Perry Lakes Redevelopment Regulations 2006

The Regulations are short and operate as procedural subordinate legislation to the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005. The principal concepts and operative terms appearing in the Regulations are the AK redevelopment area, the Deposited Plan that defines its extension, the prescribed application form and accompanying documents, and the fee schedule.

AK redevelopment area, Deposited Plan

• Regulation 2(1) declares the land shaded on Deposited Plan 52693 to be part of the AK redevelopment area. The instrument therefore uses a cadastral/plan reference to specify the extension of the redevelopment area. Regulation 2(2) ties that deposited plan to the copy held by the Western Australian Land Information Authority under the Land Information Authority Act 2006 section 5. Schedule 1 contains a depiction of DP 52693 (Schedule 1).

Application for development approval under the Act

• The Regulations operate in assistance to section 32(1) of the Act by prescribing the form and documentary prerequisites for an application for development approval. The prescribed form is Schedule 2 Form 1, labelled "Application for a development approval" and directed to the Western Australian Planning Commission (regulation 3(1) and Schedule 2 Form 1).

Documentary and format requirements

• Regulation 3(2) requires the application to be accompanied by four copies of a location plan (scale not smaller than 1:2000) and four copies of documents that fully and clearly illustrate and detail the proposed development. Those documents must include plans generally not smaller than 1:500 and written verbal specifications (regulation 3(2)(a) and (b)(i)-(ii)). Regulation 4 adds format constraints: plans must be drawn on a white background (regulation 4(1)) and must use metric measurements (regulation 4(2)). Regulation 4(3) lists the substantive items that the documents must show, including building locations and uses, access arrangements, car parking layout, loading areas, landscaping and retention of vegetation, building plans and elevations with materials and finishes, impact on streetscape and neighbours (views, privacy, overshadowing), proposed uses and operations, and any signs or advertising structures (regulation 4(3)(a)-(i)).

Fees

• Regulation 5 prescribes the fee payable with the application, using a six-tier table keyed to the "estimated cost of the development". Fees are either fixed amounts or calculated percentages applied to the excess amount in a bracket. For example, Item 2 applies 0.32% of the estimated cost for developments over $50,000 but not more than $500,000; Item 3 sets $1,600 plus 0.257% of every $1 in excess of $500,000 where the estimated cost is more than $500,000 but not more than $2.5 million; and Item 6 fixes the fee at $32,185 for developments over $21.5 million (regulation 5 and the Table).

Prescribed recipient and signature requirements

• The Schedule 2 Form 1 is directed to the Western Australian Planning Commission. The form requires owner and applicant details, formal land description (lot numbers, deposited plan or diagram numbers, certificate of title references), description of existing buildings, whether existing buildings are to be demolished, a description of the proposed development, materials and colours, estimated cost and estimated completion date, and signatures of owners and applicants. The form requires that, if signing for a company, the signatory must state how they are authorised to sign. A note at the end of the form repeats that applications must be accompanied by 4 copies of plans/specifications and the prescribed fee (Schedule 2 Form 1).

Statutory cross-references

• The Regulations explicitly reference the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005 (s 32(1)) and the Land Information Authority Act 2006 (s 5) for the plan custody. The Compilation table records the Regulation instrument’s own amendment history and commencement dates.

Terminology and approach

• The Regulations treat "development approval" as an application process that requires standardised documentary inputs and a fee. They standardise technical presentation (scale, background, metric). They also require documentation of impacts on neighbours and streetscape, signalling an administrative emphasis on visual, privacy and access effects in the materials provided to the decision-maker. The instrument does not itself set decision criteria or procedural timelines; those remain within the parent Act and any associated planning instruments not reproduced here.

The Regulations directly impose obligations on persons who seek development approval under section 32(1) of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005, and indirectly affect public bodies involved in holding cadastral plans and processing applications.

Applicants and owners

• The primary burden falls on applicants for development approval. Regulation 3(1) prescribes Schedule 2 Form 1 for the purpose of section 32(1) of the Act. Schedule 2 Form 1 requires applicant and owner details, a formal land description, estimated cost and completion date, description of existing and proposed buildings, and signatures. Regulation 3(2) and regulation 4 require that applicants provide four copies of specific plans and documents, drawn to specified scales, on white backgrounds, using metric measurements, and containing defined content (regulation 3(2) and regulation 4(1)-(3)). Applicants therefore incur the cost and time of preparing multiple, technically compliant documents, and of calculating and paying the prescribed fee (regulation 5 and the Table).

