Where Will They Go To School?

The current debate about relocation of the Margaret Kindergarten has raised a great many questions about the future of inner urban areas and the people who live in them.

Certainly, it makes sense to relocate the kindergarten not only closer to the primary school to which it is attached but also closer to where the parents of the children live. On the other hand, those children and their families also need park space. Whilst each child will spend one year in kindergarten, they will benefit from parkland for many more years.

But the debate has also started to put a spotlight on some of the potential weaknesses of the State Government's push for higher density in inner urban areas.

One of those is that with smaller backyards and more people living in the same area, we will actually need more public open space.

Another is where will the children go to school. For decades, state governments closed inner urban schools. That process has, thankfully, ceased but already the cracks are appearing in the education infrastructure. Look at the primary schools around the Town of Vincent and they are all full and many are over-subscribed.

It is true that family sizes are falling, but there is no guarantee that the number of children in Vincent will not increase. However, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy - if schools in inner urban areas are inadequate, families with young children will choose not to live in those areas. That would be to the detriment of the diversity that we in Vincent publicly claim to value.

So where is the future planning for the education of our children and grandchildren?

We are told by the Education Department that existing school sites cannot accommodate any more children (hence, the Mt Hawthorn Primary School site cannot accommodate the kindergarten) but equally there are no more school sites planned in the Town. As some people have already said, perhaps we could do with a more innovative approach to school design and architecture to make better use of existing school sites without adversely affecting their amenity and heritage.

The most obvious planned increase in population in Vincent is for the Oxford Centre, Leederville, with the proposed redevelopment of the car parks owned by the Town. This redevelopment will produce some large buildings - perhaps one of these should incorporate a primary school with a play area on the roof. This would provide additional schooling opportunities for the children of parents who work in Leederville (and there will be many more people working in Leederville in the future) and the 'green roof' would provide environmental and energy benefits for occupants of the buildings.

Come to that, we could require green roofs for buildings in the redevelopment - that would also help provide the green open space for residents, workers and visitors.

Residents, Ratepayers and Planning Appeals - Leveling the Playing Field

I have often been asked whether ratepayers or residents have any right to appeal against a planning approval for another property that adversely affects their amenity or lifestyle. The answer is, unfortunately, 'Not in Western Australia', although why WA should be different from other states has not been satisfactorily explained.

The response when the question is raised usually (see, for example, Janet Woollard's question in Parliament in May last year - below) rests on three things:

1) the danger of frivolous or vexatious appeals - which doesn't appear to be a problem elsewhere. Are WA people likely to be more frivolous or vexatious than others? On the basis of my 12 years in local government, I seriously doubt it - and frankly we should be outraged by any such suggestion.

2) the fact that residents and ratepayers may have some rights when an appeal is raised by others. However, this can only be the case when a developer or property owner appeals against a Council refusal or against a condition of approval. In the latter case, the State Administrative Tribunal will only consider the specific condition the local government seeks to apply and which is being appealed, not whether the development should have been approved at all.

3) the democratic process, which means that the community can express a view on the performance of individual councillors by voting or by standing for Council. However, this is no comfort to those who are adversely and irremediably affected by specific development approvals. In any case, not everyone has the time or inclination to be a local government councillor, which requires long term commitment to be effective.

Vincent, in fact, goes further than any other local government, where Council overturns a planning officer recommendation for approval of a development, with our practice of being represented at such appeals by an independent planner, an elected member and one or more members of the local community - not by our planning staff, who would have extreme difficulty defending a decision that was in direct conflict with their professional advice.

However, Council cannot empower local residents/ratepayers to initiate appeals against its decision to approve a development.

Even the 'best' of Councils will occasionally not get it right. Rather than just say that disadvantaged residents or ratepayers can express a view every two years or even phone us to let off steam after the decision, we should have the integrity and courage to allow direct redress - provided there is a reasonable basis for doing so.

The current planning system is biased in favour of the developer (whether an individual or a large-scale company) who can respond to a refusal by either an appeal or resubmitting the application (with or without amendment). The developer only needs to get the answer he/she wants once - other affected property owners need to get that every time.

This imbalance means that Councils should, if anything, err on the side of caution where there is any doubt about whether a development application should be approved. There is a parallel here with the Westminster convention on the use of the casting vote:

In the House of Commons the casting vote is held by the Speaker or the chairman of a committee. The convention is that the Speaker’s casting vote always gives the House another chance to discuss the subject before any final decision is taken.

It's time to level the playing field - and a Private Member's Bill likely to be introduced into the WA Parliament this year aims to do just that.

Third Party Appeal Rights and the WA Parliament

On 17 May, 2007, the Member of Alfred Cove, Dr Janet Woollard asked the Minster for Planning and Infrsatructure:

In Victoria, third party participation in the planning appeal process has been in place since 1963, and the process is not considered frivolous, costly or irrelevant.

(1) Will the minister explain why Western Australia remains the only state in Australia in which, other than when a local council and a developer disagree on a development application, there is no right for a third party to become a party to a state appeal process?

(2) Does the minister agree that members of the community should be given the opportunity to contribute, or object, to planning applications at a tribunal level?

(3) Will the minister ask the State Administrative Tribunal to provide this Parliament with an analysis of the cost effectiveness of third party appeals, perhaps based on the Victorian model?

The Hon Minister, Alannah MacTiernan replied, in part:

Third party appeals is a very vexed issue. It is not true to say that in Western Australia there is no right to appeal, or, indeed, be joined in a matter. However, there is no right for a third party to actually initiate an appeal. I guess we need to make a judgement about what is in the best interests of the community. Certainly at this point in Western Australia’s history, the idea that we would divert precious planning resources into appeals, many of which unfortunately will be, I think, judged frivolous, is not something that I believe could be justified. I point out that local government is elected by the community. Elections are held every two years. I urge people who are not happy with the sorts of planning decisions that are being made by their local governments to stand for council. It is really important, if people are concerned about these democratic processes, that people take the initiative to get involved, rather than just stand on the sidelines.