Julie Matheson

CFP Business Specialist | Local Government Expert | Political Adviser

DAP 17-23 Railway Road Subiaco

The developer is proposing demolition of all structures on Lots 28 & 29, demolition of all structures to rear of Lot 27, retention of building to front of Lot 27 (Chuggs), and
construction of a five-storey mixed use development over basement, comprising
restaurant and car parking on ground floor, and office space and residential
dwellings above.

DAP 17-23 Railway Road, Subiaco design

To have your say on this DAP application, your submission must be received by 25 January 2013 to city@subiaco.wa.gov.au

Some points regarding this site and any DAP application:

  1. The locality is the Town Centre of Subiaco where offices are not permitted without reference to the objectives of the scheme as set out in TPS No. 4 Part 2 Land Use.  The zoning refers to Use Classes Offices AA which “means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval taking into considering whether the nature of the use is consistent with the planning objectives of the Scheme and the planning policies with respect to that zone”.  (Ref. TPS 14 Zoning Table)
  2. Development approval cannot be granted based on the State Government’s planning strategies. There is a statutory process, which requires an opportunity for public comment to be given, to change the applicable planning scheme.  The development application cannot be assessed on the basis of speculation about what might be the outcome of future processes to change TPS No.4.
  3. Further, development approval cannot be granted based on speculation about what might be built in the locality in the future.  TPS No.4 is clear in directing that assessments must be undertaken by reference to existing circumstances and with a view to preserving present amenity into the future.
  4. The views expressed in paragraphs 2 and 3 above accords with recent decisions of the SAT (see for example, Jakaby Pty Ltd v Shire of Mundaring [2011] WASAT 159 and Castella Pty Ltd v City of Canning [2012] WASAT 47) and a statement in Parliament of the Minster for Planning (made 27 September 2012 in question time) that:“The Development Assessment Panels make their decisions in accordance with the underlying planning framework, such as the relevant planning scheme or planning policies. The setting of the underlying planning framework at both local and state levels would have been subject to a separate planning process where community consultation would have been undertaken”.
  5. There is no entitlement in law for a land owner to receive a development approval for a building based on future imagined circumstances or a future imagined town planning scheme.
  6. The development application could not properly be approved in mediation, if initially rejected and then appealed in the State Administrative Tribunal, for all of the reason identified by the staff report and above.
  7. Further, the development application cannot be approved by a DAP in a secret meeting and/or confidential forum (whether at SAT mediation or if referred back to the DAP under section 31 of the SAT Act) because the DAP must meet in public when determining any development application: see DAP Regulation 40(2).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on January 14, 2013 by in DAP, Town Centre and tagged , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: