Another South Perth building that will 'entomb' neighbours has been approved, despite policy to stop such developments is merely awaiting a rubber stamp.
Recently, South Perth residents have complained about living in 'coffins', as high-rise buildings with zero setbacks wall them in.
Taken aback by the storm of development that resulted from its new town planning scheme, South Perth council said it was an oversight the scheme could not prevent, but a scheme amendment would stop such situations recurring.
It passed the amendment last Tuesday and it is now awaiting ministerial approval, but a state development assessment panel on Thursday approved a Charles Street development without regard - despite regulations that state any amendment is automatically relevant and should be given 'due regard'.
"Rationale was that the amendment wasn't certain, and it wasn't imminent," resident Paul Ruthven said.
Save the South Perth Peninsula Action Group had even written to Planning Department Director General on April 19, flagging the situation and asking her to instruct the DAP on its obligations with regard to considering the amendment when making its decision on the development.
If the DAP had taken the amendment into account, it would have had to mandate a side setback of three metres. It also already had a discretionary power to mandate a three-metre setback, but chose not to exercise it.
As a result, the neighbouring windows of 24 Charles Street will look on to a blank wall, three metres away.
Mr Ruthven said he was 'extremely angry' about the decision.
"The DAP chose to completely ignore the new provisions," he said.
"Whilst they made some improvements to the front, by requiring a four-metre setback for part of the frontage, the only change they made on the side was superficial - essentially it was about what the surface looked like.
"We lose most of our sunlight on our eastern boundary."
He said one of the South Perth council representatives had proposed adding a side setback but could not get a seconder.
As a City of South Perth officer had neglected to provide the DAP with an alternative recommendation, adding a side setback was seen as requiring a complete redesign and this was discussed at the meeting as being unfair to the developer.
"Instead of sending a message to the developers that they should take the amenity of residents into consideration when submitting their plans, the DAP has sent the opposite message," Mr Ruthven said.
"That is, that they should submit the most egregious plans possible within the rules, that maximise profits, and require such significant structural changes that the DAP will be reluctant to ask for a redesign."
The Department of Planning was contacted for comment.
