Western Australian Premier Mark McGowan’s authoritarian streak was much loved by West Australians it seems, and he continued that tough nut approach into planning decisions. For instance, locals in WA affected by one piece of new legislation are limited to a five minute oral presentation to the commission, can’t ask questions of the developer’s expert witnesses and can no longer appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). But is this the way to get the urban outcomes we need?
WA Premier Mark McGowan’s shock resignation last week brought an avalanche of accolades (and the odd critique) from commentators, colleagues and captains of industry. “That (McGowan’s) extraordinary and drastic measures (against COVID-19) saved many lives is an unequivocal truth, regardless of whether you regarded them oppressive, over-the-top, or wholly justified,” wrote John Flint in The West Australian.
“McGowan showed his true colours during Covid, and WA loved it,” another headline read. Central to those “true colours” was a capacity for hard decisions – an authoritarian streak, some said – which, according to some keen observers went beyond COVID-19 and into the realm of planning.
Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University, for instance told The Fifth Estate: “Decisions on planning went through McGowan’s office, with the relevant minister, Rita Saffioti, in lockstep.”
This centralisation of power saw an exodus of strategic planners from WA’s Department of Planning, Land and Heritage, and legislative changes which – among other things – concentrated power in the hands of WA’s Planning Commission (WAPC).
One critical legislative change was a 2020 amendment to the Planning and Development Act, Part 17, which gives the WAPC broad powers to green light projects valued at $20 million or more in the Perth metropolitan area, a “significant development pathway” (in the WAPC’s words) which cuts through red tape but, at the same time, largely sidelines other agencies, local government and the public.
Part 17 has effectively fast tracked more than $3 billion in projects over the past three years, but it has come at a price.
Local residents affected by a Part 17 WAPC decision are limited to a five minute oral presentation to the commission, can’t ask questions of the developer’s expert witnesses and can no longer appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
“Similarly, while local councils have input during the significant development pathway process, they too are unable to question a developer’s expert witnesses at a WAPC hearing,” Michael Barker, foundation president of the SAT, wrote in Fremantle Shipping News.
“All of this might not matter so much were it not for the government’s stated intention … to make (a streamlined assessment pathway) permanent when it expires in December.”
Victoria keep your eye on your own backyard
Eastern staters shocked at this “brazen power grab” might want to keep an eye on their own backyards. In Victoria, councils’ and residents’ rights are being usurped by a code assessment regime while, north of the Murray, the gutting of NSW’s Design and Place SEPP (which required sustainable practices from developers) was followed by a new Labor government vowing a further, developer-friendly streamlining of planning processes.
WA’s centralisation of planning powers has spawned two main schools of thought.
The first, articulated by Barker among others, bemoans a fundamental loss of democracy, and “decision-making driven not by proper and orderly planning, but by the size of a project’s price tag and how many jobs it…will create.”
Indeed, WAPC’s very ethos fits hand-in-glove with Part 17. They make no secret of it: “[we are] looking forward to considering [future projects] and continuing to play a part in encouraging high-calibre significant developments around the state,” WAPC trumpeted in a May media release.
“From this it would appear that once an application has [qualified] for assessment under Part 17, its approval is virtually a given,” Barker wrote. Such fast tracking threatens to beget a slew of unsightly, high-rise developments, which would tower over lower density communities and adversely impact local land use, he added.
A case in point is East Fremantle’s looming, 19-storey, 93-apartment edifice, The Entrance (see image above). Before approving The Entrance last month, Barker claims WAPC largely ignored questions of whether it’s “simply too tall” for a “single house and land” suburb like East Fremantle, and what land use/infrastructure demand impacts may have “on an existing established urban community.”
The Entrance is the 23rd “significant development” approved by WAPC since 2020, and with streamlined assessment pathways set to be a permanent feature of WA planning, Perth traditionalists fear parts of their city fear will, to their horror, soon look like high-rise clusters Parramatta (in Sydney) or Box Hill (Melbourne)“
“It seems no one in government, and too few in the urban planning industry, care about the demise of community planning,” Barker wrote.
“Am I a voice in the wilderness?”
Never mind democracy the big battle is urban sprawl
The flip side of Barker’s argument is that the slow demise of democracy in planning, and of Australia’s quarter acre culture, is a necessary evil in the fight against urban sprawl and its environmental repercussions. By global standards, Perth is no New York or Tokyo, but its sheer north-south sprawl, 150 kilometres of suburbia visible from space (see above) sees locals proclaiming Perth as “the world’s longest city.”
