Hazelmere showed both the power of community — and the problem with our planning system

Hazelmere showed both the power of community — and the problem with our planning system
We recently saw this very issue play out in Hazelmere, with the proposed large-scale data centre beside the Helena River — Mandoon Bilya.

The community raised serious concerns about the location of such a development close to the river, wetlands, Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, a school and surrounding residents.

Almost 1,900 submissions were received.

Yet as the proposal moved through the planning process, the City of Swan faced the difficult question of what grounds it could actually rely upon when making its recommendation to the State's Development Assessment Panel.

Despite the breadth of environmental, cultural and community concerns raised, the City's eventual recommendation for refusal rested on noise from the development's emergency diesel generators.

Council met on 13 May and voted 11–2 for the Mayor to make a deputation opposing the proposal when it went before the Development Assessment Panel.

The City's Responsible Authority Report recommending refusal was released the following day.

The applicant then withdrew the proposal before the Development Assessment Panel could determine it.

It was an extraordinary community outcome — but it also exposed something much bigger.

What if the noise had complied?
That is the question we should be asking.

What happens when a development may satisfy the technical requirements of a particular planning definition, but the community produces credible evidence that its location, scale or cumulative environmental impact is inappropriate?

What happens when the land is beside a river, wetland, wildlife corridor or Aboriginal cultural landscape of significance far beyond the individual development site?

And what happens when the planning framework gives decision-makers limited ability to act on those concerns?

That is why this petition matters.

Hazelmere should not simply be remembered as the development that was withdrawn.

It should be an opportunity to examine how our planning system makes decisions in environmentally and culturally significant places — and what evidence our decision-makers are actually empowered and required to consider.

With enormous development pressure coming across Perth and Western Australia, this will not be the last time a local government faces this problem.

Data centres are only one example.

The next proposal may involve housing, subdivision, industrial activity, infrastructure or a commercial operation being fitted within an existing planning definition.

The question must always be bigger than: “Can we find a planning definition that allows this?”

The question should also be:

“Is this the right land use, in the right place, and have we considered all of the evidence?”

That is particularly important for local governments entrusted with places such as the Swan River and its tributaries — environmental and cultural assets whose significance belongs to the whole State, not just the municipality making the planning decision.