Councils vote to Abolish the DAP

DAP affected communities are supporting their local councils to move an in principle motion to ABOLISH THE DAP.

Mayor John Carey and Cr Julie Matheson spoke to ABC News about the current DAP system.

So far the following Councils are proposing motions similar to Mayor Carey’s of the City of Vincent:

  1. Vincent – motion passed
  2. Mosman Park – motion passed
  3. Nedlands – motion passed
  4. Cambridge – motion passed
  5. Subiaco – motion passed
  6. Stirling – motion passed
  7. Bayswater – motion passed
  8. South Perth – motion passed
  9. Belmont – motion passed
  10. Cottesloe – motion passed
  11. Claremont – motion passed
  12. Swan – working on it
  13. Peppermint Grove – motion passed
  14. Gosnells – working on it
  15. Kalamunda – working on it
  16. Melville – motion passed
  17. Cockburn – working on it
  18. Kwinana – working on it
  19. Victoria Park – motion passed
  20. Fremantle – working on it
  21. East Fremantle – motion passed
  22. Mundaring – 2009 early adopter of a motion against the DAP
  23. Serpentine-Jarrahdale – motion passed
  24. Shire of Pingelly – motion passed 17 August 2016

If you are a DAP affected community, now is a great opportunity to speak to your elected council members and request your council’s support and vote for the abolition of the current DAP process.

And if you think a change of government will abolish the DAP, think again.  Labor under the leadership of Mark McGowan has just supported City of Perth Bill in collaboration with the current government.

DAP has bi-partisan support.  It’s up to our councils to make a stand on the DAP.

3 thoughts on “Councils vote to Abolish the DAP

  1. While I appreciate Cr Matheson’s continued support, *I remain dubious of John Cary’s recent activities / support against DAP’s?*

    John Carey a former “policy adviser” to Geoff Gallop or “Spin Doctor”, *regularly changes his decision’s / support _to whatever position that best advantages himself._* (Future Labour Party star recruit?)

    In the most recent edition (No. 922) of The Perth Voice, former Vincent Councillor Dudley Maier claims *the real issue is with Vincents policies.*

    He has trawled over 20 significant developments that went to DAP’s, *19 of which were exactly what Vincent staff had recommended?*

    We here in Mount Hawthorn, despite our enormous efforts to stop a 10 Unit Development proposed by the Department of Housing, had little or no support, other than lip service from John Carey & his Vincent Councillors, and recently they failed to implement their Amendments 39 & 40 to give Vincent / Mount Hawthorn their democratic right of say over inappropriate developments.

    Prior to John Carey’s failure with East Street, there was 24 Lynton Street, Mount Hawthorn a 4 unit, 8 person, 8 car Multi-Dwelling *passed by Vincent Councillors in the dead of night, behind closed doors, confidentially?*

    We the surrounding resident’s of 24 Lynton Street, Mount Hawthorn, despite our 120 person petition, 11 negative submissions, all adjoining property owners of 24 Lynton St., and our attendance at council to hear our Vincent Councillors unanimously reject this development, still have bitter memories of John Carey’s response to our concerns, and disappointment that he was “re-elected as Vincent mayor” after the Labour Party stacked his votes”.

    For him to now present himself as our new “savior” against DAP’s in our opinion is truly laughable!

    Go get-tum Julie Matheson*, but despite what you pretend to be / do John, you won’t be getting any of our votes, anytime soon……………*

    Signed * **The Mount Hawthorn resident’s affected by John Carey’s / Vincent’s approval’s of Multi-Dwellings. *


  2. Comment from Tessa:

    Hi – the JDAP recently approved a 7 storey apartment block at 9-11 King William Street, Bayswater – our high street. The town planning scheme allows 5 storeys – but more if the applicant could prove the building they proposed to build would provide additional amenity. This was in no way the case in terms of this particular development proposal by Yolk Property Group. It is so disappointing and the fact it can keep happening – i.e. other development proposals of a similarly low standard and higher than that permitted under the TPS – is real. The Airport Link will bring thousands of commuters to and via Bayswater, once it is constructed. The owners of property in Bayswater town centre must be licking their lips – serviced apartments, the tourist dollar. Bayswater town centre has become rundown – we can all see that. But to replace some of our more interesting, character-filled buildings with cheap apartments, to insert a sea of 7 storey apartment blocks into our tiny town centre – it will be a disgrace. Election issue? You better believe it.


  3. Whilst in theory it is uplifting to see the City of Stirling’s recent rumblings to support scrapping of DAP’s, it would be far more useful to ratepayers if they then actually practised what they preached.

    The planning and approvals team at the City of Stirling have bent over backwards and actually blessed the dirt for an opt-in JDAP approval at Ozone Parade in Trigg. The 4 storey one day , 3 the next chameleon like development of 20 multiple dwellings on an R40 infill/battleaxe site is the perfect example of stealth planning on the part of the applicant (a professional applicant well known to several DAP members) and apparent collusion by the City.

    The development encroaches an easement to which no consent has been given nor requested by the beneficiaries, this encroachment will contravene both the Land Administration Act and the Building Act.

    This gives the City of Stirling all the fuel it requires to block the development (as the permit authority), as did the requirement for community consultation mandated by the deemed provisions of the P&D LPS3 Regulations, the last JDAP meeting was held 10 days before the substantial commencement deadline for the original approval, allowing the mandated consultation would have essentially halted the development, so the City …

    …. or Greg Bowering to be precise, misdirected the JDAP on advice in relation to opening statements made by 3 of the residents, 2 of whom clearly pointed out the requirement for community consultation in the regulations. Mandated, not recommended.

    The panel clearly had no understanding of the regulations taking Mr Bowering’s advice even though he was clearly giving advice on a different sub-clause to the one we were arguing.

    Only Councillor David Michael presumably understood the sub-clause of the provisions and voted against the amendment, Councillor Boothman was perhaps unaware of the City’s stance or the community anger at this development, or amendment 32 which prohibits multiple dwellings on an R40 site (unless you count Mr Bowering’s semantics).

    The planning and approval team at the City of Stirling also allowed siteworks without a building permit on site for several weeks despite community feedback, presumably to help towards the substantial commencement deadline.

    To aid the application of salt, the City then changed its stated definition of substantial commencement at the 11th hour to suit this development, apparently after strongly considering community concerns 😉

    Oh, and the easement, well the Council did get the developer to alter the plans (and then granted a building permit based on unapproved plans which they are not allowed to do for a certified application) in regard to the easement, which they did, changing one form of encroachment for another, an encroachment by retaining is in the City of Stirling’s view different to encroachment by landscaping and changing levels.

    The list of omissions and obfuscations from 2 of the City’s Responsible Authority Report’s to the JDAP is too big to list here, my point being that even if the DAP’s are scrapped for this type of development, ratepayers will still have to deal with the partisan attitude of the local Council to certain developers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s