Perth Voice Interactive

THE Lyric Theatre development planned for Maylands has been granted a re-approval after commencement of works were delayed several years.

The issue has brought together two oft-divergent community groups with a litany of concerns over some of the details that they say could force existing traders out of business.

The seven-storey mixed use project by developer ADC was approved in its current form by Bayswater council in 2022, and it was given a raft of development bonuses. 

In return for keeping some of the old walls of the heritage theatre, a split council voted to charge them none of the usual “cash-in-lieu” payments typically required for a lack of parking. 

Such cash-in-lieu is meant to go towards other traffic-easing improvements such as public transport, bike lanes, or public carparks.

They were also allowed to skirt the usual requirement to widen the adjacent Lyric Laneway. They would have had to widen it by 1.5m under the planning scheme, but were instead given concession for a minor 0.5m widening under the justification there was an electrical transformer in the way.

But Bayswater were told this week that in the years since that original approval the transformer has been shifted in the newer plans, removing the justification for not having to widen Lyric Lane.

The project has broad support but these concessions have angered many locals who fear greater congestion stemming from a lack of parking and a narrow laneway. 

Two groups with often divergent interests – the Maylands Business Association which represents the traders, and the Maylands Ratepayers and Residents Association which represents other locals – have both called out these concessions as unfair.

Transformer

In a letter to council the MBA chair Rebecca Hall wrote: “Given the significant parking shortfall already affecting the area, additional concessions… should not have been granted as they worsen the strain on nearby businesses and residents.

“The combined effects of increased parking demand, reduced community parking, and insufficient laneway access will have a detrimental impact on nearby businesses. For some, this could prove unsustainable, potentially forcing closures and harming the local economy.”

And on the curious continued concession that permitted ADC to not have to fully widen the laneway, she wrote: “ The insufficient widening restricts vehicle and pedestrian access, complicates vehicle turning (especially from the Indian grocer car park), and increases traffic challenges.”

A letter from MRRA chair Lois Moir echoed many of these concerns, likewise arguing that it’d worsen traffic and “this laneway width exemption should not apply” given the current plans change the transformer location.

Both groups requested council deny the approval until the issues are addressed. ADC have asked for an extension of the previous approval because their time limit to commence works expires in February 2025. If the company doesn’t start by that date, it will need a fresh approval.

While ADC says its started pre-sales of apartments and has been finalising contractors to build the project, construction has yet to actually start and it’s asked for another 12 months. 

Only one Bayswater councillor spoke up against the re-approval at the December 10 meeting.

Cr Elli Petersen-Pik said: “I do not recall any issue, specifically a development, that attracted opposition from both the major stakeholders in one suburb,” referring to both the MBA and the MRRA seeing eye-to-eye on the concessions granted to ADC.

Bayswater council’s director of development Bianca Sandri had declared an “impartial” interest as ADC was a former client of the planning firm she founded, Urbanista Town Planning (Ms Sandri stood down from her director role at Urbanista after taking her job at Bayswater).

But unlike a direct financial interest, the impartial interest declaration did not require Ms Sandri to leave the room during debate, and she advised councillors that legal precedent indicated they should consider the extension of approval on three grounds: 

“That the planning framework has not substantially changed,” she said, and commented: “Which it has not.

“Whether the development would likely receive approval now,” Ms Sandri continued, and then answered: “Yes, given that the framework has not changed, so therefore the outcome of the decision would not be different.

“And whether the proponent has actively, and relevantly, or conscientiously pursued the development,” Ms Sandri said, then advised: “And as outlined in the report, it is the officer’s view that they have.”

Cr Petersen-Pik disagreed, arguing that changes since the original approval posed a challenge as to whether the plans would get approved today: “I argue that some significant things have changed since the original approval,” notably that transformer that was previously blocking the laneway widening.

Revised

Along with the parking shortfall, he said “this will take us backwards from our attempts to make the main shopping strip more pedestrian friendly.

“Therefore while I acknowledge the benefits of the planned investment in the town centre, it is my view that the plans should be revised and returned to us for reconsideration, and fresh consult should occur before a decision is made.”

But Cr Petersen-Pik was the sole vote against the re-approval, with councillors Assunta Meleca, Steven Ostaszewskyj, Josh Eveson, Sally Palmer, Michelle Sutherland, Lorna Clarke, and Giorgia Johnson voting in favour.

Councillors Dan Bull and Nat Latter removed themselves from the chamber (and the vote) over conflicts of interest. Cr Latter is director of a company located across the road, and Cr Bull said he had an indirect financial interest as the applicant was a former client of his. It’s the prerogative of individuals as to which brand of interest they declare.

by DAVID BELL