The Supreme Court has backed the authority of the state government’s development assessment panels, after dismissing a challenge to a $15 million office project in Subiaco.
Subiaco resident and lawyer Angela Hamersley had disputed the DAP’s decision-making process for the project, which was backed by architecture firm Meyer Shircore.
This is the first time a resident has challenged a DAP decision and consequently it has been characterised by both critics and supporters as a test cast of the state government’s fledgling development application process.
Ms Hamersley owns one of the historic town houses on Catherine St opposite Meyer Shircore’s proposed office site.
Justice John Chaney this morning dismissed Ms Hamersley’s challenge to the validity of the DAP approval, including her claim that alterations to the plan, which were relied on to grant the assessment panel approval, should have been advertised.
In his ruling Justice Chaney says “the practice of amending plans to accommodate concerns of a planning authority or of objectors to a proposed development is common place and entirely consistent with an efficient planning system.”
“I find that the City (of Subiaco) or (Joint Development Application Panel) JDAP as the relevant decision maker was not obliged to advertise the revised plans…that is because the revised plans did not…alter the essential nature and character of the proposed development.”
Despite failing to build a sufficiently strong case to support her claim that the DAP made a number of jurisdictional errors, Ms Hamersley’s legal action has held up Meyer Shircore’s plans for their Subiaco site by 12 months at a cost of more than $400,000, according to director Stephen Shircore.
Ms Hamersley was not available to comment on the outcome or whether she planned to pursue any further legal action.
One option would be to appeal the judgment to the WA Court of Appeal.
The 22-month old DAP process does not provide any channel for third party appeals however an individual can challenge the validity of the process in the Supreme Court.
Ms Hamersley’s legal counsel Glen McLeod said the introduction of the assessment panels had unwittingly drawn attention to the absence of any third party appeal process for planning matters in WA.
“Developers who have so long wanted the DAP system may reflect sometimes that you have to be careful what you wish for,” Mr McLeod said.
“Having the DAP opens up the question of third party appeals.”
Any development application valued at over $7 million automatically goes to an assessment panel, which is made up of two local council representatives and three specialist members.
The state government launched the panels in a bid to streamline the approvals process in WA and inject some certainty into the system.
