councilors, uh, for engaging in the discussions that have taken place over the course of the last, uh, few days. Uh, in particular, um, there was a significant discussion on the way within which the heritage of Wesley College ought to be approached, and St. Columbus, and the Raw Perth Golf Club. And the reason for that was that there are seven buildings identified for Wesley College in the state register, and, uh, it was proposed that only those seven buildings would be included originally. And the, the second motion was that the St. Columbus Church would only include seven buildings which were also in the state register, and for the golf course, uh, and course, that it would be removed entirely. Um, I thank, uh, Councilor Razison and Councilor Lees in particular for their spirited interaction in respect of these lists, and, uh, I have placed before the councilors a modified version of what is being proposed to endeavor to have us all come onto the same page. And the purpose to that is to ensure that we are able to interact and listen to our community even further. We've heard from our community, and our community, in respect of these places, have said to us, well, in relation to Wesley College, how could it possibly be that a brand new constructed building takes the form of being so significant, and that's the new building that's being undertaken presently, that it's going to end up on the register even before it's completed? Now, that is a matter that we need to think about very carefully, because it gives rise to the exercise of our discretion, and the questions of the manner within which we will exercise our discretion, and whether or not it's a reasonable way within which we exercise our discretion. If I was, if, as I was urged to include those places within the list, that's the heritage list, I say that it doesn't satisfy not only the two tests which are the limbs that I'll come to shortly within regulation 8, but it doesn't pass the pub test either, in terms of being reasonable and a logical exercise of discretion to include places that haven't even been built as yet or completed, and in the occasion of the golf course, to include the recontouring of certain of the courses and certain of the holes that haven't even been completed as yet. Those are places which are constantly changing. The state register has identified the buildings that are properly to be included. Unfortunately, for our local survey, the, for, in the case of Wesley College, it's included the whole of the place, and I'll come to that in a moment why I don't consider that's appropriate. And in the case of St. Columbus Church, at least the 1986 building, as Mr. Robertson addressed us about today in the presbytery, uh, house, if I understand correctly, is not of significance to that group, and yet, and neither is it identified in the local survey as being of significance, and yet it's proposed to be included on the list. Now, a heritage list which is developed under the provisions of the regulations is a very important document, and the reason for it is that it inputs into our scheme by way of a list certain restrictions in terms of applications for development, and it removes certain planning exemptions. So, in all of the circumstances, we end up with an exercise of power that restricts the rights of individuals to deal with their properties in certain ways, and persons say, ah, but it's included in any event on the state register, and to some extent, that's true, and it was for that reason that originally I had proposed seven of the significant buildings on the state register within one motion for the Wesley college, and seven of the church's significant buildings which would not be, and were not objected to, and the golf course being removed in its entirety. In effect, what this motion does is it gives us the opportunity to take everybody on the journey with us, but also gives the members of the public the opportunity and the persons affected to relook at those places of heritage so that we can properly interact with some of the concerns that have been raised, and so that we can consider these matters more fully. Now, I say this, the regulations under which a heritage list is to be drafted."

"Sorry, Councilor Hingling. Uh, your five minutes has, uh, been reached. Um, could I put the motion to council to grant an additional 5 minutes to Councilor Howling? Could I please have a second? Thank you very much. Councilor Printable. Thank you. Do you wish to put that to the vote? And can I, can I please put that to the vote, administration? Thank you. And one more vote, councilors."

"Thank you. And that was unanimous. Uh, Councilor Hing, you have further five minutes."

"Thank you. And I assure you I won't take, uh, hopefully the full half hour. Oh, sorry. You only said 5 minutes. Um, as I was on regulation 8, uh, regulation 8 deals with two essential components, and that is that an area must have significance from a heritage perspective, and it must have built heritage conservation. Now, where we are in, we are within the planning regulations, and we need to keep that firmly in our minds. We cannot import into planning regulations wholeless bless provisions of other legislation unless we're permissibly able to do so. So, for that reason, we are concerned with the deemed provisions, and the deemed provisions make very clear that this is imported as if it were part of our scheme adopted under section 257B of the Planning and Development Act, and as such, it can't, that is, the regulations can't rise higher than their source, and neither can they import matters outside of what development control is intending to be achieved under the provisions of this of the scheme. Now, it is undoubtedly the case that built heritage conservation is a defined term under the regulations, which points to the Heritage Act. And in so doing, in pointing to the Heritage Act, it does not, however, of course, import all that is under the Heritage Act. Regulations are regularly recognized as being drafted by what is called bureaucrats or people of government, and are not the subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny as a piece of legislation. And so accordingly, in, in interpreting the legislation, you can never go higher than the source, and the source in this instance is the Planning and Development Act. And so, for that reason, it is the cultural heritage significance of a prem, of a property, and worthy of built heritage conservation. And I say that those words, built heritage conservation, still have work to do. And so we have to look at where we're at within an act of parliament, uh, and within a regulation, and we have to think, okay, what are we trying to do? And what we're trying to do here is affect what is happening with development. It is not the case that you simply then say, abandon all, we move over to as if this is a heritage instrument, because it's not a heritage instrument. It's a planning control instrument, and that's the area within which we find ourselves. But look, there's been a lot of debate. There's been a lot of discussion. I want the heritage list to be lawful, accurate, fair, defensible. Show that we've listened to our community. Show that we're genuinely protecting those matters of heritage that are important to us. Genuine heritage. We will cheapen the list if we include things that are not genuine heritage. We will cheapen the purpose for which we adopt the list. And when we are doing this, we are exercising a significant power and a significant head of power that we exercise that will affect people and affect their lives. It'll affect Wesley College. It'll affect the golf course, and it'll affect St. Columbus. And each one of them are eager to maintain the requirements of the act. And so, for that reason, I say let us take the councilors along with us through this journey. This is an opportunity to some extent. It moves away from what my original motion was, which was simply to adopt the buildings as being the only places that form fall within regulation 81, being cultural heritage significance and built heritage conservation. It moves a little bit away from that. It says, let's spend a bit of time together. Let's talk about this. Let's bring council together to think about this. Are we doing the right thing? Is there a better way of doing this? Can we listen to our community? Can we take the community with us on the journey? Particularly for those persons and those groups who have objected, and objected with a proper basis in my view, to say, 'Look, it's absurd, as in the case of Wesley, to include a new building, or it's absurd, in the case of the golf course, we're remodeling our golf course. Why would you include something like that? How could that possibly be considered to have heritage significance worthy of heritage conservation?'"

"30 seconds, Mr. Hing."

"Thank you. Uh, so I say that we have an opportunity in front of us. Let's take that opportunity. Let's work together, and let's work within the framework of what we have to do, and that is adopting a heritage list. Thank you."

"Thank you, Councilor Hing. Councilor Printville. Uh, you seconded the amendment. Would you like to provide your comments?"

"Thank you, Deputy Mayor Brando Brandis. Um, we know this has been a massive undertaking, undertaking, and yes, it has taken lots of time, and, and that's okay because this is an important topic. Um, I hope that some comments from our administration last week alleviated some concerns from the community, community, around process and confusion and, and that sort of thing. Um, and as Councilor Howling mentioned, there's been a lot of communication between council, um, over the past, um, short time, and it's a, it's a huge thing for especially our new councils to wrap their heads around. So, um, I'm not willing to sort of push anything through. Um, I'm not, I'm not against protecting our culturally significant buildings in the city. Um, I think we have some amazing buildings, um, in our City of South Perth, um, that that need protecting. I have concerns, um, and I have heard many of our residences, residents' concerns regarding restrictions. Um, I've spoken previously regarding heritage. I won't take up too much time. I'm supporting this amendment to the substantive motion. Um, I'm supporting the removal of these, um, places from the list and to put them up for a place-specific review. Um, these, um, places, three of these places remain covered by state protections. In the meantime, um, I don't, um, see any alarm bells with this, um, with this amendment. A place-specific review for these places will give council a clear understanding of each, particularly following further deputations, um, and messages from our community. Um, there's nothing wrong, in my, in my eye, about looking further into this, and this investigation will help us as a council make an informed, balanced decision and confirm whether any changes, um, are appropriate. So, I, um, I thank Councilor Howling and commend all of the new councilors for wrapping their heads around this. Um, and I, uh, support, second this motion. Thank you."

"Thank you, Councilor Printable. Uh, Councilor Howling, your microphone is still on. Thanks. We have a second amendment before us this evening. Do we?"

"Yep. And before we introduce the second amendment, um, I'd be asking for anyone who would like to speak against this amendment. Um, could I just ask a question?"

"Yes, Councilor Lee. Certainly."

"Um, so, just to clarify the process here, um, the, um, Councilor Hing's amendment needs to pass for me to then make an amendment to the amendment. Is that correct?"

"Yes. If I could ask, uh, governance to actually confirm that."

"Yes, that's correct. And we can only deal with one amendment at a time."

"Okay. Thank you. Um, further question, if I may, Deputy Mayor."

"Yes, Councilor Lee."

"Um, could you, um, could I please be advised, um, about the golf course and, um, the need for a development application for, uh, the works that's being proposed?"

"Yep. Certainly. Director Shaw, can I hand this one to you, please?"

"Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. So, if the works are proposed, constitute development in accordance with the definition under the Planning and Development Act, a development application would be required. Approval from the city is also required under the, the lease arrangement for the golf course."

"So, just to clarify, so whether it's on the heritage list for the, um, forese, well, in the short term, um, it will still need a development application, and my understanding is that the, um, the main reason for it being listed is its, uh, use and the cultural significance of that."

"Thank you, Director Shaw."

"Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh, yes. So, if any proposed works, um, met the definition of development, um, then we would require a development application, regardless of whether it's included in the heritage list or not. Um, in terms of its, um, inclusion and recommended inclusion, it was included in the draft, sorry, in the local heritage survey on the basis of its aesthetic value, its social value, and its historic value."

"Thank you."

"Thank you. No further questions. Councilor Lee?"

"No. Um, councilors, is there anyone who would like to speak against this amendment? Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this amendment?"

"Yep. Certainly. Councilor Lee, question."

"Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Um, I would, um, just like to, um, explain my reasons for supporting the amendment. Um, as, as has been indicated, I have an amendment to the amendment. So, um, the, the changes that I'm proposing will come to light as part of that. I'm, I'm not entirely, um, in agreement with, uh, Councilor Hing's, um, comments about, um, when an application does need development approval or heritage significance. I know there are a number of exemptions under the deem provisions for works that are outside of or don't affect the significance of the building. So I think, you know, with Wesley and, uh, St. Columbus, um, if the alterations are to buildings that are not, um, recognizing the state of statement of significance, then, um, they can be approved without too much difficulty if a development application is, is in fact required. Um, I, um, my concern with those properties being Wesley College and St. Columbus is that there seemed to be some variation and some confusion about whether the listing in the heritage list is the same as the listing or draft heritage list is the same as the listing in the state heritage list. Um, and my understanding is the state heritage list always takes precedence, and whether they are on our list or not, for the, uh, short term, they are still protected by the state heritage, uh, list requirement. So on that basis, I'm happy for them to be removed at this point, um, and the place-specific review to, to be undertaken. Um, and then in terms of the golf course, um, my understanding is, as clarified by Director Shaw, is that, um, they will require development approval for, uh, works of significance on the site anyway, that includes stage three, the remodeling of the, um, some of the holes. So I'm happy for that to be removed on the basis that we'll be getting a DA anyway. Thank you, Councilor Lees."

"Um, any other, um, any other discussion with regard to supporting Councilor Howling's motion or to speak against it?"

"Yes. Uh, Councilor Raison."

"Thank you, Deputy May. Since being elected a little over a week ago, I've spent a lot of time considering the Heritage Act, the Planning and Development Regulations, various guidelines provided by the Heritage Council, and minutes of previous council meetings. I've also considered the deputations and appreciated those and other matters discussed at our agenda briefing this last week. And I'm sorry for the concerns that have been raised in our community. And I appreciate the links that the different groups have gone to to clarify their position for us. It, you know, seems to be short notice. Um, I've also been assisted by the detailed responses provided by Director Shaw to various questions posed by me and other councilors and would like to thank Director Shaw for her assistance. It's been a very fast turnaround time. As I understand the position, the city is required to establish and maintain a heritage list, and the city has reservations about whether it has formally adopted a heritage list in accordance with the requirements. Again, there are various views about on this issue, on council. But I think it is best to take a conservative approach and assume that at this point in time, there is uncertainty about whether we have formally adopted a heritage list. So it is imperative that the city complies with its legal obligation to have a heritage list in accordance with the relevant requirements and that it is clear that the city has done so. Accordingly, I am in favor of the amendment to the abstant substantive motion and appreciate the input for councilors, uh, over the last sort of 24 hours. In relation to this, a number of matters have been raised about various places, including Wesley College, St. Columbus Church Group, and, and the Royal Perth Golf Club. I note that the proposed amended motion does not include these places in the city's proposed heritage list at this stage, i.e., they're off the list. However, as I understand it, both Wesley College and St. Columbus Church Group are already on the Heritage Council of WA State Register, and that as a result, relevant proposed developments will be referred to the Heritage Council before any approval is given. I also understand that is proposed that a site-specific review will occur, uh, on with, in relation to these places, and that those members of our community are happy, you know, for that to happen and cooperate with that. And I expect that once that's occurred, the matter will be brought back to council to consider the potential inclusion of these places in the city's heritage lists. Going forward, I have two suggestions. The first is that where possible, matters of this significance and complexity not be included in the first council meeting following the election of new council members. As a matter of good governance, it would be better if matters of this significance and complexity were only considered after the induction of new councilors has been completed. However, as it is necessary for the city to comply with its obligations to have a heritage list, I understand why it's being dealt with at this meeting. So, this is not a criticism, but rather a suggestion for best practice and good governance going forward. The second matter, as Councilor Hailing has, uh, explained to us all, is that there appear to be differences of opinion about what places can and cannot be on the city's heritage list, and they go back to the interpretation of clause 8 of the relevant regulations. In particular, there appears to be differences of opinion, including on council, about the meaning and effect of the threshold requirements in clause 8 of the regulation. The issue concerns whether only buildings and other built forms can be on the heritage list, or whether the places included on the city's heritage list can extend to the other things included in the definition of place under the relevant regulations. In these circumstances, I suggest that when these matters come back before the council after the site-specific reviews, that councilors are also provided with an external legal opinion on this issue. Not all councils are legally trained, and obtaining this legal advice is consistent again with good governance and may assist the council when considering whether to amend the heritage list."

