City aims to relax strictures

The City of Albany is looking to relax stringent planning controls for the Albany Waterfront Precinct, claiming current restrictions have "severely constrained" development at the site.

Albany City Council will vote whether to advertise and seek public comment to amend the current agreement with the State Government and review clauses of a Memorandum of Agreement between the two parties that prohibits permanent living and limits building heights.

Previous attempts by the State Government to entice hotel developers at the site have failed, with developer and operator consortium Diploma Group and Quest Serviced Apartments the last potential developers to withdraw their interest in August.

LandCorp is advertising a 9599sqm hotel site block for $1.5 million, and two blocks for commercial, mixed or short stay use.

The current MoA, signed in 2007, outlines five "commitments to the community" which prohibit permanent residential activity and states the Princess Royal Harbour vista as seen from York Street should be maintained.

According to City of Albany chief executive Graham Foster, who penned the report going before the council next week, the City has received a number of requests from potential developers to relax current conditions.

"The requests are on the basis that the lack of flexibility of these controls makes development of the area economically unviable," the report says.

"Concerns have been raised that the current restrictions on building height and strict planning controls over land use that are currently exercised on the Albany Waterfront Precinct, particularly the prohibition of permanent residential accommodation, have severely constrained development in the area."

If the council agrees to seek public comment on the proposal and there is no strong opposition, design guidelines and planning documents could be revised, according to the report.

Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Russ Clark said he would support the slackening of red rape surrounding the development because it was essential for the growth of the city.

"The only way we are going to get movement is if it is viable, otherwise it's not going to take place," he said.

"So if the belief is that it's currently not going to facilitate success, then we have to look at what is viable to ensure there is development at the site."

LandCorp declined to comment on the proposal until a council decision had been made.