Look­ing for a win­dow cleaner? Find lo­cal trades­men at COM.AU


Southern Gazette (South Perth) - - NEWS -

CON­STRUC­TION on a high-rise de­vel­op­ment on Mill Point Road has halted af­ter a Supreme Court rul­ing but it could lead to an even higher build­ing, ac­cord­ing to Bet­ter South Perth spokesman Paul Plow­man.

The Supreme Court called a halt to con­struc­tion of the de­vel­op­ment at 74 Mill Point Road be­cause it did not have the cor­rect mix of res­i­den­tial and com­mer­cial space.

The Supreme Court ac­tion was ini­ti­ated by neigh­bours on the grounds it should not have been ap­proved by the Joint De­velop- ment As­sess­ment Panel (JDAP) last year.

“The res­i­dents (Ric Haw­ley and Karyl Nairn) took the de­vel­op­ment to court for re­view on the height, set­back and de­sign but the court dis­missed it and sup­ported the JDAP de­ci­sion. The only thing it ruled against was the ra­tio of com­mer­cial and res­i­den­tial use of the de­vel­op­ment,” Mr Plow­man said.

He said the de­vel­op­ment was now in a le­gal limbo, sub­ject to a de­ci­sion on the res­i­den­tial and com­mer­cial re­quire­ments.

“By tak­ing ac­tion against the de­vel­op­ment, it now might end up be­ing even taller,” he said.

“The de­vel­oper will have to re­sub­mit a plan and so could put ad­di­tional storeys on for some ser­viced apart­ments to reach the 50/50 com­mer­cial and res­i­den­tial re­quire­ments.

“The plan­ning ap­proval has not been quashed, it just needs to be amended.”

The Save the South Perth Penin­sula res­i­dents group sup­ported Mr Haw­ley and Ms Nairn.

Group spokes­woman Vicki Red­den said the Supreme Court rul­ing was a vic­tory for democra- cy but it was now time for a higher au­thor­ity to step in.

“The de­vel­op­ers are now call­ing a heap of their apart­ments ‘ser­viced’ apart­ments; they’re try­ing to cre­ate an­other loop­hole,” she said.

“We want some­one like Colin Bar­nett to call a time out. We can’t keep go­ing with this type of chaos. The com­mu­nity doesn’t know what’s go­ing on, the de­vel­op­ers don’t know and the coun­cil just seems over­whelmed.

“Ev­ery­one is just play­ing games so some­one with au­thor­ity needs to say ‘stop’.”

City of South Perth chief ex­ec­u­tive Ge­off Glass said ser­viced apart­ments were a form of tourist ac­com­mo­da­tion and were deemed com­mer­cial un­der City pol­icy.

“They pro­vide self-con­tained vis­i­tor ac­com­mo­da­tion for short­term oc­cu­pancy. Th­ese vis­i­tors play an im­por­tant role in the eco­nomic well-be­ing of the City. Tourist ac­com­mo­da­tion is non­res­i­den­tial – gen­er­ally known as com­mer­cial – use in the City’s town plan­ning scheme,” she said.

He said the City in­tended to take le­gal ad­vice fol­low­ing the rul­ing to ob­tain a full un­der­stand­ing of the im­pli­ca­tions.

The de­vel­op­ers, Hil­lam Ar­chi­tects, de­clined to com­ment on the mat­ter.

An artist’s im­pres­sion of the de­vel­op­ment at 74 Mill Point Road, South Perth.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.