.png)
Development Application Submissions: Have Your Say, But Does Anyone Listen?
One of the reasons I wanted to look into how community submissions on development applications actually work, came from the redevelopment of the former Chicken Treat site in Applecross.
The proposal received 35 submissions during public consultation. Of those, 34 were objections and only one was in support. When I first saw those figures, I assumed that level of opposition would have considerable weight when the application was determined.
The development was still approved.
Judging by the extensive comments on Facebook posts and news articles about the proposal, I certainly wasn't the only person who didn't really understand how the process worked. There seemed to be a common assumption that if an overwhelming majority of people objected to a proposal, particularly something like 34 objections against one supporting submission, that should have some bearing on whether it was approved.
It made me curious about what actually happens after we click on "Have Your Say" and make a submission. What does an objection actually achieve? Does the number of objections matter? What are decision-makers required to consider? And if almost everyone who makes a submission is against a development, how can it still be approved?
I realised I didn't properly understand the process myself, so I started looking into it. The more I read, the more it became apparent that there is a fairly significant difference between what many of us probably think community consultation means and what it actually means under the planning system.
That is what this blog is about. Not whether a particular development should or shouldn't have been approved but what happens when we are invited to have our say, what happens to those submissions afterwards and how much influence they can actually have on the final decision.
Having your say is not a community vote
Almost every controversial development proposal comes with the same invitation: Have Your Say.
Plans are uploaded online, local residents receive letters, a closing date is announced and the community is invited to lodge submissions supporting or opposing the proposal.
For those concerned about a development, it can look like an opportunity to influence whether it goes ahead or not.
Sometimes it is.
But public consultation in the planning system is not a community vote. A development application does not fail because 60, 80 or even 97 per cent of the people who make submissions oppose it.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important in Perth, particularly when major developments attract overwhelming opposition but are approved anyway.
Why are development applications advertised?
Public advertising is intended to give people, who may be affected by a development, an opportunity to identify impacts that may not be obvious from architectural drawings, planning reports and technical assessments.
Under Western Australia’s planning system, some development applications must be advertised. Others can be advertised at the discretion of the local government.
Applications requiring advertising can include developments which:
do not comply with requirements of the applicable planning scheme;
involve extensions of non-conforming uses;
involve certain land uses; or
are considered more complex proposals.
A local government can also decide to advertise an application where it considers public comment appropriate.
Not every development application therefore appears on a council’s public consultation page. An application which does not fall into one of the categories requiring advertising may be determined without being advertised, although the local government can still choose to advertise other applications. (Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), Schedule 2, Part 8, cl 64(1)–(2)).
Where consultation is required, nearby owners and occupiers will often be contacted directly. The proposal may also appear on a council consultation website and, depending on the application, notices or signs can be placed at the property in question.
But you do not necessarily have to live next door, in the same street or even in the same suburb to make a submission. Councils including the City of Bayswater explicitly state that any member of the public can make a submission on an advertised proposal.
That can be particularly important where the development affects something used by the community at large, like the river, beach, park, heritage building, shopping precinct or major transport route.
What is actually considered?
This is where many submissions can lose their influence. A planning authority is not considering whether people like or dislike a proposal. It has to assess the development against the planning framework applying to the property.
This can include zoning, building height and scale, setbacks, traffic, parking, access, overshadowing, privacy, streetscape, heritage, environmental impacts, amenity and the relevant local and State planning policies.
The City of Perth, for example, specifically warns people that matters such as loss of property value cannot be considered as planning grounds. It encourages submissions to explain the actual impact of the development on the site, street or surrounding area.
This means:
“I don’t want a 16-storey building there”
is considerably less useful than explaining how the proposed height departs from an applicable planning control, causes excessive overshadowing, affects an identified view corridor, creates traffic problems or conflicts with the intended character or planning objectives for the area.
A hundred objections based on something the decision-maker cannot legally consider, does not necessarily outweigh one planning assessment demonstrating that the proposal satisfies the applicable requirements.
