The Cook Government's initiative to "cut red tape" and streamline planning regulations in Perth's western suburbs is expected to derail a local resident's Supreme Court challenge against a $200 million property development in City Beach.
Minister Proposes Legislative Overhaul
Planning Minister John Carey announced on Monday that he is taking steps to modernize century-old, outdated legislation that still applies to the Town of Cambridge. He has proposed new legislation that would eliminate the ability for planning and development decisions to be made under the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act. This unique planning law, created by Parliament in 1920, grants the town special planning and land management powers for parts of Floreat, City Beach, and Wembley Downs.
At the same time, Mr. Carey's proposed legislation would revoke an existing local law 43, established by the town after the endowment lands were set up, which applies to developments within the western portion of the district. While most of local law 43's provisions have been superseded by the town's own R-codes and design guidelines, some elements are still used when councillors vote on minor changes proposed for developments in the endowment area, covering items such as building materials and roof reflectivity.
Supreme Court Battle at the Center
Local law 43 is at the heart of a Supreme Court dispute between Floreat resident Adrian Corp and the Town of Cambridge. Mr. Corp is attempting to overturn last year's Western Australian Planning Commission decision that approved the contentious Ocean Village high-rise development. He argues that under law 43, any proposed development within a specific part of the town requires council approval—something he believes applies to the Ocean Village project in City Beach.
Announcing the changes on Monday, Mr. Carey said the proposed amendments aim to remove an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and provide certainty for City Beach and Floreat landowners and local communities. He emphasized that the amendments would not affect the town's ability to manage planning and development matters within its boundaries, as these powers are already enshrined in contemporary legislation, including the 2005 State Planning and Development Act.
"The proposed changes will eliminate the current ambiguity that comes from having two parallel sets of legislation applying to the same planning and development proposals," he said.
Council Response and Concerns
The announcement prompted the Cambridge council to hold an urgent confidential meeting on Tuesday to discuss the proposed reform. At the meeting, councillors unanimously approved a set of advocacy positions as it moved forward with the proposed reform. Mayor Gary Mack said the town planned to review the new legislation, work constructively with the government, and consult with the community.
"At this stage, we have not been provided with draft legislation or detailed information on the proposed amendments, which means we are unable to fully assess the impacts, including any unintended consequences for our residents," he said. "While the State did hold a brief preliminary discussion with the town, we made it clear that we needed time and detail to provide meaningful input."
The council also made clear that the reform process presented a "rare legislative opportunity" to address broader issues within the Endowment Lands Act, and that a more comprehensive reform should be considered, Mr. Mack said. The mayor agreed the current system was "outdated" and claimed it often resulted in large, modern developments paying significantly less rates than they would under a standard rating framework.
"As new higher-density developments come online, this inequity will only become more pronounced," he said. "Addressing this issue now, before those developments are fully operational, is critical."
Resident's Perspective
Mr. Corp said the timing of the government's proposed reform was intentional and would effectively put his court case "on pause." He stated, "The State Government has stepped in early because they think the Supreme Court would have ruled in my favour, and so they're just trying to stop that. So clearly they think it's got some validity, even though they may not think it has validity in this particular case with Ocean Village, but the Supreme Court would have determined that."
Mr. Corp expressed surprise that the town had opposed his campaign to prove the Act could be legitimately used to approve the Ocean Village redevelopment, given the council's ongoing advocacy to bring planning matters back into the hands of local governments. "The Cambridge Endowment Lands Act gives the community and the council the right to determine what happens to that land, what gets built on it," he said. "To me, that's a lot more certain and clear than having a faceless body like the WAPC, who are just employees, they're not elected members, make the decisions."
Developer's Stance
Cambridge council has claimed that the Act was redundant in the Ocean Village case and had been superseded by its own town planning scheme, R-codes, and design guidelines. Developer Blackburne, which is building the City Beach complex now known as Ocean Grand, said this week its view remained unchanged that local law 43 and Mr. Corp's Supreme Court case would not prevent the development from going ahead.
Blackburne development director Jordan Ennis said the company welcomed the government's amendments. "We welcome any initiatives by the State which modernises outdated legislation to align with contemporary planning laws, particularly at a time when Western Australia continues to face significant housing supply challenges," he said. "The response to Ocean Grand has been exceptional, with more than 130 local buyers already committed to the project."
Construction is set to begin at the end of this year.
