Julie Matheson

Business Specialist CFP | Local Government Expert | Political Adviser

Single Dwelling Living in Subiaco

A campaign has been launched by residents of the City of Subiaco to commence scheme amendments to LPS5 and a vote against Local Planning Policies (LPPs) which do not positively promote and celebrate single dwelling living in the City of Subiaco.

LPS5 Promises

Local Planning Policies should match the promises made by the planning officers and Mayor Penny Taylor that Subiaco’s charm and amenity would be preserved in Local Planning Scheme 5.  Mayor Taylor claimed “the City of Subiaco could be an example of best practice urban design in an inner-city setting, all while retaining character and identity.”

According to Richard Shade from Central Ward planning officers promised:

  1. Local planning policies would resolve the density zoning issues promoted by the Planning staff when pushing for the re-zoning of primarily single dwelling residential areas of Subiaco, Daglish and Shenton Park
  2. Best practice design would include transition areas of 100 metres  imposed between single dwellings and multi dwellings in response to the State Government’s Central Sub Regional Planning Framework
  3. Building heights would be fixed in metres, not storeys which is open to interpretation and bonus storeys.
  4. Participation in a Community Working Group (CWG) would provide input into the LPPs. However, only 1 hour of the 4x 3hr workshops in total was allocated to discussing (i) the density step changes on rear/side boundaries and (ii) transitioning areas from existing low density to future high density. It is now clear that this CWG was little more than a tokenistic effort to tick the “community engagement” box.

2015 Perth and Peel Transition Areas for infill and density

Scheme Amendments to LPS5

Residents are now campaigning for promises to be kept through scheme amendments to LPS5.  These scheme amendments should revert areas changed by the Minister for Planning back to the LPS5 unanimously supported by the community, Mayor Taylor and Councillors on 18 June and 23 July 2019.

Your support would be appreciated by sending me an email which I will forward to Councillors on Monday 6 July 2020 to vote against the Local Planning Policies proposed by planning staff and commence scheme amendments as soon as possible .

Thank you.

Julie Matheson, former Subiaco Councillor (2011-2019)

Background Information:

R-Code Dwelling types:

  • Single house:  a separate house with its own lot
  • Grouped townhouses: two or more houses located next to each other on the same lot
  • Multiple Apartments (flats or units): two or more dwellings where one part of a dwelling is located above a different dwelling (multi-storey and high-rise)
  • Property coded less than R40 are dealt with under State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 1
  • Property coded R40 or greater, mixed use development and activity centres are dealt with under State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2

R-Code Minimum Site Area per dwelling:

  • R15 – 580m2 Av 666m2
  • R20 – 350m2 Av 450m2
  • R30 – 260m2 Av 300m2
  • R40 – 180m2 Av 220m2
  • R50 – 160m2 Av 180m2
  • R60 – 120m2 Av 150m2
  • R80, R100, R160, R-AC – 100m2 Av 120m2

Types of dwellings recognised in Australia

CODE 1   Separate house

A house separated from other houses (or other buildings or structures) by space to allow access on all sides (at least 1/2 a metre). This category also includes houses which have an attached flat (e.g. a granny flat). The attached flat will be included in the ‘Flat, unit or apartment’ category.

CODE 2   Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse, etc

Includes dwellings with their own private grounds and no dwelling above or below. A key feature of these dwellings is that they are either attached in some structural way to one or more dwellings or are separated from neighbouring dwellings by less than 1/2 a metre. Examples include semi-detached, row or terrace houses, townhouses, and villa units. Multi-storey townhouses or units are separately identified from those which are single storey.

CODE 3   Flat, unit or apartment

Includes dwellings in blocks of flats, units or apartments that are self-contained. These dwellings do not have their own private grounds and usually share a common entrance foyer or stairwell. This category includes houses converted into flats, and flats attached to houses such as granny flats.

CODE 4   Caravan, tent, cabin etc. in caravan park, houseboat in marina, etc

Includes all types of accommodation within a caravan park. It also includes all occupied water craft in marinas.

CODE 5   Caravan not in caravan park, houseboat not in marina, etc

Includes all mobile units, on water or land, occupied on a permanent or semi-permanent basis by people (e.g. caravans, campervans, mobile houses, small boats, houseboats) that are not in caravan parks or marinas.

CODE 6   Improvised home, tent, sleepers out

Includes all structures not elsewhere classified that are occupied by people on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. This category typically includes garages, sheds, tents, shacks, etc. These structures are only included in this category if they are not in a caravan park.

CODE 7   House or flat attached to a shop, office, etc

Includes all houses or flats that are attached to a non-residential building. Examples of these dwellings are manses attached to a church, a flat or apartment over a shop, and a caretaker’s house or flat attached to a school, factory or storage facility.

CODE 8   Boarding/rooming house unit

A boarding/rooming house unit is a self-contained unit within a boarding house with separate cooking, bathroom, and toilet facilities. Boarding house units are usually accessed via a common entrance such as a foyer or hallway. Please note: this structure type identifies the individual rooms in a boarding/rooming house, not the complete building.

Ref: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government – Dwelling – structure type and code: https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/270125

One comment on “Single Dwelling Living in Subiaco

  1. Julie Matheson
    July 6, 2020

    A scheme amendment/s is the preferred legislative option of residents to resolve their concerns for adverse amenity issues from multi storey developments adjacent to single dwelling homes.

    The proposed Local Planning Policies Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 are not fit for purpose. They do not address the retention of the charm and character of single dwelling living in Subiaco.

    These LPPs are not what was promised to ratepayers and residents during LPS5 consultation during 2018 and 2019, ref: Subiaco Latest News – Draft scheme not a done deal, 22 may 2018

    During the LPS5 consultation process, the City of Subiaco Planning Staff promised local planning policies would resolve the density zoning issues primarily single dwelling residential areas of Subiaco, Daglish and Shenton Park

    The draft LPPs, have squeezed the transition area from low to high density which should take place over ~100m (as per the State Government’s Central Sub Regional Planning Framework) into only 6m.

    There is an almost negligible improvement under the LPPs in terms of set-backs compared to the existing R-codes.

    Building height has not been limited in metres.

    The LPPs are misleading as they refer to building height in terms of storeys which is open to interpretation rather than metres (which is fixed). Sketches in the document only show storeys and not the allowable height which is actually much higher. For example, under the R-Codes vol2, 2 storeys allow 9m, 3 storeys allow 12m, 4 storeys allow 15m.

    There is too much scope for bonus storeys in these interface/transition areas.

    A Community Working Group (CWG) provided input into the LPPs during which only 1hr total of the 4x 3hr workshops was allocated to discussing (i) the density step changes on rear/side boundaries and (ii) transitioning areas from existing low density to future high density.

    Residents feel that the proposed LPPs make it clear that this CWG was little more than a tokenistic effort to tick the “community engagement” box.

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

%d bloggers like this: