City ignores community calls to protect beloved Beach Road land, pushing ahead with sale plans

A beloved area of land in the heart of Bunbury will stay on the market despite immense community outcry. Last month City of Bunbury councillors engaged in a heated debate to decide the future of lot 89 Beach Road, land adjacent to the city’s Big Swamp. It followed months of community outrage, with ratepayers rallying to have the land protected. Kicking off with a protest in March, concerned residents have been relentless in their efforts to save the vacant lot from sale, highlighting the area’s potential as a space of urban greenery. However, despite a petition from the community generating more than 600 signatures, councillors voted 5-4 to reject a proposal to save the land, and are continuing to push forward with the sale. The 1456sqm block is advertised for offers over $900,000. During the city’s ordinary council meeting on April 28, Cr Cheryl Kozisek was the first to speak in favour of progressing with the sale. She said she had seen notions from the community the decision to sell the land was “all about money”, which she said was a major factor as the funds generated from the sale, and rates from the land could benefit the community. “The funds for the sale of the land can be placed in reserve, so they won’t just be gobbled up — we can select a project,” she said. “Let’s look at the big picture. If we’re able to realise the sale of all of the available lots suitable for housing, the rates revenue will help us to continue to deliver the services that everybody expects with smaller rate increases. “This will benefit all of our community.” Cr Gabi Ghasseb spoke against the motion, and foreshadowed a motion to abandon the sale. “There are some unhappy people out there that have been motivated enough for the last two or three months, to leave their homes, go and protest, arrange all sorts of Facebook posts and submissions, not to mention a petition that’s close to 600 signatures in just over a week,” he said. “In my view, we are trying to make the people here in this room, the majority, to try to accept our position — they don’t want to drink that cup of tea — they really don’t.” Cr Ghasseb pushed back on the argument around rates revenue from the sale, and said the city had other means of raising revenue if it wanted. Cr Parthasarathy Ramesh also spoke against the sale of the land, saying the petition represented clear community concern and the land should not be sold for “short-term returns”. “The argument that the land cannot be vested as a crown reserve is noted,” he said. “However, that constraint does not justify proceeding with the sale. “Planning decisions made in 2015 should not be treated as immutable. Expectations and priorities have evolved, particularly in relation to coastal management, climate resilience, and the critical access of green space in growing communities.” Cr Marina Quain questioned why the city was prioritising the sale of the Beach Road lot, and spoke against it. “The city owns other parcels of land with no mature trees that will have a higher development yield,” she said. Deputy mayor Tresslyn Smith said it was not the council’s intention to upset the community, but the council needed to act with the “greater good” in mind. Cr Julie Broad echoed support for the sale, though she said she acknowledged the community felt mislead. She said she supported the community’s “green outlook” however, there was land South of Big Swamp that could be used for tree planting. “I genuinely appreciate the community’s passionate arguments against selling this land,” she said. “Our focus should remain on enhancing the Big Swamp area and its surroundings . . . rather than clinging to a small lot that has already undergone a rezoning process.” Mayor Jaysen Miguel spoke in favour of the sale also, saying he knew it would not be a popular decision. “There will always be resistance to change,” he said. The motion was carried 5-4, with Cr Miguel, Cr Smith, Cr Broad, Cr Kozisek and Cr Karen Turner all voting in favour of the sale, with the gallery full of community members calling “shame” at the decision. The future of the land is still not set in stone, however, with the formal disposal process yet to take place. If an offer is received for the land there will be a further statutory opportunity for community input before any final decision is made.