"Thank you, Councilor Raison. Any other councilors wishing to speak for or against this amendment? No. I'll, uh, say a few words. I'd like to thank Councilor Howling for putting forward this amendment tonight. I agree that this is actually a good way to work forward. Um, having a look at the amendments that are proposed before us, the deletion of the four items, the four place numbers 86, 36, 39, and 50, uh, do not present any major concerns. St. Columbus Church is one of those, and we've obviously had conversations with the owners in regard to, um, how the property should actually be treated with regard to, um, protection and also rectification with the state register of places. The golf course was included in the 2018 heritage list, and the clubhouse was not included. Wesley College site is already currently on the state register. So the removal of these items does not present a major concern. Point two of this amendment motion requires that a, the undertaking of a place-specific review be performed for these properties, and that would actually achieve a better outcome to ensure that we actually have a complete review and compliance with the requirements and also alignment with regard to state protection for these properties. For these reasons tonight, councilors, I support Councilor Howling's motion. I would like to put this item to the vote."

"Yes, Councilor Howling."

"Apologies, Councilor Howling, if you would like to wind up before we put this item to the vote."

"Uh, look, I do want to comment and respond, even though, and I'm grateful for everybody being in, uh, support. Um, firstly, I note, um, criticism of the process in terms of governance, and that councilors who have been recently elected need to deal with this at the first meeting. Notwithstanding this has some back history, and that's understood. Um, I'm not supportive, however, of going through the process of an external opinion, uh, at this point in time or incurring the cost. We still retain a discretion. But there's a second point that I want to make, and it's a very important point, very important point. There is a significant difference between what is included on the state heritage list or register and what's included on the heritage list. And it, I'll address one of those. You can have a look at the local planning policy that we have, that if you wish to make a development application for your land, if it's on the list, what you need to do. It's onerous. We know it. It's a policy we've adopted, and we're across it. But I want to talk to you about a few other things, and that is, um, what, um, has been raised thus far. There are certain exemptions. Those exemptions are effectively removed. And this is what, um, Director Shaw was referring to. And let me say this. If Wesley College, once placed on the list, wants to construct a cubby house or a flag pole, or do some internal reviews like changing some of the lights or something else like that, or if the church wants to construct a cubby house or light post, a lighthouse, or the golf course wants to put a water tank on their property, they will no longer have the exemptions which are found in clause 61 of the Planning and Development Local Scheme Regulations. And so, what we're dealing with is a matter of significant importance. As a local government, we have to stay within our lane. Our lane tonight is dealing with questions of development approval. I thank everybody for their support. I'm looking forward to some further discussions. No doubt those discussions will go to the question of whether or not we can import police into the definitions as contained in the regulations. I say not. Others want to include Wesley College or include, but that's not the discussion for tonight. No doubt that will take place at a future point. I say that it would be regrettable if we moved forward with removing those exemptions, which are very significant to places such as schools to construct a flag pole without having to make an application, or a cubby house. So I thank everybody, but I did wish to have a brief response to some of the comments that were made so that it's understood that we do understand and know that these are very serious matters that we're dealing with, and the exercise of our powers is done with the level of seriousness and care that any good government and local government exercising good governance needs to in be, be undertaken the, the exercise with. So I thank you, uh, Mr. Deputy Mayor, and, um, I, I'm happy for the matter to be put to a vote on that basis."

"On that note, um, we'll like to put this item to the vote now. Waiting on two more votes. Councilors, Councilor Howling, have you voted? And Councilor."

"Lead is the one that's."

"Thank you, councilors. That was unanimous. Moving on to the second amendment for item 10.1.1. Uh, Councilor Lees has provided an amendment. I would like to ask Councilor Lee if you would like to move your substantive, uh, your amendment to Councilor Howling's amendment."

"Thank you, Deputy Mayor."

"Thank you. And would you like to provide your reasons with regard to?"

"Yeah."

"Yep. If you'd like to read out your amendment to Councilor Howling's amendment. So my amendment to what is now the substantive motion, following Councilor Howling's motion being adopted, my understanding, um, is that council one includes the following places to part two of the, uh, now current recommend, or recommendation. Um, so place number 20, Collier Pine Plantation, former, um, former Kensington Como Carowara. Place number 34, residence number 426, Canning Highway, Como. Place number 37, commercial premises number 91, Cud Street, South Perth. Uh, place number 90, residence, two Parker Street, South Perth. Place number 91, 579 Queens Street, South Perth. Place 87, 19 Glide Street, South Perth. Place number 82, Residences, Hovia Terrace, Kensington. Uh, so include those in the substantive motion. And then secondly, include a new part three with the following words: Three advertisers, place number 85, number 44 Angelo Street, South Perth, residence for inclusion on the heritage list."

"Thank you, Councilor Lees. Do I have a seconder for Councilor Lee's amendment to Councilor Howling's amendment?"

"Yep. Thank you, Councilor Rayson. Kathy Lees, the, the floor is yours."

"A point of order. Yeah, you certainly can."

"Um, this is, uh, as I understand, and I've only just been provided this, I think it was sent by way of email upon returning to the office at about 5:00 this afternoon. Um, and I've had a quick look through it. Um, and had also a discussion with the director for planning, and I've been informed that these, each of these, and if there is any that are not, were considered at the June council meeting, and each of these persons were advised of the outcome of that meeting in relation to their properties. Uh, the Local Government Administration Regulation. So the decision was made, that was a decision made in the 24th June meeting. Uh, the Local Government Administration Regulations 1996 says that if a decision has been made at a council or committee meeting, then any motion to revoke or change the decision, and, uh, must, and then be accompanied by a motion in certain circumstances to be supported by an absolute majority, and in other cases, at least one-third of the officers. Um, the difficulty that I have reintroducing, even though it was done by a form or a previous council, that is nevertheless a decision falling squarely within regulation 10, uh, that a decision has been made in respect of each one of these items. It is not a question of whether it's the final decision or whether or not it's an interim decision. It's got to be a question of, well, if council has made the decision, as it has, then it's not for us to introduce something within a period of time without first putting to the council the revocation motion that is necessary for us to be able to properly deal with the matter pursuant to regulation 10 of the Local Government Administration Regulations 1996. Now, put against me, uh, when I had a very brief discussion with governance, is a suggestion somehow that this doesn't become a final decision until the meeting is determined everything. I don't see that that is on all fours with the requirements of regulation 101, which says if a decision has been made at a council meeting, that decision has been made, and so accordingly, this motion must be accompanied by a revocation motion, uh, because it's putting in issue a decision which has already been made by this local government within the period of 3 months, and that's not good governance, but not only that, there's a regulation which expressly provides for the manner within which that's to be dealt, and I say that this needs to be accompanied by such a, a motion."

"Uh, thank you very much, Councilor Howling. Could I seek clarification from the administration with regard to, um, the comments and also with regard to the requirement for revocation? My understanding is the items that have been included at part one of, um, Councilor Lee's amendment, these items were previously categorized as category 2, uh, listings, uh, for adoption and were recategorized as category 3. So if the administration could please advise this with regard to the need for a revocation, um, in the first instance, and also, uh, does this fall within the 3-month period required?"

"Um, if I may, through the chair. So, my understanding of the June decision was that council was to adopt a local planning strategy. Uh, no, sorry, a local heritage survey. I'll get my acronyms right. Um, so I apologize for that. Uh, that decision has now been implemented in progressing from the local heritage strategy survey to the advertising of a local list, which was decided by council in August, uh, this year. So those decisions have now been actually implemented. Um, and what's being proposed is simply to, um, add a review to certain places, similar to the previous amendment, um, that offered to review certain properties that had also gone through both the local heritage strategy, um, and local heritage survey, and was considered in whether or not they should be included in the local heritage list for advertising. Um, this proposed motion does not necessarily change the previous decision. Um, it's up to council. Council has the ability to review things. Um, the logic behind the suggestion that it requires a replication motion would suggest that every time council wants to consider another property for either the heritage strateg, uh, survey or for the heritage's list, needs to be preceded by a relocation motion. Um, you know, the, um, object of the local heritage strategy and the local heritage list is an evolving document, and council will revisit this on a number of occasions into the future. Um, so it's my view that this doesn't require a revocation motion, um, for council to consider this motion. Um, and I suppose that's all I can say on the, on the matter. Thank you, CEO Scott."

"So on that basis, that the items included, uh, for the first part of Councilor Lee's amendment, these items are to actually be included as part of the place-specific reviews. That's the, the only part that is included for the listed properties of part one."

"Through the chair also."

"Yep."

"Sorry, Deputy Mayor, could you make a ruling on that, uh, because that's necessary."

"Uh, again, uh, an off request for the administration as to whether a ruling is actually required in regard to this instance. Thank you."

"Through the chair, the presiding member can make a ruling on such a matter."

"Thank you. Uh, on that basis, um, I will be making a ruling that the listed items included on the part one of Kathy Lee's item can be included, um, as part of the specific, uh, the, the place-specific review, and that it can be included. Move on to a second. We've got a second, so it's speak for the, can speak."

"Thank you. Um, the item has been seconded. So council lees, um, you can walk us through the reasons with regard to your amendment please."

"Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And, uh, I'm pleased to see that this is proceeding. Um, I'm relying on, uh, governance advice that I've got. So, um, it's not, yeah, I mean, we've looked at various ways to do this over the last few days. So, um, I will proceed. So firstly, um, I would like to note that I recognize that I am coming into this process late, along with Councilor Raison and Councilor Hing, and that it has been a lengthy process to arrive at this point with many discussions and deliberations having been undertaken prior to our election. And as, uh, Councilor Razison intimated, it's been a bit of a whirlwind over the last few days getting our head around this. But, uh, so I acknowledge that some may consider my amendment to the st substantive motion disruptive. But I have significant experience dealing with heritage planning, and I understand the significant value that our heritage places add to our community and sense of place. So I believe it is critical that we as a council endeavor to get the best result here, and we can, um, go through an ongoing process, reconsidering recent decisions where appropriate and possible, while meeting our legislative requirements. Um, as was expressed in, uh, Ms. Hardy Schmidt's deputation at the agenda briefing last week, I believe that our heritage places are an important element of our community inheritance, um, amongst others, that should be conserved for present and future generations wherever possible. As indicated in the bar charter, places of cultural significance enrich people's lives, often providing a deep and inspirational sense of connection to community and landscape, to the past and lived experiences. They are historical records that are important."

As tangible expressions of Australian identity and experience. Places of cultural significance reflect the diversity of our communities, telling us about who we are and the past that has formed us and the Australian landscape. They are irreplaceable and precious. These places of cultural significance must be conserved for present and future generations.

So the city's strategic community plan identifies the retention of our unique local built character as a priority and the celebration, support and valuing of our heritage and culture within the city for present and future generations as a key outcome and strategy. One of the aims of the local planning scheme number seven is to support sustainable urban neighborhoods that accommodate a growing population whilst protecting and enhancing heritage areas and other areas of identified or notable character or which contribute strongly to a sense of place.

With all of this in mind, I fully acknowledge the need to adopt a heritage list as a matter of priority and uh I am alarmed to recently learn that we have not had a functioning heritage list for some time. Notwithstanding this, I believe that some decisions made by the council should also be re reconsidered to get the best outcomes for the community as a whole.

So firstly in terms of the heritage list as I said before I support the removal of uh place number 86 39 an street south Perth as the independent consultant recommended that it be classified as category 3. I also support the removal of Wesley College St. Columbus and St. Columbus Church as there appear to be some inconsistency and I'm confident that they are protected under the state heritage list. And I um also as I mentioned agree to the removal of the golf course at this point because I it is my understanding that they will in any case require development appro approval for significant works. So um part three of the recommendation proposes that they be considered further through a place specific review and I'm happy for that to come forward to us. um in the near future.

So in terms of uh 44 Angelo Street, it is my understanding that the owners of that place did not receive written notification that it was being considered for inclusion for whatever reason on the well they would they didn't receive notification that was been considered for inclusion on the heritage list um for whatever reason until after the process had been completed. Sorry, councelor Lees, your five minutes is up. Could I ask council uh to grant an additional 5 minutes for council lees to continue? Could I have someone move that councelor Lees be granted another five minutes? Thank you, councelor Raison. And someone to second it. You councelor Duza. And can I have a vote, please, with the granting of an additional five minutes for council lees? Do I need >> Oh, God. >> One more vote. Councilors, >> councelor Howling, >> thank you councilors. That was unanimous. Uh, council Lees, you have a further five minutes.

So, for that reason and uh given the owner's concerns about the listing, the council resolved at that time at the August 2025 meeting to exclude it from the draft heritage list that was to be advertised. Given the place was recommended in the independent consultants review as a category two place um on the heritage survey, I believe that it should have been advertised and the owners would then have had the opportunity to object to its inclusion on the list despite this uh problem or this discrepancy. is appropriate for it to be considered for listing on the heritage list and therefore not therefore not duly uh considered and therefore duly considered for consideration. Sorry. So I am proposing that this now be addressed and the place advertised for inclusion on the list.

According to the independent consultant report, 44 Angelou Street has considerable significance due to its heritage historical value representing the city's interwar development, its architecture by the famed firm of JJ Talbert Hobbes and its aesthetic value as anam excellent example of the interwar old English architectural style. It is also now a rare example of the interwar old art architectural style in the locality given that 69 South Perth Esplanard was demolished in early 2019. So in my view it warrants proper consideration for protection on the list.

Uh, moving on. Um, in my view, downgrading of the classification of places on the local heritage survey to avoid them being considered for inclusion on the city's heritage list is not an appropriate practice. The heritage survey is a record of our city's places of cultural heritage significance. The state heritage council WA guidelines for local heritage surveys state that classification of places should be considered by a suitably qualified and experienced heritage professional and should be based on their level of significance to the local area. Classifications should not be determined on an ad hoc basis that is not reflective of the true significant of the relevance places. Yes, the classifications are intended to for inform the local heritage list, but the local heritage survey does not have a statutory role. Its primary role is to provide an accurate record of our places of cultural heritage significance.

So, I propose that rec classifications that don't align with the independent consultants or the administration's recommendations be revisited through place specific reviews. I also propose that a place specific review be undertaken of the Collia pine plantation given that it was adopted as a category three uh place despite the independent consultant recommending it be a category two for its rarity and historic value. This re review will enable independent consideration of the city's advice at the time regarding the age and health of the trees and whether that impacts on its classification.

While I am conscious and sensitive to encroachment of private property rights, it is necessary in some instances. Uh and there are many circumstances where this happens in any case already. um but where it will benefit the community or other advice advance the public interest um is is an appropriate um point of time to be doing that. So heritage listing in my view is not necessarily the impediment that some may think. Often heritage conservation improves the value of a property. Similarly, there are many mechanisms the council can introduce to assist the owners of heritage listed properties with approvals and fasttracking and conservation both in terms of streamlining process and financial incentives. So I would ask that the city and the council uh through the next budget process look to help land owners better understand the implications of heritage and look at these mechanisms available to assist owners of heritage properties.

