CITY of Subiaco will continue to address public concerns raised in submissions to the draft Local Planning Strategy (LPS) and Local Planning Scheme Number Five (LPS5), and suggest improvements to the WA Planning Commission (WAPC) by February 15.
At a council meeting on Tuesday night councillors agreed with Cr Murray Rowe’s Elected Member’s Motion to continue with the LPS and LPS5 planning process.
Mayor Penny Taylor said the council supported Cr Rowe’s motion because promised community certainty and a clear direction of Subiaco’s Scheme and Strategy process.
“There’s a statutory framework from the State Government and we plan on handing in our improved scheme on time,” she said.
The City has analysed more than 1000 comments on draft LPS5 and LPS.
Community concerns raised during this period include protection of character in Subiaco homes and heritage areas, increased blanket density, the impact of increased population on traffic, parking and access to community services and the impact of existing homes and neighbourhood development.
“We expect, in my opinion and depending on the decision of council, to improve the scheme so it addresses the community concerns and looks to preserve the things we love while looking for appropriate places for responsible density,” Ms Taylor said.
WAPC Chairman David Caddy met with the mayor, chief executive, councillors and executives last month to discuss the LPS5 process and the reasons behind the WAPC modifications to the City’s original scheme.
Cr Rowe said the council did not support the draft WAPC LPS and LPS5 but would work towards creating a scheme and strategy that would protect the character and streetscapes of the city.
“Mr Caddy said the WAPC would strengthen character and heritage and the areas we were trying to protect,” he said.
“The conversations we heard I thought were encouraging.”
Cr David McMullen’s motion to finalise the draft LPS before the LPS5 and ask the WAPC to provide more time for the City to finalise the scheme was lost.
Cr McMullen said Cr Rowe’s motion was “nonsense”.
“This motion is a nonsense as we’re already on this motion – what useful purpose does this motion serve,” he said.
Councillors will consider a recommendation to the WAPC by February 15.