Owners are also named on the form. The form includes signature blocks for owners and applicants and instructs that, if signing for a company, the person must state how they are authorised to sign. This means both owners and applicants have an execution obligation and potential personal liability in signing the form.

Developers, architects, surveyors, and consultants

• The documentary standards imply that professional inputs will frequently be necessary. Plans of at least 1:2000 for location and 1:500 for detail, technical specifications, elevation drawings, landscaping plans, car parking layouts and loading areas require surveying, architectural and engineering inputs in many cases. The requirement to include measurements, finishes, materials and impacts on neighbours will place a compliance cost on developers in the form of consultant fees and project management time.

Western Australian Planning Commission

• The Schedule 2 form is addressed to the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Commission is therefore the statutory recipient and decision-maker for the application under the Act. The Regulations impose procedural obligations on the Commission only insofar as it must accept the prescribed form and accompanying documents; the instrument does not set out the Commission’s internal decision rules or timeframes.

Western Australian Land Information Authority

• The Regulations identify the deposited plan (DP 52693) as the record held by the Western Australian Land Information Authority under the Land Information Authority Act 2006 s 5 (regulation 2(2)). That Authority therefore has the custodial role for the map that defines the extended AK redevelopment area. Persons affected by the extension of the redevelopment area may need to consult that deposited plan at the Authority.

Local governments and neighbours

• The application form asks for the name of the local government(s) where the land is situated and includes content requirements about the impact on neighbours (views, privacy, overshadowing) and the appearance of streets and vegetation (regulation 4(3)(g)(i)-(ii) and Schedule 2 Form 1). This creates an interface with local government planning interests and the expectations of neighbouring owners. While the Regulations do not prescribe local government decision-making powers, they require applicants to provide information that local governments and neighbours commonly rely on when assessing amenity impacts.

Accountants and valuers

• Applicants must provide an "estimated cost of the development" on the form (Schedule 2 Form 1) because the fee is calculated from that estimate (regulation 5 and the Table). Those preparing applications will need to calculate or certify a reliable cost estimate to determine the fee bracket. That task may involve estimators, quantity surveyors or accountants.

Who pays

• The applicant pays the prescribed fee with the application (regulation 5). The Regulations do not create fee exemptions in the text provided. The cost burdens therefore fall directly on the person lodging the application.

Who decides

• The Regulations point the completed application to the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Regulations do not set the decision criteria or process beyond the application stage; the Commission's decision-making functions and related rights of review or appeal are governed by the parent Act and other planning instruments not reproduced here.

Geographic and project scope

• The Regulations apply to development approvals under section 32(1) of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005 in the AK redevelopment area, including the land added by DP 52693. Practitioners must check whether a particular parcel falls within the declared AK redevelopment area by reference to DP 52693 as held by the Land Information Authority (regulation 2).

In sum, the Regulations affect applicants and owners who must prepare and lodge technically compliant documentation and pay the statutory fee, professionals who produce those documents, the Planning Commission as the recipient, and the Land Information Authority as the custodian of the cadastral plan that defines the redevelopment area's extent.

The Regulations impose several discrete duties on applicants and procedural duties on the bodies implicated. Rights are largely limited to the statutory right to make an application under the parent Act, exercised by using the prescribed form. The operative duties and observable rights follow directly from the text.

Duties on applicants

• Use the prescribed form: Regulation 3(1) prescribes Schedule 2 Form 1 for applications under section 32(1) of the Act. An applicant must complete that form and address it to the Western Australian Planning Commission as shown in the Schedule.

• Lodge required copies: Regulation 3(2) requires an application to be accompanied by four copies of (a) a location plan drawn at a scale not smaller than 1:2000 that identifies the land and (b) documents fully and clearly illustrating and detailing the proposed development, including plans generally not smaller than 1:500 and written specifications (regulation 3(2)(a)-(b)(i)-(ii)). The Schedule repeats the note that the application must be accompanied by four copies of plans and specifications.

