When reviewing submissions how will the non technical or community comments be processed
Thank you for your question.
All submissions will be considered by the City of Subiaco planning staff and addressed
in a report to Council. The submissions in full, Council’s consideration of the
submissions and its recommendation on draft LPS 5 and the draft Strategy will
be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission.
Would you please confirm if I am interpreting a part of the proposed LPS 5 correctly before I make a submission?
My understanding is that the north side of Churchill Ave, between Townsend and Thomas, will be mixed use area and will allow:
• 4 Storey buildings (with 3 storey/12 metres height at the street-front).
• Roof pitch that could go to 17 metres
• Nil front setback
• Plot ratio 2
Is this correct or can you please advise the correct interpretation?
I wish to check before I lodge a submission objecting on the grounds of it being non-complementary, too dense and too bulky in relation to the mostly single-storey federation homes on the south side of Churchill.
It will destroy the amenity of Churchill Ave and undermine the heritage character. The current res-commercial zoning on the north side does not greatly disadvantage the south side as it is lower in scale.
The new zoning of the north side of Churchill should protect the amenity of the south side by containing the height to 3 storeys only with 2 storeys at the street front and a lower plot ratio and the types of uses should be restricted to complement the residential south side.
If this is not viable for the city then planning for the south side of Churchill should allow for development complementary to the north i.e increased density to match the north side or at least residential-commercial to 3 storeys.
Thank you for your question.
Your query relates to land that is subject to the Draft North
Subiaco Structure Plan (NSSP) which was endorsed by Council in May 2017 and is
subject to final consideration by the WAPC.
It is not proposed to modify the development controls of the
NSSP in draft LPS 5, and these provisions are proposed to be implemented
through clause 33 - additional site and development requirements for areas
covered by Structure Plans, Activities Centre Plans and Local Development Plans.
The development standards for Churchill Avenue, East of
Townshend Road, are provided in the table part 4(c) of Schedule D of the NSSP.
These standards set out a maximum plot ratio of up to 1.5 for mixed use
development, a street setback that is subject to the discretion of the city, a
maximum height of three storeys (9m) with one additional storey set back at
least 3m behind the façade of the lower floors or 5m from the primary street
For full details refer to page 50 of Draft LPS 5, please note that
these provisions set out a series or maximum development standards and should
be read in conjunction with the draft NSSP, which is required to be given due
regard by all decision makers in determining applications for development
If you have further queries
or require clarification please do not hesitate to contact the city’s dedicated
phone number at 9237 9284 or via email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you for posting the survey and taking the trouble to survey residents. I completed the survey but did not receive a copy of my completed survey. Is it possible to provide one?
Thank you for your question.
The system is set up to generate an automatic response with a
copy of your survey. However, depending on your specific email settings, these
automatic responses may be diverted to your junk mail inbox.
If you are still
unable to find a copy of your survey, you can request a
copy in writing by emailing us on email@example.com.
Thank you for your response. You have told me that ‘While submissions do not need to be written in technical language, they do need to be based on planning grounds ..” Does this mean that I may refer to what I see as poor planning principles/considerations (eg lack of green & open space and of new schools for the new residents)? Or should I restrict comments to “the potential impact of new development on the existing streetscape or the constraints placed on development due to small lot sizes” - which, in my opinion, completely ignore neighbourhood amenity and liveability?
I see that “A good submission should also include alternatives to the proposal being advertised.” Does this include asking WAPC to withdraw LPS5 while it considers the increased density that can be planned for the PMH site? Surely such a large site offers far greater potential for good planning principles than what must be ad hoc, lot by lot, as properties are bought, on-sold and developed.
Thank you for your question.
You can refer to what you consider to be poor planning
principles in your submission. The items you mentioned are all valid planning
considerations and you are free to articulate these issues in any manner you
choose. The city recommends that all submissions clearly outline specific
concerns that are underpinned by potential alternatives as this format will
help to translate submissions into potential recommended modifications.
The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015
do not permit the WAPC to withdraw Draft LPS 5 pending clarity on
the future planning of the PMH Site. Following receipt of the Draft LPS 5 and
any recommended modifications, the WAPC must consider the documents and submit
recommendations to the Minister for Planning to
either approve, modify or refuse Draft LPS 5.
Good afternoon. While Water Corps have recently carried out significant work, in Hay St, Rokeby and Nicholson Roads, I don't recall any of it being in the vicinity of either Shenton Park or Daglish stations. What is the Cit’s expectation of the existing infrastructure being able to cope with the recommended increased population?
Thank you for your question.