>> 30 seconds remaining. Council leaves >> homeowners come and go. The average period of home ownership in Perth is around 12 years. But heritage places once gone cannot be replaced. they are gone for good. So I am of the view that we should do everything we can to ensure our heritage survey and the heritage list meet best practice and the requirements of our strategic documents. We need to think long and hard about not including per important places of significant cultural heritage significance on the city heritage list and then unless there are exceptional circumstances we should be following the advice of heritage experts.

>> Thank you council. It's time. Councelor Raison, uh you seconded the motion. Would you like to provide reasons with regard to seconding this amendment? >> Yes. Uh thank you uh Mr. Deputy Mayor. Uh I think as already been noted, we have only just received this uh mo amendment to substantive motion this afternoon. And I appreciate that everybody's been doing the very best that they can to sort of formalize everything in the right order. And um one issue that's really on my mind I suppose is uh it's been touched on briefly by councelor Hing about us looking at this in this in the past and decision being made and then being seen to revisit this again. But I understand that it's just seen it as a review. Is that mine? Have I got Can I just ask if that's how you're expressing what we are actually doing that we're just reviewing these places again for the categories? >> Yes, that's correct, Councelor Raison. >> Okay. Um I wonder if we can have an indication of the costing uh involved in a I'm happy to take for this to be taken on notice of each uh specific place review. >> Uh thank thank you councelor Raison uh for the administration. Do you have an estimate of the costing or would you need to take this question on notice? >> Thank you deputy mayor. I'd like to take it on notice. Um the city had received a previous indication for place specific reviews but that was done um a year or so ago. So I'd like to check with consultants to see if any of the costs have changed. >> Thank you director Shaw. We'll take that note on notice. Councelor Rosson you can continue. >> Thank you Mr. Deputy May. The only thing that uh I'd like to add in terms of private property rights is uh I agree with councelor Hing in uh in terms of development the scope but the significant powers that do uh result from any property going onto the heritage list. Um my understanding is that going beyond the development approvals that power also gives uh local government an ability to direct an owner to make uh m to take maintenance action or to conserve a property. It uh also has a power that the local government can then enter a property if those uh works are not done and then can oncharge those costs to uh the owner of the property. So um I'm just foreshadowing that from my point of view I do consider uh places that are not on the state heritage register going onto our heritage list very significant. Um and as I sort of intimated last week um I also have some concerns if that happens on the basis of only one expert. So it's not entirely relevant directly to this but just I guess to give the context of how I'm seeing how this is all sort of playing out in the longer term. Uh yeah just um yeah thank you for the opportunity to give those thoughts. >> Thank you councelor Raison. Could I ask anyone who would want to speak against the amendment motion? Thank you, Council Heling. >> Thank you. Um, and uh, obviously we've only just received this, so I have brought up the motion which was passed in June now. Um, and, uh, I've heard what councelor Lees said, that is that she wishes that the council reconsiders the places um, and, uh, changes the decision. obviously of the June meeting and I've also heard what councelor Reszison says and that that is that we are in the process of reviewing categories the decision that was made on the 24th of June 2025 and consistent with good governance we should respect the decision which was then made by the council and that was that various of the places and almost all of the places as far as I can see as it stands was expressly adopted by this local government at the time and by council. I respect the decisions that are made of this council at that time. I understand what I believe to be said and that is that it was not a decision that was expressly made with having in our possession at that time and that is the council at that time a full heritage survey. Nevertheless, I believe that we can look at the decisions that were made at that point, respect the decision that was made at that point, and for the sake of good governance accept that that was the process through which a differently constituted but nevertheless fully qualified council came to now for us to go through the process of then uh changing the classification again because that's what the decision was and that's the June 24 decision that council adopts the draft local heritage survey subject to modifications and the following uh classifications of significance and it goes through and then lists those items from L2 to L3 etc. and most of them L2 to L3 apart from one which was L3 to L4 and that was place 91 uh 57 and 9 Queen Street. Um, notwithstanding the ruling that you made, I say that not just for that reason, that is that we find ourselves in the process of changing a decision made by a validly constituted council at that particular point in time. I say that now for this for these substantive reasons, we ought to reject this as a process. It is not a process that comes to us aresh with having a looked at all of these places a year or two down the track and saying let's reook at our heritage survey. I listened carefully to some of the deputations last week. Some of them were made very well and some of them said you really have made it a little bit ad hoc and whereas I may personally feel that it is not for me to criticize the council's decisions as they have been made and for that reason I respect the decision. I respect the discretion of each one of those persons sitting around the table in June of 2025 who came to the decision not to include these places or at least amend these places on the heritage survey. Now what's proposed is precisely the same and that is that these places be included to request the chief executive officer to undertake a review of the following places in the local heritage survey and well where relevant ensuring the significant statements or statements of significance. Now if that's not a change of a decision which has been made only very recently I don't know what could ever be but for a substantive reason I am now putting not for a procedural motion that we must stick to the process of good governance and that involves at least receiving a a little bit more time than the five minutes I had to consider this. It also includes us not trying to revisit decisions that had already been made unless it's done in a package basis and it also includes us making sure that the way within which we approach decision making at least respects the previous decisions that had been properly made. I accept what council res says and that is that private property rights are dear to her heart and significant and she identified further powers which are are possible. That's the right of entry into people's property. And I say that if the council previously had rejected these properties, I accept and respect that the decision must have been made with a proper basis with people having carefully considered and exercised their discretion in favor of removing these places. And for that reason, I speak against the motion to now include the places again for reconsideration through the process which has been identified. So those are my reasons. Thank you, Council Hingling. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this amendment motion? I'll have a few words to say and I'll keep it fairly brief. Um the request before us tonight is to consider an additional list of items that had previously been brought to council on several occasions. The request is quite simple. It's to undertake a place specific review of these um place places within the city. I understand most of these had already been previously listed as a category 2 um as part of the review undertaken by an independent review and consultant specializing in heritage. So I consider that this is no different from what is actually being presented with regard to the first amendment to undertake review and asking the C CEO to complete this process to ensure that we've undertaken a a proper process. I don't consider that this to be a major concern with regard to um a decision that was previously made and I will have a few questions of the administration in a minute. But before I do wrap up, is there any other counselor who would actually like to speak in favor or against this item? >> I've got some some questions. >> Yeah, some questions. Councelor Douza, >> thank you through the chair. um the previous consultant um that we hired to do the independent review um if I recall correctly and I might be wrong um that cost was about $80,000. Is that correct, Mich? >> Uh thank you uh deputy mayor. I'm just reviewing the report. I'll see if I have the costing in there. No apologies. I don't have the cost on hand. I'll need to take that on notice. >> Thank you, Director Shaw. Councelor Duza. >> Thank you through the chair. So would this um motion appropriately require um a budget provision for um an estimated cost given that it doesn't currently um have that? >> Thank you. Councelor Duza, um Director Shaw, uh are you able to answer this at the moment or do you need to take this on notice as well? >> Uh thank you, Deputy May. Um I do have um funds for consulting services, generic consulting services. However, dependent on the cost estimates provided by a consultant, it may require um a separate bud budget allocation from council. So, until such time that I've um received some estimates, I would need to take that on notice. Thank you. >> Thank you, Director Shaw. Councilors, are there any further questions? Does anyone Yes. Uh councelor Raison? >> Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. One of the questions I have is just to understand the logic now that councilor Helings's pointed out which I wasn't aware that this has been considered before. It looks to me and I'm happy to be corrected that some places have been included council le but some haven't that were considered in that uh back in that uh June meeting uh and the rationale for including these places and not other places. >> Thank you councelor Raison. Um >> if I can through the chair if I can answer that. So I just want to um reflect on the actual decision in June. So this is decision 0625-103 that council adopts the draft local heritage survey subject to modifications to the following classifications of significance. Place number 34 residence number 426 Canning Highway Como L L2 to L3. Place number 37 commercial premises number 91 coup street from L2 to L3. Place number number 90 residence to Parker Street South Perth from L2 to L3. And place number 91572 Queen Street South Perth L3 to L4. The proposed amendment is simply to add a number of places to the review. It is not asking to change or modify the um category. It is not asking to remove or add items to the heritage survey. It is simply to do a review. Um had the proposed amendment suggested to change categories or to remove or add additional um um properties or places to the heritage survey. Then there's a possibility that a revocation motion may be required. In this case, we are not changing the decision of the June meeting or what's being proposed is not actually changing decision is asking for a review. There is nothing in the amen admin um amendment that suggests that there's a a a request to change the category or add or remove places from the heritage survey. Thank you, Mr. CEO. Councilors, does anyone else want to speak for or against the item? Councelor Printal. >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Um, I'll be speaking against the item. Um, again, I acknowledge this is a massive topic to be thrown into for the new counselors. Um, there's a few reasons I I cannot support this amendment. Um, as we've discussed, most of these most of these places are homes. Um, and we've already heard from most of these homeowners. We deliberated over these particular homes. Um, and I made a decision based on conversations with the residents um, and others. Um, I feel particularly strongly towards part three, um, as, um, I do not support placing this home on our heritage list. Um, council voted to remove this home from the list for the purposes of advertising in August of this year, not very long ago. Um, and this amendment removes all fairness for these homeowners, in fact, blindsiding them. They don't know this is happening. They may very well not know. Um, I do find this really concerning. Um, and I urge councilors not to take this lightly. Um, we may not be directly changing categories, but we are opening these homes and these places up to a category change, um, which isn't fair. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Printal. Um I have a question for the administration just with regard to um the new item.3 included in this amendment and it does raise the advertising of place number 85. Could the administration confirm if this raises any concerns with regard to amending a previous decision given that this is only to advertise at this point in >> um through the chair. I've actually now just had an opportunity to look at the August decision. The August decision was specific that um that item be that place be removed. So um I'm happy to um rephrase my advice that point the first point of the amendment doesn't require revocation, but three most likely would on reflection. >> Thank you, Mr. CEO. Um councilors, does anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Understanding that the concern with regard to.3 goes against the previous decision. >> Uh for the chair, my recommendation is possibly um if the mover and second were prepared to remove.3 so that can be if necessary be dealt separately. But um point the first part of the amendment I think is still valid. >> Thank you. Uh council Lee, would you propose to move three to your amendment regarding the advertising for place number 85? >> Uh thank you deputy mayor and CEO. Um if if that means that this will proceed um with the place specific reviews that or the motion will proceed otherwise I'm I'm happy to do that uh reluctantly at this time. I I would note um that while councelor um Printerville has mentioned am I allowed to she's mentioned that >> shouldn't be debating yes or no >> second okay yes >> second and thank you council le um council razison you seconded this item and would you approve the removal of.3 regarding advertising for place number 85 >> uh through you uh Mr. deputy met I actually am still uh I'm sorry about this trying to still work out exactly I understand those first five places in relation so in order to make that decision I think I need to understand first uh item one if I'm understanding correctly the first five places were dealt with at the June meeting but I'm still trying to work out place number 87 and place number 82 the last two If I can just have some help with that. >> Thank you, Mr. CEO. >> Through the chair. So, in the June meeting, council adopted the local heritage survey that has a list of properties places and it assigned a relevant category from 1 to four. So, these properties are in the local heritage strategy uh sorry, local heritage survey. Um then council decided in August to advertise certain properties and that was basically on the basis that they were either a category 1 or a category 2. That was the basis for the administration's recommendation. What's being proposed in the first part of the amendment is to do a play specific review. We cannot speculate on what the review will actually deliver and for for what council knows at the moment, it might actually confirm the current category um that's in the current survey. But that would be a future, you know, consideration of council when it sees the results of those place reviews. Similar to the first amendment which was asking for a place specific review of certain properties. Um the second part though that refers to advertising. Now that was considered by uh council in August and council made a very specific decision in regards to what places would be advertised for the local heritage list and actually made a specific decision not to include um place number 85 in that resolution. So in that case that is a change to a council decision and it's a relatively recent uh council decision. It could still be considered by council to to change that but we would have to go through the revocation process which would require a third of council to support the change and an absolute majority of council decision to actually um implement the change to that decision. So what I have suggested in order to progress the meeting is part one of the proposed amendment doesn't require a revocation because at the moment we can't speculate on what the review will actually provide council. However, part two, which is the new part three to the substantive motion, would actually require a change to that August decision and therefore it most likely would require a revocation. Um and in all essence, it probably should be considered separately. So, part one doesn't require revocation. So, that could be considered, debated, and resolved by council right now. Part two, which is the new part three, would actually have to have a third counselor support that motion before it could be um voted on. Um and it would have to receive an absolute majority decision, which be five councils would need to support that change. >> Thank you for that clarification. I think uh >> can I just bring a point of order? Sorry, council resent. Um, point of order. Uh, deputy mayor. Um, the provision regulation 101 expressly speaks about in a case where an attempt to revoke or change a decision is made within the previous 3 months. Now, August being within 3 months, it must be by absolute majority. So, it's not onethird of the council. It's going to have to come to the council by absolute majority in accordance with the requirements of the local government administration regulations. >> Thank you councelor Heling. I think the one third of majority was actually to bring the revocation into place first before voting. >> Sorry um Mr. Deputy Mayor if that's the point that I'm making. um it is one if a decision has been made and then there's an attempt to change that decision you need an absolute majority. So it's possible to do what is being done and that's the point is that it must be by absolute majority uh in any other case by at least one/3 but because we're within 3 months August being within 3 month period it therefore requires that absolutely >> the chair I'm happy to agree to that point um having reread the the regulation um so it would actually take five counselors to support the motion um for it to be revoc uh to be um changed So that's why I've suggested that part one of the amendment be considered because that doesn't require a revocation. Part two would it's up to the mover and seconder whether or not they want to proceed and attempt to do the revocation. Um which would require five councilors to support the motion before it's even discussed. >> Thank you Mr. CEO Scott. So currently as we stand, council lees has proposed and approved the removal of the.3 the advertising place number 85 and councelor Raison has seconded this amendment and uh the question before you is do you approve the removal of that that part? I guess my first question before considering that is uh whether given we're now into sort of more complexities than we anticipated partly just because of the time pressure of bringing this is whether the entire uh motion is deferred or do I need to go through the process first of making a decision about the one >> through the chair we currently have a substantive motion before council which is the original officer's recommendation which was subsequently amended by councelor howling so there is a motion before council. We have to deal with the amendment. Um and we can't defer the amendment. It's been effectively put what's what we're trying to do is provide a pathway so that we can deal with the amendment um which would be ideally to remove the second part of the amendment um and just deal with the first part. council could then decide whether or not they accept that amendment and then that either becomes the the substantive motion or it doesn't and we return back to the effectively the standard motion that was created by councelor Hing's um amendment. So if uh we do take that path through of splitting these into two and then they're voted down, it wouldn't be able to be considered again unlike a deferral. >> I think councelor Raison the proposal is to just remove the second part which is the advertising for place number 85 and and not include it as part of this amendment. So the only part that would stand would be part one with the place names proposed for specific review. >> Okay. Well, if that's the advice then I'm happy to second that. So for council's clarity, so the current amendment given that it's been um the change has been approved by both the move and seconder is that council is only considering the amendment of including the following places in part two of the current substantive motion. Is that relatively clear? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item before we put it to the vote? Anyone speak for or against or any questions with regard to this amendment? A question, Councelor Lees? >> No, I'm just um wondering if I get a opportunity to sum up. >> Uh yes, you will. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. No, no further comments. Okay, Councelor Lees, um you can now sum up your argument for this amendment. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor. Um I think this has been a you can you can obviously see what a complicated process that um we have come into at this point in time. It's been a long protracted process before we got here, two years and uh and now we've had a very brief time to get our heads around uh how to uh improve the outcomes from my point of view. Um so it's unfortunate that that um 44 Angelo Street won't be improve included in the uh in the motion. Um from my point of view it is of great heritage significance and uh great rarity. It is um there are similar places um residences by J JJ or Talbert Hobs u included on other local heritage lists and I think it is a a um a sad day if um before the place specific review is undertaken that building were to be demolished and I think while uh councelor Printal talked about fairness for the land owners I think um in this uh case I would be looking at fairness for the majority of the community and that is my greatest concern. This is uh something that will that is very um valuable and if it's lost that would be devastating. Um so I I would also like to respond to councelor Rison's um quest uh comments about the undertaking conservation works and um the opport the possibility that people might um be required to um let uh administration go into their homes and be forced to pay for the cost of conservation works. I think this is uh very much the worst case scenario. Um I haven't seen it happen over my time as a planner. Um or well I shouldn't say I haven't but it's in rare cases where um those places have been allowed to deteriorate to the point um where they're no longer of any heritage significance and effectively get removed from the list. So that's why that was included in the updates to the uh heritage act most recently. um budget provision. Um I note that the question was raised about that. Um I'm assuming that um the addition of the places that I'm suggesting to the list that was uh already um adopted um before this amendment in the in the prior amendment is not going to be significant. So I'm hoping that that will be within the funds that are currently available. Um the recommendation I listened to the deputations last week. I've been in the uh council chambers when it's been discussed previously. I think this is been a very long and complex process. Um and many in the community are um understandably concerned about um the way it's progressed. My recommendation is not to uh add those places to the heritage survey. My recommendation as indicated by the C acting CEO is to undertake place specific reviews. Um and that follows on from the amendment by councelor Howling. Um a survey in my mind is an evolving document. A heritage list is also an evolving document. uh a place specific review will allow the council to consider uh alternative or allow the council to consider the survey evolving in the future. So I don't see that um it it is the issue that it's um being raised but obviously I'm not a governance expert and um I've only just come to the council. So I would like to sum up by saying that while I recognize the complexity and sensitivities involved in heritage listing, I believe that it is essential we uphold uh transparency and reflect expert advice and community values in our decision making. It is imperative that we adopt a heritage list without delay. Our unique heritage sites are irrespable assets and cont contribute deeply to the character and identity of our city. While some may think that many in the community not place a high priority on heritage protection, it is when these places are proposed for demolition that we see the real place they hold in our community's heart. St. >> Councelor Lees, your five minutes is up. Uh councilors um I'd like to grant councelor Lee a further five minutes. Um could I ask there's no ext Thank you. >> Unfortunately there is no extension council le time. >> Thank you council lees. Um on that note um I will put this amended amendment to the vote. And to be clear um only part one including the following places to part two. So that's to undertake the place specific reviews to amend councelor Howling's motion and they include place number 20 34 3790 91 that includes 579 Queen Streets place number 87 and place number 82. If I could put that to the vote please. Thank you councilors and the motion failed 52. Those voting for were council deputy mayor Brenda Brandis me uh councelor Lees. Those voting against the motion are councelor Duza, councelor Howling, Councelor Printal, councelor Raison, and councelor Wall. Thank you. >> Yeah, that's right. Thank you. Thank you, councilors. Um, we move back to the substantive motion now. So we have heard from the mover and also the seconder for the substantive motion. So we're back to the substantive motion and I will now ask for anyone who would like to speak against the substantive motion. Thank you councilors. Uh does anyone want to speak against the substantive motion? Would anyone like to speak in favor of the substantive motion? Does anyone have any questions with regard to the substantive motion? Thank you, councilors. On that note, we'll put this to the vote. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselors. That was unanimous and the substantive motion has been passed with the amendment. Thank you. Someone can please ask the mayor to return to the chamber. And prior to returning uh to council and for the mayor's return, we'll take a 5minut adjournment for everyone to have a refreshment break. Thank you. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Come on. I don't know. Hey. Hey. Hey. minutes. So, I'll just check with governance to see if we're back online. Yes, we are. Okay. All right. Uh, so we've just dealt with item 10.1.1. We now move on to the next item to be withdrawn for discussion this evening, which is item 10.1.2 entitled proposed lease of lot 500 on deposited plan 430041 for a boat shed. Uh I haven't received any alternative motions or any amendments. Uh there is an officer recommendation before us. Would someone like to move the officer recommendation? Councelor Hing. Uh anyone to second? Councelor Raison I think was uh was first to be second there. Uh councelor Howling. Um anything to say as uh as mover? >> Thank you. Uh the proposed lease of lot 500 has been a long time in coming. There's been various questions which have been asked about the nature and extent of the lease. It falls within what is necessary and important for children to enjoy rowing on the Swan River. It's a welcome addition and improvement to what otherwise may have been considered to be somewhat of a dilapidated shed. I thank the hard work that the administration have been have put into getting the lease to this particular point and I therefore endorse entirely what the proposed lease stands for, what it does for our community and how it supports those of the children who enjoy no doubt rowing uh in the mornings improving a shed which is otherwise becoming somewhat dilapidated. ated. So, thank you to the administration and thanks to the previous council for having gotten to the point that we can go through the process of entering into a lease. That's all I wish to say. >> Thank you, councelor Hing. Councelor Raison, anything to say a second? >> Uh, very briefly, I'm very supportive of anything that encourages children in our community to be able to play sport or be outside. Sorry, apologies. Uh Mr. Mayor, uh just in general terms, I'm very supportive of any initiatives that encourage children to be outside and to be engaged in sport in our community. Uh last week I did ask a question about the shared sewer infrastructure agreement and just as a suggestion going forward whether or not it if there is another agreement like that that's running alongside something like a lease whether it can be included as a condition just to be considered uh to tie them together from a legal point of view. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you councelor Raison. Uh councilors does anyone uh it was obviously pulled out for a reason. Um, councelor Russell, any questions? >> No. In fact, I wish to speak against the item. >> Please proceed. >> Cuz I find the terms of the proposed lease agreement too generous to the lei and therefore not benefiting the rateayer in my opinion will in effect overly subsidize the this lease. Nor is it fair to other community groups that rely upon leases with the city. So to be specific one with respect I disagree with the city that the LEI falls under not for-p profofit sporting or organizations per policy P 609. Per the proposed lease the LEI is with Wesley College. Wesley College is not a sporting organization. In my view, Wesley College as a minimum falls under not for-p profofit um community associations, government bodies, committees, and associations, which allows for a minimum of $1,000 perom lease and a maximum lease term of 5 years with a 5-year option. With respect to the latter, the proposed lease is not therefore in alignment with the policy. Point two, as P609, not for-p profofit community associations, etc. only requires a lease of minimum $1,000 perom, then no maximum exists. For me, the lease should therefore be a function of the less's capacity to pay, and I believe this would be reasonably viewed by the district's rateayers. I would agree that $3,000 perom would be reasonable for a community organization that has a limited revenue stream, yet still runs an operation on the smell of an oily rag. However, Wesley College is simply not that type of organization. If Wesley College has the capacity to fund tens of millions of dollars in capital investments, then it certainly has the capacity to fund a lease magnitude greater than $3,000 peranom. In summary, I find the lease term and the annual lease too advantageous to the lei and therefore to the disadvantage to the rateayer. Additionally, because of the term and lease amount, the proposed lease gives Wesley College the same equivalence to many community-based sporting and cultural organizations operating operating under a city lease. I and I believe many within the city would not find this fair nor equitable and therefore not align with the P609 policy objective which requires fairness in the disposal of city property by lease. Under the current terms, I simply cannot put my name against this proposed lease. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Russell. Councilors, is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the officer recommendation? Is there anyone else who would like to speak against the officer recommendation? Councelor Lee. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I uh at the outset would like to say that I'm also supportive of um sport children um children's involvement in sport and um in rowing specifically um and this um development is will proceed um subject to the lease being finalized. But um so it's not a question of of whether or not for me at this time uh the development proceeds. It's more about getting um appropriate lease terms for the community. And I don't believe that um well I'm concerned I must say that the um lease terms don't meet the community's expectations for what is a large piece of prime forshore land. Uh the rental amount does not seem to be reflect reflective of the significance of the location bearing in mind that rental amounts for any not for profit anywhere within the city are to be a minimum of $1,000 under the council's policy P609. Many of these not for profofits are operating on shoestring budgets in far less prominent locations. So, I have a concern with um the the amount that's now proposed for this prime location. Uh while I understand that strictly speaking Wesley fits within the definition of a not for profofit, I am unsure if they fit within the community's understanding of a not for-p profofit and the capacity to pay is significantly different to most other not for profofits within our community. I'm surprised that uh policy P609 also doesn't take into account the area of the lease when determining rents. U my understanding is that the current lease is $1,000 for 463 square meters uh with a dilapidated building as councelor Howling said. Uh, and the new lease will be uh $3,000 for a uh, 1232 square meters and a significantly larger floor area. I also note that under P policy P 609, leases for not for profits are to be for a period of 5 years with a 5-year option. While I understand that the development of the boat shed is a significant capital investment for Wesley and they are seeking security of tenure, the disparity between the standard 5-year period and 21 period 21-year period is significant. My understanding is the management order uh says that they can have up to 21 years um but it is not a minimum amount a minimum time period. So to sum up, I believe that the proposed lease terms do not align with the community's best interests and do not represent an appropriate financial return for prime land. On this basis, I think the city should be looking to rea renegotiate the lease as quickly as possible uh for in everyone's interest to gain a more reasonable deal for the community. >> Thank you, councelor Lees. Councilors, is there anyone who hasn't spoken? Uh question, councelor Brenda Brandis. Uh >> yeah, thank you uh Mr. Mayor. Uh I have a question with regard to um the the lease fee that we're proposing here and whether we've got other examples of uh not for profits in the city that we charge higher amounts to for um making land and space available or is this sort of like a benchmark uh amount? >> Who should I direct that one to? Is that Miss Fry? >> I'm sorry. I don't actually have that information in front of me, but we can take that on notice. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> I guess I might ask a couple of questions at this point cuz uh I must confess I I didn't foresee the debate taking this term. Uh there's no alternative motion before us. There's no amendment before us. What is the consequences of a no vote on this item? And I'm not sure who I should be directing that to any volunteers. >> Um Mr. Scott, >> I attempt um a no vote would mean that no decision has been is is made and potentially the matter would have to be represented. I would suggest that prior to it being represented that um it be um there be a council briefing on the matter um to discuss to ensure that all relevant questions are can be raised are raised and can be responded to prior to the matter being reconsidered. And I guess my next question without saying that I'll I'll move a deferral, but um what would be the difference between a no vote and uh and this item being deferred until next month's meeting? Uh are there any consequences if this were to be if that were to happen? >> I can't foresee any consequences for council. It just may obviously delay any plans associated with the redevelopment because obviously the redevelopment can't occur until a lease has been agreed to. I guess my third question then uh is are we aware of um of any particularly adverse consequences that might be experienced by Wesley College if there were a one-mon delay on a decision on this item. And uh who should I send that to? >> Mr. Ry, I >> mean, my understanding is this is the last piece of the puzzle. So until the lease is signed and executed, they can't start the development. >> All right, those are my questions. Um I'm going to give someone else a go while I turn over a few things in my mind. Uh does anyone wish to speak either for or against the officer recommendation who hasn't already spoken? Councelor Ward. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to speak in favor. I think that this proposal is a sensitive and it's a community-minded proposal that builds on a long history of rowing within our city. Wesley's current shed back dates back to the 1950s. Its modest aging facility no longer meets the needs of the hundreds of students who use it every season. The new purpose-built shed will not only replace the outdated infrastructure, but it'll also enable both Wesley and Penrose College to share one site, expanding opportunities for young people to participate in rowing and water-based recreation, and in particular, Penrose, who um are now, I understand, formally coming into the they haven't had a right to use it before, and I understand that they might be entering into into that. In any event, um Wesley has had a long tradition of opening its facilities