• Format and measurement compliance: Regulation 4(1) requires a plan to be drawn on a white background. Regulation 4(2) requires the documents to use metric measurements. These are mandatory formatting obligations.

• Include specified content: Regulation 4(3) specifies a non-exhaustive list of items that must be included in the documents accompanying the application. These include the location and proposed use of existing and proposed buildings (4(3)(a)); existing and proposed pedestrian and vehicle access means (4(3)(b)); car parking location, number, dimensions and layout (4(3)(c)); loading/unloading areas and access (4(3)(d)); landscaped area design and retention of trees, vegetation, fences and walls (4(3)(e)); building plans, elevations and sections, including materials and finishes and external colour, for proposed and retained buildings (4(3)(f)); assessment of the development's impact on streetscape, vegetation and buildings in streets, and on neighbours’ views, privacy and overshadowing (4(3)(g)(i)-(ii)); details of proposed use and operation (4(3)(h)); and any signs or advertising structures proposed (4(3)(i)). Applicants must provide these particulars in the documents.

• Pay the prescribed fee: Regulation 5 requires payment of the fee to be paid with the application, as set out in the Table to regulation 5. The applicant must calculate the fee from the "estimated cost of the development" and pay the corresponding amount.

• Execution and authority to sign: Schedule 2 Form 1 requires signatures of owners and applicants, and a notation that persons signing for companies must state how they are authorised to sign. This imposes an execution duty and a record of authority where a company is involved.

Presumed administrative duties implied by the Regulations

• Prepare accurate cost estimates: Because the fee is calculated from the applicant’s declared "estimated cost of the development" (Schedule 2 Form 1 and regulation 5), applicants have a duty to estimate costs and provide the figure on the form. The instrument does not prescribe who certifies that estimate.

• Provide adequate technical documentation: Given the list in regulation 4(3), applicants have a duty to provide sufficiently detailed plans, elevations and written specifications to permit assessment of streetscape impacts, privacy, overshadowing and operation.

Rights and legal positions

• Right to apply: The Regulations preserve the applicant’s ability to apply for a development approval under s 32(1) of the Act by prescribing the form and documentary requirements. The right to make the application follows from the Act; the Regulations do not create or deny that right but standardise its exercise.

• Right to rely on the deposited plan record: Regulation 2(2) anchors the identification of the extended AK redevelopment area to the deposited plan copy held by the Western Australian Land Information Authority under the Land Information Authority Act 2006 s 5. Persons can thereby locate the area by reference to that official record.

Matters not regulated in the text

• No decision timelines, appeal or review mechanisms: The Regulations are silent on timeframes for decision-making, application acceptance criteria, or review and appeal rights. Those matters sit in the Act or elsewhere and are not modified by the Regulations as printed here.

• No express exemptions or waivers: The Regulations do not include fee exemptions, scaling exceptions, or alternative formats. The requirements in relation to copies, scales, white background and metric measurement are presented as mandatory without a stated exception.

Consequences of non-compliance (inference from statutory design)

• The Regulations do not specify sanctions, but the mandatory phrasing of the duties (prescription of form, requirement to pay fee with application, requirement for accompanying documents) indicates that an application that does not comply may be administratively defective. Practitioners should treat the duties as preconditions to valid lodgement because the Regulations expressly prescribe them.

In short, the Regulations place concrete, documentable duties on applicants to use the prescribed form, lodge specified numbers of copies in specified formats with specified content, and pay a fee calculated from an estimated cost. The principal right in the instrument is the statutory right to apply under the Act, exercised by complying with the Regulations.

The Regulations themselves do not set out express penalty provisions, enforcement mechanisms or administrative sanctions. There are no penalty clauses, infringement schedules, review procedures or enforcement powers contained within the text of these Regulations as reproduced here.

What the instrument does show

• The instrument prescribes mandatory documentary and fee requirements for an application for development approval (regulations 3 and 4, and regulation 5). The text uses imperative language such as "must be accompanied by 4 copies" (regulation 3(2)) and "must be drawn on a white background" (regulation 4(1)). That form of drafting signals mandatory obligations, but the Regulations do not, on their face, say what administrative or legal consequence flows from non-compliance.

