DAP Affected Como

On 17 April 2015 the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) at a third hearing, in a 3/2 vote, approved development at the Como Hotel which includes replacing the existing BWS Bottle Shop with a Dan Murphy’s mega liquor outlet four times larger.

The Como Hotel is owned by the Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group (ALHG). The JDAP decision inexplicably reversed two previous decisions (15 August 2014 and 17 February 2015) rejecting the development.

Many in the local community have been appalled and disillusioned with the outcome of the decision, especially considering a “full house” of opposition including:

  1. The South Perth Council Meeting on 24 March 2015 passed a unanimous motion that “[The] Council does not support the development of large format liquor outlets at the Como Hotel site”;
  2. The Responsible Authority Report by City of South Perth, opposed the development on the grounds of added traffic congestion, difficulties with vehicular access, insufficient parking, and social impact on amenity;

To read more click here:  Opposing Dan Murphy at Como Hotel

Contact:  Greg Benjamin on 08 9367 7269 for more information.

SAT Affected: Councils

Another string to the bow of “development at any cost” is the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

Developers can appeal any decision made by a council or a Development Assessment Panel to the SAT.

The results are overwhelmingly in favour of the developer:

Nearly 70% of all SAT appeals are won by the developer!
Nearly 70% of all SAT appeals are won by the developer!

This graph captures information from one metropolitan council defending its decisions.

From 2012 to 2015:

  • Spent just over $193,000;
  • On 49 appeals to the SAT relating to refusals for planning approval (a review regarding conditions of approval are not included in this number, however there are very few of these) of which:
    o  8 were refused by Council where the officer recommendation for approval, and the refusal was later overturned by SAT
    o  26 were refused by Council in line with an officer recommendation for refusal, and the refusal was later overturned by SAT;
    o  15 refusals by Council with officer recommendations also for refusal were upheld as refused by SAT.

The SAT is part of the problem why “development at any cost” is occurring throughout communities in Western Australia.

What chance have residents got if they had Third Party Appeal Rights?

DAP Affected: Kewdale

Emma Young of WA Today is on the trail looking for other DAP Affected Community.

This Community written about by Emma is the industrial precinct of Kewdale, where the DAP were asked to approve a “Noxious (Waste Storage Facility)” in a prohibited area zoned for industrial use.  The DAP have supported the recommendation by Belmont Council, businesses and residents to refuse the application, but you guessed it, the applicant has appealed the decision at the SAT.

The SAT is a proven path to take to get anything approved.  The SAT can use a Section 31    to have the DAP and the applicant mediate an outcome in secret, then send it back to the DAP for approval.  This path has worked on many occasion for developers.

Here’s more of the story here:

In a twist on the usual story of Perth councils fighting controversial developments, Coca-Cola Amatil has thrown its hat in the ring to oppose a Kewdale waste facility.

Cleanaway has applied to build a waste storage facility in Belmont, WA, and the City of Belmont recommended the local development assessment panel knock it back because as a “noxious industry” it was a prohibited use in that industrial zone.

Read Emma’s report here:  http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/cocacola-steps-in-to-help-in-fight-to-stop-waste-factory–in-kewdale-20160627-gpsz17.html