It is a reason why submission numbers can be misleading.
What happens to the submissions?
Where consultation is required, submissions become part of the assessment. The issues raised are generally grouped into subjects such as traffic, height, parking, noise, heritage or amenity and addressed in the planning report. The applicant may also be asked to respond to the concerns or modify the proposal as a result.
This is one area where community consultation can make a genuine difference without stopping a development altogether.
A submission might result in additional landscaping, changes to vehicle access, greater setbacks, screening, altered windows or balconies, additional parking controls, protection of vegetation, changes to operating hours or new conditions being attached to an approval.
A proposal can also be substantially modified or, where the planning problems cannot be resolved, refused.
As a result, submissions can matter, even when the development application is “approved”.
The problem is that this is not necessarily what someone believes they are participating in when they are asked whether they support or oppose a proposal.
Does consultation slow down a development application?
Yes, although not necessarily by as much as people might expect.
For an ordinary advertised development application, the minimum consultation period is usually 14 days. Complex applications have a longer advertising period, with the State’s local planning regulations requiring a minimum 28-day consultation period. Councils can also provide longer consultation periods depending on the proposal and their own policies. (Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), Schedule 2, Part 8, cl 64(6)–(7)).
The more significant difference is in the overall statutory assessment period.
A standard development application generally has a 60-day determination period, while an application requiring advertising generally has 90 days. In practical terms, advertising can therefore add about 30 days to the statutory assessment timeframe, although complicated applications can take considerably longer where amended plans, additional information, agency referrals or extensions agreed with the applicant are involved.
For DAP applications there is a similar difference. The local government’s Responsible Authority Report generally has a longer preparation period where advertising is involved.
So consultation is not just a survey added at the end of the process. It forms part of the statutory assessment.
But what if almost everybody says no?
This is where the difference between consultation and consent becomes very obvious. There is no planning rule saying that a development must be refused when the majority of submissions oppose it. Ten submissions against a proposal do not constitute ten votes against approval. Neither do 100 or 1,000.
The decision-maker is required to consider the relevant issues raised in those submissions. It can then conclude that those issues have been adequately addressed, can be controlled through conditions or do not provide sufficient planning grounds to refuse the application.
That may be legally defensible.
It can also leave the community wondering what the point of being asked was in the first place.
The Chicken Treat site in Applecross
The redevelopment of the former Chicken Treat and Hungry Jack’s site at 882 Canning Highway, Applecross is a particularly good example. The $60 million proposal was for a 16-storey development containing commercial offices, ground-floor shops, food and beverage uses.
Public advertising resulted in 35 submissions.
Thirty-four objected.
One supported it.
In percentage terms, about 97.1 per cent of the submissions received were objections.
Yet on 15 January 2026 the Metro Inner Development Assessment Panel approved the development by three votes to two.
There is an important distinction here. It would be easy to describe this as the City of Melville ignoring its residents but that is not what happened at the final vote.
The two elected City of Melville representatives sitting on the DAP, Deputy Mayor Matthew Woodall and Cr Glynis Barber, voted against the approval. The three specialist members, Karen Hyde, John Syme and presiding member Francesca Lefante, voted for it.
The recorded reason for approving the proposal said it was consistent with the relevant planning scheme and Canning Bridge Activity Centre Plan. The panel also specifically recorded that it had given “due consideration” to the submissions and considered concerns about building scale, overshadowing, view corridors and traffic to have been comprehensively addressed through the City’s assessment.
Matilda Bay takes the issue much further
The proposed Matilda Bay ferry terminal is on another scale altogether. This is not just a development affecting several neighbouring properties.
Matilda Bay is public open space, a heavily used recreational area and part of the Swan River landscape with environmental, Aboriginal cultural heritage, historical, sporting and community significance.
The proposed terminal includes a jetty extending about 140 metres into the river, floating pontoons, passenger facilities and electrical infrastructure associated with the State Government’s expanded ferry network.
When the development application was advertised in 2025, the Western Australian Planning Commission received 1,884 submissions.
Of those, 68.8 per cent opposed the Matilda Bay terminal outright. Another 13.5 per cent supported a ferry terminal only if changes were made.
The objections were not just people saying they did not like ferries. Concerns included the scale and location of the terminal, loss of parking, effects on sailing and rowing, conflicts between ferries and recreational river users, removal of trees, effects on fauna and the river environment, visual impact, cultural and heritage significance and the transformation of part of Matilda Bay from a recreational reserve into transport infrastructure.
A parliamentary petition presented in February 2026 had 2,616 certified petitioners, another 1,209 non-conforming signatures and 6,231 online signatures. The petition called for the Matilda Bay proposal to be abandoned and the terminal relocated, stressing that the campaign was not opposed to expanding ferry transport itself.
Even the City of Perth had previously resolved that it did not support the Matilda Bay terminal in its proposed form and called for further consultation with the State Government.
The WAPC nevertheless approved the terminal in December 2025.
The planning position was essentially that the concerns raised through consultation could be addressed through the design, management measures and conditions attached to the approval.
For the people who spent considerable time preparing submissions, attending meetings, organising petitions and raising technical, environmental and historical concerns, it is not difficult to understand why that outcome created the feeling that consultation had occurred without the community actually being heard.
And the consultation is still continuing
The unusual part is that approval of the physical terminal did not end the regulatory process. As of September 2026, the Public Transport Authority has lodged a separate development application with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions to operate five new electric ferries on the Swan and Canning Rivers. Public feedback on that application is open from 31 August to 29 September 2026.
There have also been separate environmental approval processes. In August 2026, the Environment Minister dismissed appeals relating to an environmental decision enabling the first stage of construction, after the Appeals Convenor received 60 appeals.
For opponents, this creates another problem with the way the public is consulted on major government projects. Consultation can be divided between planning approval, environmental approval, vegetation clearing, river management, heritage and operational approvals. Each process may examine a different part of the project.
A person looking at the whole proposal may see one enormous development and ask a simple question: Should this really be constructed here?
When government is also the developer
There is also the question of how independent the process can appear when the State Government itself is behind the project. With an ordinary private development, the government is the regulator assessing somebody else’s proposal.
With a major public infrastructure project, government agencies can be the proponent, planner, referral agency and decision-maker at different stages of the same project.
Whilst the Matilda Bay project has gone through planning, environmental and other approval processes, and thousands of submissions have been received, public confidence depends on more than just completing each required stage.
If a government has already announced, funded and publicly committed itself to delivering a major project before community consultation is completed, people can reasonably question how realistic refusal actually is.
The danger is that consultation begins to feel less like:
“Should we do this?”
and more like:
“Tell us what concerns you have about something we have already decided to do.”
Those are very different forms of consultation. So are community submissions pointless?
No.
Community submissions can expose problems overlooked by consultants, provide local knowledge, result in design changes and additional conditions, strengthen heritage or environmental protections and occasionally contribute to a proposal being substantially changed or refused.
They also create something else which is easily overlooked: a permanent record of what the community said before the decision was made. The importance of that record may only become clear years later.
If traffic problems arise, vegetation dies, a heritage place is damaged, measures intended to reduce the impacts do not work or an environmental impact occurs exactly as residents warned it might, the submissions establish that the issue was raised before approval.
But we also need to be realistic about what “Have Your Say” actually means:
It means you have the right to make a submission.
It means relevant planning concerns should be considered.
It can influence the design and conditions attached to a development.
It does not mean the community gets the final say.
Matilda Bay demonstrated this on a much larger scale with 1,884 submissions, widespread opposition, sporting and community groups campaigning against the location and thousands of people signing petitions.
Both projects were approved.
So perhaps the real question is not whether Western Australians are being given enough opportunities to have their say.
It is how much weight that say actually carries when the planning requirements allow a development to be approved, or when the State Government has already made the project one of its priorities.
Comments