Linley Lutton/Hampton Road/ Manning Buildings

Vale Linley Lutton

The Fremantle Society extends its deepest condolences to Sue, Matthew, and Simon. Linley was not just a lovely person, but he had the rare ability to understand how urban design and planning should work, and to articulate clearly how to achieve good results. Linley will live on through his work.

Linley ran his own business as Urbanix Director of Urban Planning, was Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Earth and Environment, UWA, Unit Coordinator/lecturer, Urban Design for Planners, School of Earth and Environment, UWA, and Chair, City Gatekeepers – Advocates for Better Urban Planning.

Linley wrote reports for the Fremantle Society on King’s Square, Atwell Arcade Development, and 8 Pakenham Street Quest apartments, all ignored by the mayor and councillors.

Linley resigned as a member of the Fremantle Council’s Design Advisory Committee in December 2013 in dismay at how council handled major developments. This is a paragraph from his resignation letter:

Fremantle projects such as 8 Packenham St, Point St and 85 Queen Victoria St are examples where I (and other DAC members) have been consistently expressing significant concerns about the projects from the initial presentation – to little avail. These projects simply advance through the system until they reach a crisis point. Another emerging example, which further confirms my sense of futility about the DAC process, is the Spicer site redevelopment. I and one other DAC member expressed concerns during the architect’s presentation about the poor relationship between the applicant’s proposal and the neighbouring Warders’ Cottages. Scale, materials and relationship with the public realm are the primary concerns. I notice in the most recent information sent to DAC members that the applicant makes no attempt at any level to address these critical issues. The applicant is going down the same path of ignoring DAC concerns.

Linley stated in another letter: There are three significant projects I will attest to where the DAC had very serious reservations and these projects have continued to go through the system at COF. At Victoria Park, projects causing major concern to the Design Review Committee would mostly be rejected. I sent this email in August 2013 regarding two projects. I have no idea if my concerns were properly recorded. The views are strongly expressed in this email but are consistent with the DAC committee discussions on both projects:

8 Pakenham Street (Quest apartments) and 81 Queen Victoria Street

These two projects are among the worst I have evaluated in many years. Each suffers from gross over development of their respective sites. In both cases the proponents have been uncooperative and have attempted to chip away with minor revisions without attempting to resolve the major problems.

What concerns me most is why both proponents felt it appropriate in the first instance to present such overdeveloped solutions. What message are they being given when they start the process? Why would a proponent think five storeys on the corner of Pakenham and Short Street would even be a possibility?

Both projects set poor precedents and if approved there will be no stopping others.

Unlike the DAPs, our role goes well beyond simply facilitating development. I understand the push to get development happening but not at any cost, surely!

I am not able to support either project in their current form.

Mediation with the mayor was sought and Linley wrote about that:

——– kindly arranged a mediation meeting between myself and Brad Petit a few weeks ago during which I was candid and open, as was —-, about many issues including the problems associated with Amendment 49.

Brad said he would set up a meeting with myself, himself, Andrew Sullivan and Phil St John to discuss the problems and I have never heard since.

I suspect he has met strong resistance to such a meeting.

Attached are my diagrams which show the impact of shadows on Point Street for at least two full months during winter. This applies equally to Queen Street or any street with a similar alignment.

Any good urban planner would never allow this to happen in an existing small-scale city centre.

My diagram showing how the situation is partly resolved by setting the buildings back is also attached.

Andrew Sullivan was the major driver of the building height changes and he misunderstood the serious shadow impacts caused by taller buildings.

Following my public comments on this issue he has tried to justify his work in several social media statements but he simply reinforces his ignorance and lack of experience with every utterance.

Following his resignation Linley continued his interest and involvement with Fremantle, speaking at public meetings and writing reports for the Fremantle Society. It was stressful for him and his supporters to see the lack of respect shown by council for his well articulated and sensible views.

Photograph copied from Linley Lutton’s Facebook site.

Notice of Planning Proposal 16 Hampton Rd

The Fremantle Society has received the following letter from Keith O’Brian asking Fremantle Society members to be aware of this issue and to make a submission to protect the buffer zone fo the World Heritage listed  Fremantle Prison.

DA0568/17- Submissions close 12 January

I am writing to advise Fremantle Society that the above planning proposal has been lodged with Fremantle council with a deadline for responses on or before 12/1/2018.

