Sanur’s Subi plans dealt more blows

A plan to demolish several dilapidated Subiaco shop fronts to make way for a commercial development has been deferred by authorities at a marathon planning meeting today. 

Perth developer Sanur lodged a plan to demolish the ageing facades at 424 to 428 and 440 Hay Street and build a single and a two-story commercial building earlier this year.

A Metro Inner-North Joint Development Assessment Panel today voted to defer the proposal, three to two, after a four hour debate. 

Presiding member Francesca Lefante moved the motion to defer the decision for 120 days, to seek more information about the heritage impacts, planning considerations, and structural concerns around the project. 

Mackay Urban Design director Malcolm Mackay spoke on Sanur’s behalf, describing today’s JDAP as the “last chance saloon” for the applicant.

He revealed that Sanur’s $140 million application to the State Development Assessment Unit, which it lodged last January following a protracted battle with the City of Subiaco, was stalled.

He said the SDAU's decision making authority the Western Australian Planning Commission is seeking the City of Subiaco’s signature on the application, because the city owns a laneway that forms part of the development.

Mr Macmillan said the applicant presumed the city would sign the DA, but this was not the case.

“If we can’t get the big development happening at least we could get a smaller development to plug the gap,” he said.

“It became apparent earlier this year we were getting nowhere with the SDAU process.”

He said Sanur pursued the avenue of the Minister taking over the laneway, but that did not succeed.

“The only way forwards was to lodge a new DA, hence the comment of the last chance saloon,” he said.

Mr Macmillan said the SDAU plan was a “sensitive response to the streetscape” but did not incorporate any heritage element.

When asked whether Sanur would withdraw its SDAU application, Mr Mackay said he hadn’t thought that through.

“As far as we’re concerned at the moment the SDAU is a lame horse, it’s not in the race, this is the only opportunity for us,” he said.

The latest application follows a drawn out battle with the local council over the properties, which Sanur has owned for the last 40 years.

In a rare appearance as a presenter to the JDAP, City of Subiaco Mayor David McMullen said the council unanimously supported the city officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.

“Planning is rarely ever black and white but this is about as close as it gets,” he said.

“The applicant has tried just about every mechanism under the planning system to demolish the heritage buildings which exist onsite.

“JDAP’s approval of this application would greenlight the demolition – which to date the planning system has quite rightly prevented.”

Mr McMullen added that the City of Subiaco had made its position on the site clear “time and time again”, which was that it supported density in the right context.

“Based on the stereotypes, you may not expect to hear it from a western suburbs Council, but let me be unequivocal: to the applicants, we say, go high, go big, and develop your land to its full potential; all you need to do is follow the planning framework and preserve the heritage,” he said.

Sanur's latest plans to overhaul the Hay Street shops. Image: JDAP document

Mr Mackay refuted the City of Subiaco’s claims that the buildings contained heritage value, as they were rebuilt in the 1950s and again in the 1980s.

He said Sanur was attempting to fix the buildings, which had fallen into disrepair.

He described the buildings as “an extreme risk to public” and that if the demolition did not proceed, they would be at risk of collapse.

McLeods Lawyers partner Tim Beckett said the question of whether the buildings posed a safety risk was currently before the State Administrative Tribunal.

He said this meant it was inappropriate for the JDAP to assess the project at this juncture.

“The JDAP is being asked to make a decision based on speculation,” he said.

Mr Beckett he was of the view that the buildings could be salvaged, but this needed to be proven in the proper forum.

Specialist member John Syme said the fact there was a matter before SAT was not relevant to the JDAP.

Sanur is seeking to withdraw the SAT matter, which is an appeal against the City of Subiaco’s refusal to provide a demolition permit for the buildings without a development application.

Sanur’s argument was that it should be given an exemption from obtaining a DA to demolish the structures, given the urgent need to demolish the structures given their safety risk.

It is understood Sanur looked to withdraw the SAT appeal given the matter progressed to a JDAP.

Mr Syme asked BG&E structural engineer Donald Macmillan his professional opinion on the structural integrity of the buildings.

In response, Mr Macmillan said there was a fundamental problem with the foundations supporting the facades, which put the building at risk of collapse.  

“The foundations supporting the decades are inadequate… these facades have moved a significant amount and the foundation materials below are loose,” he said.

“The buildings haven’t collapsed …[but]… we want certainty we’ve controlled all failure mechanisms … there’s no residual capacity (in these buildings) … any further settlement of these foundations is an extreme risk to these buildings.”

City of Subiaco planning manager Anthony Denholm said reports from the city’s engineer Keystone Engineering showed that the buildings were not at imminent risk of collapse.

He said the buildings were in a recognised heritage area and warranted protection.

“Neither building is at imminent risk of collapse,” he said.  

He added that the heritage classification of the buildings allowed developers to build up to 11-storeys, and that any redevelopment should retain the heritage component.

The City of Subiaco recommendation to refuse the application was based on its assertion that the buildings “contribute positively to the heritage character” of Hay Street and Rokeby Road.

“The demolition will result in the permanent loss of significant heritage fabric and the new construction does not genuinely interpret the heritage of the area, obscuring the understanding of the places,” the JDAP stated.

The pair has been at odds since 2021, when Sanur’s plans to progress a $250 million redevelopment of the strip were stymied by an engineering report showing structural issues with the buildings.

The report’s findings prompted the city to close Hay Street, angering local businesses who lost income as a result.

Sanur was made to comply with an order from the city to stabilise the buildings when the issue escalated to the State Administrative Tribunal.

The SAT agreed with the developer that the buildings held little heritage value, which the council had provided as a reason to retain the structures.

Today, the buildings are held up by scaffolding erected by Sanur more than two years ago.

Sanur took its $140 million plan to the State Development Assessment Unit after a year of disagreement between the developer and the City of Subiaco.

Few details of the application have emerged, but Business News understands Sanur plans to build a 12-storey office building with food, beverage and retail components at 450 Hay Street.