ABOUT US
We are a group of South Perth Residents and property owners who are very concerned about the lack of thorough and adequate planning processes being employed by the State and South Perth Council.
The result is a number of unexpected and very large tower blocks being approved in a wide area of South Perth in what is currently known as the "South Perth Station Precinct". Many of our members are involved in the building trade, urban design, architecture and planning and law. What we all have in common is a desire for much better developments being proposed for this beautiful area of South Perth to ensure that proper planning processes are followed.
In May 2015, in an irrational move the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) approved an application to build a 29 storey residential high rise building on the Mill Point Peninsula at 74 Mill Point Road, near the junction of Fraser Lane. No building had previously been permitted to exceed the prescribed height of 25 metres (8 storeys) on the Peninsula.
The developers sought to satisfy JDAP and South Perth planning staff that they should be entitled to take advantage of special planning provisions which were introduced into the City of South Perth Planning Scheme through Amendment 25 in 2013. Amendment 25 gives very considerable discretion to recommend approval of buildings taller than 8 storeys and with zero set back from the road, making this proposal the tallest building on the smallest site in the City and the first in this historic street with 0 setback.
Residents opposing the development at 74 Mill Point Road made oral submissions to JDAP pointing out various matters of concern including that:
Many of the submissions has been that the South Perth Peninsula is an area of natural beauty and heritage and should be excluded from that kind of extreme developments which were being approved, purportedly via the wide discretions applicable to the Special Control Area within the Station Precinct.
In the meantime a group of South Perth residents formed an action group “SAVE THE SOUTH PERTH PENINSULA” to raise awareness of the issue and persuade the Council to amend the Scheme to protect the Peninsula from mega tower development. The Group held a meeting opposite from the development on Saturday 11 April at which several Councillors attended and expressed their concern at the development and the height of buildings being approved under Amendment 25. The Mayor of South Perth, Mayor Sue Doherty also attended and agreed to convene a Special Electors Meeting to discuss this issue provided that at least 250 residents of the South Perth electorate SIGN A PETITION requesting such a meeting. More than 450 signed the Petition within 48 hours and so a Special Electors Meeting was called for 6th May 2015.
What we discovered from our publicity campaign was that throughout South Perth there was anger and confusion about the high rise developments that had already been approved . Hardly anyone was given notice of the applications and most only found out after the developments were approved, notwithstanding that huge numbers of residents will be affected by the overshadowing, traffic congestion and parking pressure that will be caused during and after construction of these buildings. More importantly, very few people had the opportunity to air their concerns about the fact that the Council planners and JDAP were recommending and approving buildings vastly in excess of the heights which had been canvassed in the scheme consultation process. It is no exaggeration to say that the approval of these buildings has angered and confounded the community.
It was therefore no surprise that the Civic Hall was full at the Special Electors’ Meeting on 6 May. Nearly 300 residents attended to voice their concerns about the high rise developments being pushed through without adequate consultation or forewarning. The fact that such an intrusive development could be considered in the Peninsula was deplored and there was overwhelming support for protecting the Peninsula from high rise, zero set back buildings and excluding this area from the Station Precinct altogether. Many people, including our elected Councillors, expressed surprise and concern that Amendment 25 is currently being interpreted and applied by the planning department of City of South Perth and JDAP to allow skyscrapers in circumstances where most people who reviewed the Scheme expected it would be used to permit stepped development of a maximum of 12 to 14 storeys only.
The Special Electors meeting passed 5 motions most all unanimously, calling on Councillors, among other things, to support a Local Planning Strategy and amendments to the Town Planning Scheme to exclude the Peninsula from the Precinct area.
A Local Planning Strategy should have been implemented before Amendment 25 as is states in council documents, so that the future shape of South Perth is not determined in an ad-hoc way by developers, but rather according to a clear plan of where future developments should best be located, with guidelines of what heights and set backs are appropriate and with proper controls to ensure that radical changes are not made in the community without adequate input from residents and other interested parties.
The Motions addressed the undeniable confusion and lack of specificity in the administration of the current Town Planning Scheme (TPS6) and recommended greater study and resident consultation.
Residents were reinforced in their position by the publication just before the meeting of the State Architect's independent report which confirmed that the proposed building at 74 Mill Point Rd was not "exceptional design" but rather simply "acceptable". This is what the residents were saying all along but were ignored.
On 20 May 2015, the Council met to consider the Motions passed at the Special Electors Meeting. Given that all Councillors have expressed in some form their support for the opposition to the 74 Mill Point Road development in the Peninsula and their willingness to support the exclusion of the Peninsula from the Station Precinct, it was disappointing that the Council did not pass similar motions. Instead, the agenda was tightly controlled by the staff and advisors within the Council (who have been pushing through these developments and who were the subject of the vote of no confidence at the Special Electors Meeting).
