City of South Perth council deadlocked over heritage listings for Royal Perth Golf Course, private properties
The Royal Perth Golf Club course is among the sites in the City of South Perth where the level of heritage protection may vary.
Two private properties and Wesley College may also be affected by changes to the city’s heritage survey.
The survey records places that are or may be important to local cultural heritage and rates their importance in four categories.
Places in the two highest categories (“important” and “very important”) are then considered for inclusion on the city’s heritage list.
Heritage-listed places may require city approval for any demolition, renovation or other development.
Last October the council asked for five sites to be examined in the heritage survey: two properties on Anstey Street and Forrest Street, Wesley College, St Columba’s Church Group and the Royal Perth Golf Club course.
All places were proposed to be included in the city’s heritage list.
Wesley College is considered significant to the area’s heritage and two other buildings are set to be listed: a boarding house and the Mildred Manning Science Centre.
It has been proposed that the St Columba’s Church Group listing be split in two to reflect separate ownership and separate listings created for part of the Royal Perth Golf Club course and clubhouse.
The course, bounded by Labouchere Road, Amhurst Street, South Terrace, Melville Parade, Kwinana Freeway and Richardson Park, will be rated as “very important”, while the clubhouse will be rated as “notable for community interest but otherwise contributing little”.
The proposed listing for the course describes it as a “pleasant setting” that has been used for social and sporting events since 1908.
In February, council approved trail redesign work, including moving the maintenance road and removing 39 trees.
The proposed listing for the clubhouse notes that it is unknown how much of the original building, built in 1914, remains.
The Forrest Street and Anstey Street properties will retain the “very important” classification.
The proposed changes split the council evenly at its April 28 meeting, resulting in a 4-4 tie over whether to release it to public comment before Mayor Greg Milner voted in favor.
Cr Stephen Russell declared a financial and close interest in the matter and did not take part in the debate or vote.
The Forrest Street property owner told council at an agenda briefing earlier that month that he did not want his property’s classification increased and questioned the historical significance of his property.
Cr Kathy Lees said she understood their concerns but at this stage the council was only seeking comments.
“This is the first step in a much longer process and there are several stages that need to be completed before anyone can make a call on heritage listing,” he said.
“Being heritage listed does not mean a property is frozen in time.
“This simply means that when changes are proposed to aspects of a property that are of cultural heritage significance, these should be done sensitively, taking that significance into account.”
He said he wanted the council to consider waiving development application fees or providing rates subsidies to inherited owners.
“At the end of the day, these owners care about places that are important to all of us and supporting them feels like an important part of the job we are here to do for future generations,” Cr Lees said.
Council members who opposed the new lists said there was not enough justification for the changes.
Cr Tim Houweling said the listings, which he said he had previously revealed in a 15-page report, did not pass the logic or the pub test.
“I object to the suggestion that the most sensible thing to do is to let the process play out, thereby implying that someone who doesn’t support it might not be so sensible after all,” he said.
“I am one of those people who is not so sensitive.
“Maybe it’s because I haven’t seen a great deal of support or comfort in what has been described as blindly following the report that was presented to us.”
Cr Bronwyn Waugh said she supported preserving the area’s history but wanted it to be done on a “defined and precise” basis and said the heritage survey could have implications for future development applications.
“I am not fully satisfied that the conclusions reached have been consistently based on a clear and objective methodology,” he said.
“It is critical that what we put forward is robust, balanced and capable of being implemented consistently.
“If this is to be adopted, it needs to strike the right balance between protecting what is truly important and allowing the city to develop in a way that is thoughtful, appropriate and responsive to the needs of the community.”
Mr Milner said some councilors might not like the heritage advice presented to the council, but “advice is advice” and he was not prepared to ignore it.
“I can’t help but think that if we did this, in the absence of really, really, really good reasons, it could understandably lead to questions from our community about what we’re basing our decisions on,” he said.
“I haven’t seen any really, really good reasons so far.”