To our community, including both its gym and its swimming pool. They don't have to do that, but they do that.

This partnership model benefits not just the students, but it also benefits our local clubs, our schools, and our residents who already make use of these spaces. We have a significant shortage in our city of community facilities.

The new boat shed continues that spirit of shared access, one that aligns with our city's commitment to inclusivity and the promotion of active healthy lifestyles. The fact that Wesley and Penrose are, from what I understand, working together means that there's one application, not two.

The lease before us does not change the use of the land. It remains dedicated for recreation boat shed purposes under the management order. What this decision does is it provides the security of tenure needed to underpin a significant capital investment. One that not only enhances our foreshore and encourages physical activity of our children within our community and strengthens community ties through sport.

The project sits squarely within node two of the South Perth foreshore strategy management plan which calls for improved facilities, family-friendly recreation, and greater opportunities for water-based activity at Coup Street. The new design will even open up more of the foreshore to public access, ensuring wider community benefits from an improved and better connected space.

The city has worked closely with the department of lands to finalize the tenure and has ensured that all legal and survey costs have been borne by the lessee. The modest rent of $3,000 per year reflects our policy for not-for-profit educational institutions providing a fair return without burdening rate payers.

So by supporting this item, it's my view that we are affirming our city's values of partnership, recreation, and community connectivity. We also send a clear message to our local schools that the city of South Perth values collaborations that foster youth development, well-being, and civic pride. And I would say the same regardless of whether it was a public school or a private school because I do not discriminate between the children of our community. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor War. Councillors, is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against the officer recommendation who hasn't already spoken?

Can I ask a question?

You may. Um, so can, can, uh, through the Mayor, can, um, it be confirmed or indicated for me whether a renegotiation is possible, um, in the terms of the lease, um, that would not necessarily, uh, take a long period of time? I mean, I'm not sure how long lease negotiations take. Um, which would not mean, and that the decision would not necessarily mean that the development is not going to proceed. It's, it's a renegotiation.

Miss Fry, can I send that your way?

Yeah, if we have to go back out to renegotiation, that could take a little bit of time. Um, and then we're also coming towards the end of the year. So, by the time it came for a decision, the terms, we could be looking at early next year. February at this stage.

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Fry.

Uh, councillors, anyone wishing to speak? Councillor Douza.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll speak in favor of the motion. Um, those opposed to the motion have, um, mentioned a potential renegotiation, which, um, I don't see how it would actually work. Um, there's been no alternative motion presented, which would typically set out, um, revised parameters for negotiation. Um, Wesley will likely be blindsided by this, um, having worked in good faith with the city, um, for the past while to get to this point. Um, I think it'll be more than a one-month delay, um, if the renegotiation isn't to certain, um, uh, sort of standards based on certain councillors' views. I think it's a very dangerous process to, um, knock back a lease at such a late stage. Um, so I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Soua. Councillor Brenda Brandis, I thought I saw your hand go up.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm talking to the item. Not sure for or against at this point in time. Uh, I think firstly, um, I appreciate that a decision needs to be made quite rapidly, um, in order for development to progress. On the other hand, I also appreciate that, um, institutions like these do not pay the city any rates, and that was a question that was confirmed last week. So, we don't receive any rates revenue. Part of our strategy is also to consider income diversification, and, and it's by no means to consider that you charge exorbitant amounts on this type of lease arrangement to an institution, uh, like Wesley. I do consider though that, um, based on the categorization of this as a not-for-profit, there'd probably be a better justification and reasoning to actually request a fairer contribution of funding for this lease arrangement. Um, I could only imagine that the administration's time, uh, to prepare the documentation and negotiate leases would be outstripped by the amount of this lease. Um, also just commenting on, um, not accepting this tonight, not passing, uh, this motion. Um, it's been indicated that no decision would actually be made. So, it, it means that yes, well, we can bring it back with a different value. Um, yes, for those reasons, I am a little bit concerned about either, um, not passing this motion, but also, uh, not reflecting a more fair and equitable, um, lease charge on an annual basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brenda Brandis. Uh, a question, Councillor Lee.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, can I, can I just be advised because I'm new to the council, I haven't been involved in, uh, the, um, process up to this date. Has the, have the lease terms been, uh, brought before the council, uh, prior to this for Wesley? Because I, I note that it was said that, um, we are considering this or we're talking about this late in the day, but I'm not sure if it's been considered by the council earlier in the process.

Miss Fry.

No, I don't believe it has.

All right. Uh, I guess I'll ask a question at this point. Uh, obviously, the, the officer recommendation is, is for an annual rent of $3,000 plus GST. And if I recall correctly from looking at the fine print in the, the attachments, that's linked to CPI reviews, I think, annually. Yes. Okay. Uh, I also note from the officer report that there's a significant capital contribution being made by Wesley. I guess my question is, and I'm not sure which officer it's directed to, is on what basis, I suppose, would the, the city officers say to councillors, this is how we've arrived at the annual rental of of $3,000 per annum. Uh, who should I direct that to?

Mr. Scott.

M. Right. The officers have worked within the parameters of that policy. So the only place where they've kind of deviated a little bit is with the, uh, the term because that's in order of, um, sorry, in line with the management order. Um, and I do note that the policy is due to come back to council, um, once we get the new CEO and director to do a workshop on that so that we can cover off on these sort of things a little bit better.

All right. On that basis, I'll speak, uh, and I'll speak in favor of the officer recommendation. I hear the councillors who have said, you know, maybe an institution like Wesley College could afford to pay more. Um, I hear that loud and clear. If this had been raised perhaps a week ago, um, with someone saying they wanted to pass an amendment or or raise an alternative motion, I, I certainly would have listened. I, I don't know how I would have come out, um, in terms of what was decided, but at least then I would have had the opportunity to seek advice from the city administration to, uh, to get a sense of how much capital Wesley is paying for, for this project, and I suppose gauge the reasonableness of of any alternative proposals. But it's really hard to do that in the council chamber. It's really hard to do that when we're in a formal, rigid setting like where we are right now. Uh, in theory, uh, I could vote no or I could adjourn debate right now and bring it back next month, but I have no idea what prejudice would be suffered by Wesley. Um, and how much that might potentially cost them in terms of having to add an extra month to their plans. It might be nothing. It might be significant. I just don't know. The officers have worked within the the framework of the policies that this council has set previously, and and that's their job. Um, we, we set policies, they, they make recommendations based on the policy frameworks that we create for them. I've never liked the idea of trying to fix problems downstream. I've always thought, for example, if we're talking about statutory planning decisions, fix it upstream at the strategic planning level, don't try and fix it downstream when recommendations are made on the basis of our, uh, statutory planning framework. So, on balance, and given the information that's available to me at this time, uh, I will go with the officer recommendation, um, but maybe there's a lesson, um, in here for us in here somewhere. That's all I'm going to say. Um, is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against who hasn't spoken yet? No. Okay. Uh, Councillor Hing, you were the person to move the motion. Uh, you have five minutes to rebut any arguments made against the officer recommendation if you would like to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The question of whether or not the terms are too generous is one which is subjective, and none of us have the ability to make a decision in respect of evaluation exercise of a property on the fair shores of the Swan River would be almost impossible to endeavor to estimate in terms of what its rental value should be, particularly where it's used for children, for a boat shed to engage, engage in educational activities, which is the purpose for which it is presently under management. It's a management order given to the city in 15, on the 15th of October 2024. The minister granted approval after this council had recommended against doing so. It is now got a lease before it. This council ought not to now reject a lease which has been put in usual terms other than the amount of the payment. The only deviation that I can see from a brief look at policy P609 is in reality the 21 years, which is consistent with the management order. It is not unknown for a minister to say, well, if you're unable to manage this area, then we will remove this area from your management order. And the minister is then able to make the decision himself. I think that at the present time, we ought properly to respect the fact that we are dealing here with a not-for-profit organization who do not make super profits as suggested because they are not for profit. All of the money that they put back into the community is putting it back into our children, the children of South Perth, the children who go to school there, the children who enjoy the activities on the Swan River. I'm not against children. But to say that I'm not against children and then vote this down with the greatest of respect is to deny an opportunity for the reestablishment of this facility. It will be there, but it's the reestablishment of this facility by way of renewal that this local government ought to capture on, capture and capitalize on because we will see a renewal of a shed which has become dilapidated over the period of time to a facility which I commend the administration for working so closely with the applicants on and resulting in a in a rowing shed which at least on the drawings that I've been able to look that appears to be aesthetically pleasing, much more aesthetically pleasing than what's before us or or that's there at the present. This is not about renegotiation of the terms because the terms are just usual lease terms. These are terms of leases that I see or that anybody within legal practice will see on a daily basis. Nothing surprising. What's the problem with this particular lease is that some people think that Wesley somehow receiving an advantage. Wesley are not receiving an advantage. They are doing what everybody else does in the way I have to deal with them, in the way within which the policy sets it out, and we have to deal with them in the right way. I adopt what Councillor Duza said, it would be not only inappropriate, it'll be improper to now blindside Wesley by endeavoring to renegotiate something which has already been negotiated. We will look very poor. We will lose the trust not only of the community but of Wesley. It'll make it look like we don't know what we're doing in advance. I adopt what the Mayor said. If we're going to do this, we do this by adoption of an amendment to the policy in advance. We don't make decisions such as this on the run. The administration have gone in and negotiated in good faith. And they don't expect us to pull the towel or the rug away from underneath them when they come to making the decision. They have to be able to negotiate in good faith. I commend the administration for doing so. Let's get on with it. It's been a year since they've received their development approval. We've got a lease before us. Let's move forward because that's the right thing to do for the kids of our community. So, I commend the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Howling. Uh, councillors, I'm putting the officer recommendation to the vote. Please cast your votes.

All right. So, the, the votes are in. Uh, those who voted in favor of the officer recommendation were Councillor Duza, Councillor Howling, uh, Mayor Milner, Councillor Prenville, Councillor Raison, and Councillor W. Those who voted against were Councillor Brenda Brandis, Councillor Lees, and Councillor Russell. Okay, we now move on to the next item to be withdrawn for discussion this evening. Uh, which is item 10.3.1 entitled proposed home business, art and tattoo studio, lot 2, number 71 Strickland Street, South Perth. Uh, Councillor Howling, I understand that you have an alternative motion that you, you'd wish to move. Uh, I usually do allow councillors to move their alternative motions first. So, if you would like to move your alternative motion, uh, I might get you to. That's a long one, but, uh, if you could read the text of the alternative motion itself, not the reasons, just the alternative motion, and then I'll see about a seconder.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Mayor, the alternative motion is that council, pursuant to clause 682 of the schedule 2 of the planning and development local scheme regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of South Perth Local Planning Scheme Number Seven, refuse the application for development approval for a home business art and tattoo studio on lot two, number 71 Strickland Street, South Perth for the following reasons. One, the proposed development is inconsistent with the definition of home business in the local planning scheme by generating traffic difficulties and adverse amenity impacts. Two, the proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of the residential zone as the proposed development is not considered to be compatible with and complimentary to the residential development. Three, the proposed development does not satisfy clause 672N of the planning and development local scheme regulations 2015 as the proposed development would detract from amenity of the locality. Four, the proposed development does not satisfy clause 672R of the planning and development local scheme regulations 2015 in respect to the suitability of the land for development taking into account the possibility of risk to human health or safety due to the steep driveway and proximity to the pedestrian pathways.

So moved.

Thank you, Councillor Hing. Uh, would anyone like to second Councillor Hing's alternative motion?

Going, going, Councillor War. Uh, Councillor Howling, the, the floor is yours if you'd like to give your reasons.

Thank you. Um, this is a development proposal which we need to consider in light of the location and what the proposal is for. It's for a home business. In my view, it sits uncomfortably within the residential setting. I've visited the location. I have observed the very steep driveway which extends for 30 meters with an awkward turnaround zone at the top of the driveway. I've also observed children walking up and down the street and having pulled into the driveway and then reversed back out, I cannot simply see on either side as a result of the high walls that are adjacent the immediate, um, driveway. And so for that reason, a very significant issue that I have raised and raised in the agenda briefing was the issues associated with the steepness of the driveway, the re, the lack of turning space at the top of the driveway, and the blind spot as one reverses back onto Strickland Street. School children do use the footpath. It is hard to see. High walls do prevent, uh, sight lines easily onto the footpath. And with street parking, which is already very limited, it is inevitable that the persons who will be attending this home business will drive up to the top, find themselves in a very awkward position for having to reverse their cars back out, and then reverse back down out of that driveway instead of driving forward because of the awkwardness of the way within which it's positioned. Additionally, I've reviewed aerial photography. Rarely, if ever, have I seen, at least on the aerial photography, that the driveway area at the top, which is the so-called turnaround zone, is being used for that purpose or for the purposes of parking. Instead, consistently cars are parked within the driveway. That means that they are reversing out. An unfamiliar driver with that steep driveway and reversing out where children are walking in that location does give rise to a safety issue. It's put and said at least in the agenda briefing, oh, the extent to which this occurs is very limited. It's not a question of how often a child is walking up and down or how often a car is driving into the car park into that, uh, driveway. It's the fact that we will be putting people onto that particular driveway who are unfamiliar with that particular location. Now, I don't know what a tattoo does to you, and I don't know whether or not you're in agony and pain. It looks like you are once you come out of the studio. I don't know whether that's going to have any further contribution. But I say that the test of safety is not to be assessed by how many cars are coming in and out, but it's to be assessed by the risk matrix with which most of us are used to. And that is, what is the nature and extent of the injury or the damage that could be caused by just even one car reversing over a driveway because they have sight lines which are affected as a consequence of those adjacent walls where their car is three or four meters up the driveway, and then they'll be upon children before they know it. Secondly, I accept the position put by the various of the submitters, and that is the persons who have objected to this proposal on the basis of amenity, and that's one of the reasons why I've opposed. Now, there's a number of the tests as now set out within regulation 67N has of course replaced the tests as found within other cases, but those cases are often referred to, such as Tempora and the S of Kalamanda, where the amenity includes the identification of there's some expectation of the residents, how they feel about where they live, and what they've told us is that they feel that their residential area will be impacted, no matter by how few people are attending. Policing how many people attend is not only problematic. It's difficult, and there are so many now home businesses located within South Perth that it's not appropriate for us to just add to the problem. Yet again, without our ability to properly be able to police these sorts of activities, we are seeing a detraction of the residential areas by creating home businesses throughout the locations. And for that reason, I say that the amenity considerations are also additionally of significant imp, significant weight together with the residential concerns who have opposed on the basis of amenity, particularly, but also for the maintenance of their residential zone.

Councillor Howling, that's five minutes. I move a motion that you be granted a further five minutes.

It'll be 10 seconds for that reason.

For that reason, I oppose the, the motion.

All right. Great. Uh, Councillor War, you're the second. Would you like to speak?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to start here by acknowledging that the applicants and recognizing that they have, um, clearly put thought and effort into presenting their proposal tonight. And I understand they're trying to establish a small business. And I want to be very clear that any comments that I make are not directed personally or with any prejudice towards the nature of the work. However, as councillors, we are required to make planning decisions based on suitability, not just of the use itself, but of the location, the scale, and the amenity impacts on the surrounding residents. And that's where I have some concerns with this application. I also went and visited the property and, um, I noticed that it is on a quiet residential street. It is very close to a primary school. Um, there is, it is surrounded by, it's very highly built up around it with very clearly children living, um, very close. Um, we've received six objections out of 22 letters, which is quite high. And I think it's fair to say that that reflects the genuine concern about the change in character that a business of this nature might bring to what otherwise, I think, could quite adequately be characterized as a family-oriented area. So, my particular concern relates to the site layout and the access. Um, the driveway, as Councillor Howling has said, is quite long and narrow with no turning circle at the rear. Um, I did drive all the way up it and, uh, I did find a little bit of difficulty reversing all the way back out again, uh, onto a street that already carries school traffic, pedestrians, um, and in my view, that does present obvious safety risks, um, especially given the proximity to the school. So, I appreciate the business may not meet the technical definition of a home business, um, in some respects, but I'm also not convinced that this is the right location, um, for this particular use. Um, and our role as councillors is to balance individual enterprise with neighborhood amenity. Um, and in this case, I don't think that that is achieved. So, I do genuinely wish the applicants well, and I do hope that there might be a more suitable location for them to operate from. But based on, uh, the planning merits and the community feedback and the safety considerations, I wouldn't be comfortable supporting the proposal before us tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor W. Councillors, is there anyone who would like to speak against the alternative motion? Councillor Russell.

Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, well, firstly, I would say that under a quasi-judicial planning matter, there is nothing improper for a local government member to form a different opinion or assessment outcome to the city recommendation, and for that opinion or assessment outcome to derive a different position. To say or believe otherwise, well, then a member might as well just delegate all planning matters to the city, and I'm certainly not in agreement with that approach. However, for this DA, I see no rational reason for refusal, and therefore I am in agreement with the city recommendation to approve. To address some of the, um, the reasons outlined in the alternative motion for refusal, it would seem they come down to safety and amenity. I would say that neither represents a meaningful step change that is what is currently experienced by the applicant, the adjoining properties, or indeed by any resident within the city. The no outward appearance of a business, no note of additional waste collection, operations with indoors, no note of significant noise, and the infrequency of client visits simply makes this so. Particularly in regards to safety. If a safety risk assessment were to be performed, and noting that the DA does not include any service vehicles requirements, as deliveries are by post only, and as there are pedestrian sight lines for vehicles exiting, then assessment would be deemed as already acceptable. That is, no mitigation would be required to make the DA so far as is reasonably practical. There is simply no basis for this refusal or to refuse this DA for safety nor amenity reasons, and to this effect, I wish to foreshadow the officer's recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Russell. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the alternative question? Councillor Brenda Brandis.

Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question with regard to the safety that's been raised as a concern. Um, my understanding was that the administration considered the safety matter to be relatively low risk. Um, could the administration please, uh, comment on safety being a concern in this instance?

Michelle.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I can provide some comments that were provided, um, by the city's engineering services, um, in response to the driveway. Um, just only in relation to the driveway, that there were no specific regulations that would render the driveway unsafe for residential use by the owner or visitors.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Another question, Councillor Brenda Brandis.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Director Shaw. Um, with regard to the scale of activity, um, it is actually significantly low. Um, one visitor per day and no more than four visitors per week. Um, comments were made about the impact of the scale, um, and the impact on the amenity to the area with these visitors. Can the administration please provide comments as to whether this scale of activity would be unreasonable, inappropriate, or would detrimentally impact, uh, the neighborhood?

Michelle.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, it's open to council to use its discretion in this respect. The officer recommendation has recommended that the application could be approved subject to appropriate conditions to restrict the hours of operation and such, um, to try and mitigate any potential impacts, um, on the amenity of the locality. Um, but it is a relevant planning consideration for council to consider the amenity of the locality, and council could form the view that the proposal does impact the amenity of the locality.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Another question, Councillor Brenda Brandice. No. Okay. All right. Uh, Councillor Lee.

Far away. Um, through the Mayor. It, the, um, square meter each area of the proposed studio is 22 square meters. If it was, uh, two square meters less, am I right in understanding that would be considered a, uh, home occupation and, uh, would be a preferred use?

Mich, Mr. Mayor.

To be considered a home occupation, it would need to meet all of the requirements of the definition of a home occupation. One of which is an area of no greater than 20 square meters. But amenity is also a relevant consideration in the definition of a home occupation.

Thank you, Miss Shaw.

Um, sorry, further question. So, uh, the reason it was advertised is because it was, it's an A use and it's two square meters more than the, uh, than a home occupation.

Michelle.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. So, because it, um, exceeded the 20 square meters, um, it was considered that it could meet the definition of a home business and was therefore advertised.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Uh, I think we're up to anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the alternative motion. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor who hasn't spoken? Councillor Raison.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I understand it, the local scheme generally permits businesses to be operated from home, but in this case, development approval is required. In considering whether to approve the proposal, I've considered the scheme, the administration's recommendation, the existing amenity of the area, the potential effect of the proposed business, the objections from nearby homeowners, and the email sent on behalf of the applicant today. Generally, there can be good reasons for a business to be operated from home. However, when I was meeting residents prior to the recent election, many concerns were raised with me about parking and traffic along Strickland Street. In fact, Strickland Street traffic management and parking were raised with me more than any other street, uh, in my, the area where I door knocked. I appreciate that some of these concerns might be ameliorated to some extent by the proposed conditions. However, I also note the proposed hours the business would operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. That includes busy times of day for people going to and from work and families dropping off and picking up their children from schools or extracurricular activities. This exacerbates my concerns about parking and traffic. These concerns might be eased to some extent if clients of the proposed business parked in the long driveway at the property, which I'm familiar with. However, there would be then safety concerns as some cars may reverse out of the long driveway and onto Strickland Street, including at busy times of day. As a result of these concerns and the objections of neighboring homeowners, which as council will pointed out, there were a number, I've decided not to approve the proposed development. There are two other matters to add. The first is that the proposed business is a tattoo and art studio, and not another kind of business. In my view, this gives rise to an to understandable concerns on the part of the community as to the potential effect on the amenity of the area. The second is that I understand from last week's meeting that the business already exists but is operating from another place. In these circumstances, the business may be able to continue even if development approval is not granted. These are not easy things to weigh, and I think in the end, it is of utter utmost importance to me really that while a business can be carried on elsewhere, the people who live in the area can't necessarily move and do the same. So I, uh, um, yeah, they're my reasons. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Raison. Is there anyone who would like to speak against the alternative motion? Uh, question, Councillor Brenda Brandis.

Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have another question with regard to, um, their proposed activities. So, we are limiting the numbers to only a few people attending the property. Um, is that because the other part of their business is an art studio and they're also undertaking a lot of artwork? Um, was there any indication as to sort of what extent the, uh, the split between say artwork, commissioned artwork, and and tattoos being undertaken?

Michelle, is that the tattoos can take between six to eight hours per day provided by the applicant.

Yeah.

All right. Is there anyone who would like to speak against the alternative motion? Councillor Lees.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I am not convinced that a refusal of the proposed home business is justified on planning grounds or would stand up on appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal. Uh, the home business will be limited to one client per day and four per week and will not operate on weekends. So, in terms of people coming and going, it's not excessive or inconsistent with a residential use. It's indoors. It's not going to generate excessive noise or odor. There will be no signage. Um, and I don't think we can form a view that a tattoo studio will, um, attract different anyone that might be undesirable. I, I myself don't have a tattoo, but I know that there is a majority of people that do, so I don't think that's really entirely relevant. Um, so, as indicated in the officer report, the nature of their activity and the scale of the use is unlikely to adversely impact the character or amenity of the area. Um, in terms of traffic, given the maximum number of clients proposed and assuming that they all come by car, the number of vehicle movements that will be generated is low. It's one vehicle per day, but at a maximum four days a week. So, while I acknowledge that the driveway is steep, this is an existing situation, and the additional traffic generated by the youth, combined with that of the home, still remains similar to what you would expect for a normal residential home. So, on that basis, I won't be supporting the amendment.

Thank you, Councillor Lees. Uh, a question, Councillor W.

Yes, please. I've got two questions, if I may. Um, first of all, is that I understand the question that was previously asked of Director Shaw. Um, and the answer was, tattoos can take six to eight hours a day. Um, I think the question there is, do all of the tattoos that they operate from the premises take six to eight hours, or I mean, I know many people who have had many, many tattoos much shorter. Is there, is that actually an express limitation on them that they must be six to eight hours?

Michelle.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, I don't think the intent, um, from the advice from the applicant as to the six to eight hours was that every tattoo would take up to six to eight hours. Certainly, some could be shorter.

Okay. And, um, and so on, on that basis, I understand that the one client per day and the four per week was based upon the six to eight hours. Um, that's not the case. That's that's actually what you're proposing.

Michelle.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, the, um, hours of operation also include the other elements of the proposed business, which, um, is contained in the proposal section of the report, which involves design, consultation, branding, and digital marketing, and the like.

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. And if I may, just, just again, um, can you tell me how the city enforces, um, that, um, limitation on people attending?

Michelle.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, typically the city acts on a complaints basis. So, if we received complaints from neighboring property owners that there were vehicles attending the property outside of the hours, um, that would be subject to a condition of approval. We would liaise with the applicant to try and, um, undertake an investigation to determine whether or not the business was operates out operating outside of any conditions of development approval.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Uh, Councillor Brenda Brandis, I thought I saw your hand go up. Question.

Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's a question and just follows on, uh, from my, uh, response. Is, um, is the nature of the business considered valid when making a determination or taking, uh, opinions into account, such as in this instance?

Miss Shaw.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The nature of the business is relevant in respect to how it relates to the amenity of the locality, which is a relevant planning consideration. So, when we consider the nature of the business, we're, um, considering matters such as, um, noise, light, etcetera. Anything that could potentially have an impact on the amenity of the locality.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillor Brenda Brandice.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Director Shaw. So, just to clarify, for example, maybe something like a fish and chip shop operating from that residence would not be appropriate given high turnover, high volume, and a lot of traffic.

Michelle.

I, thank you, Mr. Mayor. That would be considered a shop land use with an X use in the residential zone.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillors, is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the alternative motion who hasn't spoken yet? No. Uh, question, Councillor Brenda Brandis.

Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's a question and just follows on, uh, from my, uh, response. Is, um, is the nature of the business considered valid when making a determination or taking, uh, opinions into account, such as in this instance?

Miss Shaw.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The nature of the business is relevant in respect to how it relates to the amenity of the locality, which is a relevant planning consideration. So, when we consider the nature of the business, we're, um, considering matters such as, um, noise, light, etcetera. Anything that could potentially have an impact on the amenity of the locality.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillor Brenda Brandice.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Director Shaw. So, just to clarify, for example, maybe something like a fish and chip shop operating from that residence would not be appropriate given high turnover, high volume, and a lot of traffic.

Michelle.

I, thank you, Mr. Mayor. That would be considered a shop land use with an X use in the residential zone.

Thank you, Miss Shaw. Councillors, is there anyone who would like to speak against the alternative motion who hasn't spoken yet? I might say a few words. Uh, councillors, I've, I've read the alternative motion. I've read the written arguments given in support of the alternative motion, and I've listened to the verbal arguments presented in, in favor of the alternative motion. I hope I can persuade one or two people to change their minds, cuz I think we might be in danger of making a mistake here. I'm not persuaded by the, the reasons given in support of the alternative motion. Uh, I do think the city officer recommendation for approval is correct, and, uh, I was going to foreshadow the officer recommendation myself, but Councillor Russell has has already done that, so no need for me to do so. Let me tell you why. The alternative motion proposes four reasons for refusing the applicant's development application. The first reason given by the alternative motion to refuse the application is that the development is inconsistent with the definition of home business, and the business would apparently generate traffic difficulties and adverse amenity impacts. But I don't think that's supported by the facts. Condition two of the officer recommendation limits the business to one client a day and four clients a week. That's not going to create traffic difficulties or adverse amenity impacts. There was a suggestion that the one client a day and four clients a week limitation might be hard to police, but I don't think we can go around refusing development applications on the assumption that a condition might not be complied with. I, I don't think that's fair. So, oh, and if that wasn't enough, uh, page 37 of the officer report expressly states that the development is compatible with its setting. So, we can't refuse the application on that basis, not on the, the basis of the first reason given for the alternative motion. The second reason given by the alternative motion to refuse the application is that the proposed development apparently does not satisfy the objectives of the residential zone. But again, that does seem to be a statement of opinion and not one that's supported by the facts. Page 35 of the officer report states that the home business is a land use that can be considered within the residential zone. And the officer report expressly notes that the home business will be unobtrusive and will not impact adversely on the residential amenity of the area. So, I can't accept the second reason given for this alternative motion. The third reason given by the alternative motion to refuse the application is that the proposed development apparently will detract from the amenity of the locality. Well, once again, that does seem to be a mere statement of opinion. It is directly contradicted by the officer report in front of us. And I'm specifically referring to pages 35, 36, and 37 of the officer report. And councillors, I remind you, we're talking about a business that is expressly limited to one client a day and four clients a week. That's not going to detract from the amenity of the locality. In fact, that's, in terms of the amount of traffic that it's going to generate, not much difference to an ordinary residential property. It's, you know, people come in and out to go to work and drop off their kids and go to and from, uh, sports and other things. I don't think what we're talking about here is markedly different to any normal residential home. So I can't accept the third reason given for this alternative motion. The fourth reason given by this alternative motion to refuse the application is that the proposed development application apparently poses a, open quote, possible risk to human health or safety due to its steep driveway and proximity to pedestrian pathways, close quote. Well, okay. Um, we certainly don't want risks to, to human health and safety. Um, that sounds serious at first glance, but as it happens, uh, Councillor Brenda Brandis sent through some questions to the city administration on this very issue late last night. So, thank you to Councillor Brenda Brandis for for doing so, and thank you to the other councillors who, who sent through questions regarding this item. And I'd also like to thank the city staff for providing such prompt and informative answers under some fairly steep time constraints. Now, councillors, I know there's been a lot of emails today. I, I forgive councillors for not being across everything that's that's been provided by the administration today, but to help you, the specific email that I'm referring to here was sent to all councillors by Miss Shaw at 10:50 a.m. today. And in response to question six from Councillor Brenda Brandis, the city's engineering services, who have very relevant expertise in these matters. That's five minutes. I'm going to have to interrupt myself. Um, would someone be kind enough to move? Yes, thank you. Councillor Brenda Roberus, seconded by, uh, by Councillor W. Councillors, would you please cast a vote on whether I could be granted a further five minutes? That was unanimous. Thank you, councillors, for the indulgence. So, we have the city's engineering services team, who have very relevant expertise in this area, have advised that, open quote, there are no specific regulations that would render the driveway unsafe for residential use by the owner or visitors, close quote, and that, open quote, no further conditions are warranted based on the current design and site observations. The driveway gradients are considered acceptable and pedestrian sight line truncations are adequate to maintain safety, close quote. So, councillors, as far as I can tell, and based on the expert advice that we've been provided with, the fourth reason for this alternative motion is not supported by the relevant facts. And, uh, I think Councillor Brenda Brandis made the very good point that the driveway is not dissimilar to a lot of other driveways in the city of South Perth, and it's not a terribly different use or, or more high volume usage of the driveway in question. It's, there's nothing special about this. So, I'm going to speak in very general terms just for a moment. Planning law is complex. That's why the city has a dedicated team of planning experts to provide us with advice and assist us in making statutory planning decisions. And statutory planning decisions are very important decisions. They're very consequential decisions. And as alluded to at the council briefing last night, we don't have an advocacy role when it comes to statutory planning decisions. We're approaching these decisions in our quasi-judicial role. We must be objective in our deliberations. If a development planning application comes along and it complies with the town planning scheme and it complies with the relevant legislation regulations, we're obliged to grant approval to the development application. It doesn't matter whether we like the proposed development. It doesn't matter whether we would want a similar development next door to us. It

doesn't matter whether we think the proposed development might be done in a different or better way. And that's not me speaking. That's directly from the the Dwa course notes on planning years ago when I took that very course. Uh maybe they changed it in the proc following years, but that's that's what I was taught as to how we should approach planning matters.

And I get it. Uh it can be very hard for us counselors because we naturally want to look after our residents. We want to listen to what they've got to say. We were elected to serve as representatives of our community and when a number of residents say they've got some concerns about a potential development and there were six objections in respect of this application naturally we want to help. I get it. I really do.

But statutory planning decisions are different to other council decisions. We don't have an advocacy role. We have to act in that quasi judicial capacity as though we are judges strictly applying planning law and only having regard to those considerations that the law deems to be valid planning considerations. That's a tough job. That's one of the toughest jobs that we have as councilors. But it is one of the jobs that we're required to perform. We are obliged to make statutory planning decisions according to planning law.

