The spin presented at the Urbis White Sands open day made no substantive attempt to match it’s justifications in their 24 or is it 25 storey development application submitted to Development WA – there was free water & sanitiser , glossy posters, lovely shiny people, surreal sound-bytes, misleading elevations and a riveting video – which I did not watch.
Instead I spent my time allocation reading the glossies and literature looking for some justification of the proposed double* height bonus of the 24/25 storey tower…. all I found was a surreal proposition that the developer somehow had 36 storeys to apportion at their command on the logic that they `could` have built 2 x 18 storey towers , 36 yet they were only proposing 32 in total (24 +8) that 24!=18 is a mere trifle … let that stew, a single malt helps.
“Officer, I know I was doing 100 in a 50 zone but my passenger was not driving, & his unused 50kph + my 50kph = 100! …. `by any chance are you a town planner Sir? please blow into this tube`…”
The Development WA Design Review Panel were not impressed with the `best case` flattering elevations either …
“Lack of elevations has hampered design review. Ensure podium and tower elevations (with dimensions) are provided (in addition to perspectives) to better demonstrate pursuit of design excellence and tower façade development. Extend sections and elevations into neighbouring lots and illustrate current development and potential envelopes to aid contextual appreciation.”
Design Excellence
Design excellence in relation to the master-plan is what bonus storeys are all about, the master-plan and guidelines have, in this zone, a six storey bonus `baked in` for developments shown to provide ‘design excellence’, this takes the `permissible` height from 12 to 18 storeys.
Design excellence in the context of the scheme does not mean quite what everyone in the community may at first think, design excellence can be seen to be many things from the design, to the provision of public art, solar power, to the provision of bicycle parking etc, this development unarguably includes some aspects that might be seen to contribute to an imagined and subjective (because that is all it is) vision of design excellence.
However design excellence achieved in one field can not ignore failings in others, public art can not be considered as vicarious redemption for significant shortcomings elsewhere, proposed shortfalls or variations can not simply be discounted when considering if an application has achieved design excellence, indeed they should be treated in the same fashion that Urbis treats building heights, where that which one hand receives – the other may take away.
Noting that I am not a fan of Design Review Panels in general , at the same time not wanting to bite the hand … some comments from the DRP;
“Concern that potential benefits of redistributing height to the northern portion of the site to create a taller, more slender tower, are diminished due to the bulk, scale and u-shaped form of the southern tower, limiting east-west views through the site between the towers.”
“The concept proposal indicates 12 bicycle parking bays This is justified in the TIA at Appendix B. which is a significant shortfall from the 138 residential bicycle parking bays, 11 residential visitor bicycle bays and 78 non-residential bicycle parking bays required in accordance the Design Guidelines (total 227 bays)” – 27 are provided.
“It is understood that a minimum 5 Star Green Star Rating certification from the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) will be sought and achieved in support of the proposed variations. Commitment to this outcome, together with a sustainability report outlining targeted points to achieve the required 5 Star GBCA rating, with a 10% buffer, is to be provided at the development application stage.”
From the Design Review Panels comments, and the above are but a selection, I think this proposal should on the face of it struggle against an objective appraisal of the guidelines to even meet the 6 storey height bonus let alone any additional considerations and perhaps this article should be titled `The Elephant on the 13th floor`.
Because we can
Planning decisions in WA are routinely surreal enough to defy rational explanation and are usually justified in terms understood only by the town planners, architects and industry insiders who ultimately judge the applications of their peers. I could have a crack at Woolies, I could name call `greedy` developers who would respond with cries of NIMBYism, I could buy into the usual conspiracy theories about who owns what and who sold what to who, and without question there are plenty of amateur and professional Machiavellian schemes and stories to be discovered, but that is old news and mostly unfair in this case.
It is mostly unfair because the justification for the double bonus height, had the Applicants decided to be a little more honest, would have been to say `because we can`, because they know that whoever determines this development application will pay no more than a perfunctory passing nod to the provisions of the scheme and indeed of orderly and proper planning usually concerning themselves with setbacks and parking ratios and other unquestionably themselves important considerations.
The Applicant knows full well that Local Governments, Development Assessment Panels the MRA/DevelopmentWA, the WAPC and the Minister will all happily ignore this community solicited consultation, this expensively advertised piece of planning law paid for by yours truly..
So are non-conforming developments actually unlawful ? yes and no, John Hammond at a recent JDAP (Yelo cafe) meeting suggested that the panel might, in approving a non conforming development, actually be approving `unlawful` development, one that could be challenged in the Supreme Court (no third party appeal rights in WA) On further inquiry John accepted without hesitation that the DAP did indeed have discretion, which while not disproving his previous statement – it does, as does Development WA under Clause 1.7
1.7 DISCRETIONARY CLAUSE
An important provision within the Design Guidelines is the opportunity for the applicant(s) or owner(s) to meet the Design Intent through an alternative solution. The Authority may approve a development application where the applicant(s) or owner(s) has departed from the recommended Development Standards, including any height provisions, where in the Authority’s opinion the applicant(s) or owner(s) has demonstrated that the alternative solution(s) is consistent with the Scheme and meets the Design Intent. Compliance with the Development Standards does not guarantee approval.
does an `alternative solution` sound a bit like alternative facts ?
Some might argue that this provision, especially in regard to height is transparently unclear, does it mean that discretion can be granted for the extra 6 storeys above base height even if design excellence is not shown? or discretion above the 18 storeys when a bonus has already been granted, the rest of the scheme reads, in my opinion, to the former… but like many of the devils to be found in the details of the WA Planning system the answer is subjective and requires deep pockets to challenge – and in this case the applicant has the previous 3 Oceans approval to fall back on as precedent, an approval that makes this application look modest in comparison.
The members of the community that I have spoken to about this development are in general quite supportive albeit with uncertainty over the height, there is no argument that the current White Sands site continues to be the eyesore that it always has been, Woolworths itself – like the overall layout of the podium design and frontage is not unwelcome, Aged Care facilities are the new normal and Scarborough itself needs to move forward to be `finished` as it were and many aspects of this development will be welcomed by the community, what will not be welcomed is more intelligence insulting misdirection in regard to building heights.
Privately developers are alleged to be of the opinion that these heights are required to make the development economically feasible … or is this nonsense just deliberate counter intelligence?, I of course am not a town planner or an architect – I am just one of those who have to live with their determinations.
I am however telling the truth as I understand it and would have far more respect for Applicants and greater tolerance and willingness to meaningfully engage if they might offer me the same courtesy , they might even be surprised at the response.
............................................. * by double height bonus I mean 2 x height bonuses, not actually double the height --- though the answer is still 24.
