Cambridge calls for major changes to Part 11B Significant Development

Published on 22 May 2025

The Town of Cambridge has taken a strong stand for the local community and endorsed the Western Australian Local Government Association’s (WALGA) advocacy position that calls for changes to the Part 11B Significant Development Pathway and other recommended amendments to the State Government’s current development decision-making processes.

At a Special Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 20 May, in a unanimous vote, Council endorsed WALGA’s advocacy position on State development applications and decision making.  The Town of Cambridge strongly believes that changes are required to the State Government’s planning approval processes to ensure the voice of communities is appropriately heard and local planning frameworks remain the guiding instruments for development in our local areas.

In endorsing WALGA’s advocacy position, the Town called for the strengthening of WALGA’s position in relation to the Part 11B Significant Development Pathway. 

The Town has proposed increasing the cost threshold for development value under the pathway from $20 million to $100 million.  Increasing the threshold would ensure the pathway is reserved for developments of State significance rather than smaller, more localised developments.  The Town firmly believes that decisions on local development proposals are best managed at a local government level, where community views and local planning frameworks can better inform decision-making processes. 

WALGA and the Town’s position also calls for other reforms to the Part 11B pathway that include:

• aligning statutory timeframes with DAP and Local Government determined development applications
• ensuring all developments are consistent with applicable statutory planning instruments, specifically local planning schemes or planning instruments that have been reviewed in the past 10 years, or at a minimum, providing comprehensive guidelines for applying extraordinary discretion
• deleting references to 'mandatory significant development' to ensure the Part 11B Pathway remains entirely opt-in
• removing the ability for the Premier to give authorisation for the lodgement and determination of an application.
• The Town also called for WALGA to amend its existing Advocacy Position on Third Party Appeal Rights to include reference to any significant development pathway, in addition to the current reference to development assessment panels.

The Town also sought to strengthen WALGA’s calls for decision-making on development applications to be consistent, accountable, and accessible to local communities.  In addition to WALGA’s position that local planning frameworks are applied and considered in line with their statutory weight, the Town also proposed a fourth element: that decisions are based on objective, unbiased, and informative officer reports that provide necessary consideration of planning frameworks.  This strengthening of the position comes from the Town’s recent experiences with the Statutory Planning Committee regarding development applications in City Beach and Wembley.

Council also supported WALGA’s call for reforms to the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) system.

For more information about WALGA’s draft advocacy position, visit Latest News | WALGA

Comments attributed to Deputy Mayor Ben Mayes

“Local planning frameworks are just that, local.  They represent a three-way contract between the Town, our community and the WAPC. Planning frameworks capture the community’s lived-in knowledge of an area and effectively outline our community’s vision for the future of their neighbourhood.  This local knowledge is irreplaceable, and its importance should be held in much higher regard.

“This is not just a Town of Cambridge issue. There are currently 18 applications within the Part 11B pathway.  Developments in Claremont, Sorrento, Nedlands, Rockingham, South Perth, Inglewood, Woodvale, Pinjarra, Busselton, and others. We encourage all local governments with Part 11B applications to vigorously assess each proposal against their own local planning frameworks and resolve to refuse proposals which do not align with those frameworks.”