The Royal Perth Golf Club course is among several places in the City of South Perth where the level of heritage protection may be altered. Two private properties and Wesley College could also be affected by changes to the city's heritage survey.
Heritage Survey and Listings
The survey identifies places that are or may become of local cultural heritage significance, rating them across four categories. Sites in the top two categories — "essential" and "very important" — are considered for inclusion on the city's heritage list. Properties on the list may require city approval for any demolition, alterations, or other development.
Last October, the council requested reviews of five locations on its heritage survey: two properties on Anstey Street and Forrest Street, Wesley College, St Columba's Church Group, and the Royal Perth Golf Club course. All have been recommended for inclusion on the heritage list.
Wesley College is rated as essential to the area's heritage, with two additional buildings proposed for listing: a boarding house and the Mildred Manning Science Centre. The listing for St Columba's Church Group is to be split into two to reflect separate ownerships. For the golf course, separate listings are proposed for the course itself and the clubhouse.
The course, bounded by Labouchere Road, Amhurst Street, South Terrace, Melville Parade, Kwinana Freeway, and Richardson Park, would be rated as "very important." The clubhouse would be rated as "worth noting for community interest but otherwise makes little contribution."
Details of the Golf Course and Clubhouse
The proposed listing describes the course as a "pleasing environment" that has hosted social and sporting events since 1908. In February, the council approved redesign works, including relocating a maintenance driveway and removing 39 trees. The clubhouse listing notes uncertainty about how much of the original 1914 building remains.
The Forrest Street and Anstey Street properties would retain their "very important" classification.
Council Debate and Vote
The proposed changes divided the council at its April 28 meeting, resulting in a 4-4 tie. Mayor Greg Milner used his casting vote in favor of releasing the proposals for public comment. Councillor Stephen Russell declared a financial and proximity interest and did not participate.
The owner of the Forrest Street property told the council at an earlier briefing that he opposed the increased classification and questioned the property's historical significance.
Councillor Kathy Lees acknowledged the owner's concerns but emphasized that the council was only seeking comment at this stage. "That's the first step in a much longer process, and there are several stages that must be completed before any decision on heritage listing itself," she said. "The heritage listing does not mean a property is frozen in time. It simply means that where alterations are proposed to aspects of a property that are of cultural heritage significance, they need to be done in a sensitive way that respects that significance." She also suggested the council consider waiving development application fees or providing rate subsidies for owners of heritage properties, stating, "At the end of the day, these owners are looking after places that matter to all of us, and giving them support feels like an important part of what we're here to do for future generations."
Councillors opposing the new listings argued there was insufficient justification. Councillor Tim Houweling said the listings did not pass logic or the pub test, referring to a 15-page report he had submitted. "I take issue with the suggestion that the most sensible thing to do is to simply allow the process to unfold and therefore imply somebody who doesn't support it may not be so sensible after all," he said. "Maybe it is because I don't take great support in or comfort in what is described as blindly following the report which was put to us."
Councillor Bronwyn Waugh supported protecting the area's history but wanted a "defined and precise" approach. "I am not entirely satisfied that the conclusions that have been reached are consistently grounded in a clear and objective methodology," she said. "It's critical that what we're putting forward is robust, balanced, and capable of being applied consistently. If this is to be adopted, it needs to strike the right balance between protecting what is genuinely significant and allowing the city to evolve in a way that is thoughtful, appropriate, and responsive to the needs of the community."
Mayor Milner acknowledged that some council members might disagree with the heritage advice but stated, "The advice is the advice," and he was not prepared to disregard it. "I can't help but think that if we did, absent some really, really, really good reasons, it might understandably invite questions from our community about what we are basing our decisions on. So far I haven't seen those really, really, really good reasons."