One motion of note passed before the Special Council meeting was to appoint a consultant to provide an independent report into possible amendments to TPS6 and the geographic boundaries. While an independent consultant review of TPS6 is welcome, it can only be properly considered as an adjunct to, not a substitute for, an LPS and proper community consultation.
It is understandable that the City's planning officers would wish to defend their previous positions and the steps they have taken with respect to development under TPS 6. It is also understandable that they do not wish any more public scrutiny and debate. However, this is a democracy. The community is unhappy and confused. Ratepayers have indicated that they require changes to be made to the current planning regime and that they also wish to have a real voice in the way those changes are brought about, given the confounding of their earlier expectations. That is an entirely reasonable position for them to take in the circumstances.
Acknowledging this, the Mayor and two of the Councillors made representations against the development at the JDAP final meeting on 25 May. Two highly respected planning experts and a former Minister for Planning spoke against the development. Their representations, however, fell on deaf ears. There are many criticisms which can be made of the JDAP process (about which more will be said publicly in due course), not the least of which is the fact that, instead of refusing the application on the basis that the original development application failed to meet the primary objective of being predominately non-residential, it did not meet all the requirements included in Schedule 9 of the SPSP .
There was accordingly no proper opportunity for the public to review and comment on it before the JDAP meeting, save to note that the "exceptional design" decision was taken by the same DAC group who had misjudged the previous design and that one of the members of the DAC is involved in a development project on an adjacent site and thus can hardly be said to be impartial or independent.
The Save the Peninsula Group is obviously extremely disappointed and frustrated at the lack of proper process and the lack of proper planning principles being applied in South Perth. It is not just a South Perth issue, however. South Perth is the City's most visible suburb. We are the view across the river for City workers but we are also what everyone sees when they look down from the war memorial at King's Park. That vista is perhaps the most iconic of all Perth views. Until now, that view has been all about the sweep of the river and the grandeur of the sky. If the buildings are erected, they would dominate the skyline and just be a reflection of the Perth, instead maintaining its own character of tree-lined streets and vistas of green parklands.
Our aim is to enhance all the great attributes of South Perth and enhance those with sensitively designed new development that respects the existing areas.
We therefore welcome to our ranks people from outside South Perth who care about our City and want to ensure that we develop in a responsible way which is sensitive to our heritage and environment.
We are a group of South Perth Residents and property owners who are very concerned about the lack of thorough and adequate planning processes being employed by the State and South Perth Council.
The result is a number of unexpected and very large tower blocks being approved in a wide area of South Perth in what is currently known as the "South Perth Station Precinct". Many of our members are involved in the building trade, urban design, architecture and planning and law. What we all have in common is a desire for much better developments being proposed for this beautiful area of South Perth to ensure that proper planning processes are followed.
In May 2015, in an irrational move the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) approved an application to build a 29 storey residential high rise building on the Mill Point Peninsula at 74 Mill Point Road, near the junction of Fraser Lane. No building had previously been permitted to exceed the prescribed height of 25 metres (8 storeys) on the Peninsula.
The developers sought to satisfy JDAP and South Perth planning staff that they should be entitled to take advantage of special planning provisions which were introduced into the City of South Perth Planning Scheme through Amendment 25 in 2013. Amendment 25 gives very considerable discretion to recommend approval of buildings taller than 8 storeys and with zero set back from the road, making this proposal the tallest building on the smallest site in the City and the first in this historic street with 0 setback.
Residents opposing the development at 74 Mill Point Road made oral submissions to JDAP pointing out various matters of concern including that:
- the height of the proposed building is 4 times (400%) greater than any neighbouring properties and would dominate the sky and totally change overnight, the amenity and character of the Peninsula.
- the overshadowing caused would be considerable and extend to the Freeway and Mends Street jetty
- there has been inadequate consideration of the traffic congestion, pollution and parking problems , especially in conjunction with other skyscraper developments which have already been approved.
- there has been no proper assessment of the possible impact to development plans for the Old Mill
- there has been no account taken of the zero set back and how that would interfere with the avenue of London plane trees which has been part of the peninsula heritage for almost a hundred years.
Many of the submissions has been that the South Perth Peninsula is an area of natural beauty and heritage and should be excluded from that kind of extreme developments which were being approved, purportedly via the wide discretions applicable to the Special Control Area within the Station Precinct.
In the meantime a group of South Perth residents formed an action group “SAVE THE SOUTH PERTH PENINSULA” to raise awareness of the issue and persuade the Council to amend the Scheme to protect the Peninsula from mega tower development. The Group held a meeting opposite from the development on Saturday 11 April at which several Councillors attended and expressed their concern at the development and the height of buildings being approved under Amendment 25. The Mayor of South Perth, Mayor Sue Doherty also attended and agreed to convene a Special Electors Meeting to discuss this issue provided that at least 250 residents of the South Perth electorate SIGN A PETITION requesting such a meeting. More than 450 signed the Petition within 48 hours and so a Special Electors Meeting was called for 6th May 2015.
What we discovered from our publicity campaign was that throughout South Perth there was anger and confusion about the high rise developments that had already been approved . Hardly anyone was given notice of the applications and most only found out after the developments were approved, notwithstanding that huge numbers of residents will be affected by the overshadowing, traffic congestion and parking pressure that will be caused during and after construction of these buildings. More importantly, very few people had the opportunity to air their concerns about the fact that the Council planners and JDAP were recommending and approving buildings vastly in excess of the heights which had been canvassed in the scheme consultation process. It is no exaggeration to say that the approval of these buildings has angered and confounded the community.
It was therefore no surprise that the Civic Hall was full at the Special Electors’ Meeting on 6 May. Nearly 300 residents attended to voice their concerns about the high rise developments being pushed through without adequate consultation or forewarning. The fact that such an intrusive development could be considered in the Peninsula was deplored and there was overwhelming support for protecting the Peninsula from high rise, zero set back buildings and excluding this area from the Station Precinct altogether. Many people, including our elected Councillors, expressed surprise and concern that Amendment 25 is currently being interpreted and applied by the planning department of City of South Perth and JDAP to allow skyscrapers in circumstances where most people who reviewed the Scheme expected it would be used to permit stepped development of a maximum of 12 to 14 storeys only.
The Special Electors meeting passed 5 motions most all unanimously, calling on Councillors, among other things, to support a Local Planning Strategy and amendments to the Town Planning Scheme to exclude the Peninsula from the Precinct area.
A Local Planning Strategy should have been implemented before Amendment 25 as is states in council documents, so that the future shape of South Perth is not determined in an ad-hoc way by developers, but rather according to a clear plan of where future developments should best be located, with guidelines of what heights and set backs are appropriate and with proper controls to ensure that radical changes are not made in the community without adequate input from residents and other interested parties.
The Motions addressed the undeniable confusion and lack of specificity in the administration of the current Town Planning Scheme (TPS6) and recommended greater study and resident consultation.
Residents were reinforced in their position by the publication just before the meeting of the State Architect's independent report which confirmed that the proposed building at 74 Mill Point Rd was not "exceptional design" but rather simply "acceptable". This is what the residents were saying all along but were ignored.
On 20 May 2015, the Council met to consider the Motions passed at the Special Electors Meeting. Given that all Councillors have expressed in some form their support for the opposition to the 74 Mill Point Road development in the Peninsula and their willingness to support the exclusion of the Peninsula from the Station Precinct, it was disappointing that the Council did not pass similar motions. Instead, the agenda was tightly controlled by the staff and advisors within the Council (who have been pushing through these developments and who were the subject of the vote of no confidence at the Special Electors Meeting).
One motion of note passed before the Special Council meeting was to appoint a consultant to provide an independent report into possible amendments to TPS6 and the geographic boundaries. While an independent consultant review of TPS6 is welcome, it can only be properly considered as an adjunct to, not a substitute for, an LPS and proper community consultation.
It is understandable that the City's planning officers would wish to defend their previous positions and the steps they have taken with respect to development under TPS 6. It is also understandable that they do not wish any more public scrutiny and debate. However, this is a democracy. The community is unhappy and confused. Ratepayers have indicated that they require changes to be made to the current planning regime and that they also wish to have a real voice in the way those changes are brought about, given the confounding of their earlier expectations. That is an entirely reasonable position for them to take in the circumstances.
Acknowledging this, the Mayor and two of the Councillors made representations against the development at the JDAP final meeting on 25 May. Two highly respected planning experts and a former Minister for Planning spoke against the development. Their representations, however, fell on deaf ears. There are many criticisms which can be made of the JDAP process (about which more will be said publicly in due course), not the least of which is the fact that, instead of refusing the application on the basis that the original development application failed to meet the primary objective of being predominately non-residential, it did not meet all the requirements included in Schedule 9 of the SPSP .
There was accordingly no proper opportunity for the public to review and comment on it before the JDAP meeting, save to note that the "exceptional design" decision was taken by the same DAC group who had misjudged the previous design and that one of the members of the DAC is involved in a development project on an adjacent site and thus can hardly be said to be impartial or independent.
The Save the Peninsula Group is obviously extremely disappointed and frustrated at the lack of proper process and the lack of proper planning principles being applied in South Perth. It is not just a South Perth issue, however. South Perth is the City's most visible suburb. We are the view across the river for City workers but we are also what everyone sees when they look down from the war memorial at King's Park. That vista is perhaps the most iconic of all Perth views. Until now, that view has been all about the sweep of the river and the grandeur of the sky. If the buildings are erected, they would dominate the skyline and just be a reflection of the Perth, instead maintaining its own character of tree-lined streets and vistas of green parklands.
Our aim is to enhance all the great attributes of South Perth and enhance those with sensitively designed new development that respects the existing areas.
We therefore welcome to our ranks people from outside South Perth who care about our City and want to ensure that we develop in a responsible way which is sensitive to our heritage and environment.