Prospect Concerned Residents Group

26/07/2026

🌳Adelaide Park Lands motion 🌳

At this weeks ordinary council meeting there will be a motion by Cr Barnett regarding the Adelaide Park Lands. Similar motions have been raised and passed at the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters, City of Charles Sturt, and Burnside Council. The City of Unley will also be discussing their own motion this week.

While the Councillor could be commended for raising the issue, it’s incredibly disappointing that the council has not demonstrated any level of listening or advocacy for the protection of green space within its own community.

There are 113 (85% of the total number) mature trees at Prospect oval in conflict with the councils master plan. How can the council stand against the removal of trees in the city, but not within its own community, to make way for 500 apartments?

For those interested in attending in person it will be discussed this Tuesday July 28th at 7pm. Alternatively you can view the meeting live on YouTube.

20/07/2026

🚨 Nothing has been decided but it just keeps getting bigger! 🚨

Yesterday a media conference was held between the state government, the council and the NAFC stating that the code amendment has now been approved to allow the council to build up to 12 storeys high around Prospect Oval.

As per news articles below the council is now surprisingly talking about building up to 500 apartments which would mean they are also looking to develop on the CCH site as well.

This is an overdevelopment that continues to regularly expand in size and scale. The council has disregarded its own consultation results at every stage, revoked community land, and ignored the largest petition ever submitted in Council history of 2,230 signatures asking for heights to remain at the current zoning of 6 storeys in keeping with developments in the area.

City of Prospect
Lucy Hood MP
Rhiannon Pearce MP
Nick Champion MP

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EVkXPEVnw/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://glamadelaide.com.au/green-light-for-prospect-oval-transformation-with-500-new-homes-planned/

28/06/2026

🗳️ Land Revocation Approved and Local Council Elections Delayed 🗳️

During the last week the council received approval from the Minister for Local Government Rhiannon Pearce for the land revocation around Prospect Oval. This means that a large amount of community land will now be revoked to be used for commercial purposes. Ultimately it allows the council to build high rise buildings (up to 12 storeys) within the Prospect oval area.

At last weeks council meeting the final part of the process was for the council to vote on whether to proceed with this. As expected it passed 5 votes to 2 with only Cr Groote and Cr De Backer opposing.

The council meeting can be viewed on YouTube. A comment of interest is the Mayors statement that proceeding with this showed “good leadership” despite 70% of the community showing opposition to the size and scale of the development. Any comparison to previous projects within the area is ridiculous. This unprecedented amount of opposition has been demonstrated through our community petition, which was the largest ever submitted in councils history. You can see below the post where he gloats about how good it is.

In other news this week the State Government agreed to delay the council elections until April next year. It is now highly likely that the council will sign up a developer before this date.

This agreement will also likely include a clause in it where exiting the agreement will have significant financial penalties to the council. It would be very prudent of the council to ensure these penalties are as small as possible so that the next incoming council has an opportunity to show their own leadership.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Hk7rQCKnP/?mibextid=wwXIfr

City of Prospect
Rhiannon Pearce MP
Lucy Hood MP

With my Mayor's hat (and chains) on:

We passed a significant motion at City of Prospect's most recent council meeting (land revocation approval) which allows us to move forward with the next stage of the Prospect Lifestyle Precinct project.

I took the somewhat unorthodox step of moving the motion from the chair and I thought I'd share what I said:

This is a critical step in a long and complex process and it allows us to move forward to the next stage of the Prospect Lifestyle Precinct Project.

The PLP project has been underway for well over two years, and we have slowly and methodically progressed from an idea, to a concept, to a plan and we are now well on the way to it becoming a reality.

It is worth taking a deeper look into what the recommendation from the Minister means. Minister Pearce's words were:

"After carefully considering the effect of the revocation of the Subject Land, on the area and the local community, I am of the opinion that, on balance, the revocation of each parcel of land will be more positive than not in its effect. "

These are deliberate and carefully chosen words but they are extremely important words. This project has now received the stamp of approval from the Minister for Local Government and it no longer is a project which can be consider only locally important project, it has been elevated to a project which is supported at a state level.

Where other councils have been waiting for a land revocation approval for several years now, we have received this significant stamp of approval far sooner. To me it says that we are on the right track, that we are building something which will add value to the community for generations to come, and contribute to the state's prosperity.

Not everyone is supportive of this project, both around the chamber and around our city, and this is one of the things I appreciate about this group of elected members - we can respectfully debate, disagree and move on.

But I am also reminded of other significant projects which have been undertaken in our city which were met with similar negativity and have turned out to exceed expectations. The best example of this is the redevelopment of the village heart: opponents said that the promised 'vibrancy' would lead to nothing more than clogged footpaths and would be to the detriment of our city. I heard it said that 'all we need are hanging baskets of petunias, and a lick of paint'.

Good leadership was required in order to say 'yes' in the face of this criticism, and the results we have today speak for themselves.

In the same spirit, I heard it said recently that good leadership meant not always saying yes, but I disagree: good leadership isn't about agreeing with the popular or loudest view, and indeed it isn't being deliberately controversial, it is knowing when to say yes, and when to say no and this is one of those times when the right thing to do is to say yes.

