Housing & planning · City of Vincent
Mount Hawthorn car park EOI rejected in 6-1 vote
City of Vincent councillors voted down a proposal to test redevelopment options for Lot 3 on Scarborough Beach Road, leaving the future of the associated Coogee Street parking site unresolved.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
A proposal to seek redevelopment ideas for Lot 3 at 179 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, has been rejected after City of Vincent councillors voted 6-1 against the expression-of-interest process.
Cr Reece Wheadon was the only councillor to support the motion at the 15 September meeting. Mayor Alison Xamon and councillors Alex Castle, Suzanne Worner, Nicole Woolf, Con Poulios and Sophie Greer voted against it. Cr Ashley Wallace was on approved leave.
The proposed EOI would have covered Lot 3 alongside the adjoining 177 Scarborough Beach Road property and would have been managed by Ray White Commercial. It was a process for seeking redevelopment concepts, not approval to sell, lease or redevelop the land.
The recommendation included a condition that any purchaser agree to incorporate a minimum number of bays for continued public parking to the City’s satisfaction. It did not specify how many bays would be required. The current Coogee Street car park was described in written public comments as having 27 bays, but that figure was not adopted as a condition.
The proposal also said submissions from the EOI would return to Council for consideration and that the process would not commit the City to a sale, lease or redevelopment. Because the motion was lost, those proposed arrangements were not approved.
Written comments before the meeting questioned whether future parking fees would be controlled by the City or set by a developer. They also questioned whether the available usage information distinguished employees parking all day from customers. Those points were submissions recorded in the minutes, not findings adopted by Council.
The minutes were confirmed at the 20 October 2026 meeting. They do not record an alternative process or timetable for Lot 3, leaving future development and any change to public parking at the associated site unresolved.
What deserves a closer look
The public-parking condition was part of the defeated recommendation and therefore was not adopted as a requirement.
The minutes record no alternative process or timetable for Lot 3 after the EOI motion was lost.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Will Council bring forward another proposal or report for Lot 3?
If a future redevelopment proposal is considered, what public-parking requirement would the City seek?
How would parking fees and operating conditions be set under any future proposal?
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
The recommendation proposed receiving expressions of interest for potential redevelopment concepts involving 179 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, alongside adjoining 177 Scarborough Beach Road, subject to a purchaser agreeing to 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 1.1
Open original minutes ↗The proposed EOI would have been managed by Ray White Commercial, submissions would have returned to Council for consideration, and the process would not have committed Council to a sale, lease or redevelopment.
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, recommendations 1.2 and 2.1–2.2
Open original minutes ↗The motion to adopt the recommendation was lost 1-6, with Cr Wheadon voting for it and Mayor Xamon, Cr Castle, Cr Worner, Cr Woolf, Cr Poulios and Cr Greer voting against it. Cr Wallace was on approved leave.
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
Open original minutes ↗The minutes were confirmed at the 20 October 2026 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
Confirmation statement at end of minutes
Open original minutes ↗The comments discussed the Coogee Street car park and argued that it could remain the best use at that time.
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 statement, discussion of highest and best use
Open original minutes ↗The comments referred to 27 existing bays and questioned whether future parking fees would be determined by the City or set by the developer.
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 statement, questions about future public parking
Open original minutes ↗The comments questioned whether councillors had enough usage information to distinguish employees parking all day from customers.
For example, Councillors seemed to want to get a better understanding of the usage profile of the carpark. That is a natural response and one the administration should have anticipated, both because it is an important consideration when they formulated a recommendation, and because they should expect the council to ask the question. All council got was "they're the best figures we have – we didn't ask anybody why they were there". Common sense might indicate that you check often, log the registration numbers, and work out how long people are there. The result is that councillors don't know if the users are employees that park there all day, or if they are customers – the difference is important. Highest and best use Then there is the argument about the "highest and best use".
Written public statement, discussion of car park usage information
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reporting from the City of Vincent Ordinary Council Meeting minutes for 15 September 2026, confirmed by Council on 20 October 2026. No attendance, interviews or independent verification outside the public minutes was undertaken.
Key facts from the minutes
- Council rejected the proposed Lot 3 EOI motion with one vote for and six against on 15 September 2026.
- The defeated recommendation would have sought redevelopment concepts for 179 Scarborough Beach Road with adjoining 177 Scarborough Beach Road.
- The proposed purchaser condition would have required a minimum number of public parking bays, but no number was specified in the recommendation.
- The proposal did not itself commit the City to selling, leasing or redeveloping the land.
- The minutes were confirmed at the 20 October 2026 council meeting.
Why it matters
- The rejected EOI leaves the future of Lot 3 at 179 Scarborough Beach Road, and the public parking associated with the Coogee Street car park, open for later consideration. No redevelopment, sale or lease of Lot 3 was approved.