Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to highlight a serious issue in my electorate of Swan, which is also an issue right across Western Australia. It is about the development application process that the state government commenced in 2011. The objective of the development assessment panel, or DAP, structure was to have applications considered by an independent panel of experts with technical expertise and elected local government representatives, either on a mandatory basis for large-scale developments or on an opt-in basis by applicants. Unfortunately, instead of applications being scrutinised and subsequently rejected when appropriate, we are seeing development after development come before this state government appointed panel and simply marked with a big rubber stamp, which in big letters says 'approved'.

The application could have major safety concerns, overwhelming community opposition or it could fly in the face of other state or federal policy initiatives, but still that rubber stamp manages to appear. In fact, in the case of one development application in my electorate of Swan, every one of these reasons for rejection were raised, not once but four times. To ensure transparency, I ask members whether the following sounds like a good case for planning approval to you.

An application for a large-scale Dan Murphy's liquor outlet—booze-barn style—was submitted to the relevant local government. The application was rejected on the basis that it would adversely impact local residents' amenity, including the potential for increased crime rates. It also poses major road safety concerns, which were also raised by Main Roads WA, particularly at the intersections of the Canning Highway and Norton Street and South Terrace, which have been identified in a number of reports as crash risk areas. It does not comply with the local government's town planning scheme and it contradicts the state governments new anti-alcohol campaign, Alcohol: Think Again, which is aimed at combating Australia's large binge drinking culture.

In this case, following the local government's rejection, the applicant opted into a DAP assessment, which was also rejected twice. But then, members, can you believe that this same application was appealed for a third time, so a reasonable person would think that some major planning changes must have been made to constitute this application again. So I read the apparently revised application and searched for major changes, but they were nowhere to be found. So again, members, a reasonable person would think, 'Well, the application might be rejected again.' But how wrong could you be? Instead, on 17 April, the DAP approved this large scale liquor outlet against the community's wishes, with no major planning changes, and they approved an application which poses a serious danger to all road users, and in particular the local residents whom I represent.

This is a perfect example of a poor planning decision, which typifies the community's belief that all a big developer has to do is keep appealing a decision and eventually they will crush the little guy. This panel should not simply be a rubber stamp, but in Western Australia that is exactly what it has become. I will hold personally responsible that panel for any lives lost through this development.