Stealth planning, even the WAPC thinks its normal.
The controversial decision to move the ISWA school to the limited space at the site of Doubleview primary had one of its days in the JDAP on Monday 31st July. The first stage of the proposed changes which covered the redevelopment of the existing Primary School was approved in 2016 by a Joint Development Assessment Panel.
JDAP’s are funny (in the way that no one is actually laughing) things , they are proposed to promote efficiency , consistency, transparency and accountability in the planning system, it is true that there is a veneer of transparency to be uncovered in the JDAP system but usually only if you use all three eyes, the 2 you already know about , and your third all-seeing eye in which to call forth the multiverse of potentialities that are amendments, and specifically in this case, second and infinite other unknown stages of development.
Infinite ? there are only 2 stages planned.
Well the WAPC fumbled the ball on Monday and admitted, quite possibly without realising, that everything we know about the proposed usage of the Doubleview Schools(s) and land is, well, we don’t know. What we do know is that the stated capacity of 350 is a textbook example of JDAP’s constant*, it could be more, there might be further stages to development at which point the currently unknown true number is actually reached.
But it says quite clearly on the JDAP wrapper, 350.
The ISWA school, we are told has a stated capacity of 350 students (140 of them Secondary School Students), the Architect was questioned by several panel members on exactly how many students were catered for, the answer 350, importantly this number is a condition of approval.
The Architect was questioned if there was room for expansion in the current plans, the answer to that was yes, so the school is already being designed for a higher capacity, the all important question to exactly how many students the current built form might accommodate was … a question strangely not asked.
A bicycle made for 350’ish.
One of the concerns of the City, and from those opposing the application was that the plans did not have enough bicycle parking spaces for the current advertised population, let alone the unknown potential population of the School.
The Architect vaguely waved a pointer over the map of the site, worrying a few more trees as he did so to show where this future unknown quantum of bicycle parking spaces might be planted.
If you are wondering why bicycles are such a problem, they are not, the problem is those who will be riding them, or more to the point, how many of them. Nobody to date has attested to the actual number of students that is actually being catered for
It was clear from the interventions from the WAPC and answers to questions in that meeting that someone has already considered future expansion for this site. Whilst it is probably not time to concern ourselves with Rumsfields ‘things we don’t know we don’t know’ we should at least be concerned with the things `we know we don’t know`, but that the DoE and the WAPC quite probably does.
All we have to go on is the projections highlighted at the DAP meeting by one of the presenters using the Department’s own growth projections to note the probable expected capacity of 600, a difference that by anyones reckoning is not an insignificant margin of error.
Stealth planning.
The WAPC representative cast some light on the confusion regarding trees that were shown as thriving in one set of plans but destined for that garden in the sky in others, the answer was simple and the goes to the very heart of stealth planning, one set of plans was for stage one, the other for stage 2, simples.
In other words the plans submitted as part of stage one of the development were worthless to the hopes, if any existed, of nesting owls , kookaburras and black cockatoos of moving treehouse since their future accommodation is still subject to the undisclosed whims of the DoE and the WAPC.
As the Doubleview redevelopment has been split into 2 separate applications, and there may well be some procedural necessity for this, they are quite obviously, to all but the WAPC and the DoE, intrinsically linked, to suggest otherwise is obtuse.
Why not include potential tree and further greenspace losses known to exist in stage 2 when stage 1 was assessed?
Why make the loss of urban canopy appear less than it is?, why not be straight up about the actual number of students that has been planned for? Why , giving heed to the fact that we are talking about an educational facility, obfuscate rather than educate? why indeed.
Forget about bicycles, even trees and open space if that is not your thing, this is not the point, the point is that yet again we see an attempt at a cynical circumvention of that which is advertised to be a regular, transparent and lawful planning process.
Only this time it is not some Dickensian developer in the driver’s seat, but the WAPC and the DoE.
Kudos (with the usual reservations) to the JDAP for seeing the bleedin’ obvious, Kudos to Mayor Italiano for seeing and voicing his concerns that there is something quite fishy about the proposal as-is, or, as-might-be since we have not even got to the amendment stage of the planning process which is usually where all hell usually breaks loose.
The JDAP meeting has therefore been deferred, it is unclear at this point if further consultation will be allowed, it usually is not in a deferral since it is assumed that all relevant concerns have already been voiced even if they are not actually addressed.
The reasons given in the minutes of the JDAP meeting for the deferral follow.
- Legal advice on the ability of the panel to approve private primary and secondary elements of education on the public primary school reserved site and if the development meets the definition of “public works”.
- Revised plans demonstrating the retention of additional mature and semi mature trees of good condition including tuarts, and a review of the access and parking arrangements and location of transportable buildings which impact the existing trees and retention of existing trees in proposed garden beds and landscape areas.
- To confirm site coverage.
- To review bicycle parking provisions.
REASON: To ensure the panel has a head of power to approve, and that variations identified by the applicant at the meeting relating to additional vegetation for retention and new planting is reviewed by the responsible authorities and that consistent information is provided on all applications
What is missing from that list and the reason for my reservation in congratulating the JDAP is a note to investigate the true future population of the School as calculated by the DoE, we all know for sure is that it is not 350, and, all the plans and planning considerations for the School are based around JDAP’s constant.
……………………………
*JDAP’s Constant:
Known in programming and scientific circles as a variable constant, JDAP’s constant is:
‘a constant possessing a quantum that varies in relation to the relationship of the observer to the constant.’
So a Town Planner might according to the Residential Design Codes set a maximum height for a building of say 7 Meters for a Class 2 residential dwelling on an R40 Site. The JDAP however will allow variations of up to 20% if a developer makes a good and fair case for that variation.
So a Town Planners Actual Built Height (ABH) of 7M is equal to the JDAP’s ABH of 8.4M, note however that as observed by the developers point in space-time this approved and therefore compliant constant of 7M is to affected observers 8.4M.
The City of Stirling has in the past allowed variations of up to 32% suitably justified by the fact that 32% was significantly less than the originally requested variation without requiring further advertising , in other words the permit authority can and does give ‘points for trying’, that’s, applied to our example, an ABH of 9.2M
The developer also raised ground levels by nearly a meter, so from the perspective of a neighboring property an observer will see that ABH = 10.2M whilst the Developer and the JDAP measure 9.2M since raising of ground levels or any other obfuscations are not relevant to the height of things built on top of that land.
The City of Stirling have recently confirmed that a raising of ground levels does indeed go towards the building height, however in practice this is rarely mentioned or applied.
………………………………………….
Some exciting recent research suggests a direct relationship between the financial robustness of the observer on the value of any given JDAP constant, further experiments are required to confirm this theory, a revised interpretation of JDAP’s constant may therefore be stated such;
‘a constant possessing a quantum that varies in relation to the relationship and the financial and legal clout of the observer plus or minus the apathy value of the permit authority , transmogrified against any transparency related conflicts of interest by JDAP panel members, disclosed or revealed.’
………………………………………….
You can keep up with the trials and tribulations of 18th Century procedural fairness and natural justice at community not congestion on facebook
