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

I rise to speak in this grievance debate about the City of South Perth planning process and the fact that it has been hijacked by the CEO and the planning officers who work in the City of South Perth. There are plenty of residents in my electorate who live in South Perth who are seriously aggrieved by unfair, contradictory and illogical planning practices that are being implemented not just in my electorate but across the state of Western Australia. I highlight this case of South Perth as I think it is a classic example of officers who work for a local council not caring and not even having any thoughts of consideration for the residents who pay their wages and who pay rates through the councils.

All members in this place have probably been contacted by their fair share of frustrated constituents because they cannot get planning approval by their local government authorities for relatively minor changes to their homes, such as carports or sheds, because they do not meet the specific guidelines which are outlined in the city's town planning scheme. Yet what we are seeing in my home of Western Australia is large-scale developments which completely contradict these schemes being given the rubber stamp of approval.

I highlight to the House that this is not the result of these local government authorities; it is a result of the changes to the planning approval processes that were implemented by the WA state government in 2011. I guess the minister of the day, John Day, would not have thought that he would create such a monster and such a terrible process, which leaves residents and ratepayers at the whim of people who do not even live in the same area making decisions about how their lifestyle will be changed.

The objective of the development assessment panel, or DAP, structure was to have applications considered by independent panel 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, when you start to look a bit closer at the DAP approval process, that word 'scrutiny' seems to have completely fallen by the wayside, with these so-called independent panels being nothing more than a rubber stamp for urban infill and for development approvals. I might be corrected, but through the DAP process not one project has been overturned—not one project. So it is just a rubber stamp.

It does not seem to matter whether these developments contradict local government planning schemes or whether they fly in the face of community sentiment; they will still be approved. Of course, if they are not approved the first time, the decision will keep being appealed by the developer all the way to the State Administrative Tribunal, or SAT, until it is approved. But that is part of the process, and I do not blame the developers for using that process. Unsurprisingly, residents do not get this same luxury. If an application is approved by a DAP, residents cannot appeal this decision to SAT or by any other means. They become simply voiceless.

This begs the question: what is the purpose of local government councils if not to represent their ratepayers? I must declare that my wife, Cheryle Irons, is on the South Perth City Council and the particular project I am talking about is actually in her ward, but as I go through this you will see that the process is deeply flawed. As I said, how can councils appropriately represent their ratepayers if all the decisions made on large-scale developments which have the ability to alter the entire character of an area are taken out of their hands? In the case of DAPs, not only is the decision taken out of the council's hands but a decision is not even really required. It is just a front, because, as I have said, that rubber stamp which says 'APPROVED' in big capital letters is going to be pulled out by a DAP for every project.

Let's go back to this carport example I mentioned earlier, because I believe it illustrates the lack of common sense we are regularly seeing in WA when it comes to planning approval processes. In my electorate of Swan, the City of South Perth is one of the local government authorities and the one I am talking about at the moment, and I have been a ratepayer there for over 20 years. To have a carport built, all manner of planning guidelines must be met in order to meet the city's town planning scheme requirements, such as having it set back approximately two metres and appropriate streetscaping. So I am sure members can understand ratepayers' frustration and disbelief when, just last week, a DAP approved a high-rise development on Mill Point Road, on the City of South Perth peninsula, which completely contradicts the city's town planning scheme. It is in complete contradiction, because on this peninsula the maximum building height that has ever been approved is eight storeys, and these buildings have always been required to be set back and have appropriate streetscaping to match the suburban, leafy character of the area. It is also a radical shift in planning policy that the community was barely consulted, if at all. In fact, only those in residences which immediately abutted the development were consulted, despite the development effectively changing the entire streetscape for local residents.

I must say that this approval is not just the result of the DAP process being nothing more than a rubber stamp, though. It is also the result of poor decision making by the city's planning officers, who introduced an amendment to the city scheme which allowed this peninsula and all areas within what the city refers to as the train station precinct to be deemed a special control area. I highlight that the committee also opposes the train station and there is no funding for it, but the CEO and planning officers of South Perth are pushing ahead, saying, 'If we build and create traffic jams and high density, they will build a train station.' It is an absolute debacle of a planning system. This part of Mill Point Road should never have been included in the station precinct, considering that it is more than a kilometre from the proposed train station and outside the planning scheme guidelines. I also highlight that this particular amendment was made with not one council member being made aware of the changes, even though these are people who were elected to represent the ratepayers, not these planning officers who are making these decisions and effectively destroying the fabric of the area. This amendment has effectively created a loophole which allows a large-scale high-rise development to be built which, as one of the city of South Perth residents has highlighted, represents a complete change in and challenge to the community expectations which are rightfully based on a raft of planning documents, policies and implementation over the years.

What the South Perth area is seeing is a suburb transformed—from having all buildings with a maximum height of eight stories to this development, recently approved by a DAP on the peninsula despite considerable community opposition and opposition by the city's mayor and councillors. This development has gone from a 25-metre high building, which was what was approved, to a 99-metre high building. Can you imagine a 99-metre high building in the middle of a whole peninsula full of eight-storey buildings? It is an absolute debacle.

Despite even a carport being required to have a setback and streetscaping to get approval in this area, apparently this is no longer a requirement when pro-development planning officers, the CEO and the DAP members are the ones calling the shots. Traffic congestion apparently is not a consideration either. It is unbelievable to think that these DAP members and the city's planning officers, along with the CEO, do not think these developments will cause traffic congestion for local residents, when this 29-storey development alone will have 294 apartments and more than 11,900 square metres of commercial office and retail space.

As another South Perth resident said to me: 'The pro-development lobby has exploited loose language in the amended town planning scheme for their own vested interests. With more megatowers and the JDAP unwilling to listen to local community concerns, it is scary to think of what is to follow on this peninsula.' It is scary indeed, particularly when it is clear that the planning officers and the JDAP have not listened to residents at all, with more than 450 residents signing a petition which called for a special electors' meeting prior to this approval. Close to 300 residents attended this meeting to show their united opposition to the development. But even this residents' no-confidence motion in the city's officers' ability to make appropriate planning decisions did not stop them recommending the development for approval.

Of course, it is difficult for the city's planning officers to recommend that a development such as this be rejected when the CEO is fully supportive of this type of development. The officers of the council forget who pays their wages and, I think, so does the CEO. It is clear that the community's wishes are being completely disregarded by the DAP process which illogically supports developers and pro-development planning officers over the community. Last week in the west Eric Lumsden, who is the head of the planning department in Western Australia—and who is a Labor appointee, kept there by the West Australian government—was still implementing the Labor ideology of low housing costs and high density in areas that already have high infill and high density. It is an absolute disgrace that he thinks it is only a vocal minority who are opposed to these changes. He should get out in the street—go down to see and talk to people in South Perth and see how his ideology and his ideas of using the Labor policy of high-density infill is going to affect their lifestyles.

People who do not live in this area should not be allowed to overrule the wishes of the residents, and they should not be allowed to turn a suburban area into a concrete jungle, which is exactly what the council and the council officers are doing in south Perth. Stricter guidelines and controls need to be implemented by councils, not just in South Perth but in Western Australia, to ensure that local community wishes are being reflected and the character of an area is not being altered, or in some cases destroyed, on a developer's whim—particularly when a company is not located in the country or the state, let alone in the community being affected.

The people of South Perth do not want this large-scale urban infill and they do not want the character of their neighbourhood ruined. It is time the DAP were reviewed by the state government. It is time the community's wishes were once again represented and reflected, because if this does not happen we will not have a community at all.

Debate adjourned.