ATTEMPTS to gain council support and clarity on the future of Cape Peron were again thwarted at the City of Rockingham’s council meeting on Tuesday.
Councillor Joy Stewart put forward a motion for council to support the lobbying of State Government Departments to urgently establish a transparent and collaborative consultation process to determine the best and most sustainable long-term future use and management of Cape Peron.
“I would like Cape Peron to be a public asset like Kings Park and Rottnest (Island), to be highly valued by the people in Rockingham and surrounding areas as well as other visitors and must be conserved and protected for future generations to enjoy,” she said.
“Cape Peron’s unique heritage, landscapes and biodiversity are the very values that could attract tourists to Rockingham and the need to maintain and enhance these values underpin the way forward. A development plan is required to aid planning and effective use of the land for the benefit of the community.”
In a report on the motion, City officers recommended further investigation was needed into what type of reserve Cape Peron should be classified as.
The concern was that certain types of reserve could potentially impact existing facilities and leaseholders in the area.
Upon that advice Cr Stewart proposed the motion be deferred until the June meeting of the City’s planning and engineering services committee to enable the implications of a ‘Class A’ Reserve on existing and future land use to be investigated.
She referenced a statement from the report.
“Each Reserve is classified as Class A, B or C. Class A reserves have the greatest level of protection, requiring the approval of Parliament to amend the reserve’s purpose or area,” she said.
“Class A is used solely to protect areas of high conservation or high community value.
“Reserve 48968 (Cape Peron Reserve) is a Class C Reserve with a purpose of ‘recreation’.
“The limitations on future use by nominating a purpose of ‘conservation park’, and the implications it places over existing uses such as the Camps School, RSL facility, existing leasehold accommodation and other ‘non-conservation’ uses, is unclear and requires investigation.”
The deferral motion was passed by majority vote.
Cr Katherine Summers put forward a similar motion last month but pulled it, citing it had been tainted before it went before the City’s April meeting.