LOCAL COUNCILS CAN’T BE IGNORED FOR PLANNING APPROVALS
The new planning approval process proposed by the WA Labor government has some merit, as it will cut through red tape for smaller development applications, such as building a shed, a pergola, etc.
The new legislation will also allow a change of use for premises without the need for local government approval, and that could become a problem. A residential building changing to a cafe, or bar without any input from the community and council having no say in it?
Large project of $ 30 million and more, and of 100 homes or more, would no longer have to go through the local planning process, and the reality is that most large developments are being approved or rejected by JDAP anyway.
While Premier Mark McGowan is right to say that process would be less bureaucratic and less expensive, it is silly spin to say that the approval process through the WA Planning Committee would create better design outcomes. There have been quite a few controversial approvals by state government agencies that did not get the thumbs up from local councils and communities because the developments were deemed to be inappropriate or too large.
It is essential that local councils remain in charge of city planning and the decisions of what is acceptable for character places such as Fremantle. The Premier is a bit too keen on highrise everywhere, for my personal taste.
Roel Loopers
FREOVIEW - Fremantle's only daily 
Sorry Big Julie for posting your comment so late, but it ended up in the spam folder, which I rarely look at.
Roel
LikeLike
Grand Designs UK or New Zealand or the Peter Madison version in Australia are wonderful adventures displaying determination, courage, innovation and a couple’s enduring passion for excellence. One lurking tiger in the UK process is “heritage approval” by the local council wherein the hapless couple may be delayed 12-18 months seeking “the tick to proceed” just to install a different type or size window or whatever. The most devastating example to my troubled mind was a couple restoring an old Tudor home and being delayed 18 months because, for their thatched roof, they wanted the superior reed from a neighboring county but their Council insisted on the inferior local reed.
In Armadale, there is the magnificent Tudor Village – a meticulous accurate reconstruction of Ann Hathaway’s cottage, the Cobweb Restaurant etc wherein the creative English engineer was prohibited from installing an authentic thatched roof (with hidden sprinklers) so he was forced to install a plastic replica.
My view is that only the owners should be free to make the creative decisions regarding their home which they will likely have to pay off over the next 20 or 30 years and ultimately bear the consequences if they muck it up and cannot sell their funky home. Certainly, heritage is a noble pursuit however modern homes can now be built with greater glass, thermal and special innovations far beyond the 2 front rooms with a corridor down the middle template.
At another council’s meeting regarding mandatory preservation pre-1940 “workers’ cottages”, I asked the Council red pen person “do you mean I cannot have a house designed by Frank Gehry? They replied: “Who is Frank Gehry?”
I rest my case. The State Government has done the just think so to remove tardy and illogical interference by that 3rd party.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that the approval-less change of use includes residential to commercial, as commercial would be a non-permitted use under the local (previously town) planning scheme – a local planning scheme is a legal document that sets the zoning and residential density of land and controls what types of uses can occur where. On the other hand, there are a lot of different uses allowed in commercial-zoned areas, with broadly similar impacts, that currently (often but not always unnecessarily) require a planning approval for change between them.
LikeLike