That’s not something to be proud of.
The impacts of urban sprawl are legion; in Perth they’re headed up by a super-high dependence on carbon monoxide-belching cars, such is the lack of public transport infrastructure on the city’s fringe. Programs like Metronet are aimed at rectifying this, but with new subdivisions popping up all over the place, it’s an endless game of catch-up.
Perth’s urban spread has led to increased water and air pollution (and their health effects) plus over-extended schools and other infrastructure, leaving some planning experts backing Part 17, one of McGowan’s “hard decisions” aimed at stopping the sprawl through the building of higher density homes for “infill” suburbs like East Fremantle.
Indeed, many want fast-tracked “development pathways” for smaller, medium density projects away from the outer fringe.
Peter Newman says the significant development pathway is a positive
“I think the significant development pathway is a good idea that has always been there for significant government projects. It’s now happening for any redevelopments that are hitting the wall over density. This is important as we have a lot of catching up to do to halt urban sprawl,” Professor Newman told The Fifth Estate.
“However,” he says, “local planning is essential to stop urban sprawl and create good developments, but they lost their way over density in recent years. The planning system must now come up with the right model to redevelop in medium density precincts.”
“Local governments have stopped infill in back yards as that was not working so we are just left with 50 storey projects in scattered locations on sites that are often the only bit of land left to develop within the inner and middle suburbs.”
McGowan’s push-through solutions have resulted in 50 storey apartments in middle suburbs such as Karrinyup and North Fremantle, where “locals were outraged” Newman says, “because the high rise apartments were so out of scale with the rest of the areas”.
“The reality is that urban developers had no choice but to go up in a series of high rise buildings because there was no medium density options available and the baby-boomers wanted to get out of their big houses and still stay in the area” Professor Newman says.
He says the Greening the Greyfields model, is a far better solution that contextualises medium density projects in a kind of “integrated village”. The model requires say, 20-30 blocks to be consolidated so that thoughtful developments can be created – where trees are kept, there’s good landscaping and good quality developments that residents enjoy living in.
“Such densities can have a range of prices and be able to address urban sprawl for everyone” Professor Newman says.
But this takes more work and planners are reluctant to leave the office and go and talk to residents, where they can work in partnership with innovative developers. Newman concludes “until a new model for precinct scale medium density is developed we can expect more significant developments with 50 storey buildings”.
See Professor Newman’s recent article in The Fifth Estate, Trackless trams, land development and integrated urban futures
The dilemma continues
The dilemma facing governments in WA and elsewhere is, essentially, this: do we placate Australians still enamoured by the quarter acre dream and developers more than happy to cater for it (“responsible growth” be damned) or do we make some hard decisions, get labelled communists but help save the environment.
Try explaining that quandary to Joe and Josephine Public, would-be single house and landowners.
In the absence of the checks and balances one might expect from, say, a local council, planning decisions of the kind made by a WAPC are undemocratic, and have the potential to sideline questions traditionally seen as central to proper and orderly planning. Questions like “does a high-rise ‘fit’ with its surroundings?”; “will it be of sustainable and sturdy design?” and “what are its impacts on land use and local infrastructure?”
To those queries we can add a more recent one, posed by traditionalists: “will we [God forbid] wind up like Penshurst (NSW) with its 83 per cent medium and high-rise homes?”
Outcomes will not be perfect – far from it. But can aspiring home-owners and those who build their homes be trusted to “take one for the team” and invest or build wisely without a bit of “Nanny State” supervision?
Take one look at a map of sprawling Perth, or the air quality of sprawling Las Vegas. The answer is “no”.
Proponents of absolute freedom believe in many things, some of them sublime but others ridiculous, like the right to eschew vaccination (thereby putting others at risk) or to refuse to put on a seat belt. These are forms of retrograde liberty, just like the “freedom” which enables the viral spread of suburbia.
Given the choice between such “freedoms” and the planet, this cosy two storey terrace dweller chooses the latter. More Mark McGowans, please.
UPDATED 2 PM 7 June 2023 – this article has been amended with additional comments from Peter Newman to elaborate on the importance of good planning outcomes.
