Planners, City of Canning told to ‘focus’ on housing plan for Rossmoyne woman with special needs

State planning officials have complained about how long it is taking to resolve an application to build a home for a woman with special needs.

A Rossmoyne family wants to use land adjacent to their property for a $4.6 million building that would consist of two separate two-storey residences.

Each floor will be approximately 400 m2 and each will have its own kitchen, laundry and four bedrooms.

There will also be a basement with eight parking spaces.

The ground floor is intended to be used primarily by the owner’s daughter and her caregivers.

A planning application said the girl had significant mental and functional impairments and needed two full-time carers and a “significant” amount of equipment.

His family wanted to give him the opportunity to live independently in functional accommodation that met his high needs.

The plans were first submitted in July and were delayed by the Metro Internal Development Review Panel for up to 180 days so amended plans that addressed the City of Canning’s concerns could be submitted.

The original application stated that the building was designed to “fit neatly into the prestigious riverfront streetscape” and complement nearby housing, but the city said it was “overdevelopment” and needed better landscaping.

However, new plans were not made until the end of October.

The municipality told DAP that it did not have enough time to evaluate these and wanted them to be examined by June 22.

However, panel members said the application process took long enough that they were given until March 31.

Panel vice chair Karen Hyde asked planners and city planning officials representing property owners why it was taking so long for new plans to arrive.

While Rise Urban’s Nick Grindrod said the project “stayed dormant” for several months because the owners had personal matters to attend to and were abroad, a city official said the earliest they could consider it was January 20.

Ms Hyde said it was “quite a worrying situation”.

“It’s very frustrating that the plans are submitted so late,” he said.

“The city’s response to taking more time rather than moving forward on this issue was also disappointing.

“Given the length of time this application has been under construction, the amount of assessments that have already been made and the revisions that have been made, I think it should certainly be possible to address this matter more efficiently.”

He said the proposed development would fit into the “fairly affluent” area.

Panel chair member Clayton Higham said the shortened deadline would allow better focus on the application.

Panel members and Canning City councilors Ben Kunze and Shen Sekhon voted against changing the deadline.

Cr Kunze said there was no need for a “more aggressive” date because the applicant and the council had already said they would work together.

“We are dealing with this issue here today because there was no capacity in the DAP process to allow an extension before coming to this meeting,” he said.

“It is disappointing given that it is a much-needed accommodation for the family.

“It is sad that DAP made this decision without knowing why the family did this.”