City of Melville council votes not to endorse electors motion on Tompkins Park


A report highlighting the amount of council resources spent by the City of Melville responding to public questions will be sent to the State Government to consider as part of its Local Government Act review.
A report highlighting the amount of council resources spent by the City of Melville responding to public questions will be sent to the State Government to consider as part of its Local Government Act review.

A MOVE by Melville councillors not to vote through an electors motion regarding builds at Tompkins Park was unsurprising, according to Swan Foreshore Protection Association (SFPA) chairman Clive Ross.

But Mr Ross said the SFPA had already had a win, with the City of Melville to incur no legal costs during a review of the lease agreement for the Urbnsurf wave park proposal.

In January, ratepayers carried a motion put forward by the SFPA to halt any spend preparing land for the proposed $25 million wave park and $9.4m Tompkins Park redevelopment until a local government inquiry was completed and the judicial review of the ground lease in the Supreme Court had concluded.

Rather than push that through, councillors instead voted 8-5  on Tuesday night to support a recommendation from Melville’s governance and compliance advisor Jeff Clark asking they note the intent of the electors motion.

But Mr Ross said an amended third point in the motion, to note the outcome of a special council meeting a week prior, meant the council had effectively complied with the association.

The motion at the special meeting called for the council to support a proposal to “abide by the decision of the (Supreme Court) and not participate further in the proceedings”.

Mayor Russell Aubrey said the City remained a party to case, meaning it would not provide funding for things including legal advice but its interests would be considered.

Mr Ross said he did not expect the electors motion to get the nod from councillors.

He added that a deputation earlier this month had encouraged the City to obtain legal advice “which was otherwise being delayed and which resulted in the City and the community being protected against any further (Supreme Court Action) costs”.

Mr Aubrey told Community News that if the City managed to limit legal costs relating to the review, it was because of “its own judgment”.

Earlier in the City’s council meeting, Katy Mair had put forward a ‘reject and replace’ motion that aligned with the wishes of the SFPA.

She said it would be a “wise move” to put everything on hold until the City knew whether the lease agreement was valid.

Her motion was lost 7-6.

MORE: Perth Train Station: fires lit overnight

MORE: Girrawheen: youths smash car windows, attack men

MORE: Mundaring’s Little Caesars Pizzeria to close