It is acknowledged that accommodating increases in population
and achieving the State Government’s infill targets is likely to require
upgrades to existing infrastructure to cope with additional demand for these
It is generally the responsibility of the State Government’s
service providers to plan for and undertake infrastructure upgrades as the
population increases. The draft LPS 5 and Revised Strategy have been referred
to all relevant service providers such that comment can be provided to the city
during the public consultation period. Through this process, the relevant
services providers are able to provide specific feedback on the capacity of
their infrastructure network to manage the demand for services affected by
proposed density increases.
Following consideration of the submissions
received, the city may need to recommend modifications to the advertised
documents to manage any issues raised by the service providers. Beyond the
Draft LPS 5 and Revised Strategy, ongoing cooperation with the State Government and other
agencies is required to ensure that appropriate upgrades
are planned for and undertaken appropriately to support population growth.
In addition to upgrades undertaken by service providers, where
development of land is proposed, applicants can be required to upgrade relevant
infrastructure as a condition of approval on an application. The nature of any
upgrade generally responds to the type of development proposed.
According to the POST, Council Administration believes that SaveSubi is spreading misinformation that, if adopted by residents, would likely make their submissions about LPS5 invalid.
Question 1. What is this misinformation? and, in order to ensure only valid submissions are received, why has Council not shared this concern with all ratepayers?
I understand from the POST that Council Administration has given relevant advice to councillors about so-called misleading information contained in material circulated by SaveSubi.
Question 2. What is this advice, and please explain clearly why it is invalid.
Many thanks, Helen.
Thank you for your question.
The city has prepared a range of information materials to assist
residents to understand the implications of the proposed changes. This includes
the city’s webpage and Have Your Say website, letters to each property owner
and occupier with details how their property may be impacted, drop-in
information sessions where members of the community could speak to a city
planner about the impact on their property and the wider neighbourhood,
advertisements in The POST and social media posts. All communication from the
city has encouraged members of the community to obtain further information or
clarification (if required) by contacting the Planning team through the
dedicated phone line and email specifically set up for this purpose.
Development information provided by the city, such as potential
building heights is based on the planning controls proposed under draft Local
Planning Scheme No. 5. Statistical information provided such as housing
densities is based in Australian Bureau of Statistics data and responds to
infill targets required to be achieved. This data clarifies the difference
between housing density and population density.
To ensure submissions are valid they should be based on correct
information which has been provided by the city. While submissions do not need
to be written in technical language, they do need to be based on planning
grounds and the city will not dismiss any submissions based on planning
considerations. Planning grounds may include concerns about the potential
impact of new development on the existing streetscape or the constraints placed
on development due to small lot sizes. A good submission should also include
alternatives to the proposal being advertised. Submissions should avoid using
language such as slums and should not reference house values as these
matters are not town planning considerations.
Residents are encouraged to seek clarification and additional
information by contacting the city’s dedicated phone number or email address at 9237 9284 or firstname.lastname@example.org
In the draft LPS5 (scheme and strategy) it references the 'The State Government’s Perth and Peel at 3.5m draft Central Sub-regional Planning Framework' (CSRPF) as a guiding document.
On page 72, 6.3 'Role of Local Government ... it mentions that "There are a number of measures, statutory mechanisms or provisions available to local governmnet to enable urban consolidation to be realised. These measures include local planning policies, scheme provsions, incentives, density bonuses, up-coding, split-coding, speicial control or development areas and minimum densities. These mechansims must be considered based on the individual requirements of the urban consolidation precincts, existing adjacent development, and the position of the local government and the community, in conjunction with State/WAPC polices."
My questions area
a) can you tell me if anyof the above measures are included in the draft Local Planning Scheme 5 , or the Local Planning Strategy or in any other Subiaco Local Government documents, that could be read in conjunction with the draft LPS5 documents going forward .
e.g In regards to 'density bonuses', could these be applicable going forward to residential zoned areas .. R20, R15, R25, R40, R50, R60, R100, Mixed Use areas or Precincts?
b) Also, could a 'density bonus' allow one of more extra storeys to be approved in any residential or mixed use zones or precincts.
c) What othere 'density bonuses' could be applied to residential and mixed use areas in the City of Subiaco ?
Thank you for your question.
The Central Sub-Regional Planning Framework includes a number of
measures which can be implemented by local government through local planning
documents such as a local planning strategy, local planning scheme and local
planning policy. Draft LPS 5 includes a range of measures to implement urban
consolidation in accordance with the State Government’s priorities. In
addition, local planning policies are proposed to be prepared to guide
development once there is more certainty on the direction of draft LPS 5.