This submission is for a massive new 3 story building plus basement that takes up most of the block to effectively replace an existing interwar cottage that is part of a group of 4 such cottages opposite the world heritage listed prison. The only remaining part of the cottage appears to be the front facades as a token nod to the heritage of this building.

The same owner previously applied for a demolition order for this cottage in 2010 and after a protracted process that included three separate heritage reports that found the cottage had some heritage value and contributed to the street scape and a SAT appeal, the council rejected the demolition order. Significant quotes from the heritage reports are copied in italics below. Note that the Harkness report was actually commissioned by the applicant at the time to support his demolition application.

A Heritage Assessment was required under Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments and was prepared by Palassis – Architecture and Heritage (the full heritage assessment is available as Attachment 2) and concluded:

16 Hampton Road is a representative example of single-storey residential dwelling in Federation bungalow style.

16 Hampton Road has a high degree of integrity as a dwelling in a substantially intact street of domestic buildings.

From external inspection the dwelling at 16 Hampton Road appears to have a moderate degree of authenticity, with some changes to the street-facing elevation and probable later rear enclosures having little effect on the form of the original building.

By Harkness:

It has some significance as a generally intact residential dwelling loosely reflective of its era of construction, although of relatively low significance in terms of its specificarchitectural quality, authenticity and representativeness.

It has some significance in its contribution to the generally intact and variegated residential streetscape of Hampton Road.

It has more specific significance in its contribution to the group of Inter/Post War houses within which it is immediately located.

The Fremantle Society at that time also opposed the demolition and made a submission to thecouncil which helped preserve this building. The third heritage report agreed with the original report and found that the Harkness report commissioned by the applicant was biased towards demolition even though it acknowledged the heritage value.

The new application calls for discretionary assessments on the following points:

• Side and rear setbacks

• Building height (external wall and roof ridge)

• Visual privacy (North/South/East)

• Vehicle sightlines

• Site works

• Fencing (primary)

I would strongly urge members of The Fremantle Society to view the plans at the City of Fremantle and make submissions that the proposed building would significantly alter this important street scape opposite the prison and is extreme in its size and bulk, greatly exceeding the R4 building codes. It will also reduce the heritage value of the adjacent cottages from the same period.

Unfortunately the timing of the submission just before the Christmas/New Year break will ensure the least exposure to the residents of the City as council is closed between Christmas and New Year. The electronic file size is approx 29 MB and is quite difficult to read in .pdf form so I am not attaching it to this document, however if you contact planning@fremantle.wa.gov.au you can request a copy quoting DA0568/17. Alternatively go to the administration building and view the paper copy when they re-open.

I would copy pictures of the proposal however the document is password protected to prevent snapshots being taken, possibly to minimise discussion on this proposal?

I have copied the submission form for this application on the next page so if you do wish to make a

submission you can print it out.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration of this application.

Kind regards,

Keith O’Brian

9/1 Bellevue Tce.

Fremantle.

Manning Buildings Redevelopment

The gorgeous building shown at the top of this post is part of the Manning Buildings (7 William Street) before it became Norm Wrightson’s Hairdressing in 1933. Until then, for over 30 years it was home to the famous Fremantle photographer Charles Nixon. The attractive verandahs are long gone, but should be reinstated. Instead of Silverleaf spending the required 1% for art for this project ($100,000) on more dismal public art like the three poles in the Mall which represent the public art for the Atwell Arcade development, the money should go for a proper restoration job on these beautiful verandahs and shop fronts.

This $10 million redevelopment comes to planning committee this Wednesday (6pm at North Fremantle Community Centre) with a recommendation for approval, with few changes following a huge number of concerned submissions.  The plans didnt even go to the Design Advisory Committee. The Fremantle Society submission is summarised below. Apologies for the lack of images and maps.

Executive Summary

The proposal for the Mannings Buildings at 135 High Street in the Mall seeks partial demolition of the Mannings Buildings, the separation of first and second floors, which have been united for over 100 years, the removal of all existing staircases, works to shopfronts and awnings, removal of various existing walls, and provision of a 1500 sqm brewery.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to revitalise a critically important central city building and in particular to make better use of the underutilised upper storey. This opportunity to get an excellent outcome must not be missed.

Unfortunately, the proposal is brutal in its treatment of heritage elements such as the rear structures, dismissive of the social history of shops like Norm Wrightsons’ Hairdresser, whose business has existed in the same shop since 1933, silent on the 1995 council recommended reinstatement of original verandahs, and does not seek to restore and reuse the former existing Majestic Theatre still in existence there.

