United Group of Residents Deliver a message to Councillors on Infill in HOAs
- Juda Expert
- May 31, 2019
- 7 min read
Deputation to Council Briefing Session 14 May 2019
Deputation delivered by Dr Green and prepared by residents from the suburbs of Duncraig, Marmion, Sorrento, Warwick, Greenwood, Kingsley, Padbury, Kallaroo, Craigie, Woodvale, Beldon and Edgewater.
Item 7 DRAFT NEW PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT
We are here to present, in less than 15 minutes, a cohesive, unfunded, community perspective of infill planning in the City of Joondalup in order to assist you in your determination regarding Item 7 on the Agenda.
We stand before you tonight, as a united group of residents from the suburbs of Duncraig, Marmion, Sorrento, Warwick, Greenwood, Kingsley, Padbury, Kallaroo, Craigie, Woodvale, Beldon and Edgewater. From within HOAs and from outside them. We do not claim to be truly representative of our communities, but we do claim to have engaged with them extensively through our Community Networks, and we bring their views to you tonight.
In order to meet the time constraints, we have prepared a separate document to substantiate our claims. We cannot table it tonight so we will email it to all of you tomorrow.
Our Deputation is in two parts. The first highlights our concerns with the proposed Framework . The second, will make the case for a positive course of action that will allow you to meet State infill targets for the City, but to do so with the crucial support of the communities that are directly and indirectly affected by that infill.
Part 1 Our Concerns
1. Why are you – as our Councillors - not owning this Amendment? The State expects it to be something both you and the community support, before you Initiate it. Making substantial changes after initiation is impossible without going back to the start of the process. We need to get this right now, before it’s progressed.
2. This is a billion dollar issue – tens of thousands of dollars of each private homeowner’s equity, and unquantifiable amounts of environmental and social value. We think this is the most important issue ever to come before you and you must give it the consideration it deserves.
3. We are not against development. This issue is about the challenges of infill development in mature suburbs. So where are the dwelling projections under the new plan compared to the infill targets? Those projections are essential to justify the proposed codings.
4. The community believes the main burden for infill should be in the vibrant CBD and other areas of mixed use that are currently under-utilised. You don’t need to decimate some of the most liveable and loveable suburbs in Perth to achieve infill.
5. In spite of the Consultants suggesting ways to fund the needed infrastructure, the Amendment has no mechanisms to do so. Those cannot be added in afterwards, they need to be built in to the strategy before you consult with the development Industry.
6. There are no traffic studies to inform this Amendment, even though the report recommends that these should be completed prior to any initiation. It is unrealistic to suggest that people can and will give up their cars and rely solely on the current public transport network
7. People should be allowed to age in place in all suburbs, not just HOAs.
8. Intense development contributes to the Urban Heat Island effect and HOAs must not become hot spots where air-conditioning is essential.
9. Infill creates privacy issues from retrofitting higher R-codes adjacent to existing homes. This degrades amenity for existing residents.
10.Our existing shopping centres are already struggling to cope with current congestion and parking issues and the current framework provides no initiatives to resolve this.
11.Infill can create equity issues between stakeholders. You have an obligation to consider existing residents who may lose out through infill, not only future possible ones who may benefit. Good infill will satisfy both groups and avoid transferring equity from one group to another.
12. You have so far failed to consult with the community on the proposed new Framework.
13. We need better community consultation than we have seen to date, modelled on the many examples we see that have been more successful.
14. We want to see examples of successful infill projects so that our trust in the planning process can be restored.
Having outlined these issues, in the interests of offering constructive collaboration, we would like to suggest a positive way forward:
Step 1 Halt the scheme amendment proposed by the City at this time. The City can still consult without initiating an amendment.
· Once this statutory process is commenced it has to be followed through to the end and we believe that rushing it now may actually extend the length of time before we get a scheme in.
· The amendment as formally advertised becomes the basis upon which the State will make its determination
· The City on the other hand must consider Submissions made in response to the statutory advertisement of the Amendment. If these changes are deemed significant (and they will be!) the Scheme Amendment must be readvertised for a further 42 days minimum.
· There are no guarantees that any subsequent amendments to the plan will be agreed to at State level and the Minister has the power to make significant changes that may even remove some protections. The WAPC can only properly assess a Scheme Amendment that the Councillors have approved for initiation. In progressing it now you are strongly indicating that this is the direction you want the City’s infill strategy to progress. Why would you do that without checking in with rate payers first? Without seeking and publishing important information like Traffic studies for instance?
· The Minister of Planning has made it clear in writing that she is expecting consultation ON THE AMENDMENT prior to commencement of an Initiation – as is typical of any Scheme Amendment. Not only SHOULD the City be consulting over this proposed amendment before it initiates it, the Minister of Planning EXPECTS it. To be clear, the Minister is not referring to the consultation done as part of the Consultant’s pre-work, it is consultation on the outcome – the proposed Scheme Amendment.
Step 2 Implement Development Controls via a Local Planning Policy asap:
· The timeline for implementation of a Local Planning Policy is substantially quicker than a complex scheme amendment.
· Immediately progressing a Local Planning Policy will swiftly allow control of ‘bad’ developments. This may not be as effective as a whole new Planning Scheme, however, it will introduce tighter controls substantially quicker. And something is better than nothing, because soon there will be nothing left to protect given the current rate of development activity.
· We recommend two Local Planning Policies, one that can be brought in immediately without WAPC endorsement and a stronger one that will need WAPC signoff.
· Elements of the R Codes can be varied by a Local Planning Policy without approval from WAPC. Council could get such a local planning policy in place within 6 months - a lot quicker than the proposed scheme amendment which will take at least 12 months.
· Policy elements in a Local Planning Policy that need approval by the WAPC would take longer to have effect. However, under both scenarios, the process to create a policy requires significantly less time than dealing with an amendment to Council’s current Local Planning Scheme.
· The Planning Minister has repeatedly stated that the City has the power to control development using Local Planning Policies to get better design outcomes.
· A local planning policy would improve our current scheme quickly and allow us time to ensure any changes to the scheme have strong community support.
Step 3 Consult with the community on an Infill Strategy:
· ‘The Consultant’s report’ should be treated as just that: a consultant’s report which should be analyzed, considered and form part of the community consultation. The Planning Minister has repeatedly asked for a Strategic Approach to Infill that the community supports.
· No-one likes things being done to them without their consent. The Planning Minister has stated that
· “…once initiated the rezoning process must be followed through to its conclusion and as such it is expected that the City will have sought appropriate feedback from the community about the recommendations from its review of the HOA s before commencing this process.”
· The proposed planning framework needs to incorporate community planning to cater for the increase in dwellings and people.
· We need YOU to formulate an infill strategy THAT does not degrade suburbs impacted by infill - but improves them via sound planning principles. A funded Vision that follows ALL State Planning Policies and that:
o Protects the existing community
o Has community support
o Includes community feedback
o Has comprehensive, detailed impact studies, including traffic assessment
o Explains how demographics and dwellings will change in each suburb
o Clearly explains why some areas have been selected for infill, while others have not
o Builds a complete framework that can support the increase in population and explains how their needs will be met.
· We need a Funded Vision for infill that we are a part of: Both the previous HOA policy and the proposed Place Neighbourhood’s strategy focuses SOLELY on residential development and specifically increasing the density in certain suburbs. This has not been adequately justified when considering the magnitude of the social engineering that you are implementing in our neighbourhoods.
To conclude:
Please do not initiate this amendment. Begin a round of proper community consultation using the Consultant’s Report as one input and work with us to come up with a funded vision for infill that we can ALL be proud of.
Comments