Scarborough is Perth’s latest coastline battleground, with The City of Stirling council proposing a planning amendment that would make way for a significant overhaul of the foreshore.
Scarborough is Perth’s latest coastline battleground, with The City of Stirling council proposing a planning amendment that would make way for a significant overhaul of the foreshore.
The amendment would clear the way for several 16-storey property developments at Scarborough to go ahead. Increased tourist accommodation and retail facilities are included in the plans.
The City of Stirling has been looking to redevelop the foreshore for a decade and its most recent plans, through District Planning Scheme Amendment 457, came into the public arena this year when the community was asked for feedback to the plans.
There was fierce opposition from action group, Save Our Sunsets, which is against any high-rise development.
And, more recently, Planning and Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan caused consternation among property developers and the City of Stirling when she recommended the city amend its planning proposal to an eight-storey limit after her department held its own community consultation process.
Ultimately Ms MacTiernan will have the final say, but the planning proposal must first be assessed by the Western Australian Planning Commission, which will make a recommendation to the minister.
City of Stirling Mayor Tony Vallelonga said the council’s $37 million foreshore redevelopment plan would not go ahead without monetary contributions from private developers.
That contribution would not occur with an eight-storey height limit, he said.
“Scarborough will remain as it is because private developers won’t proceed,” Mr Vallelonga told WA Business News.
“They won’t get the return and I don’t blame them because every-body expects to get a return on their development,” he said.
“Unless we go higher than 10 storeys there is no way there is profitability [for developers]. I love Scarborough and I believe that it can be one of the best tourist precincts in Western Australia if the right facility and development would take place.”
Cape Bouvard Investments commercial director Lee Pinkerton said Cape Bouvard’s plans to redevelop its site in Scarborough would be in jeopardy if the height limit was reduced.
Roberts Day managing director Erwin Roberts told WA Business News’s coastal development round-table that fixating on height issues would not result in quality development.
“I think that minister’s announcement is predictable,” Mr Roberts said.
“It’s very easy to set a height and get fixated on height. When you look at development plans and good quality architecture and the resulting developments, it’s more than just height, height is just one component.
“What we really should be doing is, rather than set a height limit, provide encouragement through design guidelines to encourage quality development that covers a range of issues, not just height, so that you end up providing the framework for quality outcomes that might go to 12 or 16 storeys.
“But it’s not just driven by height because … you may be successful in getting eight storeys and perhaps from an amenity point of view address one point, but if the architecture is not right you could end up with an eight storey brick wall effect throughout Scarborough. That in itself is not a quality outcome and is one that the residents in the community will not be after.”
Mr Vallelonga said the council’s proposal for Scarborough catered to a range of guidelines that would ensure a vibrant shoreline.
Those include commercial uses for all ground floor street frontages, a minimum of 25 per cent of dwellings designated to short-stay accommodation, development to provide visual permeability view corridors, and developer contributions.
“So it’s lots of guidelines that we have included to protect the interests of the area,” Mr Vallelonga said.
Australand State manager land, David Rowe, said people wanted amenities at the beach and the provision of development proposals such as that proposed for Scarborough would create those facilities.
“I don’t think we’ve made the most of opportunities of coastal nodes,” he said.
“We have a great long coastline and plenty of beaches but people don’t just want to stay on the beach and bake in the sun all day, they want to have a coffee or have a meal afterwards.
“And when you look at our coast you’ve got to make the opportunities and where there is private ownership take advantage of it. I see that, in the future, it would be great to have a series of focal points along the coast.
“You need other things for people to go to and interact and do things other than just lie on the beach.”
Mr Vallelogna said Scarborough was an opportune place to develop because it was on private land, the plans had the backing of council, and also enjoyed support from the local community.
“My point is that Scarborough is an icon place and if you live in Fremantle and go up the coast you’ve got no development that you can develop on private land,” he said.
“This is the most important issue; this land is owned by private enterprise, so we are not taking up any public area whatsoever.”
The provision of good facilities and accommodation for tourists was another crucial issue.
“When you ask tourists who come to Scarborough they say there are only a few restaurants and no bars and no nice little kiosks where you can grab an ice-cream,” Mr Vallelogna said. “They say they’re not coming back because they can go to other places and get better entertainment. They’re the sort of things that we need to provide.”
Amendment 457
- Maximum wall height of any building limited to eight storeys with a variation of up to 16 storeys should the proposal meet council planning objectives.
- No building would be higher than Rendezvous Observation City.
- Developer contribution to the cost of infrastructure required.
- The State Government is being sought to contribute $25m to the $37m redevelopment.
- 25 per cent of any development must be devoted to short stay accommodation.