• The Schedule's note that "This application must be accompanied by 4 copies of the plan(s) and specifications for the development and the prescribed fee" places a procedural prerequisite on lodging the form. The Regulations require payment of the fee "to be paid with an application" (regulation 5). Practically, failure to pay will likely prevent an application from being accepted for processing. The instrument itself, however, does not state the process the Western Australian Planning Commission must follow where an application is incomplete or unpaid.

Enforcement locus likely outside the Regulations

• Because the Regulations are subordinate legislation to the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005, any express offence, penalty, or enforcement mechanism would ordinarily appear in the parent Act, or in broader planning legislation or general administrative law mechanisms. The Regulations do not replicate or restate such mechanisms. The text does reference section 32(1) of the Act but does not reproduce its enforcement provisions. Accordingly, the reader must assume that enforcement, refusal of incomplete applications, or penal consequences are to be sought in the Act or other planning statutes not reproduced here.

Practical administrative enforcement risks and implications (text-grounded inferences)

• Administrative rejection or return of an application: Given that the Regulations prescribe format and content for applications, the Commission may decline to accept or register an application that does not comply with regulation 3 or regulation 4. The Regulations do not state that outcome, but the prescription of mandatory formats indicates a process risk for incomplete lodgements.

• Fee non-payment consequences: Regulation 5 requires the fee "to be paid with an application". The Commission may treat an unpaid application as not properly lodged. The Regulations do not specify whether, in the case of under-declaration of cost or misstatement of cost, there are administrative follow-ups, surcharges or penalties.

• Signatory and authority implications: Schedule 2 requires that a person signing on behalf of a company state how they are authorised to sign. The Regulations do not set out criminal or civil consequences for false statements in this field; such consequences, if any, are governed by general law or the Act.

No enforcement personnel or inspectors specified

• The Regulations do not create or designate inspectors, authorised officers, or enforcement personnel. They do not allocate enforcement responsibilities among agencies.

No infringement fee schedule

• The instrument does not create an infringement notice regime or specify pecuniary penalties for non-compliance.

Conclusion on penalties and enforcement

• The Regulations create mandatory documentary and fee obligations but are silent on specific penalties or enforcement mechanisms. For enforcement powers, sanctions or processes for defective lodgement, practitioners must consult the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005 and other relevant planning law. The absence of express enforcement provisions in this instrument increases the importance of understanding the parent Act’s compliance regime before lodging or acting on a development approval application.

The Regulations reference and connect to two primary statutory instruments and presumptively operate as subordinate legislation to the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005. The text contains direct cross-references and also implies practical interfaces with other administrative regimes.

Direct references in the Regulations

• Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005: The Regulations operate under that Act and explicitly prescribe the form for applications required by section 32(1) of the Act (regulation 3(1)). The Regulations therefore function as subordinate procedural rules that standardise how applicants exercise the statutory right to seek development approval under the Act. Any substantive decision-making criteria, appeals, or enforcement powers in relation to development approvals remain those established by the Act and relevant planning instruments; those provisions are not reproduced in these Regulations.

• Land Information Authority Act 2006: Regulation 2(2) ties the identification of the Deposited Plan 52693 to the custody record held by the Western Australian Land Information Authority established by the Land Information Authority Act 2006 section 5. That connection delegates the authoritative cadastral record to the Land Information Authority and creates an interface for anyone needing to verify whether land is within the extended AK redevelopment area. Practically, this means the spatial boundary for the redevelopment area is not contained within the Regulations as words alone but is defined by an externally held deposited plan with statutory custody.

Administrative and planning interfaces implied by the Regulations

• Western Australian Planning Commission: Schedule 2 Form 1 is addressed to the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Commission is therefore the administrative recipient of applications under the Act. The Regulations do not set out the Commission's decision-making standards, time-limits, consultation obligations or referral processes; those are matters for the Act and other planning frameworks. However, because the Commission will receive standardized application packs under these Regulations, the Regulations shape its administrative intake and the nature and quality of material on which it will assess proposals.

• Local government planning concerns: The application form asks for the local government(s) of the district(s) in which the land is situated and the required documents must address impacts on streetscape and neighbours (regulation 4(3)(g)-(h) and Schedule 2 Form 1). This creates a practical point of contact with local government planning functions. Although the Regulations do not impose duties on local governments, applicants must provide information that local governments commonly review in relation to amenity, access and parking.

