JDAP grant approval of 74 Mill Point Rd
Journalist’s background: I have some questions re Lumiere and the Council’s position/view after the MCJDAP decision on Wednesday night which decided to go against the recommendations of the Responsible Authority Report and grant (conditional) approval for a 34-storey version of the Lumiere tower at 74 Mill Point Road.
Please attribute the following quotes to City of South Perth Mayor Sue Doherty.
Some South Perth residents, represented by the South Perth Peninsula action group, have urged residents to inundate City of South Perth CEO Geoff Glass with emails and phone calls pressuring him to reverse a council decision not to appeal the decision. Is this a fair or reasonable response, given that the council recommendation was in line with what this group wanted?
It is important to note that the Council has not made any decision in relation to appeal or not appeal the Joint Development Assessment Panel’s decision. As Council has made no decision, there is nothing to reverse. The statements made by the CEO on October 20 and 21 in regards to JDAP’s approval of 74 Mill Point Rd highlighted that there were no further opportunities to appeal the decision at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
The City met with its legal representatives today to explore possible avenues to challenge JDAP’s decision. The Council strongly supported the refusal recommendation made by the City officers (in the Responsible Authority Report – RAR) and accordingly the City and the Council do not support the decision made by the JDAP. Both the City and Council are very disappointed with JDAP’s decision. Local residents are passionate about the City they live in and there are a wide range of views and opinions in regards to development in the South Perth Station Precinct. The City acknowledges many community members do not support JDAP’s decision and are also disappointed.
What’s the rationale for the council’s decision not to appeal?
As previously stated, the Council has at this point in time not made any decision in relation to appeal or not appeal this decision. The Council understands the decision made by JDAP is the final decision in the current State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) appeal process, which was between the applicant and JDAP. The City’s involvement was to reassess the applicant’s amended development application and provide
recommendations to JDAP. The City has no further right of appeal to the SAT.
Does the council think all residents (including current residents who want to live in Lumiere and those who have indicated that they would like to be residents when they move into Lumiere) have had their voices heard above those of the South Perth Peninsula Action Group?
The Council is open to the views of all members of its community and listens to the voices of all residents. Both the Council and the City work towards balancing the needs of everyone in the community with respect.
There appears to be a disconnect between State Government planning policy and local government frameworks. South Perth is not the only council to feel an angry residential backlash over this. Do the mayor Sue Doherty and the chief executive Geoff Glass have any thoughts/reflections on the way forward for councils (like theirs) stuck at the pointy end of this conflict?
Adapting to change and managing the growing population of the City is challenging. Buildings that enhance the amenity of the area, contribute to the community through providing infrastructure, social benefits and that have a high quality of design are essential to creating modern, accessible and livable communities.
The Council has listened to the concerns of the community in relation to the height and design of the buildings and responded by drafting Amendment 46.
Amendment 46 attempts to balance the needs of all parties including local residents, ratepayers and developers. Acting for the good of the greater community as we move forward with the aim to provide certainty for all is of prime importance.
The challenges being experienced within the City of South Perth are not unique. Expansion and densification of cities presents challenges for all states and metropolitan local governments who are balancing the needs of their growing populations by acknowledging the need for higher density living while protecting the character and identity of their cities.
What is the council’s current position on the Zone Q development proposal at 88 Mill Point Road? My understanding is the design review committee thought it was well designed and warranted the “exceptional benefits” with child care and aged care incorporated that would justify an allowance for up to 38 storeys. Despite concerns about the traffic effect cumulatively of these developments, was it not the case that pushing ahead with these strengthened the council’s case for a South Perth train station which might provide some relief from this.
In respect to 86-90 Mill Point Road, the City’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR) recommended refusal for a number of reasons, one of which was that the Office of the Government Architect had not considered that the design of the building was exceptional. The JDAP deferred the application so the applicant could liaise the Office of the Government Architect, to reassess the plot ratio and relook at parking issues amongst other planning matters identified.
As outlined in the recently commissioned South Perth Train Station report by consultants MacroPlan Dimasi, there is already a compelling case to build the train station. Given the developments already under construction in the precinct, this assessment concludes that the South Perth Train Station could achieve boardings of some 4,365 to 5,447 people per day by 2026. This is far in excess of patronage numbers at numerous existing stations on Perth metro rail lines.
The City believes urban infill must be accompanied by the provision of adequate public transport infrastructure. The train station has been promised by successive state governments since 2003 and is yet to be delivered. The time has come for the government to meet its commitment and to reinstate costings for the South Perth Station in forward estimates.
If you have anything else you wish to add, please do.
The most critical aspect of this issue is the fact that the City’s Town Planning Scheme Amendment 46 was sent to the Department of Planning in early May. It has now been nearly 6 months and the West Australian Planning Commission has still not made a recommendation to the Minster for Planning on the amendment. This delay is totally unacceptable for everyone – the Council, City, our community and developers and is enabling decisions like last weeks to be made without JDAP from our perspective
taking into account the provisions of the amendment. At risk, is the ability of the City to deliver for the future good planning of the Peninsula and provide certainty in achieving the objectives of Amendment 46.
- Phone 9474 0777
- Email firstname.lastname@example.org