‘I guess that at the end of the day a lot of Cottesloe would not have gone to eight levels at those two sites, and they would have been happy to go to five storeys,’ Mrs Dawkins said.
Work to replace TPS3’s predecessor started in about 2004, after which the council’s Inquiry by Design study showed three to five storeys on the beach would provide the small bar, caf�, restaurant and low-key residential beachfront strip wanted by residents.
However, in 2011 the State Government, facing vocal local opposition to heights greater than five storeys, and land owners lobbying that height was needed to make any new buildings profitable, told the council to revise TPS3, prompting the council to start and then withdraw from Supreme Court action about the request.
At the beach, eight storeys will now be allowed at the Ocean Beach Hotel, six at the Il Lido Restaurant. Five-storey development will have to be set back 10m from any three-floor building at street level when the plan is gazetted, expected next month.
Mrs Dawkins said TPS3 would allow streets behind the beach to keep ‘attractive amenity’ but good design would be needed by developers to create a small bar, caf� and restaurant strip, with a ‘useful’ apartment population and holiday accommodation, but she expected change at the contested sites could take about 10 years.
Keep Cott Low president John Hammond said he was still concerned about the beachfront because the Government would have the final say on the sites and the announcement of 16 storeys at the Subiaco Pavilion, after a two-year battle with that City’s council, last week.
‘At the end of the day, the desire for good design may provide minimal protection given what happens in Perth, and now Subiaco, and what happens on Cottesloe Beach would still be too bulky and high,’ Mr Hammond said.
Asked how good design would be ensured and if council mergers would create new opportunity for higher beach limits, a Department of Planning spokeswoman said TPS3 would guide both development applications decided by the council and a development assessment panel.
See Smithy’s View page 10.