Councilors, I have considered the arguments in support of this alternative motion, but with respect, the city officers have got it right. The development application complies with the city's plan planning framework. The applicant is entitled to see it approved. I'm voting against this alternative motion. That's me. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against who hasn't already spoken? No. In that case, um I'll I'll give councelor Howling five minutes to rebut any arguments made against the alternative motion. Um and then I'll put this item to the vote, bearing in mind that councelor Russell has foreshadowed the officer recommendation if the alternative motion is not carried. Councelor Hing, the floor is yours.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh firstly, you said that it was a mistake to consider that there would be reasons why we shouldn't grant the approval. You've further suggested in your u submission that we are obliged to grant approval. That is not the case. This is a discretionary decision which is expressly reserved within the provisions of the town planning scheme as a discretionary decision. What we have to bring to bear is those matters which are contained in regulation 67. Regulation 67 include the submissions which are made. Those submissions we shouldn't undermine. We shouldn't say that those persons who made those submissions made a mistake when they spoke about the amenity because the questions of amenity are the sum expectation of the residents and the residents are able to express what their expectations are. In fact, in the state administrative tribunal, the tribunal takes into account not only expert views, that is the views of the planners, but will also take into account the residents who often will seek to become interveners or join to the application or certainly when the matter, if it ever proceeds, will need to express their view of the amenity of the location. For that reason, it is not strictly an objective test. that has gone out of the window and we are now in the realm of looking at what the expectation of the residents are. The residents have expressed their views by law. That's regulation 67. We are to take that into account and it's not a mistake to take it into account. The law requires us to take it into account. So in so far as we need to then take into account the submissions, we can do so on the basis of what is the amenity of that location. And the amenity is a residential amenity. And the residential amenity contrary to what is stated is expressly set out. It's not a matter which is subjective in this occasion because it's set out within the provisions of the town planning scheme. And it says to provide a range of housing etc. We know that etc in respect of streetscape. But then this important dot point to provide for a range of non-residential uses and importantly which are compatible with and complementaryary to residential development. Now it's suggested by uh councelor Brenda Brandice that we have to provide within a residential area some broad breadth of enabling people have the opportunity to do some diversification some business opportunity. That's not the purpose. The purpose of the residential area is expressed within the scheme and it is to provide complementaryary so those uses which are complementaryary to a residential purpose. We have heard the surrounding neighbors and they have said it's not complimentary. I wish to turn to safety with the greatest of respect. when I asked questions at the agenda briefing whether a safety study had been done and hadn't been done. Um that I make no criticism in respect of that except for this to then have received on last Friday a brief document which speaks not about the safety of the driveway because it quite candidly accepts that no site inspection was conducted. That's critical. We're not interested here about whether or not Strickland Street had crashes since December 24. What we're interested in is whether or not adding an additional people into this particular location, one, two, or five, it matters not, would be able to safely go into the driveway and back out of the driveway. And for that reason, with the greatest of respect, the suggestion that appointment only basis ensures that there's low and controlled vehicle movements. I don't know what low and vote and controlled vehicle movements are. If it means that somebody's driving a vehicle, well, very true. Most people do drive vehicles. Uh, if it suggests that with low with areas sufficient for on-site turning and egress, there's no study being done. What I would have expected with an application of this nature is that it would be accompanied by appropriate sight lines ahead of the application having been made. And for that reason at least a preliminary review of the site would have revealed the high walls on either side. In the circumstances to say that it is a mistake is to overcook it. This is not a mistake. This is a taking into account the residents who have expressed their opinions who we need to properly take into account in considering amenity. The regulations expressly require us to consider their submissions and additionally the safety concerns cannot be said.

>> 30 seconds. Councelor Hingling. The safety concerns cannot be said to have been addressed because there is no such study which is been properly undertak taken addressing the egress out of that particular property. Accordingly, I say that I ask for your support of the proposal to refuse the development.

>> Thank you, councelor Hing. All right, councilors. I'm about to put the alternative motion to the vote. uh and reminding everyone that councelor Russell has indicated that he's foreshadowed the officer recommendation if the alternative motion is not carried. With that, councilors, please cast your votes. And we're waiting on I've never seen a yellow one go on before. No, can't abstain.

>> Uh, governor, am I correct in thinking that the abstain was from councelor Lees? We can get council le to to cast a vote orally perhaps.

>> All right. Uh, well, in that case, uh, the alternative motion has failed. Uh, four votes to five. Uh those who voted in favor of the alternative motion were councelor Howling, councelor Prenville, councelor Raison and councelor Wall. Those who voted against the alternative motion were councelor Brenda Brandis, councelor Souza, councelor Lees, myself, Mayor Milner, and councelor Russell. Councelor Russell, you foreshadowed the officer recommendation during the debate on the alternative motion. Would you like to move the officer recommendation?

>> Uh yes, I do. Thank you.

>> All right. Would anyone like to second the office of recommendation? Councelor Lees, the floor is yours. Councelor Russell.

>> Uh, nothing more to add.

>> All right. Councelor Lees, anything to say? A seconder? No. Uh, councilors, does anyone wish to speak against the officer recommendation?

>> Question.

>> You may. Uh I'd like to know whether or not the adjacent fences on both sid is compliant with the R codes and uh in particular in respect of truncation requirements under the provisions of the R codes.

>> Miss Shaw, can I send that one your way?

>> Uh thank you Mr. May. I'd need to take that question on notice. Um just noting that the city would not have undertaken an assessment against the requirements of the residential design codes um in assessing an application for a home business.

>> Thank you, Miss Shaw. Uh councelor Hing, another question.

>> Thank you. Um, is it accepted nevertheless that it's simply a residential premises which is now intended to have an additional use being a home business and so that by way of the application brings into question the relevant truncations and the requirements of the R codes in considering this application.

>> Michelle,

>> it's a good question.

>> I know it is. Yeah, I'd need to take that question on noticed. Yeah, I'd need to consider that.

>> The question councelor Hing, your light's still on.

>> Okay.

>> I I'll um look forward to receiving the uh answer to that and I can help you if you wish.

>> Would anyone like to speak against the officer recommendation? No. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of the officer recommendation? No. Uh there's been no debate, so there's uh there's no need for councelor Russell to wind up. I'll simply put the officer recommendation to the vote. Councilors, please cast your votes. All right, so the votes are in. Those who voted in favor of the officer recommendation were councelor Brenda Brandis, councelor Souza, councelor Lees, myself, Mayor Milner, and councelor Russell. Those who voted against were councelor Howling, councelor Prenville, councelor Raison, and councelor War. Uh the office of recommendation has passed five votes to four. Generally speaking, uh we we we don't have applause or booze or um shows of emotion. Uh, yeah, thank you. Uh all right, so we now move on to the the next item to be withdrawn for discussion this evening. And bear with me while I find my notes because my run sheet seems to have disappeared during the course of that debate. Ah, found it. There we go. Uh all right, we're now up to item 10.4.1, which is entitled Chief Executive Officer Evaluation Committee. Uh so we're into the the phase where we start appointing elected members to various committees and and bodies folks. Uh so I have received nominations to go onto the committee um from well I'm automatic uh but also from councelor Lees councelor Prenville councelor war councelor Souza councelor Brenda Brandis and councelor Howling which takes us up to the seven elected members that are required. Uh there is an officer recommendation before us, but it does need some filling in of the blanks in terms of the presiding member and the deputy presiding member. Would anyone like to move a motion to that effect? Councelor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move um if if you're willing to accept uh you as the mayor to be the presiding member. I would actually like to be the deputy with regard to this.

>> All right. So just to confirm your motion is uh for paragraph 1 uh as per the officer recommendation but uh with myself at paragraph A and then from paragraph B onwards uh councelor Lees councelor Prenville councelor war councelor Douza councelor Brenda Braderson councelor Howling and paragraph two uh with my name in the blank there and paragraph three your name in the blank there.

>> All right uh I'm happy to second that. Uh, councelor Russell,

>> I believe I put my name down for this committee.

>> Oh, uh, for the chief executive officer. Uh, ah, well, all right, folks. What do we do now? That takes us over the seven that we're allowed to have. Sorry, Councelor Russell. It's not on my run sheet. I apologize.

>> Um, through the chair. Um, effectively, we still need a motion. It's up to council an elected member to move a motion sitting out the membership which can be then seconded then debated and it either is successful or it's fails and then we can do another vote with a different makeup of the of the committee.

>> All right. Um I assume the terms of reference mean that we can't have more than seven elected members on the the committee

>> through the chair. I think that the terms of reference currently say seven, but we can amend them. Um, and I believe that's delegated to the CEO. No, no, sorry, it's not. No, that's advisory committees only.

>> Sorry, that'll be considered at the 10th of November risk and improvement committee meeting, the terms of reference.

>> Okay, folks. Uh, this could get messy. Um, so we've got a motion on foot um from councelor Brenda Brandis and myself, but they're quite reasonably. Um, councelor Russell has indicated that he would like to be on the committee as well. Uh, we could go through any number of permutations as to uh how we do this vote until we end up with seven elected members on the committee or potentially uh council could vote to amend the terms of reference of the of and we we won't be able to do it here. We'd have to have a motion at the next council meeting uh expanding the number of elected members uh potentially to have the whole council on there if need be, which I have no objection to. um that's probably the best way to do it under the circumstances, but if people disagree, they're they're free to vote against the the motion that's currently before us. Um, councelor Brenda Brandis, did you want to say anything in support of the the motion moved?

>> No, nothing further, Mr. Mayor.

>> Um all right. uh a second or I'll simply say I have absolutely no objection to councelor Russell joining the uh the CEO evaluation committee uh after we've amended the terms of reference to make room and and the same goes for councelor Souza as well if oh wait sorry councelor Raison if um if she wanted to join no obligation but if we have a council where all nine members want to be on the CEO evaluation committee I see no reason why the terms of reference couldn't be amended to allow that so that's all I'll say as second Um does anyone want to speak against the motion?

>> I just one one comment

>> of course

>> just to fill everyone in that earlier I had put my name down for this committee but then uh councelor Duza had indicated he would like to be on the committee so then I offered my uh place to him. One other question is when and I don't know off the top of my head because I'm uh haven't finished my induction yet is the mechanism where it's an even number of councils on a committee does that make any difference? I don't know whether these committees vote or you know what would be what would happen if it ended up being eight versus nine.

>> Should I send that one your way, Mr. Scott? I can answer that, but perhaps uh perhaps you got to be listening to the administration rather than me

>> through the chair. I'm happy to be corrected by um um the other executive staff, but it is a committee of council. Therefore, it is there is a a vote required when making recommendations to council from the committee. If there's a um a a even number of votes for and against something then the the normal rules of of the local government come into play which means that effectively the chair would have a casting vote.

>> The only other point I'd add to that is uh the evaluation committee like all of our current committees I think um are advisory only. They they don't have power in their own right to make decisions. Everything would come back to the council for approval. Um and council could potentially if it wanted to go down a different pathway other than what the committee had recommended. Um well uh so we've got a motion on foot from councelor Brenda Branderson and seconded by myself. Uh does anyone wish to speak against it? Does anyone else wish to speak in favor? Uh there's no debate, no need for councelor Brenda or Brandis to wind up. I'll I'll simply put it to the vote. Um councilors, please cast your votes. And that was unanimous. Thank you all. Uh we now move on to item 10.4.1 which is audit risk and improvement committee. Uh I'd better just check to make sure that um that anyone who has well make sure that the listing is correct. At the moment, I've got nominations from myself, an automatic member, councelor War, councelor Brenda Brandis, councelor Raison, and councelor Howling. Uh, was there anyone else that wanted to put up their hand? I'm glad I asked. Councelor Russell.

>> Yes. I'm sure I sent through the form with my name on this.

>> Okay. Uh, well, let's add your name to that now. Uh, anyone else, councilors? No. Okay. Uh, well uh under the circumstances, I'll move a motion that uh that exactly in the terms of the officer recommendation but starting with paragraph A mayor Greg Milner then councelor Brunman Ward then councelor Andre Brenda Brandes then councelor Jacqueline Rison then councelor Tim Howling then councelor Steven Russell uh be well um be appointed as me elected members to the audit risk and improvement committee. Uh, would anyone be willing to second that motion? Councelor Brenda Brandis. Thank you. Uh, does anyone oppose councilors? No. I'll simply declare that carried then using my powers under the standing orders. Thank you. We move on to item 10.4.3 appointment of community members to the city of South Perth audit risk and improvement committee. Now councilors, you may you may have seen the email from Mr. Scott a couple of days ago uh mentioning that one of the candidates had withdrawn from the application process. Uh with that in mind, uh I'm happy to move the officer recommendation exactly in the terms as it set out. Uh but at paragraph 2, where we're appointing the preciding member of the audit, risk and improvement committee, uh that we appoint candidate G and that at paragraph 3, we appoint candidate C as the deputy presiding member. I think that's in line with the revised officer recommendation, isn't it?

>> During the chair, I believe so. Okay. Uh, would anyone like to second that motion? Councelor Reson. Thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose? No. Okay. Then I declare that carried unanimously. We move on to item 10.4.4 which is entitled the city of South Perth Arts Advisory Group. Uh happily we've had two nominations for two positions here. So I'll move a motion uh in terms of the officer recommendation. Uh, number one, um, councelor Andre Brenda Abbrandis. Number two, councelor Haley Prrenal. Uh, would anyone be willing to second that motion? Councelor Prrenal. Thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose? No. Okay. Uh, carried unanimously then. Uh, we move on to item 10.4.5, which is the city of South Perth Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Group. And uh the officer recommendation was originally seeking two slots there. Uh we've had three people put up their hand and councelor Howling has also uh indicated that he'd like to be a deputy. So I don't think there's any problem with I have checked with governance with uh with three elected members taking part as primary elected members and councelor Howling is a deputy for any one of those three. Uh so I'll move a motion that uh that number one in terms of the office of recommendation number one uh councelor Kathy Lees number two councelor Andre Brenda Branderson number three mayor Greg Milner and uh perhaps four uh councelor Howling as deputy for any that can't make it.

>> Sorry Mr. about to say Mr. President. Sorry m mayor.

>> You're welcome to

>> I know I've been speaking to him but um the problem I've got with that is I don't know what the terms of reference are for this committee and um again the same problem that fell uh to the first question the f very first and so although it's late I'm just concerned that standing orders 2.12 uh sets out uh in B the number of council members employees which is adopted in accordance of section 5.8 of the act. So I don't want to run forward before we know that we're acting consistent with the requirements. So perhaps it could be a question of course

>> through to um Ms. Fry, but um she may not have it available to her, but so I'm happy for that to be stood over.

>> This uh councelor Howling's asking whether it's open to us to go beyond the terms of reference for the city of South Perth Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advocacy Group. It's a fair question. I

>> the check. Sorry, could council Hing just repeat the relevant standing holders he's referring to?

