Protecting Neighbourhood Character

25 Feb 2025

Layer by Layer: Protecting Neighbourhood Character in Perth’s Growing Suburbs

In this article, TBB Senior Consultant Monique Thompson unpacks the concept of ‘neighbourhood character’, what it means, whether the planning framework adequately protects it, and whether any improvements can be made or are indeed warranted.

Housing affordability and urban sustainability are linked to the delivery of urban consolidation, or so the Western Australian planning framework suggests in Perth and Peel @ 3.5million (‘Frameworks’). The Frameworks recognise that the ‘business-as-usual’ (‘BAU’) development model is no longer fit for purpose, and that additional infill housing and employment areas are required as a matter of priority.

However, continued community resistance to increased urban density is one of many challenges that decision-makers and development proponents continue to face. A concern frequently cited in community objections to increased urban density is: perceived (or actual) loss of neighbourhood character.[1]

Is this another battle-cry for the NIMBY’s (‘Not-In-My-Backyard’) amongst us; or, in light of the State government’s push for greater housing affordability and urban consolidation, does neighbourhood character warrant special consideration and protection?

Neighbourhood Character

What is it?
There is no specific, or certain, definition of ‘neighbourhood character’ in Western Australia. However, its meaning can be inferred by reference to various planning policies and documents at both State and local government levels of the planning framework.

The R-Codes (‘Residential Design Codes’) defines ‘local character / local identity’ as: ‘the natural, cultural, and historic characteristics of an area that are intrinsic to the locality, and which the local community relate to or as defined in the local planning framework.’

A related policy: State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of the Built Environment (‘SPP7.0’) states: ‘the distinctive characteristics of a local area include its prominent natural and built features, social, economic, and environmental conditions, the overall qualities of its built form environment, local Aboriginal culture and history and significant post-settlement heritage.’

These definitions on their own do not offer a clear sense of meaning. However, when read in full, the R-Codes identify several provisions that inform a neighbourhood’s ‘character’. These include: setbacks, site coverage, building height, private open space and landscaping, materiality, layout of streets, vehicular access, and land use.

Most notably, it must be recognised that ‘neighbourhood character’ is inherently site specific and local in its application. That is, the ‘neighbourhood character’ of Area A, whilst it may share similarities with, will not be the same as Area B.

There can be no specific definition of the term: 'neighbourhood character'.

How is it protected?
Similar to ogres in DreamWorks’ Shrek, the Western Australian planning framework is like an onion. Not because it stinks, makes you cry, or sprout little white hairs, but because it is complex, and has layers.

The protection of neighbourhood character is embedded at every level of the onion (the planning framework) – from the macro-level (State), right down to the micro-level (local).

At the State-level, key instruments like the State Planning Strategy 2050, the R-Codes and SPP7.0 include provisions which enable the broad protection of neighbourhood character. That is, it establishes a broad set of principles to guide development outcomes which cultivate a sense of place and identity for inhabitants of a place.

These state-level planning instruments provide the building blocks upon which local governments prepare and implement policies to establish a specific set of development controls which protect key design elements that contribute to a locality’s distinct identity and character.

Specific provisions included within a local planning scheme, or local planning policy, are some of the ways in which local governments can identify areas that warrant distinguished development controls. For instance, the City of Joondalup’s local planning framework identifies several housing opportunity areas which aim to balance the preservation of established neighbourhood character and amenity against the delivery of new developments that meets changing community needs.

The Layers

Are they protective, or obstructive?

With growing emphasis for urban consolidation, neighbourhood character across the State is at risk of deterioration if it is not adequately protected.

It might be surprising, but recent studies of several cities (including Perth) have identified that the most common form of urban infill across Australia is not apartments, despite how often they appear in the media. Instead it is in-fact small-scale (often battle-axe style) subdivisions.[2]

The prevalence of these small-scale subdivisions (ie. 2- to 4-lots), whilst delivering ‘quick-wins’ for State-wide housing targets, has resulted in a significant decline in private greenspace as backyards are transformed into space for new, often large (ie. 4-bedroom, 2-bath) single and/or grouped dwellings.

Duncraig, a suburb in Perth’s north-west corridor has recently undergone rezoning to help increase housing density. Figure 2 illustrates the resultant reduction in private greenspace made possible by this ‘upcoding’.

Focusing on the unshaded lots, the comparison clearly demonstrates a loss of private greenspace. Which leads me to question: did / does the City have appropriate mechanisms in place to protect its neighbourhood character? From this aerial photograph alone, it would not appear to be so. Yet, it has a local planning policy which seeks to manage urban growth whilst preserving the unique character of its neighbourhoods.

Whilst it is afforded ‘base-level’ protection at the State-level, protection of neighbourhood character at a site specific-level depends upon the existence of precise, and carefully tailored, development controls contained within an applicable local planning scheme or policy. This presents several challenges.

Firstly, never mind that not all local governments have adopted a customised suite of development controls either through its local planning scheme or otherwise, section 257B(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (‘PD Act’) provides that the Deemed Provisions prevail over any local planning scheme to the extent of the conflict.

Simultaneously, Clause 61 of ‘Schedule 2 – Deemed provisions for local planning schemes’ (the ‘Deemed Provisions’) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the ‘Regulations’) provides exemptions from the requirement to obtain planning approval for certain kinds of developments. These exemptions include (but are not limited to):

• demolition of single houses
• construction of single houses which comply with the R-Codes (outside a heritage area).

The Western Australian Supreme Court (‘WASC’) recently held that pursuant to section 257B of the PD Act, any provision within a local planning scheme that conflicts with the Deemed Provisions is rendered inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency. This thereby affirming that the Deemed Provisions prevail over any local planning schemes.[3]

Put simply, section 257B(3) and clause 61 has the effect of undermining a local government’s ability to protect neighbourhood character. Section 257B(3) strips local government’s of their ability to impose development controls tailored to protect neighbourhood character. At the same time, clause 61 exempts certain developments from requiring development approval, thereby preventing local government’s from otherwise assessing their impact and being able to effectively protect neighbourhood character.

Even when planning approval is required, several challenges remain. A key issue is that development controls intended to protect local amenity and character are often contained within local planning policies. Because local planning policies are only documents of ‘due regard’, decision-makers are not bound by them. So long as a proposal aligns with the broad policy objectives, decision-makers have the discretion to approve variations, thereby weakening protections for neighbourhood character.

It is recognised that local governments, which create local planning policies, are unlikely to support variations that undermine the very protections they intend to implement. However, alternative approval pathways, like: Development Assessment Panels (‘DAP’) mean that the decision to approve (or refuse) a proposal no longer rests with the local government. This transference of decision-making can lead to planning outcomes that weaken local priorities and community expectations.

It is evident from the above analysis that the layers within the Western Australian planning framework serve both protective and obstructive functions. On one-hand, State-level provisions provide a baseline for establishing planning control, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions. On the other, the overriding effect of the Deemed Provisions and alternative approval pathways (ie. DAP’s) can weaken the ability of local governments to protect neighbourhood character at the local-level.

Delete, augment or replace?

A study on urban regeneration in suburban Melbourne highlights the adverse impacts of backyard subdivision and advocates for precinct-scale planning. According to the study, this approach facilitates higher-density urban renewal in a manner that preserves local amenity and character.

The study argues that precinct-level planning, which promotes land assembly, can achieve a balance between increased housing supply and the preservation of neighbourhood character. However, to implement this solution effectively, the study suggests that a statutory, rather than a strategic, planning response is essential. The study assesses three potential scenarios:

1) a new greyfield precinct zone

2) amending existing zones

3) augmenting existing zones.

The findings of the study suggest that augmenting existing overlays, despite its own set of challenges, is the most practical option for facilitating precinct-level regeneration. This study inspires an opportunity to examine the Western Australian planning framework in a similar manner, exploring which statutory mechanisms can be deleted, augmented or replaced to better incentivise land assembly and a coordinated approach to urban consolidation.

Concluding remarks

Ultimately, the Western Australian planning framework warrants review to ensure balance is achieved between preserving the existing neighbourhood character of an area and delivering residential redevelopment outcomes that seek to satisfy changing community needs (ie. urban growth), and that neighbourhood character is not just acknowledged but meaningfully protected.

This requires a nuanced approach that strengthens local influence through meaningful community engagement, promotes sustainable infill developments through the efficient use of land, and aligns planning controls with the long-term vision for Perth’s growing suburbs.

 

Further reading

[1] Maginn, P., and Foley, N. (2017). Perth: From 'Large Provincial City' to 'Globalising City'. Planning Metropolitan Australia, edited by S. Hamnett and R. Freestone, 124-147. New York: Routledge.

[2] Gallagher, R., Sigler, T., and Liu, Y. (2020). Protect the Brisbane backyard! (Except from subdivision for additional house construction). Australian Planner, 56(4), 278-289.

[3] McComish v Shire of Peppermint Grove [2024] WASC 502.