This is a major development of a level 1b building, designated as being of ‘exceptional significance’ to the city.  Under council’s town planning scheme, nothing of heritage significance can be allowed to be demolished. A very detailed and careful assessment of this proposal is essential to prevent any loss of original heritage fabric.

The Fremantle Society believes this project should deliver a carefully refurbished heritage building where internal and external heritage elements are respected and kept, where the original verandahs and shopfronts are reinstated, and where important social history like Norm Wrightson’s is celebrated and encouraged to continue in its current location.

The Manning Buildings

Designed by renowned architects Cavanagh and Cavanagh in 1902 in Federation Free Classical style, the collective group of buildings make a bold, confident, and significant contribution to the streetscape. The three shops in William Street (7, 9, and 11) were constructed earlier and had a two storeyed open verandah, rare in Fremantle (see next page). The Majestic Theatre was not opened until 1916 and closed in 1938, becoming the location of the first Coles to operate outside the Perth CBD,  The buildings have housed many and varied tenants over the years, including the famous photographers Izzy Orloff and Charles Nixon.

It is unfortunate that the original verandahs were removed in the 1950s as with many Fremantle properties and that the original shopfronts in most cases have been unattractively altered.

However, the building is listed as being overall of ‘exceptional significance’ to Fremantle and there are many individual original elements remaining on the facade, at the rear, and inside some of the shops.

Comments

Given the recent highly controversial Atwell Arcade development by the same developer (Silverleaf’s Gerard O’Brien) just 10 metres from this proposal, extreme caution and care should be taken with this development to ensure that mistakes made there are not repeated here.
One Fremantle architect described the completed Atwell Project as ‘such a tragedy’ with ‘a gigantic loss of original fabric’. The damage to the world famous gold rush roofscapes of Fremantle with the new glass office block, the alterations to the arcade, the lack of restoration of verandahs and shopfronts,  the failure to complete the building as approved, and the failure to complete restoration as promised, are clear warnings.

1) Restoration of verandahs

The developer is not proposing to restore the verandahs of the shops, as he should, yet council spent several years between 1994 and 1999 discussing the issue, and paying for plans to be drawn up with all the detail necessary to encourage the Manning Estate. The detailed plans and files are in the council archives.
As one architect stated: ‘The Mannings Buildings are naked without their verandahs and awnings.’ In particular, the double storeyed verandah originally on 7-9 William Street as shown below, should be reinstated.

2) Norm Wrightson’s – Important Social History

Plans submitted show the relocation of this business to Market Street, and the demolition of much of the shop, to facilitate a brewery.

The tenant does not want to relocate. There is enormous social history with this business having being been there since 1933. Only Warren’s Menswear is an older business (1931) in the Manning Buildings, but they are not been asked to relocate and their shop is not being demolished.

The developer wishes to make this shop, which is directly opposite the entrance to the town hall, the entry to his brewery.  Such proximity to the town’s most important civic building is an inappropriate location for such a business. The shop should stay.

The social history of the various shops in the Manning Buildings is highly significant and should form part of the assessment to ensure that any relevant significant fabric is preserved and the story of those businesses told. Such story telling would add significantly to the marketing advantage of the refurbished premises. For example, Swansea Cycles and Motor Co factory was originally at 9 William Street adjacent to Norm Wrightson’s and significant original fabric may still exist at the rear (see image below). Given the current interest in cycling, this heritage is relevant today.

As the WA Historical Cycle Club notes: They started business at 9 William Street, Fremantle, with a small annex at the rear of the shop where they began making their own bicycles using components imported from England. In the first year of trading Swansea made and sold all of 70 cycles. The great Wall Street crash of 1929, followed by the disastrous Depression years actually helped Swansea Cycles, as many people found bikes a great means of cheap transport that was healthy as well By 1939 Swansea Cycles had expanded to larger factory premises in Newman Street Fremantle, with 5000 square feet of floor space, a staff of 33, and a turnover of more than 1500 cycles a year, as well as trotting spiders and children’s tricycles. There were also branches at Barrack Street, Perth and in Kalgoorlie and Bunbury, with agents throughout the state. 1939 saw the introduction of the top end 4 and 5 Swan models.