I commend this motion to you and look forward to your support.

30/05/2026

FYI - Update from the special council meeting on Thursday from Cr Mark Groote.

Mark has recently announced he is running for Mayor of Prospect in the upcoming council elections later this year. He has similar views to the Prospect Concerned Residents group in relation to the PLP so we wish him the best of luck with the upcoming campaign!

27/05/2026

🗺️ What Roadmap?! 🗺️

As we’ve heard many times before, the council have been following the stages of the Prospect Oval development according to their own roadmap which was conceived at the start of the PLP project.

As part of this roadmap the Expression of Interest (EOI) process wasn’t to be conducted until there was Ministerial approval for the land revocation, but they went ahead anyway based on legal advice that the EOI is not binding.

At Tuesday nights council meeting there was a placeholder item to discuss the next step with developers, the Request for Proposal (RFP). This again according to the roadmap wasn’t expected to commence until the land revocation had been granted. And at this stage it still hasn’t been granted by the Minister for Local Government so the RFP should not proceed.

But again the council has sought legal advice enabling them to push ahead with the RFP regardless (committing council time and money on the process where the land still belongs to the community).

This legal advice was discussed in a confidential discussion at the end of the council meeting so it’s unknown exactly what was said. This goes totally against their own roadmap. It is a desperate step to push the process ahead so they can sign up a developer before council elections this year and lock in the high development, 12 storey option which won’t easily be changed at a later date.

There is a special council meeting being held tomorrow evening (Thursday) at 5:30pm to discuss the RFP and whether to proceed. It is a public meeting so everyone is welcome to attend.

City of Prospect
Lucy Hood MP
Rhiannon Pearce MP

02/05/2026

🏟️ How did we get here? 🏟️

The direction that the council are pushing the PLP towards is clear, they want a large scale development of up to 12 storeys regardless of any community opposition around the Prospect oval.

Now is a good point to reflect on how this development started and how it has arrived at this point.

In June 2024 a group of Councillors, Council staff, the Mayor and CEO took a trip to Perth as a ‘fact finding’ mission for the Prospect Oval redevelopment. They visited Subi East Oval (The former Subiaco Oval Stadium) and Claremont on The Park (Claremont football ground). The visit was coordinated by Holmes Dyer, who you may have had an encounter with at one of the council drop in sessions. Holmes Dyer is the Consultancy company engaged by the council to assist with planning the project.

The Subi East development comprises of a large parcel of land and has a maximum proposed building height of 30 storeys. This project is similar to the old Footy park development at West Lakes as Subiaco was previously used as an AFL ground.

The Claremont oval development (known as the “Claremont Colosseum”) has 6-8 storey buildings around almost the entire oval. In his video Cr Standen notes how this development “feels oppressive” as the buildings are so close to the oval and “is an example of what not to do”. This is an interesting point, as the proposed building on the north eastern side of the PLP up to 8 storeys is actually very similar to the development at Claremont.

This trip took place prior to phase 1 community consultation which commenced in July 2024, whereby the community first had any say as to what should happen with the space. Consequently you have to wonder whether there ever was an option for a smaller scale ‘lifestyle precinct’. Were the plans always to push for a high scale development, which wasn’t revealed to the community until much later in the process (in November 2025 building heights of 12 storeys were brought to light in a council workshop)?

A key takeaway from this video is one of the final comments. 600 people were against the Claremont oval redevelopment, and the council went ahead with it anyway. The Claremont council are still convinced it was the correct decision. Has this influenced the thinking of the Prospect council? As even with our petition of 2,230 signatures they are still pushing ahead.

We encourage you to watch the video here

https://youtu.be/7gc8dhzSDk8?si=4QJi0fVEnloGxO1d

City of Prospect
Lucy Hood MP
Rhiannon Pearce MP
Nick Champion MP

Perth Trip 2024

19/04/2026

🗳️ Council decision on code amendment 🗳️

At a special council meeting last Tuesday the Prospect Council voted 6 for and 2 against to proceed with the code amendment next to Prospect Oval. This will now go to the Minister for Housing Nick Champion and if approved will allow the council and the CCH site to build up to 12 storeys.

This shows that despite overwhelming evidence that there is no broad community support for this, they are proceeding regardless.

The 2 councillors who voted against were the central ward councillors Cr Groote and Cr De Backer.

Cr Groote made some excellent points during his response. He asked if any changes to the code amendment had been made as a result of the community feedback, and the response was “basically none.”

He made the point that this decision is significant as it “sets the rules for the game” in terms of what can be built.

He made a strong argument that the council should listen to the community sentiment, the 76% of people who voted against in the consultation and the 2,230 residents who signed the petition. He asked what percentage of people would need to be against this for the council to reconsider “If 76% isn’t enough then what the hell is!”

The councillors who voted for essentially said that community feedback is not the only item taken into account when making their decision.

Councillor Nelson stated that the councillors are there “not just to listen but also to make important decisions”, that “there is a large contingent of residents who support this project” and that the councillors need to have the “courage to act now”.

