.
There is currently a worrying proposal with the City of Stirling to build dwellings on the open green space around an existing block of flats at 26 Wood St in Inglewood (a heritage protection area). This could set a truly frightening precedent across Perth, which would result in the loss of many mature healthy trees and green spaces! See post on The Mt Lawley Society’s Facebook page (also below).
Details of the proposal can be found in the minutes (page 10) from the Planning & Development Committee meeting from the 20th of June.
City of Stirling officers have recommended that it not be approved (summary page 24).
This item will be raised at the next full Council meeting on the 4th of July at 7PM (map).
(Note – The City’s report to WALGA on Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning (TPAR) will also be debated at this meeting. See WTV video , Mayor Ron Norris explains TPAR and the Wood St development is used as an example at the end of the video).
Note that the owners have already removed some trees. This is the oldest trick in the book, likely done to deliberately reduce the quality of the amenity, in hope that it will reduce opposition to their development proposal?
SIGNIFICANT TREES AND GREEN SPACE UNDER THREAT
26 Wood Street, Inglewood is a three storey block of flats built in the late 1960s.
They are not dissimilar to dozens and dozens of other blocks of flats built in the 1960s and 1970s in Perth’s inner suburbs as part of the implementation of the Stephenson and Hepburn Plan.
The developments destroyed hundreds of heritage homes in Inglewood, Menora and Mount Lawley but the only saving grace was the mandatory setbacks and large land area they required for significant landscaping that today provides a wonderful green oasis as can be seen from the aerial photo.
26 Wood St, Inglewood is now controlled by a single developer, identified at the City of Stirling Planning and Development Committee on Tuesday 20 June 2016 as Aveling Homes, who is seeking to re-zone the site to a higher density to allow development of the landscaped land surrounding the existing three storey block of flats.
Neighbours have reported at least 10 large trees have already been chopped down as the photos show.
The three storey block of flats comprise 23 units and the developer wants to increase the zoning to build on the surrounding land.
The developer’s application initially to the WAPC showed every tree but two at the street front being removed, refer plan.
If the developer is successful then this will set a very dangerous precedent that will put at risk a significant amount of valuable green space in Perth.
The City of Stirling advise there at least 40 blocks of flats in the Heritage Protection Area of Inglewood, Menora and Mount Lawley at risk of similar applications for higher zoning.
Decision to initiate this re-zoning rests with the Council of the City of Stirling on Tuesday 4 July 2017 at 7.00pm. Please come along and take part in question time to stop this application for higher re-zoning.
If you are unable to attend then please call or email all City of Stirling Councillors and express your views.
Hi Community Matters
The site/development plan you have published on website, if you look at the Agenda notes for next meeting, is the wrong plan. This was for a WAPC subdivision submission and doesn’t relate to current proposal. Reference to it therefore incorrect.
The new plans have significant works proposed to bring building back into heritage character of area, pithed carport roofs in zincalume, new landscaping and tree planting.
The current proposal was prepared by architects Zuideveld Marchant Hur and landscaper architect and has retained the existing large trees at the back of the site – if you look at the Agenda it is a totally different plan.
Also if you refer to the correct plan you will note trees that have been removed at side of the building allowed all of the parking to be retained on site, including visitor bays.
Should you be correcting your information??
There are many areas around Perth experiencing similar issues. Midland, Bassendean, Bayswater, Guildford, Belmont.
We should aim to link up and join forces. There is power in numbers.
Why is the city preventing somebody from developing privately owned land?
I have seen avelling spend a significant amount of money refurbishing the existing flats. If they are developing within the appropriate zoning, then why should people have a right to complain..
It’s land sterilisation by proxy!! Illegal!
Hi Brett, happy to include updated plans if available, but our experience to date gives us little confidence that the form of plans submitted will necessarily bear any resemblance to that which actually gets built, and if trees have already been removed in advance of any type of approval then the intent is clear, highlighted perhaps by the original plans shown,
The City’s issue with your application appears to revolve around the semantics of Amendment 32, the issue highlighted on this site is the significant reduction of green space and mature trees that appears to be becoming the norm. The Satellite image shows quite what an Oasis this site is and, rightly or wrongly developers are going to have to understand that community backlash against reduction in the urban canopy is now a thing, and growing.
I am not anti-development, I am however anti non-compliant development which ignores the amenity of its surroundings and the expectations of the community at large and concentrates on profit per square inch rather than looking at complementary and sustainable development practice.