3) Facade Works and Shopfronts

a)  Shopfronts: Most of the existing shopfronts have been altered and do not match the significant heritage values of the rest of the building above. This is a once in a generation opportunity to create a high quality
shopping environment that will be an attractor for the businesses with distinctive high quality shop fronts which match the heritage values above by recreating the original shopfront configurations.
Some shops currently have roller shutters, which should not be permitted because of the detrimental effect on both the building and the street scene.
In terms of security it should be remembered that smaller paned glass, transoms, mullions and stallrisers are more difficult to break into than large areas of glazing as recently installed by this developer nearby at the Atwell Arcade buildings. They are also cheaper to repair.

b) Cinema Facade: The developer proposes to ‘tuck paint’ the former cinema’s facade  on High Street. The paint should be stripped and a proper tuck pointing restoration carried out.

c)  Electronic Security: all security systems should form an integral part of the design and be located unobtrusively in order not to interfere with any architectural detail.

d) Lighting: Internally illuminated letters or fascias can conflict with the design of historic shopfronts, are incongruous in heritage areas and must be resisted by council. Full details of the fitting, method of fixing and luminance should be provided by the applicant. Moving signage, as currently existing on one Manning Building shop (tobacco shop) is not allowed under council bylaws.

e) Materials: Traditional materials should be used. Timber is appropriate as is wrought and cast iron.

f) Corporate colours and styles: Corporate housestyles can seek to have shopfronts and advertisements inappropriate for historic buildings, and may have to be adapted to fit in with the age and character of the building.

g) Original detail: Where possible, original detail should be preserved. The photos below show how the original pediments on the left of the Manning Buildings have been covered over and need to be revealed again.

John Dowson
President
The Fremantle Society
9335 2113

9 January 2018

DAPs tweaked for more transparency

Extract – BUSINESS NEWS, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Author: Dan Wilkie
Thursday, 13 October, 2016

THE state government has moved to make the development assessment process more transparent, unveiling a raft of changes to the system in response to feedback from local governments and resident groups.

Development Assessment Panels have been in place in Western Australia since 2011, with the system designed to add an additional level of technical expertise to the planning process.

Changes announced today include publishing DAP agendas earlier, providing opportunities for developers to opt out if their project does not significantly impact local amenity, and more information to be provided in regard to why decisions are made.

Other changes include local governments being required to contact all those who provided written submissions to DAP applications to inform them of the meeting, and allowing developers to choose between local councils and DAPs when seeking minor amendments to existing approvals.
Planning Minister Donna Faragher  –faragher

– said the changes would ensure the decision-making process is better communicated and understood. Ms Faragher said the system had been reviewed twice to provide the best planning outcomes for the state.

All of the amendments can be seen below:

  • Provide an option to opt-out of a DAP in favour of a local government for developments, such as industrial warehouses, that will not significantly impact local amenity.
  • DAP agendas will be published at least seven days before a meeting – instead of the current five days – to provide greater advance notice to the public.
  • Local governments will be required to proactively contact each person who has provided a written submission in relation to a DAP application, to inform them of when the meeting will take place.
  • Responsible authority reports to include more information about why decisions can be made, to ensure that the decision-making process is clearly communicated and can be better understood.
  • DAP members and local governments to be provided with more governance support, where required.
  • DAP presiding members will be able to intervene in the ‘stop-the-clock’ process if parties disagree about the level of information that has been provided for an application.
  • Provide proponents with the option to choose between a local government or a DAP when requesting an amendment to a minor aspect of an existing development approval (Form 2).
  • Empower the Minister for Planning to remove DAP members who do not undertake the appropriate DAP training.
  • The maximum term of office for DAP members can be extended if a vacancy is waiting to be filled.
  • Add a reference to the DAP regulations that all Form 2 minor amendment meetings should be open to the public.
  • Changes to the DAP fee structure.

DAPs Changes Superficial                                      

WA Local Government Association
Media Release

Thursday, October 13, 2016

PROPOSED changes to the Development Assessment Panel process are superficial and will not redress many of the concerns identified by the Local Government sector.
Announced October 13 by Planning Minister Donna Faragher, the proposed changes include a two day extension to the notice period for meeting agendas, extension of the scope to opt-out of the DAP process and a further notification requirement of upcoming DAP meetings to be undertaken by Local Governments.WA Local Government Association President Cr Lynne Craigie said the changes did not go far enough to redress Local Government concerns surrounding the system’s effectiveness and increased rather than reduced red tape burden on Councils.

Significant concerns

“Feedback from our members has revealed significant concerns about the strategic intent and effectiveness of the DAPs system, however the changes proposed are merely administrative in nature,” she said.

“Our call for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis remains unheard and instead the sector is being required to undertake additional administration that should be the role of the State.”

