On Tuesday 15th the City’s planning committee considered the Terms of Reference of its Design Review Panel – the DRP was up for review in October anyway but the matter was brought forward as a result of Electors motions from the Karrinyup specific Special Meeting of Electors requesting among other matters specific changes to the DRP process to – some might say introduce, others increase – some semblance of accountability and transparency.
I think you know where this went.
The City did agree to post DRP minutes of pre-lodgement DRP meetings if and when a development was advertised and this is welcomed. Further DRP meetings would not be available to the public however until, in the case of DAP applications, the creation of the RAR, available to the public in most cases just 7 days (7 days not working days) before a DAP meeting.
Another Elector request was for the City to stop providing the DRP as a free service to Developers.
The officer recommendation in response was to allow 1 free initial meeting with a further free follow up meeting which is probably fair for smaller developers but it remains ridiculous that multi $million/$billion developers, who should as best practice already have in-house resources to be able to parse the City’s Planning Schemes and requirements, should be in any way funded by ratepayers, especially with it’s dysfunctional DRP.
The DRP is funded through the liveable neighbourhood initiative with the objective to “create …. places that meet community need” The City agrees with the community that we do not need 9,15 and 24 storeys at Karrinyup, and a DRP that does not reflect the values of the City nor the community should not be funded by it.
Several Councillors spoke to say what a good job the DRP was doing and a couple noting improved planning outcomes they had seen … but failed to specify – and to support the officers recommendation.
Councillor Felicity Farrelly spoke to support the Electors proposals and to properly consider the Electors Motions, the biggest shock however was Mayor Irwin who found himself in the ‘awkward position of having to agree with Mr Wheeler‘
(I made a rather average deputation struggling to encapsulate 18 months of DRP incompetence in the 3 minutes granted for a deputation)
Mayor Irwin picked up on the most important point that the DRP was not reflecting the values of the City nor the Community essentially that its independence was contrary to its intended function.
He spoke to the possibility of an in house DRP , acting presiding member David Boothman noted the possibility of a workshop in the matter but nobody took the bait, officers noting that the City did not have all the required skills in house … forgetting perhaps that DRP members are already essentially contractors, Councillors Farrelly and Caddy agreed with the Mayor.
To be fair to Deputy Mayor Sandri who as a town planner is IMO conflicted in all planning matters (on the flip side clearly having a far greater understanding of all things planning) did float some welcome ideas in relation to post lodgement DRP meetings, but again nobody took the bait.
Perhaps some amendments to the officers recommendation will occur prior to this matter going to the full Council – perhaps.
Nobody of course would wield and direct the axe of incompetence at the City’s DRP though the Mayor maybe came close –
Remember this is the DRP that provided ‘evidence‘ that no neighbouring properties would have their amenity affected in an LDP application in Mount Lawley –
“The Panel is in support of four stories based on evidence that neighbours are not adversely impacted”
Hmmm, wonder where that ‘evidence‘ came from – well we asked and the answer was…. from the developer it is what the developer told the DRP.
DRP minutes if read in full are quite often entirely contradictory with unsupported problems in early DRP minutes often taking quantum leaps to ‘fully supporting’ otherwise unchanged designs – usually at the last gasp.
DRP recommendations – by design – totally ignore the prevailing planning framework – a DRP is required to primarily concern itself with design issues but if it is to uphold the principles of State Planning Policy 7.0 , which apparently/perhaps it is, then it can not possibly have ‘no problem with the height‘ of the proposed 9,15 and 24 storeys proposed next to R20 residential housing in Karrinyup in a R80 (4 storey) zone,
It is not possible to reconcile the DRP findings in Karrinyup with even a cursory understanding of the prevailing scheme.
It was stated from the outset that DRP’s had no delegated or determining authority – this is illogical given there would be no point in having a DRP if it could not alter planning outcomes & how many development have not been advertised because a pre-lodgement DRP report supported non conforming aspects ? we will never know – that’s secret squirrel business – I have asked but personally require at least three official denials before I believe something to be true.
Mayor Irwin acknowledged that in his opinion Development Assessment Panels appear to place much weight on DRP commentary, what we do know is that the City’s planning department have relied on DRP comments to overlook issues of bulk and scale in the initial Yelo application and the Mt Lawley LDP application – I highly doubt these are the only occurrences and this can only continue with the OAG’s chilling words…
“The City have effectively utilised the design review process as an in-house training mechanism for planning staff”
…..I will leave you with an extract from the minutes of a recent DRP report for 1 Milldale in Mirrabooka where a developer had the temerity to not overdevelop a site to the DRP’s taste –
“The Panel noted the proposed height was within the range of heights set out by the city but thought is appropriate to propose a taller building.”
