Council's Duty to Balance Community and Developer Interests
**Summary:**The Council has a responsibility under the Planning Act 2016 to make decisions that advance the overall public interest, not just facilitating development at any cost. In recent decisions, there’s a feeling that this balance has tilted too far in favor of developer wishes over community well-being. Council must remember its duty to current residents and to the city’s future, and to exercise caution and diligence rather than approving proposals that conflict with the planning scheme.
-
Planning Act & Public Interest: Sections 45 and 60 of the Planning Act require Council (as the assessment manager) to assess applications against the City Plan and to refuse proposals that conflict with it, unless there are sufficient grounds to approve (meaning public interest grounds). Whilst other relevant matters, such as planning need may be considered, a person's financial circumstances cannot be taken into consideration. Lack of financial feasibility as a reason to support approval is indicative that a developer's financial position or preference is being taken into account, rather than a strict merit-based assessment of the proposal against the City Plan. Since the City Plan already aligns with State Planning interests, a proposal that is compliant with the City Plan plan benchmarks equally serve the public interest.
-
Community vs Developer: Residents are not "anti-development" - they are pro well planned, attractive and functional development that aligns with the plan and enhances the area. What they oppose (rightly) are rule-bending developments that make their neighborhood less livable. While development is welcome, it must balance the needs of residents and the development industry. Council must weigh the profits of one developer against the cumulative, long-term costs to the community (loss of character, congestion, infrastructure strain, etc.).
-
Unfair to Residents: When a decision to invest in a property or community is made, consideration is given to planning controls. There is an expectation that a Medium Density Residential Zone Code will remain that way barring community consultation and due process. If Council repeatedly approves high-density outcomes in a medium density zone, and repeatedly grants height relaxations, residents see their neighbourhood change radically without due process. They also bear the physical impacts (traffic, overshadowing, etc.).
-
Unfair to Developers: Developers who play by the rules – designing to 29 metres and RD6 density in Palm Beach – can rightly feel penalised when others are consistently rewarded for pushing the boundaries and threatening legal action. This could pressure all developers to ask for more, leading to a "race to the bottom" in building height, form and density outcomes not intended in the City Plan, undermining the aspiration for a "world class" city.
-
Public Confidence: Perceived inequity reduces public confidence in the planning process. People begin to believe that "developers always get what they want" or that the City Plan is pointless. Council's credibility suffers. On the flip side, taking a firm stance that City Plan provisions need to be respected restores faith that community-endorsed plans matter.
-
Avoiding Legal Battles: If Council fails to uphold its own plan, it effectively transfers the burden onto residents to fight approvals in court to seek a fair outcome. This is costly, stressful, and inequitable – everyday citizens pooling funds to hire lawyers and experts to do what Council should have done: refuse a clearly non-compliant proposal, sparing residents the need to litigate.
Conclusion: Responsible city planning, public interest and community trust is undermined when the City Plan is not applied fairly, consistently and diligently.
Conclusion
This applicant is seeking to opportunistically deliver a high density high-rise development in a location where medium rise medium density development is planned.The applicant has not provided reasons why they chose not to deliver a medium density, medium rise development in a zone explicitly mapped for this purpose. The application does not meet all of the criteria to warrant the maximum height uplift to 43.5 metres. The applicant has highlighted shortfalls in available local infrastructure which must be addressed before approving increased density. Approval would create an undesirable pattern of development occurring which undermines the City Plan intent for housing in a form, height and scale consistent with the function, amenity and desired future character of the local area.