Julie Matheson

Subiaco Councillor | Certified Financial Planner | WA Party Convenor

Resist LPS 5 infill at any cost!

Residents and ratepayers should resist a Local Planning Scheme that tries to retrofit infill into established suburbs by 2050.

Why?

Because Local Planning Schemes must be reviewed every 5 years, not every 30 years!

The proposed 8,500 dwelling target is not required, and neither is the interface between high-rise and multiple dwelling up-coding against single residential codes up to R20.  Here’s why.

2019 LPS5 density in residential areas

R100 on Riseley Street Booragoon

INFILL NOW

The Minister’s infill target for Subiaco is 2,880 by 2026, just 7 years away.  There are many development sites in the City that will achieve this infill before up-coding takes place in any street.

In the next 5 years the MRA areas of Subiaco will be transformed with infill.

The following development sites can easily accommodate the Minister’s infill target of 6,140 without forcing Metronet infill around the train stations of Daglish and Shenton Park.

o Home Base site (380 dwellings)
o AFC and self lock storage site (800 dwellings)
o King Edward Memorial Hospital (400 dwellings)
o Former Princess Margaret Hospital (400 to 1,000 dwellings)
o West Leederville train station built over the Perth to Fremantle rail line (2,480 dwellings if developed to r160)
o Subiaco Village on Hay Street (160 dwellings)
o 1 Seddon Street (31 dwellings)
o Pavilion Markets site (240 dwellings)
o 133 Salvado Road (14,422m2 = 14.4 x 35 = 504 dwellings)
o Depot site (35 dwellings per hectare)

Total potential new dwellings 5,595++ without touching existing residential areas and maintaining Subiaco Oval as a Reserve for sports space. Ref. Dwelling numbers from Local Planning Strategy 2017, page 32, and Subiaco Activity Centre Plan 2017, page 58.

Let’s just wait 5 years to see how much infill is achieved.

SPORTS SPACE

The MRA can also be a bit restrained in its plan for infill.

Subiaco badly needs more Sports Space, and needs Subiaco Oval to achieve this.  Otherwise Rosalie Park will be the only sports space in the City of Subiaco.

Council spent more than $20,000 on a report prepared by Cardno infrastructure specialists on Subiaco Future Sport Space Requirements dated 7 November 2016, which recommends the City of Subiaco’s public Sport Space be increased from 7.81ha to 14.76ha by 2036 to cater for a growing population to 22,710 persons.

This means that possibly ALL of Reserve Lot 12732 (8.07ha of Subi Oval and Kitchener Park) is required for sports space if the City of Subiaco is subjected to even more high density infill proposed by the State Government in Perth and Peel @3.5M.

Ref: Subi Oval Future Sport Space Requirements 7 November 2016 (1)

SUBI EAST

The proposed LPS 5 is inward looking.  It ignores the MOU signed between Subiaco, Perth, South Perth and Victoria Park councils in March 2019 as a collaborative step forward for projects like “the proposed two-way conversion of Hay Street and it will enable new opportunities such as tourism for our [Subiaco’s] unique high streets”.

LPS 5 is problematic because it does not consider the interface infill between Subi East and West Perth.  By adopting LPS 5 in its current form, we are missing an opportunity to collaborately work with the City of Perth and its Local Planning Strategy for a leafy village, improved CAT services, more Aged Care facilities, a new supermarket and new cycle routes.

Hay Street East should be up-coded to be the same as the PMH site to connect with Hay Street West Perth and the plans for Subi East.  It’s a natural area to achieve more density infill, on top of the other development sites listed above.

Design WA and Policy will Save Subi

This assumption is wrong.  Why?  Because there is too much uncertainty with unelected decision makers deciding what’s good development for up-coded properties.

  1. R60/80/100/160 developments worth $2million or more and will be decided by the Development Assessment Panels which has history of ignoring State Government and Council policies.  There are many examples in Subiaco.
  2. If the developer doesn’t get what it wants, they turn to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the decision.  This review is made in secret negotiations under S.54.  Subiaco Council and the DAP has lost more of these decisions than wins.
  3. Subiaco policies have not been invented yet to save the interface between R100 and single dwelling R20.  Unknown policies without being tried and tested as a precedent is problematic for good development in Subiaco.

CONCLUSION

The State Government wants to know what you think.

There is no legitimate reason to rush in with up-coding when the LPS5 will be due for a review in 2025 and there are so many development sites in the City to satisfy infill of 2,880 additional dwellings.

In 5 years’ time we will know what the MRA is thinking for its development sites.

Your Subiaco Councillors under s.2.10 of the LG Act are to represent the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents and you have told them what you think.

Cr Julie Matheson, East Ward Councillor

Phone 0409 294 495 or email jcmatheson@bigpond.com

Resources:

 

%d bloggers like this: