DAP OVERRIDES NEDLANDS

The Post Newspaper is the only paper that reports on the impact and community concerns when the DAP overrides local concerns.

Since the Minister for Planning approved her own version Local Planning Scheme 3 for the City of Nedlands, the developers have taken their opportunities to force infill where it’s not wanted.

Community concerns are ignored by the DAP and this is sadly just another example.

Revised plans for a seven-storey tower of 28 mostly short-stay apartments at 135 Broadway were approved by the DAP on April 3 despite the strong objections of neighbours. “To build selfishly like this, only to advance the developer, is kind of stealing.”

 

Democracy stolen

Letter to the Editor, Post Newspapers, by Cr Andrew Mangano of Nedlands

11 April 2020

The recent flood of development applications into the City of Nedlands has highlighted just how undemocratic is the development application process for large developments using  development assessment panels (DAPs).

Firstly, a DAP is made of up of two elected members of a council and three non-elected people selected by the state government. It is obvious the government appointees effectively decide the outcome of any DAP development application. This is exactly what happened last week for the 135 Broadway development, and will happen again and again in the future.

Secondly, the responsible authority report (RAR) to the DAP is written by a council’s administration, is not approved by the elected members, and in many cases is not even presented to the elected members. The elected members have virtually no influence on what is written in the RAR and it often does not reflect the views of the elected members or the community.

Thirdly, the concept of design review panels being thrust upon councils by the Office of the Government Architect allows unelected, unaccountable people to give opinions on a large-scale development that may contradict the community or elected members’ views on a development, as happened in Subiaco.

Fourthly, the Planning Minister can decide the outcome of a development application contrary to the community, or even the DAP itself. Finally, with the advent of online DAP meetings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the community is now excluded from all meetings. It is no wonder that communities across WA have no faith in the DAP system, created by the last Liberal government and being used by the current Labor government, more often than not, against the wishes of the community that is affected by a development.

Minister creates uncertainty

The Minister for Planning Rita Saffioti is using the COVID-19 State of Emergency to change planning rules to avoid community consultation on development applications.

The community will not be consulted if an approved development application requires a two-year extension to commence development.  The Minister is offering an automatic blanket two-year extension without community consultation. Ref Business News, 9 April 2020

Local governments are encouraged by the Minister for Planning to fast track and approve “non-controversial developments” to avoid public scrutiny but provides no definition on what those developments are.  Ref Minister’s letter to WALGA President, 25 March 2020

These changes to planning rules may appear innocuous but the Minister has form in ignoring community consultation and approving local planning schemes and a high-rise development ignoring the controversial impacts on communities. Ref Subiaco and Nedlands‘ Local Planning Scheme changed by Minister for Planning, April and December 2019.  Civic Heart 39 storeys approved by Minster for Planning, 7 February 2020

The Minister for Planning can’t be trusted to act in the interests of the community.  These changes to planning rules should be vigorously challenged by the community and elected members of local government.

The role of Mayors, Presidents and Councillors is to represent the electors of their districts (s. 2.10 of the Act), not the Minister for Planning or the WA Planning Commission.  Elected members have a duty of care to their electors, especially the most vulnerable during this COVID-19 State of Emergency.

Please write to your elected members of local government and remind them of their obligations during this time of uncertainty.

All development applications should be in the public domain and listed on the local government website and in print in a local community newspaper so that the community can be consulted and decide if a development application is controversial.

 

DAP Affected: Swanbourne

Blackburne Property Group’s Aria Apartments, 2 Milyarm Rise, Swanbourne.

The City of Nedlands and the DAP refused this development on 23 October 2013.

Of course the developer appealed the decision at the State Administrative Tribunal and the refusal was overturned.

Read the full DAP report:

City of Nedlands was concerned about three things:

1. The building height exceeds the height restrictions for the area and there is no discretion for this clause to be varied;
2. It does not meet the deemed to comply provisions for design principles under clause 6.1.1 of the R Codes in relation to building size (plot ratio); and
3. The proposed development does not represent orderly and proper planning in accordance with the Scheme.

Traffic reports submitted by the developer neglected to reference roads that will be negatively affected by the development. Glossing over impact. When it went to SAT the City focused on plot ratio and not traffic. They reviewed and downgraded initial concerns about traffic and seemed to propose acceptable compromise solutions. SAT sounds like an intimidating prospect that could drain City coffers if there are too many appeals. Pressure for compromise seems to be the preferred strategy.

When the Aria Project was brought forward to the SAT, the developer made minor adjustments by reducing the 204 units submitted to the DAP to 157 units, with only other minor changes. That is a final decision with a 300% increased plot ratio from original zoning for 55 units. And still a significant excess of originally zoned height and density in the Town Planning Scheme.

The shortfall of visitor parking will create challenges for the local community. There is only one road entrance to a building with parking for 350 vehicles and an expected 800 vehicle movements per day. Imagine the morning commute trying to exit onto busy Alfred Road off one small side street?

The nearest train is a 32 minute walk (2.3km), nearest bus a 6 minute walk taking 45 minutes to get into the city compared to 21 minutes by car.  Many criteria do not fit with the intention of infill targets but it was still approved at SAT.

Residents are frustrated about how they can lobby on these issues. Council can, but it seems they will be heavily pressured to compromise or face very high-cost appeals.

Resident of Swanbourne.

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

The Post Newspaper

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.