I do not aim this at yourself, but sadly, so many bad planning decisions have been allowed via Local Government and especially via DAP’s/JDAP’s (One of your Architects is as I am sure you are aware a DAP panel member) that the community now, by default, assume the worst, this may seem unfair but is a natural reaction to the previous `bad behaviour` that has become the norm.
@Jim , it is the rezoning that is at issue, and the City of Stirling is applying their interpretation of the relevant legislation to stop this, being the City of Stirling, I can not predict with any confidence that their decision is correct and no doubt this will end up at the State Administrative Tribunal where affected parties will have no legal right to intervene nor have their views heard anyway.
I could ask you what right you have to complain about someone else complaining 😉
@Simon Wheeler – Agree 100% with your statement. The City of Stirling don’t have the best track record of “applying their interpretation” in the past. I wouldn’t be so trigger happy bouncing applications if I were them. Hopefully they have done all of their checks and balances here and don’t cost the rates payers the bill of representing themselves at SAT.
I was under the impression that SAT is there to protect the legal rights of those who appeal to it because Authorities such as Stirling don’t play by the rules and choose to adopt or interpret them for their purposes.
Our current planning system does not allow for 3rd party appeal rights and rightly so. if it did then every single development would be choked by “affected parties” and complainants. if there was 3rd party appeal rights then there would be sovereign risk in the planning system. Not saying all development are good ones but we have a system in place that works. This is a good development which provides a range of accommodation options.
I’m complaining on behalf of the greater majority of Perth that a tired of listening to people complain everytime someone sticks their neck out
@Jim, have to disagree with 3rd party appeal rights though I suggest `affected party appeal rights` so for people who are directly affected rather than just having some philosophical argument about something that they do not have to live with every day , bad planning decisions happen, both ways, and when they do it can have significant and long lasting effects on the lives of others through no fault of their own.
Developers do at least have the SAT to appeal to, and yes if the SAT find the City are in error it will make directions which the City must follow. (though usually if the City think they will lose at the SAT, they normally don’t bother)
Directly affected parties have nada, unless they have a $100K or so down the sofa for a judicial review, we actually live in a State where the amount of natural justice and procedural fairness received is governed by the size of your bank balance~ I don’t think many would see this as an equitable system.
I think, in general, more people should complain 🙂
Unfortunately Simon, opinions aside..
I don’t think local councils are equipped to deal with the evolving beast that is infill development. Hence why developers are defaulting to the DAP and SAT. Smaller local councils are not staffed adequately do deal with complicated developments, they do not have the adequate policies in place to guide development. This isn’t their fault, who could have seen it coming? 3 years ago the most complicated planning assessment may have been for a large industrial shed, now its 100+ apartments, mixed use, local structure planning etc etc. But the writing is on the wall, once bitten twice shy. now is the time to get on the front foot, consult with industry and the community, understand the drivers and embed them into the scheme some how. It has to cover both bases and needs to be practical and flexible.
Council officers do not have delegation to negotiate outcomes with developers and Councillors appear to be taking the philosophical argument more often than not (obviously not all Councillors). Its not a level battlefield in terms of knowledge and motivation.
My main issue is based on the erosion of land rights caused by community members over private land. Unfortunately the squeakiest wheel gets the oil in local government. Hence why the same people constantly roll up to Council meetings and harass Councillors.
From my experience, Council decisions generally direct developers to SAT. Stirling has lost some silly SAT appeals in the past.
Well I must be a very squeaky Wheeler at the moment 🙂
Jim, your quite reasonable and logical arguments miss the crux of the matter (as seen from this side of the fence). Under the current flawed system it is quite possible for developers/applicants to work the system, to get one thing approved and another thing built, to massage the gaps between the DAP and the Responsible Authority, playing one against the other without once actually breaking any laws or even guidelines.
It is developers and applicants like this, and I am confident you could name one or two, who spoil the pot for everyone, honest developers, and honestly affected parties alike; and both exist.
It has been argued that cynical developers and a flawed planning system with no checks or balances in place are the very reason that third/affected party appeals are required, and conversely that some appeals (should such a system exist) will be frivolous and vexatious unless a strong framework is put in place to avoid such.
I don’t pretend to have the answer, but as an affected party seeing the last 15 years of my and my partners efforts wasted, with another 10 or so years added to our working lives (and we are no spring chickens) due to what we truly feel was a particularity bad planning decision in which (again in our opinion) a lawful planning process was not undertaken, I have few options but squeak my heart out, I get the feeling that in my position, I suspect you would not take this lying down either.