• Measurement and technical standards: Regulation 4(2) requires metric measurements. While the text does not reference specific building codes or Australian Standards, the metric requirement aligns the application materials with common technical standards used across planning, building, and engineering regimes. Applicants preparing materials would therefore expect to use the same units as those required by building and engineering standards.

• Fees and broader revenue frameworks: Regulation 5 establishes a fee schedule for development applications under the Act. Where other laws or instruments impose related fees (for example, building permits, local government development application fees, or state processing charges), applicants must calculate and pay multiple fees under different regimes. The Regulations do not address coordination with such other fees.

Amendments and commencement interactions

• The Compilation table lists amendment regulations and their gazettal and commencement dates. For example, regulations were amended on 29 December 2006, Schedule 1 was inserted on 7 August 2007, and regulation 5 was amended on 30 June 2011. These legislative changes interact with the temporal application of the Regulations because the date of commencement determines which version of the Regulations applies to an application lodged on a particular date. Practitioners must determine the applicable version by reference to the commencement dates listed in the Compilation table.

Limits and unresolved interactions

• The Regulations do not address enforcement or appeals and do not specify how they sit alongside other planning instruments. They neither reproduce nor alter the decision criteria in the Act. Consequently, to understand fully how these Regulations operate in practice, one must consult the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005, any development control plans referenced by the Act, and applicable local government planning schemes. Those materials are not part of the text reproduced here.

In sum, the Regulations interact directly with the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005, the Land Information Authority Act 2006, and administratively with the Western Australian Planning Commission and local government planning interests. They establish documentary and fee interfaces that align with other technical standards, while leaving substantive decision-making law and enforcement to the parent Act and additional planning instruments.

The instrument includes a Compilation table that records the original gazettal and subsequent amendments, with commencement particulars where provided. Those entries are the authoritative history contained within the Regulations themselves.

Original instrument

• Perry Lakes Redevelopment Regulations 2006, gazetted 31 October 2006 at Government Gazette p. 4603-6, with commencement 31 October 2006 as recorded in the Compilation table.

Amendment instruments and key dates

• Perry Lakes Redevelopment Amendment Regulations 2006, gazetted 29 December 2006 at Government Gazette p. 5904-5. The Compilation table records the commencement as 1 January 2007 for r. 2 (see r. 2 and Gazette 8 Dec 2006 p. 5369), and indicates that the amendments were effected by that instrument. The main text also notes that regulation 2 was amended, with the marginal annotation "[Regulation 2 amended: Gazette 29 Dec 2006 p. 5905]."

• Perry Lakes Redevelopment Amendment Regulations 2007, gazetted 7 August 2007 at Government Gazette p. 4045-6. The Compilation table shows the commencement of r. 1 and r. 2 as 7 August 2007 (see r. 2(a)); other regulations of that instrument commenced on 8 August 2007 (see r. 2(b)). The main text includes the heading "[Heading inserted: Gazette 7 Aug 2007 p. 4046]" and Schedule 1 was added with the insertion line "[Schedule 1 inserted: Gazette 7 Aug 2007 p. 4046]." Schedule 1 contains the depiction of Deposited Plan 52693 tied to the extension of the AK redevelopment area under regulation 2.

• Perry Lakes Redevelopment Amendment Regulations 2011, gazetted 30 June 2011 at Government Gazette p. 2631-2. The Compilation table records commencement of r. 1 and r. 2 as 30 June 2011 (see r. 2(a)); other regulations commenced on 1 July 2011 (see r. 2(b)). The marginal note in the main text indicates that regulation 5 was amended in the Gazette 30 June 2011 p. 2632.

Specific amendments visible in the text

• Regulation 2 was amended by the 2006 Amendment Regulations (Gazette 29 Dec 2006 p. 5905). That amendment is annotated in the text.

• Schedule 1 (Depiction of Deposited Plan 52693) was inserted by the 2007 Amendment Regulations with the heading and Schedule insertion noted in the text as having been gazetted 7 August 2007 p. 4046.

• Regulation 5, the fee schedule, was amended and that amendment is recorded as Gazette 30 June 2011 p. 2632. The marginal note indicates regulation 5 amended at that Gazette reference.