Councillor Thuy Nguyen stated that this is a “moment for leadership, not hesitation”, that “community feedback matters, but also leadership matters” and Councillor Hollitt stated “community feedback is important, but it is not a referendum”.

Councillor Standen, Cr Trinh Nguyen and Cr Standen didn’t respond to the motion.

It seems that the most important stakeholder, the residents of Prospect, are yet again not being listened to. If you’d like to see the whole discussion you can watch the video on YouTube.

City of Prospect
Lucy Hood MP
Rhiannon Pearce MP
Nick Champion MP

11/04/2026

❓How much proof does the council need?
Code Amendment Consultation results and April Special Council Meeting❓

At last weeks council workshop the council presented the results of the Phase 4 consultation on the code amendment (which will allow them to build up to 12 storeys high).

76% of participants (208 people participated) were not in support of the code amendment. This is another clear statement that the community does not support the excessive size and scale of this development, and echoes the results found in previous consultations and in our petition of 2,230 signatures. Based on our petition we know that this is not just local resident bias and these results are shared across the council area.

The council will vote on whether to send this code amendment to the Minister for Housing in a special council meeting this coming Tuesday. A fair question to ask is why this decision can’t be left until the regular April council meeting at the end of the month? We presume it’s because they are trying to rush it through to support the EOI and RFP being completed by the end of July prior to the council caretaker period. Please come along to the council meeting if you would like to see for yourself how the council votes.

Also of note is that at the end of last weeks workshop a confidential meeting on the EOI was held. There will be another confidential meeting this Tuesday on the RFP. This is despite them still having no approval for the Land Revocation or the Code Amendment at this stage.

Finally, a few members of our group have kindly put together the attached 3D printed model highlighting the size and scale of the buildings based on the code amendment proposal. This model shows just how massive the development has the potential to be, especially if the CCH building area ends up being redeveloped as well.

City of Prospect
Lucy Hood MP
Rhiannon Pearce MP
Nick Champion MP

06/04/2026

📜 March Council Meeting Part 2 and upcoming PLP workshop 📜

Another key item from the March Council meeting was the motion brought by Cr Groote to delay any significant decisions on the PLP until after the caretaker period and council elections later this year.

This is so that the new council isn’t encumbered with some of the decisions of the current council (ie signing up a developer for a development the majority of the community doesn’t want).

Cr Groote stated that the PLP is the biggest project in Prospect’s history, that there is no rush and it is our roadmap to decide. He also made the very important point that none of the current councillors took the PLP to the last election.

There was a lot of debate on this however it was voted down 6 to 2 with Cr Groote and Cr De Backer being the only 2 in favour (video timestamp 01:50:00).

The feedback from the other councillors was that we need to proceed as per the roadmap to avoid financial and reputational impacts. Cr Barnett specifically talked about making the right decision rather than the popular decision.

Also, please note that this coming Tuesday night (7th of April) there will be a council workshop on the PLP. We encourage anyone who is interested to come along, unfortunately these workshops are not livestreamed but we will provide a summary afterwards.

Firstly the Council will discuss the results of the Phase 4 consultation on the Code Amendment (to be able to build up to 12 storeys) and the results from the survey conducted by Urban and Regional Planning Solutions outside Bunnings etc.

Secondly, (in a private session which unfortunately we cannot attend) they will discuss the EOI responses and the RFP document. They still don't however have any approval for the Land Revocation so we’re unsure how they will progress with this.

Please see the agenda below.

29/03/2026

📜 March Council Meeting Part 1 - Largest petition in Prospect’s History 📜

On Tuesday night we presented our petition to the council. For those who are interested you can watch the whole meeting on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/live/5yDsRL48bU4?si=rL6d5uTXw_MM-XYb

Council process is to firstly respond to the petition as a separate agenda item (video timestamp 18:10). Cr Groote asked the question - is this the largest petition in Prospects history? Which the Mayor and CEO stated they didn’t know. It was later confirmed by email from the council that it is.

The petition was later presented by a deputation to the council, a 5 minute speech highlighting the key takeaways of the petition (timestamp 38:00). After applause from the audience the councillors were then able to ask questions.

- Cr De Backer thanked everyone for their hard work on the petition and asked some questions about the Community Reference Group.

- Cr Groote also thanked the group and asked some questions about the communities awareness of the development during door knocking, and their attitude towards the height and scale of the development.

- Cr Nelson asked several questions stating that he “didn’t want to catch us out” such as regarding the financial costs of the development. His questions were trying to demonstrate that a lower density development isn’t feasible.

- Cr Barnett, Cr Standen, Cr Hollitt, Cr Trinh Nguyen and Cr Thuy Nguyen had no questions or comments to contribute.

In terms of whether the council will acknowledge the communities concerns and move forward with a lower scale development is not yet clear. It won’t be know if this has any impact until we see the results on how the councillors vote on upcoming decisions such as the land revocation and code amendment. These will be presented in council meetings in upcoming months as per the PLP roadmap.

There was further discussion on the PLP during the meeting which we’ll update you on in part 2.

City of Prospect
Lucy Hood MP

Due to a technical issue, unfortunately this recording does not include the first 5 minutes of the Council meeting. Apologies for this inconvenience.Please n...