Cr Craigie said without the cost benefit analysis, questions would remain around the relevance and effectiveness of the system with limited DAPs resources being focused on minor planning matters, rather than matters of State significance.

“The current system is getting overrun with everyday applications such as petrol stations and fast food outlets with a staggering 258 DAPs meetings held over the last financial year”, she said.

“Many of these applications currently considered by DAPs align with Council recommendations and take longer to determine than through a Council-led process.”

Token changes

Cr Craigie said WALGA had been advocating for ministerial call in powers and changes to the opt-in system to reduce this unnecessary pressure on DAPs and refocus the process with its original purpose of strategic high level vision rather than day to day development applications.

“Instead of effective review, we are faced with token changes and are being required to absorb an administrative burden on behalf of the Department,” she said.

“Whilst the sector agrees those providing submissions to a DAP application should be notified of upcoming meetings, it is the responsibility of the Department of Planning that administers DAPs rather than the role of individual Local Governments.

“We remain committed to working with the State Government on ways to deliver genuine improvements to the system, but these changes are at best superficial and will do little to benefit local communities and industry alike.”

High Rise Deferred by DAP

52 Adelaide Street (former Spotlight/Coles site)

fremantle-society-14f1c10f-cac5-4d59-bb5f-70da20f93dd3

The 8 storey proposal shown above for 72 flats, 6 commercial tenancies and 98 car bays was deferred at the state government’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) meeting yesterday (Monday 19 September).

Two Fremantle councillors, Crs Sullivan and Pemberton, voted with one other DAP member to have the matter deferred so the developer could bring back revised plans showing parts of the building above 21 metres being set back as per council policy. Councillor Sullivan proposed the deferral and it passed with a narrow 3-2 vote.

The developer is seeking 8 storeys straight up from the street with no set backs. Council’s lawyer insisted that it could not be approved, but the applicant’s lawyer cleverly shredded the council officer’s report to argue otherwise.

The Fremantle Society has invested a great deal of time on this issue because of its importance, and the fact that any variations to the current scheme that are approved will set a precedent for future developments in this city centre area.

For the Fremantle Society, four architects scrutinised the plans and the officer’s report,  and all were scathing at the quality of the report written.

The council report recommended refusal on grounds of:
a) height
b) detriment to amenity under clause 67.
(though nowhere in the officer’s report are the arguments presented to support that refusal)

Despite the officer’s recommendation, Mayor Pettitt, and councillors Nabor, Hume, McDonald, Walthan, and Jones all voted to send the item to the DAP to let them decide on the legal advice. By the time it got to the DAP, somehow the officer’s recommendation for refusal had turned into a glowing approval. The applicant’s lawyer said she had  been at the planning meeting and that there had been ‘a unanimous decision to approve.’ The applicant said that council staff ‘are clearly supportive of this plan’. The chair of DAP Ian Birch said that ‘the alternative recommendation (for approval) had been adopted by the planning committee.’ Remarkable stuff.

The Fremantle Society presented their case and a Fremantle lawyer was brought in to present for the Fremantle Society as well. This is a very complex case with many facets and issues to be dealt with, but the focus from DAP was mainly on how could the developer have the extra storey he was seeking.

The applicant’s aerial view of the 52 Adelaide Street proposal as shown is dishonest and should not have been allowed to go forward by council officers. The drawing shows Johnston Court as being significantly higher, whereas both are almost the same height. The applicant has shown his building bathed in light on the facing side, whereas the same side of Johnston Court is ominously dark. Also there are no lift overruns or rooftop clutter shown on 52 Adelaide Street, clutter which always ends up adding considerably to how buildings are viewed around town.

Claudia Green from FRRA was there and supported the Fremantle Society case, as did Julie Matheson from Scrap the DAPs.

Further details will be provided of the expert analysis from Fremantle Society architects.

High Rise Not Needed – Herald • Letters 17 September 2016

HISTORY will show that mayor Pettitt and councillors Hume, Nabor, McDonald, Waltham, and Jones are happy to see new developments in the heart of Fremantle as high as the detested 1970 Johnston Court block of flats.

38letters-1They are the ones who voted to allow an eight-storey, plus basement, plus rooftop clutter, development to go through council’s planning committee to the development assessment panel, despite a legal opinion by council’s own lawyers that council could not approve the eighth storey.
The mayor and councillors danced around the legal advice and decided to let the DAP decide. On this former Spotlight site (originally Coles) adjacent to Westgate Mall, 72 residences, 7 commercial tenancies and 97 cars will somehow be jammed into the 1390sqm site.