Form and minor drafting changes

• The Compilation table indicates that the instrument has been subject to amendment regulations in 2006, 2007 and 2011. The textual annotations confirm those insertions and amendments, such as the insertion of Schedule 1 and the amendment of the fee provision. The Schedule 2 form itself appears in the original instrument and is reproduced here with its fields intact.

Practical implications of amendment history

• The insertion of Schedule 1 in 2007 expanded or clarified the AK redevelopment area by depicting Deposited Plan 52693. The 2011 amendment to regulation 5 updated the fee schedule. Practitioners must therefore check the relevant dates to determine which version of the Regulations applied to a given application, especially with respect to the fee calculation and the spatial extent of the redevelopment area.

Absence of other amendment detail

• The Compilation table lists only those amendment instruments and does not record any repeals or other material changes. The text as reproduced includes the current form of regulation 2, regulation 3, regulation 4, regulation 5, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 as the operative content.

In summary, the Regulations were made in 2006 and have been amended in 2006 (r 2), 2007 (Schedule 1 insertion), and 2011 (fee amendment to regulation 5). The Compilation table and marginal notes are the instrument’s own record of those changes.

The Regulations as reproduced here do not contain or cite any litigation history. There are no judicial decisions, tribunal determinations, or case citations referenced within the text of the Regulations, the Schedules, or the Compilation table.

What the instrument records

• The Compilation table contains administrative history in the form of gazettal and commencement dates for the instrument and its amendments. It does not list any cases, litigation outcomes, or references to judicial interpretation.

Implications for practitioners

• Because the Regulations themselves contain no litigation references, they do not provide any internal guidance as to how courts or tribunals have interpreted the documentary, formatting or fee requirements they impose. Practitioners seeking to understand how a court has treated compliance with these specific Regulations will need to search external case law databases and tribunal records for any judicial consideration of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Regulations 2006 or of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005. That material is not reproduced within the instrument.

• The absence of litigation references also means there is no statutory guidance in this instrument on how strict courts or administrative bodies have been about technical compliance with the requirements (for example, whether a single missing copy or a small scale discrepancy has been treated as fatal to an application). Such interpretive questions arise at the intersection of these Regulations and the parent Act, and require reference to external judicial or administrative rulings.

No decisions embedded in margins

• The instrument’s margins record amendment Gazettes and some commencement notes, but do not record any legal challenges or judicial pronouncements. None of the marginal notes cite a case or decision interpreting the provisions.

Conclusion

• The Regulations provide procedural rules without embedded litigation history or adjudicative guidance in the text. For litigation history or judicial interpretation practitioners must look beyond the Regulations to case law and tribunal determinations, which are not part of this instrument’s print.

The Regulations are short but contain several technical drafting features and practical traps that commonly create compliance risk if overlooked. These "gotchas" arise directly from the text and the way it frames documentary and fee obligations.

Four copies requirement

• Regulation 3(2) requires 4 copies of both the location plan and the documents that illustrate and detail the proposed development. The Schedule reiterates "4 copies of the plan(s) and specifications" as a lodgement requirement. A common administrative error is to submit a single set or an inadequate number of copies. Failure to provide four copies risks an application being treated as not properly lodged.

Scale minima and two-tier scale requirement

• Regulation 3(2)(a) and (b)(i) set two scale minima: not smaller than 1:2000 for the location plan and generally not smaller than 1:500 for the development plans. Applicants must ensure both scales are complied with. Submitting plans at larger denominators (for example 1:2500) would contravene the "not smaller than" requirement and could be rejected.

White background and metric measurements

• Regulation 4(1) requires that a plan be drawn on a white background. This sounds pedantic but can affect scanned copies and overlays if submitted in colour or on a non-white base. Regulation 4(2) requires metric measurements. If an applicant submits imperial measurements or mixed units, the materials will not meet the mandatory format requirement.

Detailed content list

• Regulation 4(3)(a)-(i) enumerates specific content that must be included in the documents. Omissions that are often overlooked include detailed car parking layout (dimensions and number), loading and unloading area dimensions and access, retention of existing trees and fences in landscaping plans, and assessment of impacts on neighbours' views, privacy and overshadowing. Each of those is specifically listed; generalised statements that omit measured layouts or elevations may be insufficient.

