A31 rejection was the right decision
THERE has been suggestion in recent media that the minister’s decision to refuse Cambridge Amendment 31 was somehow contrary to Government infill policies and catered to “nimbyism”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
As a resident and professional town planner, I can say with confidence that the decision to reject A31 was balanced and correct.
The amendment had been pushed by the Town without any local planning strategy or housing strategy and simply poured medium density opportunity into traditionally single residential streets, rather than consolidating density around key infrastructure-rich areas.
This approach clearly breached key State planning policies (SPPs 3.1 and 4.2) and the fundamentals of Perth and Peel, which seek to focus density around centres, corridors and public transport.
A31 contained few relevant built-form controls to deliver housing diversity and ignored completely the values of existing neighbourhoods.
Not all infill proposals are going to be good proposals. A31 was a basket case.
The community, including many professionals like myself, were correct to question this proposal, and in this case at least, that community, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for Planning got the final decision 100 per cent right.
It is a decision that should inspire confidence in the planning process and the Commission policies. And to really understand why this is the case, commentators should look to the details and not simply generalise that all infill is good infill simply by definition. Ian Everett, director, CLE Town Planning + Design, Subiaco.