Density and/or building height bonuses have to be detailed as
provisions in draft LPS 5 and would include a set of criteria that guide how
bonuses are applied. Decision makers would not be able to apply density bonuses
in other documents (such as the Draft Apartment Design Guidelines) as these
provisions are not proposed to be read into draft LPS 5.
Local planning policy can provide additional guidance on how
bonuses are applied but cannot contain provisions that result in additional
density or height being available for development. Draft LPS 5 provides for
height and/or plot ratio bonuses in some mixed use locations and includes
criteria that need to be achieved to obtain the bonus. There are no bonuses
available for residential zoned land in draft LPS 5.
No other height or density bonuses are contemplated by draft LPS
Could you please tell me what was R-zoning for Raphael street before the SACP was approved in November 2017?
Thank you for your question. The zoning and R-Code for Raphael Street is Residential R80 and did not change when the Subiaco Activity Centre Plan (SACP) was approved in November 2017. Under Centre R-AC0 code, the Residential R80 standards will continue to apply to Raphael Street through the approved SACP. If you would like to discuss further with a member of the Planning Services team, please contact the city on 9237 9284.
TRIANGLE PRECINCT. (3 areas )
Q1. I see that the area (triangle) bound by FINLAYSON STREET , HEYTESBURY RD AND THOMAS ST has a proposed rezoning from R20 to R60. Can you please let me know if this spot draft re-zoning to R60 was proposed by the City of Subiaco Council/Staff or was modified by the Dept of Planning WA ( WAPC)?
Q2. I see that the area at 2 Nicholson Road ( Avro House) has a proposed rezoning from R20 to R60. Can you please let me know if this spot draft re-zoning to R60 was proposed by the City of Subiaco Council/Staff or was modified by the Dept of Planning WA ( WAPC)?
Q3. I see that the area bound by Kings Road , Heytesbury Rd , Bedford Rd to Thomas Street has proposed spot rezoning from R20 to R60. Can you please let me know if this spot draft re-zoning to R60 was proposed by the City of Subiaco Council/Staff or was modified by the Dept of Planning WA ( WAPC)?
Q4. I see that the area bound by most of the East side of Bedford Ave , Thomas St and a section of Bagot Rd has a proposed spot rezoning from R20 to R60. Can you please let me know if this spot draft re-zoning to R60 was proposed by the City of Subiaco Council/Staff or was modified by the Dept of Planning WA ( WAPC)?
Q5. . What we the reasons or justifications for these 3 areas in the Triangle Precinct to be spot re zoned from R20 to R60 ?
Thank you for your question.
The proposed changes to the areas you refer to were adopted by
Council in the version of draft Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (LPS 5) that was forwarded to the Western
Australian Planning Commission. Spot rezoning is a planning term which refers
to changing the zoning of individual lots in the absence of broader
comprehensive planning. Spot rezoning is generally not applicable in a Scheme
review process which is undertaken and considers land use planning over the
entire local government area.
The following matters were carefully considered in recommending
that the properties be recoded to R60:
Encourage the minor redevelopment of properties allocated a density of R20/50
under Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (TPS 4) to allow for development consistent with contemporary building
practices and standards;
Allow for the development of appropriately sized lots which are currently
developed at a higher density than the allocated R20 zone which applies under
TPS 4; and
Considering the existing built form of Thomas Street to provide similar scaled
development at R60 and using existing right-of-way’s to provide for access.
It is noted that a heritage area is now under consideration for
the lots on both sides of Rupert Street and Salisbury Street as well as some
lots on Heytesbury Road and Nicholson Road and this will guide the city’s
approach for density and development in this particular area.
Could you please clarify what Centre R-AC0 zoning actually means for Raphael Street, Subi? Do I understand right that it was proposed in Local Planning Strategy but should be defined in Local Planning Scheme No 5? Could you please refer me where is in the documents I can find a definition of the above zoning and implications for people who live in the areas of R-AC0 zoning? My understanding is that R-AC zones introduced for activity centers. When in a residential zone the medium-high density development can be facilitated through either an R-Code (e.g. R80, R160) or an R-AC coding. Since we are in the residential zone I wonder why R-AC0 coding was selected over R-Code for Raphael street? And if it is possible to apply R-Code zoning to Raphael street instead of R-AC0?
Thanks for your question. All areas covered by the Subiaco Activity
Centre Plan (SACP) are proposed to be zoned R-AC0 which stands for ‘Residential
- Activity Centre 0’ and applies the controls in the SACP.