Fee calculation semantics

• Regulation 5 sets a tiered fee schedule keyed to the "estimated cost of the development". The Table uses phrasing like "0.257% for every $1 in excess of $500 000". Practitioners must be alert to the arithmetic form: some entries use a percentage applied to an excess amount plus a fixed base figure. Correct calculation requires attention to the base and the percentage applied to the excess. The Table also fixes the fee at $32,185 for estimated costs over $21.5 million, which may be an unexpectedly low cap for extremely large projects. The instrument does not provide rounding rules or additional surcharges; practitioners must follow the Table as published.

Declaration of estimated cost

• The Schedule requires that the applicant enter an "Estimated cost of the development $ . . .". Misstatements, under-estimates or failure to disclose may lead to administrative follow-up or reclassification of the fee. The Regulations do not prescribe penalties, but cost misestimation creates material risk that the application will be re-billed or questioned.

Signature and authority on company signatures

• The Schedule requires signatures of owners and applicants and that, if signing on behalf of a company, the signatory state how authorised to sign. Failure to state authorisation could lead to acceptance problems or requests for proof of authority.

Reference to deposited plan held by the Land Information Authority

• Regulation 2(2) anchors the extension of the AK redevelopment area to a deposited plan "held by the Western Australian Land Information Authority". Practitioners should not rely on an unverified depiction; they must consult the official deposited plan at the Authority to confirm boundaries. The depiction in Schedule 1 is present in the instrument, but the regulation explicitly refers to the deposited plan as held by the Authority.

No procedural timelines or acceptance rules in the Regulations

• The Regulations are silent on application acceptance periods, completeness checks, timeframes for decision, and appeal routes. Practitioners should not assume that lodgement with the Commission triggers any statutory timetable set out in these Regulations. Those procedural elements are likely in the Act or other instruments.

Interplay with local government requirements

• The form asks for the local government(s) where the land is situated and requires information relevant to local amenity matters. Applicants must not assume the Planning Commission’s requirements replace any local government requirements; the Regulations do not state whether local government consent or separate local fees are required.

Multiple versions and commencement dates

• The Compilation table lists several amendment instruments with differing commencement dates. Practitioners must confirm which version of the Regulations applies to a particular lodgement date, especially in relation to the fee schedule and the addition of Schedule 1 to confirm whether their land falls within the extended area.

Presentation technicalities

• Plans drawn to scale "not smaller than" the nominated scales and drawn on a white background are specific formatting constraints that interact with digital file preparation. Scans, photo-reproductions or overlays with tinted backgrounds may be non-compliant.

No express remedy for minor non-compliance

• Because the Regulations do not specify whether minor non-compliance is correctable or fatal, lodging incomplete or non-conforming materials carries uncertainty and potential delay. Practitioners should treat these as strict pre-lodgement checks.

In short, the principal "gotchas" are the four-copy rule, strict scale and format specifications, the detailed content list, the arithmetic of the fee schedule, the signature and authority requirements, and the need to verify the deposited plan at the Land Information Authority. Failure to attend to these specific textual requirements risks administrative delay or non-acceptance.

The Regulations set specific, actionable documentary and payment steps. The following checklist translates the Regulations’ mandatory items (regulations 2-5 and Schedule 2) into a compliance workflow that aligns with the text.

Step 1 , Confirm spatial scope

• Verify whether the subject land falls within the AK redevelopment area or the area extended by Deposited Plan 52693. Regulation 2(1) declares the land shaded on DP 52693 to be part of the AK redevelopment area, and regulation 2(2) ties the plan to the copy held by the Western Australian Land Information Authority under the Land Information Authority Act 2006 s 5. Practically, consult the deposited plan as held at the Land Information Authority to confirm boundaries.

Step 2 , Complete the prescribed application form

• Use Schedule 2 Form 1 for an application under section 32(1) of the Act (regulation 3(1)). Complete all required fields: owner(s) details, applicant name, address for correspondence, telephone, address of land, nearest road junction/intersection, name of local government(s), formal description of the land (lot numbers, deposited plan/diagram numbers, certificate of title references), current use, description of existing buildings, demolition intentions, description of proposed development, materials and colours for external surfaces, estimated cost of the development, estimated completion date and signatures for owners and applicants. If signing for a company, state the authorisation to sign. The Schedule’s note reiterates the requirement for four copies of plans and the prescribed fee.

