Responsible Authority Report (RAR)

If your Council’s Responsible Authority Report does not include a Council Recommendation, ask why?

Page 4 of the RAR template includes a Council Recommendation. Call a Special Council Meeting and include a recommendation in the RAR.

Julie Matheson

A Responsible Authority Report (RAR) contains a two recommendations from a local government.  One from a planning officer and the other from the Council regarding a DAP application valued at $2 million or more.

The Development Assessment Panels (DAP) was introduced to Western Australia on 1 July 2011, for developments worth $3 million or more to replace planning decisions made by elected councillors and planning officers under delegated authority.

DAP values 2011

In 2015 the rules were changed to a lower value of $2 million or more.  The mandatory value threshold increased to $10 million.

Responsible Authority Report (RAR)

Under DAP Regulations 2011, Reg 12 a Responsible Authority must provide a report to the DAP in a form approved by the Director General.  See the latest version here:  Responsible Authority Report (RAR) template – Form 1 (1) 2017

These new DAP regulations referred to the term Responsible Authority but was silent on its meaning.

Many Mayors and elected councillors have been led by…

View original post 776 more words

Inglewood residents called NIMBYs to shut them down

Ref.  Kate Leaver, Community News, 13 December 2016

INGLEWOOD residents have gathered in opposition to an “excessive” six-storey development on the corner of Eighth Avenue and Beaufort Street, neighbouring the heritage-listed police station.

Inglewood resident Roger Hill said locals would welcome a “well-designed” mixed use development but the current plan “missed the mark”

“This proposal falls considerably short of the ideal, being of a height and scale that is incompatible with its location,” he said.

“The development fails to provide sufficient practical and usable car parking spaces.

“They should contribute to traffic management measures that restrict traffic generated by the development from filtering through Eighth and Ninth avenues, which are residential streets.”

However, project architect Kim Doepel said the plans had been amended twice to address concerns of residents.

“The owner has agreed to the increase the lane width by one metre and another metre for landscaping,” he said. “It is time the authorities started to listen and approve projects like this for the many, instead of the one or two selfish nimbys who try and dictate outcomes against the majority.”

Name calling like NIMBY is used to shut the public down from having their say.  When jobs are scarce, the public can’t use their voice for fear of losing their employment, their public standing or their business.

We should all thank those who are prepared to be a voice for those who can’t.

DAP Affected: Trigg

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 two 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.

Trigg DAP Affected Community.

DAP Affected: Karrinyup

Address: 27 Prisk Street, Karrinyup

Letter to the Editor:

Further to the article which was published in The Stirling Times on the 12th July 2016 from the Carine Action Group regarding the development by Opal Aged Care in Carine, and how the City of Stirling are not listening to the residents, we the Karrinyup Action Group, would like to advise you of our plight.
You previously published two articles regarding the proposed development in Prisk Street/Gladman Way, Karrinyup, one 19th May 2015 and another on 4th August 2015 when we consequently won the fight, with both the City of Stirling and the Metro North West JDAP both UNANIMOUSLY REJECTING this proposal due to the four storey height, bulk, scale and not suiting the amenity, therefore not blending with the surrounding area which is mainly zoned R20 and with single and double storey properties in a quiet suburban street. (Gladman Way)

Since then, in August 2015, The Uniting Church applied to the State Administrative Tribunal to have this decision mediated on. We the residents were not informed of this as once an application goes to the State Administrative Tribunal we are no longer an interested party. We were warned to watch out for this as this appears to be the process on which developers get things passed. After trolling through the State Administrative Tribunals webpage every day, we found that yes, as warned, the Uniting Church had applied to SAT. We contacted SAT and requested to be involved at the mediations. Two members were allowed to attend to state our case, but not be at the actual discussions or receive information or outcomes. The Mediator of SAT several times mentioned to the Uniting Church requesting them to consider a three storey building as a compromise, especially when he viewed the site as we had requested. We the residents were happy to compromise but unfortunately The Uniting Church were not, even though they have a large Lot that they can build on. We suggested they build over the car park which would give them the same amount of bedrooms etc but that is apparently not in their plans. They stated several times that they can build four storeys so they will.

The State Administrative Tribunal then by “Order” advised them to draw up amended plans which would make this development suitable to the LPP. 4.5 Private Institution Guidelines and Objectives and to have these amended plans into the City of Stirling no later than the 29th February 2016. They did not submit their plans to the Council until the 9th March, (even though the report from the Uniting Church is dated the 14th March 2016? ) The City of Stirling should therefore have not done a second Responsible Authority Report on the 16th March 2015, and should have instead supported their ratepayers and stood by their first Responsible Authority Report of 2015 rejecting this proposal, as the Order by SAT was not met by The Uniting Church. But no, the City of Stirling carried out the Responsible Authority Report, after receiving numerous submissions from residents “again” objecting to this development due to the size, bulk, scale and amenity. There was also a petition from 98.5% of surrounding and affected residents (228 signatures) but this was of no consequence and was not mentioned in the report as we were no longer interested parties as the matter was now with SAT to decide on.

This matter then went to the Metro North West JDAP on the 22nd March 2016, we were given less than 48 hours to put our presentations in to them and advise our attendance. At this meeting, we were not listened to, it was obvious the decision was already made. Our questions were not answered, we were not allowed to object when incorrect information was stated by members of the JDAP, and therefore this development was this time passed by the three JDAP members and rejected by the two City of Stirling members who were on the Board, therefore Carried.

We have since been trying to get our questions answered as to how two Responsible Authority Reports done on the same development, in the same area, by the same department, can differ so much. The building is the same size, bulk and scale, they have just turned it 90 degrees. We cannot understand how this changes anything. It still does not adhere to the guidelines and objectives or suit the amenity of the area in any way or form.

As this application was now passed by JDAP, The Uniting Church subsequently withdrew its application from the State Administrative Tribunal on the 6th March 2016 without SAT actually making a decision, which was meant to be on the 8th March 2016. Therefore, if the matter was withdrawn, surely we should be allowed to be an interested party? We are confident that SAT would have made a decision declining this development due to the bulk, scale, size and amenity and the fact that The Uniting Church did not compromise as requested, or even abide by SAT’s Order. We feel that this is what is done to cut the community out of any chance of appeal and to silence our rights as a democratic society.

We have requested assistance and answers to our questions from The City of Stirling, JDAP, The Uniting Church and many Ministers but we are still being fobbed off and all of our questions are not being answered or explained properly to our satisfaction. Our local member, Ms Liza Harvey has also recently contacted the Planning Minister but as yet no response has been received.

The Planning Minister advised our Action Group in earlier correspondence that “the planning legislation allows me very limited opportunity to intervene in such matters.” The Governor of WA has in a letter to us advised that “she does not have the constitutional authority or jurisdiction to enable her to intervene in this matter unless advised to do so in Executive Council by the responsible Minister”.  Therefore surely the Planning Minister should be able to ask her to intervene and put a hold on this development? We want to know who can intervene, nobody seems to accept responsibility for this development being rejected one year, and accepted the next when it is the same. Nobody is assisting us with this matter, they just hope we will go away. We have been told that the only step we have left to go is to the Supreme Court, but of course, who can possibly afford to go there. This is how these developments are being passed……The people with lawyers and money win.

We believe (and have heard) that this is the whole plan, to go through this process whereby when the developer goes to the State Administrative Tribunal, then we, the community lose our right to appeal unless we have money to fight them in the Supreme Court. We have heard that the Council’s cannot afford to fight these applications in the courts, therefore that is why they just “roll over” and let these developments go ahead.

We have sent so many letters, emails, submissions and petitions but nobody is paying attention – NOBODY IS LISTENING. We have even been on Today Tonight explaining how we are happy for this aged care facility to be redeveloped, but just keep it to the guidelines as we the people have to, and ensure that it suits the amenity as the guidelines state. This system is rotten to the core and the community needs to start being listened to before it is too late and we are all stuck with monoliths in our quiet suburban areas. This approved monolith is approximately 16 metres high, 120 bedrooms and overlooks many properties in the area as it is right on top of a hill. From my perspective alone, it overlooks all of our front garden and back garden with their viewing decks and windows, we will have to hide in the house. It is approximately 28 metres from our property with the ground floor pad being the same height as our single storey house gutter line – how can this possibly suit the amenity? Someone please tell me – nobody in the Government or “supposed” authority can! Ours and many neighbours properties are being looked over, shadows cast and privacy completely extinguished.

We would just like some honest answers as to how this has been allowed to go ahead and why the community are being totally ignored and ridden roughshod over. What happened to democracy?
We would like this development looked into and put on hold until honest answers are received. And by the way, as many local residents properties have been devalued considerably, I wonder if we will receive a rate reduction as the GRV will go down dramatically? I don’t suppose we will…

Alison Gibbons

On behalf of the Karrinyup Action Group

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.