>> Thank you. And I didn't turn off my microphone. So, it's clause 2.1 to a council resolution to establish a committee under section 5.8 of the act is to include the terms of reference of the committee. The number of council members, employees, and other persons to be appointed to the committee. So I just want to make sure that we're staying in our lane again to use that point of phrase and making sure that we're not acting outside the terms of reference

>> through the chair. Um this is an advisory group is not a formal committee of council. So therefore

>> thank you for the distinction. Gotcha.

>> Not covered under the standing order.

>> So it has no delegation either.

>> There yes there is no delegation. Um it

>> Thank you.

>> No, it's a fair question. Um I I don't think that the advisory groups are are quite as regimented and they aren't subject to uh clause 2.1 of the the standing orders. But good question. Uh unless governance uh says that I'm I'm doing the wrong thing. Uh I I'll move a motion that uh that councelor Kathy Lees is uh is number one um on the list there. That councelor Andre Brenda Brandis is number two. That myself Mayor Milner is number three. And since councelor Howling is has kindly offered to deputize for any of us that can't make the meeting. Uh councilors, would anyone be willing to second that motion? Councelor Brenda Brandes, thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose? Councelor Hing, I see your lights on. Uh I don't know if that's intentional. No. Uh all right. Going going. All right. We we carried that unanimously. All right. Uh moving on to item 10.4.6, six, which is the city of South Perth inclusive community advisory group. Uh we're only looking for one elected member, but uh as of yet, I haven't received a nomination unless uh councelor Russell made one underwalk somehow, but no. No. Okay. Uh so it's up for grabs, folks. Who would like to put up their hand to be part of the the inclusive uh community advisory group?

>> What does it do?

>> Uh oh. Well, Miss Fry, it's uh my understanding is that it's it meets on a quarterly basis.

>> M sure. Yeah.

>> Sure.

>> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, it does meet on a quarterly basis. Um, it provides uh updates on in accordance with the city's public health plan and preventative health and public health measures relating to that. So the group's made up of um members from the department of health and um local uh medical related businesses who provide advice on preventative health throughout the district. So different programs related to that.

>> Thank you Miss Shaw.

>> So just just so that I understand um so somebody bit overweight could uh join this committee and learn a bit.

>> Thank you Mr. May. Um, yes they could. And

>> I'll put my name forward. All right. Um, councilors, I'll move a motion that councelor Howling be appointed to the city of South Perth inclusive community advisory group. Uh, would anyone be willing to second that motion? I think councelor Prenville won by uh by split second there. Uh, councilors, does anyone oppose? No. In that case, carried unanimously. All right. Um, we go on to item 10.4.7, 4.7 which is the local emergency management committee for Canning for/Southper. Uh we're looking for one delegate and one deputy delegate. Uh there were two nominations myself and councelor Raison. Um councelor Raison was kind enough to suggest that I'll be the delegate and she'll be the deputy delegate. So I'm happy to move a motion to that effect. Uh would anyone be willing to second that motion? Councelor Lees. Thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose? No. Okay. Carried unanimously. Moving on to item 10.4.8 entitled the city of South Perth public health advisory group. Uh we've got a nomination from Kathy Lees. Uh I'm happy to move a motion that councelor Kathy Lees be appointed our delegate for the city of South Perth public health advisory group. Would anyone be willing to second that? Councelor Brenda Brandis. Thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose? No. Carried unanimously. All right. Nearly there folks. Uh item 10.4.9 entitled Western Australian Local Government Association Southeast Metropolitan Zone. Um there were a few nominations for this one. Uh we did have a conversation in the council's lounge going into the meeting. Um so assuming I haven't messed up what we agreed there. Uh I'm going to move a motion saying that myself and councelor Raison are the two primary delegates and that councelor Kathy Lees and councelor Bronin Moore are the two deputy delegates. And I also note that there's an additional delegate in the chief executive officer for item 10.4.9. Uh I'll move a motion to that effect. Would anyone be kind enough to second? Councelor Brenda Abbrand. Thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose? No. Okay. Carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh that's brings us to item 10.4.10 which is the Metro Inner Development Assessment Panel. Um, and following conversations with the three nominees in the council's lands beforehand, I'll move a motion that uh that councelor war and councelor Lees are the the two primary. Sorry, I'll back up a couple of steps. uh the officer recommendation. That's what I'm moving with councelor war uh inserted into the blank for paragraph 1. Councelor Lees inserted into the blank for paragraph 2 and councelor Howling inserted into the uh the first blank in paragraph 3. Would anyone else like to be the second uh alternate member? No. Okay. In that case, uh officer recommendation council bore at paragraph 1. Councelor Lees at paragraph 2. Councelor Howling at paragraph 3. Would someone be kind enough to second that? Councelor Brenda Brandis. Thank you. Uh does anyone oppose? No. Carried unanimously. Okay. Now we're cooking with gas. Oh, of course we do. Yes. All right. Uh so we Where's that on the run sheet? Uh we now move on to the next item to be withdrawn for discussion this evening, which is item 10.4.12 4.12 entitled monthly financial statements September 2025 and carry forward budget adjustments. Uh we have an officer recommendation before us. I haven't received an amended motion or I haven't received an alternative motion. We do need an absolute majority for paragraph 2 which is why it wasn't passed on block. I'm happy to move the officer recommendation. Would someone be kind enough to second? Councelor Brenda Brandis. Thank you. Councilors, does anyone oppose this motion? No. Then I I declare it carried unanimously under our standing orders and that satisfies the absolute majority requirement for paragraph 2. Okay. Thank you for the pick up, Mr. Right. That does bring us to item 11 which is applications for a leave of absence. I have received an application for a leave of absence from councelor Blake Duza for the period of 10 November 2025 to 19 November 2025 inclusive. Councilors, would anyone else like to apply for a leave of absence? Councelor Russell.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The 6th to the 22nd of February, 2026 inclusive. I'll just make sure I've got that right. So, the 6th of February, 2026 through to the 22nd of February, 2026, inclusive. Okay.

>> Councilors, does anyone else want to put up their hand for a leave of absence? Councelor Brenda Brandis.

>> Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. from the 13th to the 21st of December inclusive.

>> All right, I'll just read that back to you to make sure I've got that correct. That's uh the 13th of December 2025 through to the 21st of December 2025 inclusive. Okay.

>> Any other requests for a leave of absence, counselors? No. Okay. In that case, uh, I'm about to call for a mover on a motion that the leave of absence applications received from one, councelor Blake Duza for the period of 10 November 2025 to 19 November 2025 inclusive. Uh, from two, uh, councelor Steven Russell for the period of 6 February 2026 to 22 February 2026 inclusive. and three from councelor Andre Brenda Brandis for the period of 13 December 2025 through to 21 December 2025 inclusive or be granted. Could I have a mover please? I think councelor Wall was first there seconded by councelor Brenda Brandis. Councilors does anyone oppose any of those leave of absence applications? No. Okay, I'll declare that carried unanimously. Then we move on to item 12 which is motions of which previous notice has been given. That's nil. Uh, item 13 is questions from members. Item 13.1 is responses to previous questions from members taken on notice. And responses to questions from members taken on notice at the September 2025 ordinary council meeting can be found in the appendix of this agenda. Uh, that brings us to item 13.2, questions from members. Uh, I might lead off this time. I think it's the first time I've ever laid off. Uh so I I do have a few questions for the administration that concern some of our our more strategic issues affecting our community. Uh the first one is as follows. Uh I think it might be to Mr. Mr. Scott. Yes. So councilors may recall that on the 8th of November 2024, the state government announced a $2 million investment to commence planning for a new indoor sporting facility in Perth's inner southern suburbs. And the need for indoor sports courts in the district of South Perth has been well documented. Indoor sports courts is one of the things that the city has been advocating for for a number of years now. Has the city received an update from the state government as to the status of those plans and perhaps any indication as to where that new indoor sporting facility might be located? Um through the chair, the city has not received an update on from the state government regarding the status or location of the proposed indoor sporting facility. The city will seek a formal update from the state government advised council of any response received.

>> Thank you. Uh my second question is uh as it relates to members of our community living around the Milpoint Road uh South Perth Espanard and Milpoint entry and exit to the Quanada freeway are still reporting incidences of hooning and related antisocial activity. Uh can the city let council know the measures being taken by the city and WA police? Uh through the chair, the city continues to close the Miller poolool uh Miller's pool car park each evening to reduce opportunities for laundering and antisocial behavior. Several traffic calming measures have been implemented along Milpoint Road, which is also subject to 40 km per hour speed limit. The city parallely deploys speed monitoring devices and supports WA police operations by deploying the city's mobile CCTV unit as priorities detect dictate. In addition, the city has received funding from WA police for the installation of fixed automatic number plate recognition A NPR cameras and is currently identifying suitable locations for their installation. WA police have direct access to live footage from the city's CCTV network.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Uh my third question is uh some of you may be aware that on the 6th of January this year the state government announced a pilot trial of noise detecting cameras in Hillaries which are intended to combat hooning and antisocial activity. Uh we're uh 10 months in um has the state government provided an update on the progress of this trial? uh through the chair. The city has not received an update from the state government on the progress of this trial, but will now seek further information and advise council once a response has been received. Thank you. And my fourth and final question, and thank you councilors for the indulgence is uh relates to the South Perth train station. Uh the city's population is currently 45,000 people. Our integrated transport plan states that our population is projected to grow to over 65,000 people by 2041. Uh our integrated transport plan says correctly that as the capacity of the road network and the ability to increase this capacity is limited, there is an increasing need to reduce reliance on private vehicles and focus on shifting travel behaviors. I am aware that there were discussions at a state government level uh about the formation of a South Perth train station working group back in 20121, but as far as I'm aware, that working group has never been established. It's been a busy year, but now that the state, federal, and local government elections are all over, can the city administration reach out to the state government and confirm their position on a South Perth train station and then let council know what that response is? uh through the chair, the city will contact the relevant state government departments to request an update on the status of the South Perth train station and advise council of the outcome once received.

>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. That's me done, counselors. Uh does anyone else have any questions for the administration? Councelor Russell.

>> Um thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand that the city's proposing to undertake um some works to Collier Reserve Pavilion. Can the city please advise or provide references to the scope and the schedule of these works? Now, is that Miss Amremo that I should send that to or Miss McDonald? Miss Amremo.

>> Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, with the funding that the city retained, um, from the what was the raft project, um, that was identified for improvements to change rooms and, uh, sports lighting. The Collier Reserve was identified as a site for a independent standalone new change room facility

>> and schedule. Um it's currently in the process of procurement and when that comes back from the market it will require council approval for the award of contract.

>> Thank you Miss Empreo. Councelor Russell.

>> Yeah. So at the north end of South Perth esplanard there are like two teardrop parcels of land within the road reserve between esplanard proper and some dead end lanes. Um so these are roughly in the way of one through to number 17 south Perth Esplanard. These lands are not clearly your typical verge veres adjoining private property. Um for these lands, could the city please advise if these are water reticulated and if so what the source is? Is it scheme water or is it licensed water?

>> Is that premer?

>> Um, yeah, thank you Mr. Mayor. So they are connected to the St. James Metro Park Retick system um which is um fed from a boar in Clydesdale Park.

>> Thank you. Um, are these lands proposed to go on the water wise program?

>> Is that prem?

>> Can you clarify what you mean by that question?

>> Um, the water wise program being um sort of the wood chipping and um shrubbery and trees that we um that we see to replace turf at the Bill Grad. recently did a project the water wise.

>> Um okay I think um the water wise program is something that's run by water corp for residents.

>> Okay.

>> Um the project that was done at Bill Graden Reserve was hydrozoning of um parts of the reserve. Um, I believe we have a request from an elected member to provide uh costs for um doing some low-level planting on that area of road reserve for consideration in the 2627 budget. So, that'll be something that would be included for council's consideration in that budget.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you, Miss Empreo and councelor Russell. Councilors, any further questions for the administration? Councelor Hingling.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just in a followup to a point made by the CEO, uh, I have a recollection that there was a decision that had been made by council in respect of the South Perth train station in which you've been asked questions that once the new CEO would be appointed that the qu that that matter would be raised. You've said that you're going to now write in respect of the South Perth train station. Is that intended to replace the previous decision that had been made in respect to that?

>> Mr. Scott,

>> um through the chair, I don't believe my actual response gave a time frame and um if there is a previous decision in regards to waiting until the new CEO starts, then I'm happy to oblige by that. So it it won't be necessarily yourself. I I'd dig it up and find out. But um can I just um also ask um at the beginning of the agenda briefing on the last occasion uh there was no specific mention of uh the councelor Glenn Kredland who's left us and has served for 16 years on council. has uh the mayor signed a letter or the administration signed a letter uh congratulating him, thanking him for his service and wishing him well. 16 years is significant. I I say that because we thanked profusely tonight Costra thanks, but Mr. Krillin um as he now is obviously put in significant service and I'd like to know that a letter has been at the very least sent recognizing that service.

>> Mr. gone

>> through the chair. I need to um take that on notice whether a letter has been actually sent but u councelor Quidland's service has been recognized in a number of media statements um that the the the city has taken recognized publicly um after the election um as well. So um but I would have to double check if a formal letter has actually been forwarded. I know there's certainly media statements and and thanks on our website because I I signed off on them. So, I can confirm that that's out there.

>> Okay. Uh thank you. And can I receive a copy of that um uh those media statements because it wasn't mentioned in the agenda briefing at the commencement of the meeting and uh I think that it'd be worthy of all of us to know. Is is it usual practice to um at least thank um the persons who have contributed over the years to various roles um by way of following up through letters or through something of that nature? Is that ordinary or is that something that we shouldn't expect to hear at either an agenda meeting or a council meeting?

>> Mr. Scott

>> through the chair. My experience is it is customary to thank a retiring counselor or counselor who has resigned. Um the manner of how that is done differs from local government to local government depending on their traditional practices. Um so um and also depending on what sort of recognition that particular you know the retiring councils may wish to have. I've experienced where some councilors have have requested no recognition because they're happy to just move on with their new new lives. So, um but as I said um yes, it is customary to thank a counselor for their service and however the the mode of that uh thank you can differ. Um and generally it's my experience that at least a public recognition of their service is is is made to ensure that not only the counselor but also the community is aware of their service and to my knowledge that has occurred from a public perspective from the the city of South Perth.

>> And my my last question then is can I be provided with a copy of that uh by way of email so I'm aware of it as well?

>> Yes, it's on the public record. Thank you Mr. Scott. Councilors, any further questions for the administration this evening? No. Okay. All right. 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 where we would close the meeting to the public if there was any reason for us to do so, but there's not, so we won't. And item 16 is closure. So before I close tonight's meeting, I'd like to thank everyone for their attendance and participation. Uh I'd declare this meeting closed at 10:33 p.m. Thank you all and good night.