Design Review Panel’s, or how s**t must you be?

If you, as I , hailed  from Handsworth in Birmingham and were a lifelong Aston Villa Fan you too would have been brought up with a taste for the ironic and a bit of self-deprecation as shown in a common chant from the Holte end…

`how shit must you be,
how shit must you be,
you can’t beat the villa,
how shit must you be`

Hardly Shakespearean but that would be Stratford-upon-avon, 25 miles down the road.

For whatever reason, this chant was the first thing that came to my head when reading the Design Review Panel’s (DRP) considerations presented as part of the City’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR) for plans recently refused by the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) for a rather unsympathetic design for 4 and a bit storeys of  architecturally uninteresting apartments that were to be inflicted on Innaloo residents.

If you are bored, the RAR, plans and DRP report can be viewed here (pdf 21Mb)

The JDAP‘s report noted that the building’s height would overshadow neighbouring homes, the façade was not “architecturally interesting” and had issues with the height, bulk and scale of the building.

The JDAP  also found there was an insufficient amount of single bedroom units and parking for short-term visitors something the DRP also picked up on…. err actually thats all the DRP report picked up on and something about condensers. This ‘Amenity Principle’ was the only thing the DRP thought required ‘further consideration’.

The DRP  noted the design in terms of `context and character` , cosi;

  “The design of the development is a good contemporary contribution to the streetscape
and the quality of the development is a positive addition to the area .”

One need only glance at the design of the development and more importantly, crucially in fact its context to the local character and streetscape, to wonder exactly what happy pills the DRP were on, or perhaps the wrong sort of mushrooms picked from the ‘well developed landscape treatment to the reserve‘ (drainage setback)  that no doubt would ‘reference the market garden history of the area‘

The panel had nothing to say on overlooking, setbacks or height issues other than;

“The Panel supports the development dependent on the setbacks, height of four storeys and off street parking meeting the State and Council Planning requirements.“

Which is quite strange given that one might expect a room full of Architects and Town Planners to have SOME idea of the relevant planning instruments, or am I expecting a little too much?

That the DRP decides to ignore the Elephants, Rhinos and Stinkbeasts in the room and instead waffle on about market gardens and full height windows (really?)  insult the  raison d’être for the existence of the DRP, or at least the one we were sold, by Council, that of promoting better design outcomes. Architectural improvements are welcome (and needed) but a DRP must, if it is to be of any utility to those paying for it (thats you and me the ratepayer) , put amenity and context and considerations of the affect of these proposed developments on the community that have to live with it first and foremost.

So, to where we began, if both the City of Stirling’s Planning Department AND the JDAP (neither with a great track record vis-à-vis considerations of amenity) `beat` a DRP, how shit must it be?

…………………………….

Hände hoch

My primary concerns about a DRP were (and still are) that it may influence a dysfunctional Planning Department to approve, under delegated authority a development that might otherwise have been advertised or sent for Council oversight, this being a JDAP  application is a little different and consultation was always going to occur.

That the application was refused (this time around, don’t hold your breath)  might suggest I was wrong, indeed I have been wrong before (in 1983), but these are not the applications I am looking for, sadly those ones might not, due to the behind closed doors aspects of DRP‘s and delegated authority, never come to light.

In the interests of transparency and accountability the City of Stirling should publish ALL DRP reports for approved developments be they be made under delegated authority or otherwise, again please do not hold your breath.

Conspiracy theory – dashed –

Bianca Sandri, the Councillor who proposed the motion for a DRP at Stirling runs a ’boutique’ Town Planning Business, Town Planners help guide developers through the tricky and complex process of getting larger developments approved via understanding those planning instruments that the City’s DRP clearly does not, and how they are assessed by Councils, DAP‘s and the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), knowing how far to push them (and pushing is very much allowed), and how to try, try and possibly try again if refused.

Councilor Sandri’s company is called Urbanista Town Planning, a name you will recognise if you had read the JDAP report (sorry, forgot to tell you there would be a test). That this development has been refused and more importantly recommended refusal by the City might dampen a conspiracy theorists ardor somewhat, that the DRP report was so far off the mark that a JDAP beat it, might warm some tinder, and we shall have to wait and see if Councillor Sandri is called again as an expert witness at the SAT as per a previous refused application.

For what its worth, Councillor Sandri, I have no doubt, fully believes in all the good things that a DRP should and could produce, but this report only underlines my ravings to Council that until the underlying systemic issues within the City of Stirling’s Planning,  Governance and general Administrative oversight departments are fixed, it can and will be a double edged sword.

The makeup, accountability and transparency of the DRP as stands and as implemented by the City of Stirling can only make the current flawed system as employed by the City of Stirling, even worse.