“Can we see a copy of the Plans?”

…asked a Councillor at Tuesday evenings Planning committee meeting.

In preparation, regulars will know that I will never let a chance to criticize the City of Stirling’s Design Review Panel (DRP) go to waste, not that they are likely to get away Scott free today we however turn to the otherwise recently much improved Planning Department.

When first touted in Town Planner Deputy Mayor Bianca Sandris original motion to introduce Design Review Panels into the City of Stirling my thoughts turned almost without pause to the negatives. Not because I am an overly negative person, a born skeptic to be sure but not negative, and I – until my amygdala reminded me that I live in Stirling – for a fleeting moment could envisage the use of a Design Review Panel as having the potential to achieve better design outcomes, something so desperately needed in the shire.

As it happens, in my opinion my amygdala was on the right track, and there are several pages on this site that will attest to such, but the question today is not so much the contents of the DRP’s report but why on god’s green the Planning Department were referencing DRP comments to support acceptance of a Local Development Plan (LDP) application… from the officer justifications in the report….

“The applicants have provided the City with two presentations to the City’s DRP,whereby the performance of the four storey building height has been reviewed”

“The four storey building height has been supported by the DRP.”

“The LDP has been modified in response to City’s DRP.”

“The LDP was informed by a design presented to the City’s DRP, where support was given to the four storey building envelope component .”

“The potential built form has been reviewed by the City’s DRP, and will be subject to a detailed assessment in a future development application.”

And your point is?

…might be a fair question for a Development Application (DA) – even then it underlines my contention that a DRP absolutely can influence planning outcomes despite assurances to the contrary when DRP’d were first touted.

This was not however a DA, it was a LDP application, and the plans that the Councillor asked to see, the plans supporting the LDP were and remain unless lodged essentially vapourware.

Should this LDP be granted there is zero obligation whatsoever for the applicant to submit a DA based on those plans, plans showing a DRP supported four storey height limit, an LDP which if accepted could  theoretically allow 4 storey development without further community consultation or advertising.

It would also set 4 storeys as the base height for part of the LDP, so an actual DA proposing 5 storeys is then only asking only for a modest 20% increase in height rather than a 100+% increase if determined against the applicable R60 zoning.

From the DPLH LDP guidelines..

1.2 A local development plan is to be used in limited situations to guide and coordinate development outcomes for a particular site, and is not to be used purely as a means to vary the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. It is only to apply to specific lots, or group of lots, and not to entire housing estates or subdivision stages within a development.

As it occurs under the new R-Codes 3 storeys is allowable anyway.

Back to the title.

“There are no plans it’s an Local Development Plan Application” (LDP) was an officer .. or it may have been another Councillors , and I am paraphasing the response to Councillor Prouds request to view the `plans`.

Of course there were no plans, there were some `concept` designs included in the officers report with lots of pretty pictures of trees along with a copy of the Design Review Panels finding allegedly supporting the application – though closer inspection suggests otherwise. There were however no plans and I am assuming that Councillor Proud having served on many planning meetings was aware of this and might perhaps be simply underlining the point.

The item was deferred to a future meeting on parking grounds which is not in my opinion the problem, and who knows if it is without a DA? –  but parking is always a vital issue in DAP and LGA determinations so why not.

Always the critic …
In an attempt to be proactive I did send prior to the meeting the following email ..

I hope that Councillors will ignore tonight any reference to the Design Review Panel’s comments noted in the officer comments or the plans they relate to, such comments are misplaced and should have no bearing on the application given;

• • The supplied design which supports the LDP changes is imaginary – there is no DA in place for the design `supporting` the application, yet
  • approving this LDP ‘bakes in’ support for 4 storeys on this site regardless of the actual design, that is to say,
  • Councillors can have no certainty what applications will actually be made to develop the subject site, nor of their quality.
  • Whilst the R60 zoning allows for 2 storeys the R-Codes support 3, so 3 storeys is already a viable option for any development applications, and it is possible that an application be made of a quality that Council may see fit to vary for 4 storeys.

There is absolutely no requirement `to bake` in support for 4 storeys on this site, this is putting the cart before the horse and predetermines future design outcomes with 100% variance to R60 controls, if 4 storeys are allowed in the LDP then this will be the base height for future development applications which may themselves propose further variations.

Above all, references or reliance on imaginary outcomes are not valid planning concerns, do not constitute orderly and proper planning, should have no bearing in decision making and do not belong in officer reports.

I am unsure if Councillors or staff agreed in any fashion and It will be interesting to see the officer report for the deferred item and if it still includes a DRP report that, again IMO, has no place, in an LDP.

So, no place for a DRP?

Not in officer reports no – if the DRP was utilised `as promoted` used pre-DA to guide better design outcomes then perhaps, but this should be done in isolation from the Planning Department if again `as promoted` the DRP were to have no determining authority,

Town Planners are paid a lot of money to navigate through State and Shire LPP’s etc and know just as well as the City what might be considered acceptable and what is not likely to be, there is zero transparency and impartiality afforded by cosying up directly with the Planning Department for a game of 20 questions to find the answer the City are looking for, nor importantly should we be paying for it.

When you or I sit a test for a driving licence – we do not get private meetings with the inspector, glowing references from friends and family (closer to home that you may think) play no part in the determination of our driving skills – when filling in our tax returns neither we nor our accountants will be taking the tax inspector out to some industry function or exchanging notes on what might and might not be accepted – why is Town Planning any different?

No crack at the DRP?, ….you promised…

To be fair the DRP did not ‘strongly support’ any of the design principles for the vaporware development supporting this LDP, it did however without logical explanation support 4 storeys on this site based on vaporware, how one can support something that does not statutorily exist is beyond me – that is a Strategic Planning decision and outside the purview or authority of a DRP.

The DRP did question `the number of arches` 🙂 – I am no architect but I know British-Council-Housing/Spanish-Arabic Hacienda/pinch-of-Federation fusion architecture when I see it, the DRP however, whist not supporting the design also failed to call it out for what it was, even they could not polish this turd, though they appear to have managed to roll it in enough sprinkles to make the Planning Department think otherwise.