38letters-2

On this block bounded by Adelaide, Queen and Cantonment streets, on 15 December 1965, Charles Court opened council’s Westgate “Super Centre”, a transit orientated development with Bairds, Coles, and Walsh’s as key tenants. It was promoted as the ‘shopping mecca of the western and southern suburbs.’ It wasn’t long before Myer came to town and wanted something bigger and so within seven years the centre of gravity shifted to King’s Square and Westgate Mall went into decline with Myer (which opened 1 August 1972) and the adjacent Queensgate (1987) becoming the latest salvation of retail in Fremantle.
The photograph showing all the paving leading into Westgate Mall was taken in 1968 from council’s Point Street car park (the first split level car park in WA)  soon after Westgate Mall opened. In the background stands the handsome Johnston Church, weeks before it was demolished to make way for the Johnston Court flats seen in the second (1971) photograph, which also shows the new Crane House at the rear.
Soon after Johnston Court was built in 1970, the mayor and some councillors were aghast at its negative impact, and promised that something like it would never be built again. But here we are 46 years later and neither the mayor nor any councillor blinked when the developer for 52 Adelaide Street argued that Johnston Court was ‘adjacent’ and could be ‘built up to.’ Once 52 Adelaide Street goes through the DAP next Monday (9.30am in Fremantle Council Chamber) the rest of the area could well be blighted with such heights.

The mayor said that nothing ‘but a bomb’ could improve the Westgate Mall area, hardly a considered planning argument for that small part of Fremantle which sits between the important heritage areas of King’s Square and Princess May Park. It may be run down and lacking investment but at  least it has a human scale that suits Fremantle.
The solution for Fremantle’s regeneration is not high rise nor super high density housing creating the slums of the future.
Rather, we need the high quality new buidings we were promised by this council, and some ‘bomb proof’ sensitivity to whatever site the mayor and councillors next lay their eyes on.
John Dowson
President
The Fremantle Society

 

Change in the wind for DAPs

This article from the Weekend West Australian of 17-18 September refers to the anticipated latest development from the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) on the ongoing saga of Development Assessment Panels (DAPs):

dap-west-aust-walga-report-17-sep-2016-p-26It is disappointing in that it refers to times taken to arrive at decisions, rather than appropriateness of them. The final quote from the Planning Minister is revealing – that applicants are passing over councils for the DAP – thus eliminating a major function of councils as well as indicating dissatisfaction with councils by applicants (or indicating that applicants have found a way of avoiding local planning guidelines) and acknowledging that, if an application could end up with the DAP anyway, why bother going to council at all. It would help somewhat, if the $2M mandatory threshold were fully enforced.

There are a number of interpretations of the situation, most indicating that if councils were the final arbiter, there would be better and more appropriate local control and answerability – something the Fremantle Society believes is lacking under the present system.

Given the Minister has stated she requires changes to DAPs but will not agree to their elimination, the last media release from WALGA provides the best hope yet of at least some advancement in addressing significant concerns, although the proposal for, ” a Ministerial call-in power”, warrants examination and there appears to be no opportunity for community representatives on DAP panels:

Campaign Seeks to Solve System Inefficiencies

Monday, September 12, 2016

 A campaign to change the Development Assessment Panels (DAP) system has received the green light from WA Local Government Association State Council, allowing communities to have their voices heard on large scale developments.

The State Council agreed on Friday, 9 September to support a campaign that lobbies for changes to the Development Assessment Panels.

The campaign will call for the following changes:

  • A full and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of Development Assessment Panels be conducted by an independent organisation.
  • Abolishing the current opt-in mechanism which allows applicants to choose either elected Councils or the DAP as the decision maker in favour of a Ministerial call-in power for projects of state or regional significance, with a minimal value of $20 million, as has been adopted in the eastern states.
  • The Local Government sector be consulted prior to any amendments to the Development Assessment Panels system, to ensure that operational efficiencies can be achieved.

WA Local Government Association President Cr Lynne Craigie said the upcoming state election presents a valuable opportunity to change the flawed DAP system.

“WALGA five-year review of the DAP have proven that the current system has a number of failings,” she said.

“These include exceeding legislated timeframes for development application outcomes, running inefficient meetings and dealing with small-scale development applications rather than projects of that affects the state.

“The suggested changes will deal with these failings and improve the system.”