Step 3 , Prepare the location plan and development documents

• Prepare four identical copies of:
  • A location plan drawn to a scale not smaller than 1:2000 that identifies the land on which the development is proposed (regulation 3(2)(a)).
  • Documents that fully and clearly illustrate and detail the proposed development, consisting of plans generally not smaller than 1:500 and written specifications (regulation 3(2)(b)(i)-(ii)).

Step 4 , Observe format and measurement requirements

• Ensure all plans are drawn on a white background (regulation 4(1)). Use metric measurements throughout the documents (regulation 4(2)). Check that scales and legends are clear and consistent with metric units.

Step 5 , Include the specified content in the documents

• Ensure the documents include the items listed in regulation 4(3)(a)-(i):
  • Location and proposed use of existing buildings to be retained and of buildings proposed to be erected or demolished (4(3)(a)).
  • Existing and proposed pedestrian and vehicle access points (4(3)(b)).
  • Location, number, dimensions and layout of all car parking spaces (4(3)(c)).
  • Location and dimensions of loading/unloading areas, and means of access (4(3)(d)).
  • Landscaping plans with design particulars and retention of existing trees, vegetation, fences and walls (4(3)(e)).
  • Plans, elevations and sections of buildings to be erected or altered and of retained buildings, with details of materials, finishes and external colour (4(3)(f)).
  • Details of impacts on streets and vegetation, and on neighbours’ views, privacy and overshadowing (4(3)(g)(i)-(ii)).
  • Details of the proposed use and operation (4(3)(h)).
  • Details of any signs or advertising structures proposed (4(3)(i)).

Step 6 , Calculate the fee and prepare payment

• Determine the "estimated cost of the development" and enter it on Schedule 2 Form 1. Calculate the fee according to the Table in regulation 5. The Table must be applied as written:
  • Not more than $50,000: $139.
  • More than $50,000 but not more than $500,000: 0.32% of the estimated cost.
  • More than $500,000 but not more than $2.5 million: $1,600 plus 0.257% of every $1 in excess of $500,000.
  • More than $2.5 million but not more than $5 million: $6,740 plus 0.206% of every $1 in excess of $2.5 million.
  • More than $5 million but not more than $21.5 million: $11,890 plus 0.123% of every $1 in excess of $5 million.
  • More than $21.5 million: $32,185.
• The fee must be paid with the application (regulation 5). Ensure payment method complies with the Commission’s instructions for fee payment.

Step 7 , Execution and proof of authority

• Obtain signatures of the owner(s) and applicant(s) on the Schedule 2 form. Where a signatory signs on behalf of a company, include a statement of how they are authorised to sign, as the Schedule directs.

Step 8 , Lodgement

• Lodge the completed Schedule 2 Form 1, together with four copies of the location plan and the documents required under regulation 3(2) and regulation 4, and the prescribed fee, to the Western Australian Planning Commission as the addressee on the form.

Step 9 , Recordkeeping

• Retain copies of all lodged documents, proof of payment of the fee, and any correspondence. Because the Regulations require four copies, keep at least one full duplicate or master set for your records.

Step 10 , Follow-up and administrative queries

• Be prepared to respond to administrative requests for additional information or clarification of the cost estimate, signatures or authority to sign. The Regulations do not specify cure periods for incomplete applications, so prompt responses to any Commission requests will avoid delay.

Practical compliance tips grounded in the text

• Use qualified professionals for plans and specifications to meet scale and content expectations in regulation 4(3).
• Confirm the exact deposited plan at the Land Information Authority when planning applications that depend on whether land falls within the extended AK redevelopment area (regulation 2(2) and Schedule 1).
• Double-check fee arithmetic, particularly where the fee is computed as a percentage of the excess in a bracket.
• Ensure all plans are on white background and in metric, and supply four complete sets.

These steps follow directly from the prescriptions in regulations 2-5 and Schedule 2 Form 1. Compliance is an exercise in precise document preparation, accurate cost estimation for fee calculation, and correct execution of the application form addressed to the Western Australian Planning Commission.