The SACP (as approved in November 2017)
includes controls for all development (including residential), has not been
modified since approval and is being implemented through draft LPS 5. The SACP can be found in the Document Library on the top right hand side of this
As the SACP is being implemented in draft
LPS 5, there is no proposed change to residential land uses and controls as
currently provided in the SACP. What it does mean is that the key development
standards from the SACP will be included into LPS 5 so that they have the same
legal weight as the LPS 5 provisions. Without implementation into draft LPS 5,
the SACP provisions would have due regard in the assessment of planning
proposals and not the full statutory weight of LPS 5.
For Raphael Street, R-Code development
standards still apply as per R80 density as indicated in Table 1 within SACP.
How long will the rezoning take?
What month & year do you expect it to be completed?
Thank you for your question. Following the end of the public
advertising period on 13 July 2018, the city has 120 days to consider all
submissions and submit the draft local planning scheme with a recommendation to
the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).
Once submitted, the WAPC has
120 days to consider the local planning scheme and submit its recommendation to
the Minister for Planning. The Minister for Planning, the final decision maker, does
not have a timeframe to make a decision and therefore it is not possible to give an expected gazettal date for
the finalised local planning scheme. It is estimated that the process may take approximately twelve to eighteen months from the end of the public advertising period.
As residents of this precinct who have spent a large amount of time and money trying to preserve the character of our Subiaco home, we are opposed to the plan.
Can I ask how we contact our local Councillors to put forward our concerns? Is there an email address that I can collectively notify the relevant parties?
you for your question.
contact details for all Elected Members are available on the city’s website.
a submission during the consultation period is the most effective way to have
your say on the future planning for the City of Subiaco. Residents are
encouraged to engage with the city to gain information and make an informed
submission. You can contact our Planning Team on email@example.com or 9237 9284.
Will corrected LPS 5 drafts be made available prior to the end of the submission period?
I refer in particular to the unnumbered table at the end of schedule C titled 'Other additional site and development requirements'. In this table, 'No.3' refers to 'Shenton Park Precinct near Thomas St' but then gives boundary streets from Triangle Precinct. Do the requirements for 'Shenton Park Precinct near Thomas St' refer to the section bounded by Rokeby-Austin, Rokeby-Onslow or Rokeby-Rosalie?
'No.1' refers to 'other than Thomas St' vehicle access for 'Along Railway Road' properties; similarly a typographical error has been copy-n-paste'd through the requirement column. What are the correct requirements for each item?
you for your question. It is understood that No. 3 was intended to apply to the
properties with frontage to Thomas Street between Austin Street and Rokeby
The city is not permitted to modify LPS No. 5 during the public consultation period.
Once the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) gives its approval to
advertise a Local Planning Scheme, it must be advertised as approved for
advertising, inclusive of typographical errors. Following the end of public
advertising and consideration of the submissions received, a report will be
presented to Council inclusive of a comprehensive schedule of recommended
modifications to address issues raised in submissions and to correct typographical
errors such as the ones you have raised.
Unfortunately I will be out of Perth on the information session dates for Daglish Station Precinct.
In respect of the proposed rezonings in that area please respond in detail to the following questions:
1. Will there be any prohibition on demolition of original cottages?
2. How will the zoning prevent property owners simply building bigger homes (rather than providing multiple dwellings - give need for more dwellings is suggested as a justification for zoning changes)?
3. Given the size of the lots (most are less than 520 sqm) what sort of multiple dwellings are imagined to be able to be built in the area?
4. What controls will be in place to preserve streetscape?
5. So for example how will the possibility of a large block of apartments being placed into the middle of an area otherwise containing character houses?
6. How will the environment be protected in terms of green space requirements?
Thank you for your question. While the
information sessions are precinct focused you are welcome to attend any
session that suits you.
Properties on a heritage list or within
heritage areas are protected by statutory provisions and a tailored heritage
policy adopted by the City of Subiaco. The demolition of a single house in
these circumstances would require development approval and the city does not
generally support the demolition of places which contribute to heritage. Single
houses that are not on a heritage list or within a heritage area are not
afforded the same statutory protection and can be demolished without the need
for planning approval.
The planning system does not put a cap on
the size of dwellings which can be constructed where relevant planning controls
set out in the draft LPS No. 5 and the Residential Design Codes have been
addressed. Small lots are difficult to develop for multiple dwellings and the city envisages that some land assembly may be required to realise the full development potential of land.
The current planning framework allows for
limited protection of streetscapes. The city is reviewing options to progress a
planning approach which is consistent with State policy and will ensure that
any new development does not negatively impact on existing heritage, character,
streetscape and public open space. This option may be presented as a potential
modification to draft LPS No 5.
