Perth City Councilors have rejected a developer’s plan to convert a row of buildings in Northbridge into a walk-in center for the homeless.
Landowner Sawasdee Pty Ltd had plans to convert two one-story buildings and one two-story building at 247 to 249 James Street into a Ruah community center.
But the landowner could only proceed with plans if the city approved a change of use of the existing two-story James Street building – formerly home to the Skills Institute of Australia – from educational to community and culture.
DISCOVER THE LATEST NEWS NEAR YOU WITH PERTHNOW DIGITAL EDITIONS
City of Perth staff advised the City Council to change the use of the building so that Ruah’s homeless services can be moved from their current home at 29 Shenton Street to 35 to the James Street location – just 270 meters away – to accommodate for future redevelopment.
Ruah Community Services received state approval in April to build a $15 million seven-story center for women and children escaping domestic violence at its current Shenton Street address.
But councilors rejected the move at a meeting on Tuesday for various reasons, including that a change of use was “inconsistent” with the city’s statement of intent for the Northridge district, which is to be promoted as an attractive destination for locals—And interstate and foreign visitors.
“What we are planning now is a one-time investment in the future of this district that we should not miss, but approving this change of use ignores this vision – it sends the wrong signal,” said Cr Brent Fleeton.
The proposed center would have provided services to people who are homeless, including connecting people with accommodation services, specialist services such as alcohol and drug assistance and mental health services, as well as legal services.
The center is also said to have provided emergency aid and light food for people to take with them.
Cr Fleeton said it was “undeniable” that the James Street place would get worse if downtown were approved.
“We have heard loud and clear from investors, residents, business owners, and they are saying loud and clear that the approval of this center does not add to the attractiveness of this destination – it takes away from it,” he said.
“We’ve also heard from female entrepreneurs that safety is a concern.”
Councilors also agreed that the proposed use change would “negatively impact” the amenity value and character of the area – including permanent housing – through adverse noise pollution, reductions in public safety, and antisocial behavior.
“I encourage the city and Ruah to communicate more to develop a local plan for temporarily relocating its services to a more suitable and thoughtful location,” said Deputy Mayor Di Bain.
Camera IconCurrent Lots at 247 to 249 James Street in Northbridge Credit: Commercial Property
The city council said the proposed use was “not considered incompatible with existing commercial use in the immediate area” and could be managed appropriately to minimize the impact on the homes on the north side of James Street and in the wider area.
But Cr Fleeton said councilors should not “blindly” accept the council’s advice as black and white.
“This is our job, ask questions; there are gray areas in the planning, and so our policy allows us to do what we’re doing here tonight at this meeting in full transparency with our community in mind,” he said.
The city received 71 public submissions on the development, with 64 objecting, four in support, and three seeking more information.
The main areas of concern were increased crime, vandalism, and human waste, including urine and feces, while avenues and parking lots could become a shooting range and toilet.
Other concerns included that the development could threaten a thriving neighborhood, be near a liquor store, and lose sales and revenue due to customer concerns about safety.
Camera Icon Two-storey building at 247 James Street in Northbridge Credit: realcommercial.com.au
Some landowners in the area were confused about the possibility that the move of the Ruah service would entail antisocial behavior.
Nick Hitting – speaking on behalf of the owners of 243, 233, 239, and 238 James Street – said during a briefing session last week that the council should deny the development application.
“There is an undisputed social opposition to the use,” he said.
Rosanna Ciccotosto – who owns two commercial units at 228 James Street – told the city council last week that if the development is approved, her two tenants will not renew their leases due to antisocial behavior.
The report said that while there were community concerns, the city believed the proposed development “would be able to coexist with other existing and future uses in the district”.
The landowner had no plans to physically change the existing two-story building.
It was proposed to be open only from Monday to Friday between 8.30 am and 2 pm.
The center would not have been open at night, on weekends, or on public holidays.
