City of Stirling plans to ban all multiple dwellings below R60

[theperthurbanist]

Ok so this has been on the radar since last year, however as the WAPC has just given the City consent to advertise, it is now getting a step closer to being approved. Residents of Stirling received a letter last week (due to the WAPC consent) which has brought it up as a media issue again.

In short (paraphrased from one of the articles I read):

The City of Stirling is proposing a planning change to ban all multiple dwellings (apartments) in low rise developments in areas zoned less than R60.

This will significantly affect the development potential of residential blocks in many areas of the city boundaries. Suburbs that may be affected include, Balga, Nollamara, Westminster, Joondanna, Innaloo, Yokine, Balcatta, Doubleview, Scarborough and Tuart Hill.

Now that the proposal has been given consent to advertise the City can supposedly take it into account in assessing development applications and potentially reject them, meaning the impact could be felt immediately.

----------------

Copy of the Scheme Amendment 32 can be found here:

http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/About-the-city/Your-say/Community Consultation/Community consultation information and forms/Submission on MultiDwelling in R40.pdf

Or read the media article

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/wa/a/23783374/striling-apartment-block-a-death-wish/

Or if you can?t access Business News WA, an earlier one:

http://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Stirling-changes-threaten-infill


FYI if you have any desire to sign the petition to oppose these changes, you can do so here: http://www.stopstirling.com.au/

All pretty interesting, and concerning, stuff. Somewhat archaic, IMO.

 

[westminster]

I received this from my Builder yesterday

To all our valuable clients developing within the City of Stirling, this objection is within your best interest to help protect the future development within the city of stirling. Please forward to each party in one email, full details of submission below.

Please find attached a form for you to complete. Once you have typed in your details on the form, save your changes and then email to City of Stirling. [email protected]
Send a copy to Department for Planning [email protected] and Minister for Planning [email protected] . John Gelavis [email protected]

Please circulate to as many affected property owners and builders and encourage them to submit.

Attached is a prefilled out objection You can add or take out anything you want then email it to the addresses above.

 

[Aaron Sice]

while i understand the motive - ie preserving suburban character - what exactly are they trying to protect? piecemeal developed ex-market gardens? the 'Balcatta Suburban Fabric"...?

it's just not in the interest of perth on the coming 50 years - it's a career motive by the mayor and councillors.

look at Mt Lawley and Highgate - house-house-4pack walk up-house-4 pack walk up-boarding house-house-house. That's what gives a suburb character - diversity - not homogeny.

planners are just spieling what they've been told to spiel - but the reality is suburbs will be suburbs and main roads will be ghettos.

 

[theperthurbanist]

Yep, totally Agree Aaron. They Council copped a lot of grief over one development in a R30 zone a while back which sparked it I think. 500 signatures on a petition and all of a sudden it is a hot topic with the elected members.

Stirling already restricts MDs below R40 maybe as a result of that R30 project. Now they are saying nothing below R60. I'm not convinced. Half of City of Stirling is practically 'inner-metro', and is zoned accordingly. Yes it sucks to have 20 units built next to you but I don?t think nymbism is grounds alone for opposing densification. I agree with the City's 'we need to densify our centres not our suburbs' argument but I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, or even really that linked from a developer feasibility point of view (i.e. banning small developers from MDs in suburbs isn't going to increase centre development. All those guys aren't just going to go and do larger scale MDs in the centres instead - different developers, different market). The way I see it, Stirling is simply encouraging incremental, small scale duplex/triplex/grouped dwelling i.e. the worst type of density (from an urban design/planning perspective), without achieving any real densification. Yes parking/traffic will always be an issue, but low-density suburbs = unfeasible public transit = more cars, parking, traffic also.

 

[Aaron Sice]

what they fail to understand is the private sector.

landowners rarely join forces, so developers will just target spearwood or leederville or north perth or ballajura or ...

stirling will be left holding an area with population growth sub-par to the rest of the state.

then the questions will come out, and no one will ask the big one.

 

[Sampo]

I have it on good word that Melville is considering a similar action in the wake of the striker sports centre saga.


Have mixed feelings about it all. I have seen excellent examples of higher density development where I live in Manning and horrible ad hoc examples of it in Spearwood one thing for sure is there has definitely been a backlash against multiple dwellings and the impact has been felt by the state government..

 

[theperthurbanist]

Update

A quick update:

Public advertising of the proposed scheme amendment has now closed and the responses are being collated. The officer?s report/recommendation is yet to be prepared but the intention is to make the September meeting. It will be an open agenda item so the report should be attached to the agenda which you can download online. I?ll send another update when the agenda is released.

Watch this space.

 

[MTR]

I have it on good word that Melville is considering a similar action in the wake of the striker sports centre saga.

I would be interested to know from where?? From what I have researched they are not planning to follow City of Stirling.?I just purchased a property zoned R40/60 in City of Melville, but it will be difficult for me to meet R60, so will be building MD R40.

 

[MTR]

Yep, totally Agree Aaron. They Council copped a lot of grief over one development in a R30 zone a while back which sparked it I think. 500 signatures on a petition and all of a sudden it is a hot topic with the elected members.

Stirling already restricts MDs below R40 maybe as a result of that R30 project. Now they are saying nothing below R60. I'm not convinced. Half of City of Stirling is practically 'inner-metro', and is zoned accordingly. Yes it sucks to have 20 units built next to you but I don?t think nymbism is grounds alone for opposing densification. I agree with the City's 'we need to densify our centres not our suburbs' argument but I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, or even really that linked from a developer feasibility point of view (i.e. banning small developers from MDs in suburbs isn't going to increase centre development. All those guys aren't just going to go and do larger scale MDs in the centres instead - different developers, different market). The way I see it, Stirling is simply encouraging incremental, small scale duplex/triplex/grouped dwelling i.e. the worst type of density (from an urban design/planning perspective), without achieving any real densification. Yes parking/traffic will always be an issue, but low-density suburbs = unfeasible public transit = more cars, parking, traffic also.

So in part City of Stirling can not keep up with the infrastructure required for the MD.??

 

[theperthurbanist]

Update

Hi guys,

I thought I would provide a bit of an update (somewhat overdue):

The outcomes of advertising went to the 16 September Council meeting. Surprisingly, 323 submissions were received objecting to the amendment (i.e. in favour of multi dwellings) with 84 submissions supporting the amendment. Controversially, the City apparently believes up to 115 of the submissions during advertising supporting the amendment may have been ?suspect?! Nonetheless that is still a significant vote against an amendment that was, as I understand it, largely initiated to appease ratepayers vocal objections to ?multi res in the suburbs?.

The final resolution was to adopt the amendment in a modified form, prohibiting multiple dwellings on residential lots coded R40 and below (i.e still permit multi-res at R50).

The amendment is now with the Minister for final approval, with no anticipated timeline for final gazettal (if approved). The City has been advised not to treat the document as a ?seriously entertained proposal? and therefore all applications for multiple-dwellings will still be allowed until such time as the amendment is gazetted.

For those interested, the Sept meeting minutes can be found here (item on p.114-131).

 

[Tano]

Hi guys, is there any update to this?

Also does anyone know if Stirling give a 20% density bonus for amalgamating lots? I read it somewhere but cant find it in the LPS and Policies.