What changes did the WAPC make to zoning proposed by the Subi Council? I think the Subi Council proposal is shown on the "Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 5 map - as endorsed by Council 8 August 2017 (NOT THE ADVERTISED VERSION)" (on the "Documents" page of this site). Is that right?
I can view that map next to the "advertised version" and spot the differences. For example, I can see houses on Gloster St that are marked R20 on "not the advertised version", but marked R60 or R80 on the "advertised version". That's useful, but a map of the changes would be more convenient, and I think other people might be interested in those changes, too. It might prevent questions to the Council such as "Why did you propose changing the zoning of my house from R20 to R60/80?".
you for your question.
advertised version of draft Local Planning Scheme No. 5 including the Scheme
Map (LPS 5) is different to the version which was endorsed by Council on 8
August 2017. The City of Subiaco required consent to advertise from the Western Australian
Planning Commission (WAPC) prior to formally advertising LPS No. 5. During its
consideration, the WAPC required the city to modify LPS No. 5 and the modified
version is the one which is subject to advertising. In regard to Residential
R-Codes, the modifications primarily focused on requiring increased density in
the Daglish and Shenton Park station precincts.
The city is required to seek feedback on the version of draft LPS No. 5 which is
advertised and each property was sent an individual letter advising of the
proposed changes to that property. The city’s original version of draft LPS No. 5
has been made available as background information. It is important to note that
these documents are not subject to public advertising and any submissions
should be made on the advertised documents.
City of Subiaco requests all feedback through submissions which will be carefully
considered in making a recommendation to the WAPC and which may include
proposed modifications. Submissions will be considered on planning grounds,
should be based on planning considerations and not focus on the party which
required the modification. In light of this, a map showing the density changes
between the city’s adopted version and the advertised version has not been
How will increased infrastructure be paid for? I assume much higher density will have impact on existing roads, power, gas, water (sewage)? Also, other items such a primary and high school education? The existing schools are already at capacity...
you for your question. Upgrading existing infrastructure is generally the
responsibility of the State Government through its relevant service providers.
The city will continue to engage with service providers to ensure appropriate
infrastructure is available and is upgraded to cater for the future population.
Both the draft documents have been referred to all servicing agencies for
comment. The City of Subiaco is responsible for local roads which will be upgraded where
necessary. These works will be continually planned as part of the city’s
ongoing maintenance programs and will be updated following the finalisation and
approval of the draft revised Local Planning Strategy and draft Local Planning
Scheme No. 5.
1) How long is it likely to take before a final decision is made on the proposed new zoning scheme?
2) If the new zoning is adopted will the current council guidelines need to be significantly revised to accommodate the major differences for the codes higher than R20 (such as 2m vs 6m setbacks, 9m vs 13m building heights, etc)? Some of the proposed changes under the new R codes seem incompatible with the current guidelines for many of the Subiaco precincts.
Thank you for your question. The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes)
Regulations 2015 set out the process for the review of local planning
schemes. Following the ending of the advertisement period on 13 July 2018, the
City of Subiaco has 120 days to consider all submissions and submit the draft local
planning scheme with a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning
Commission (WAPC). Once submitted, the WAPC has 120 days to consider the local
planning scheme and submit its recommendation the Minister for Planning. The
Minister for Planning is the final decision maker and does not have a timeframe
to make a decision.
The city will review all planning policies to ensure they are
consistent with the approved version of Local Planning Scheme No. 5.
1) Can you please tell me if houses listed as ‘considerable contribution’ and ‘some contribution’ in a Heritage Conservation Street , can be amalgamated ( ie two blocks which are soon to be zoned R60 or R80 or R100) ?
2) what is the minimum protection (if any ) does a residential house in a Heritage Street have under the new zoning ?
Thank you for your question. The
City of Subiaco provides a recommendation for subdivision applications to the Western
Australian Planning Commission who is the determining authority. Subdivision and
amalgamation in heritage areas is generally supported where the city is
satisfied that the proposal will not impact the traditional patterns and
portions of the existing lots in the heritage area, and where it is
demonstrated that the proposal will not adversely impact on the heritage
character of the existing streetscape.
Planning Scheme No. 4 and draft Local Planning Scheme No. 5 will retain the ability
to nominate heritage places and heritage areas and existing places and areas
will continue to be protected. All development (including new proposals) within
a heritage area is required to comply with the relevant heritage area policy
which aims to conserve existing buildings identified as making a considerable
or some contribution to the heritage significance of the area and to protect
the traditional streetscape character.