Mount Hawthorn car park EOI rejected in 6-1 Vincent vote Councillors voted down a proposal for redevelopment concepts at 179 Scarborough Beach Road, leaving the future of the Coogee Street car park unsettled. Council: City of Vincent Meeting: 15 Sep 2026 6:00 PM Recorded status: rejected BRIEF City of Vincent councillors voted 6-1 against an Expressions of Interest process for redevelopment concepts involving 179 Scarborough Beach Road and 177 Scarborough Beach Road in Mount Hawthorn. The proposed condition would have required continued public parking but did not specify the number of bays. The vote did not approve a sale, lease or redevelopment, leaving the site’s future unresolved. KEY FACTS - Council rejected the proposed EOI process for 179 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, in conjunction with 177 Scarborough Beach Road. - The motion was lost 1-6, with Cr Reece Wheadon voting for it and six other listed council members voting against. - The proposal would have sought redevelopment concepts and appointed Ray White Commercial to manage the process. - The proposed condition would have required a purchaser to incorporate a minimum number of bays for continued public parking to the City's satisfaction, but did not specify the number. - A written public submission recorded in the minutes described the existing car park as having 27 bays. - The proposed EOI process would not itself have committed the City to a sale, lease or redevelopment. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD - Council did not approve this proposed EOI process, and the recorded item does not establish a replacement process or a future parking quantity. - The central unresolved issue is whether any later redevelopment proposal would retain public parking and, if so, how many bays and under what operating conditions. QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP REPORTING - Will Council consider a revised EOI or another process for the site? - If a future redevelopment proposal is brought forward, what minimum number of public parking bays would Council require? - How would public parking fees and access be controlled under any future development? - Are any interim changes proposed for the existing car park? SOURCE PASSAGES The recommendation proposed receiving expressions of interest for potential redevelopment concepts at 179 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, alongside 177 Scarborough Beach Road, subject to a purchaser agreeing that any future development incorporate a minimum number of bays for continued public parking to the City's satisfaction. "Location Plan and Scheme Map 2. Ray White Proposal - Confidential RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. APPROVES: 1.1 Receiving Expressions of Interest (EOI) for potential redevelopment concepts of the City's land at No.179 (Lot 3) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, in conjunction with the adjoining land at No.177 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn that is subject to: 1.1.1 The purchaser agreeing that any future development must incorporate a minimum number of parking bays for continued use as public parking to the City's satisfaction." (Item 12.3 recommendation, clause 1.1) The proposal would have appointed Ray White Commercial to manage the EOI process and presented resulting submissions to Council for consideration. It stated that the EOI process would not commit Council to a sale, lease or redevelopment of the land. "1.2 Appointing Ray White Commercial to manage the EOI process on behalf of the City. 2. NOTES: 2.1 Submissions received as a result of recommendation 1 would be presented to Council for consideration; 2.2 The EOI process does not commit Council any sale, lease or redevelopment of the land. COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 12.3 Moved: Cr Woolf, Seconded: Cr Castle That the recommendation be adopted." (Item 12.3 recommendation, clauses 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2) The motion to adopt the Item 12.3 recommendation was lost 1-6. Cr Wheadon voted for it; Mayor Xamon and Crs Castle, Worner, Woolf, Poulios and Greer voted against. "2.2 The EOI process does not commit Council any sale, lease or redevelopment of the land. COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 12.3 Moved: Cr Woolf, Seconded: Cr Castle That the recommendation be adopted. LOST (1-6) For: Cr Wheadon Against: Mayor Xamon, Cr Castle, Cr Worner, Cr Woolf, Cr Poulios and Cr Greer (Cr Wallace was on approved leave of absence for the Meeting.) At 6.30pm Executive Manager Corporate Strategy & Governance left the meeting and did not return." (Item 12.3 council decision and voting list) The minutes introduce questions and statements submitted in writing before the meeting, including a submission from Dudley Maier concerning Items 12.3 and 12.4. "There being no speakers, Public Question Time closed at 6.00pm. The following questions and statements were submitted in writing prior to the meeting. Dudley Maier of Highgate – Item 12.3 and 12.4 I have three main concerns with this item: the quality of the report to council;" (Public question time, introduction to written submissions) The commentary identifies the car park as the Coogee Street car park and describes it as interrupting a shopping strip. "The Coogee Street carpark is at the other end of the spectrum, the 'ugly' end, and is particularly offensive as it interrupts the rhythm of an attractive shopping strip. Having said that, it does not mean that is not the best use 'at the moment'." (Written public submission, discussion of the car park) The statement says the recommendation had been amended to require a purchaser to agree to incorporate a minimum number of bays for continued public parking to the City's satisfaction. "Possible caveat to ensure future car parking The recommendation has been amended to include a requirement that the purchaser agrees to incorporate a minimum number of parking bays for continued use as public parking to the City's satisfaction." (Written public submission, proposed public-parking condition) The parking questions describe 27 existing bays, ask whether there would be 27, 10 or five bays, and ask whether the City or developer would determine parking fees. "Does the City intend that there should be 27 bays, as there currently are? Or perhaps they would be happy with 10 Bays, or even 5 bays. And what does 'continued use as public parking to the City's satisfaction' actually mean? Is it intended that the 'new' car park would only be able to charge fees that are determined by the City, or would the developer be able to charge whatever they liked, subject to competitive realities?" (Written public submission, questions about parking numbers and fees) The minutes state that they were confirmed at the 20 October 2026 Council meeting as a true and accurate record of the 15 September 2026 meeting. "These Minutes were confirmed at the 20 October 2026 meeting of Council as a true and accurate record of the Council Meeting held on 15 September 2026. Signed: Mayor Alison Xamon Dated: 20 October 2026" (Minutes confirmation certificate) SOURCES https://vincent.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToDoc.aspx?URL=Open/2026/09/CO_20260915_MIN_10834.PDF https://minutesradar.com/news/vincent-infocouncil-council-meeting-ordinary-and-special-15-sep-2026-6-00-pm-15-sep-2026-6-00-pm-minutes-27-public-parking-bays-at-mount-ha-37149c59f7/ Prepared from public council minutes using automated drafting and checks. No meeting attendance or interviews are implied. Check the original record and seek comment before republishing claims or analysis. Illustrations are generic, not depictions of actual projects.