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.


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.


Good to hear the City of Fremantle is finally taking steps to join other councils to get rid off the controversial state development assessment panels. I have been asking Fremantle Council for months to join the protest of councils such as Vincent, Stirling, Subiaco, Mosman Park, South Perth and many others against the DAP. DAP […]


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.

Communities, Councils, against the DAP

DAPs To Start Feeling The Heat, written by Ian Ker, Vincent Observed, 29 February 2016.

Further to the previous post on the South Perth successful court action on DAPs (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/david-slays-goliath-again.html), Vincent Mayor John Carey is moving a motion at tonight’s briefing meeting that Council work actively to reign in the DAPs. Tonight’s meeting is a briefing and the actual decision will be made next Tuesday (8th March). You can address either tonight’s briefing or the Council Meeting on 8th March. Councillor Elizabeth Re, City of Stirling, has emailed the dapaffectedcommunities group to say:

 I am sorry I cannot attend the Tuesday council meeting tonight at the Town of Vincent as I will be attending the City of Stirling meeting whereby I have put forward a similar notice of motion to stop the DAP’s  at the City of Stirling  council meeting tonight.

The more Councils formalise their opposition to the DAPs (or at least the way they currently over-ride local communities and planning schemes), the more likely action to reign them is – especially with the next state election being just 12 months away. So lobby your own Council, if you can, to pass similar resolutions and make the DAPs a central issue in the next state election.

Remember, the DAP debacle comes on top of failed forced local government reform, reneging on MAX light rail, the contentious Perth Freight Link, failures of hospital programs and out-of-control state debt.

A copy of Mayor Carey proposed recommendation before City of Vincent Council can be found here:

Mayor Carey’s DAP motion

DAP Affected Residents have a win

A legal bid to quash planning approval for a contentious high-rise tower in South Perth has succeeded.

Karyl Nairn and Ric Hawley argued the 29-storey tower at 74 Mill Point Road – the developer has since proposed increasing it to 44-storeys – should not have been approved by a joint development assessment panel (DAP) last year.

Well done to all concerned.

Read more about the win from The West Australian:




Fast food outlets near schools

An article in The West Australian today calls for controls on the proximity of fast food outlets near schools.


The community of Mandurah pleaded with the DAP in 2014 to vote against a McDonalds near its primary school, but lost.

Don Jacobson was very disappointed with the decision having campaigned against the McDonalds development.  Sadly he passed away last year from a severe illness.

Here’s what Don had to say to other communities struggling to be heard:

The development we opposed was for a service station / McDonalds / liquor store in a residential area sandwiched between two schools and a medical centre.  All our arguments were ignored; twice by JDAPs and once by a SAT.  My biggest complaint is that whilst the developer has multiple opportunities to appeal planning decisions, the community has none whatsoever. There needs to be a transparent, publicly accountable process whereby community groups can appeal these appalling JDAP decisions in the open.  To bring all those important issues that you all are bringing up under public scrutiny. Not for us to have to scratch around here and there in the (faint) hope that some media person somewhere will take up our cause.

Mandurah, Primary school, Macdonalds 2014
Fast food outlet approved near school.

Subiaco developer ignores rules.

A DAP application has Subiaco residents concerned about the proposed development at 263-277 Hay Street, Subiaco.

This is the second time the developer has applied to build a development seeking concessions, ignoring local town planning scheme rules.

Surprisingly, the developer requested an amendment to the scheme to increase bulk and scale of the locality, yet this development ignores these new rules.

Specific concerns include:

  • The proposed development exceeds the maximum heights allowed under the TPS, including the discretionary limit allowed under the TPS. When viewing the developer’s plans, the impact of the lift overruns is most acutely observed from the residential areas on Churchill Avenue and Olive Street. Therefore, it should not be permitted, due to the reduced amenity caused by the bulk and scale of the development.
  •  The top floor exceeds the maximum height allowable under the TPS and does not comply with the setback limits. The solid partitions for privacy screens (which cannot be considered to be a balustrade) between apartments and the cantilevered roof, are within the setback area and when viewed from the residential zone in Olive Street and Churchill Avenue, appear as a solid mass.  The non-compliance will only exacerbate the bulk and scale of the building, reducing the visual amenity of residents.
  •  The proposed “green spine circulation space” in the centre of the apartments would be a failure due to lack of natural light, as already highlighted by the Design Review Panel.  It appears to be too built up and narrow to allow sufficient light to be anything other than a cold, uninviting access-way to the apartments.  When viewed from Churchill Avenue, this space appears as one large block i.e. “filled-in” and there is no break-up of the bulk and scale of the building.
  • The design does not meet the objective (4) of the Town Planning Scheme “to encourage retention of heritage character by reinforcing the original development patterns and the recycling of existing building stock.” The demolition of the old shop fronts on Hay Street and the proposed building’s stark uniformly glass façade are not in keeping with the original Subiaco pattern of development.
  • The proposed tavern for 250 people does not comply with TPS4 as taverns are not permitted in the Commercial/Residential zone and should not be approved.
  • The developer’s consultant is seeking to justify a shortfall in the mandatory parking requirement by shifting its obligations to surrounding streets outside the development by saying “visitor parking can be accommodated via a combination of the existing City of Subiaco car park to the south of the development site, and the existing on-street bays on Hay Street and Olive Street.”

This DAP application will be considered by the panel on Monday 1 February 2016 at 10am, 140 William Street, Perth.

Hay and Olive 2016 DAP application
Current application still exceeds height restrictions 2016
what Hay_Olive Dev't could look like
Residents suggest this design for Hay and Olive Subiaco
DAP Olive & Hay
First application exceeded height restrictions in 2012


Developers like “discretionary clause”

Communities against the DAP are very unhappy with the use of the “discretionary clause” by panel members who are unaccountable to electors.

Discretionary clauses in local council planning schemes are there to be used by elected councillors, who are answerable to their electors.

South Perth residents are supporting Town Planning Scheme Amendment 46 to put a cap on discretion used by the DAP for height limits on new developments.

Developer backlash against Amendment 46 is mainly focused on the removal of “the discretionary element in assessing [development application] proposals”.

Currently there is no limit to building heights as long as some art work, etc is included the development.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.