Shire of Augusta-Margaret River planners defend lack of cash compensation for Fini hotel parking shortfall

Shire of Augusta-Margaret River planners have come under fire for not demanding any financial compensation for the Fini hotel’s 29-bay parking shortfall. The local business community, led by the Margaret River Business Network, expressed astonishment the developers were not forced by the Shire to compensate for the parking shortfall when they and other businesses paid leases on private carparks or otherwise had to stump up cash in projects where parking fell short. The Times was also contacted by multiple local builders incensed at past cash payments for minor parking shortfalls they saw as unfairly not applied to the Fini Group. Business owner Miriam Bailey told Tuesday’s Joint Development Assessment Panel hearing she and many others paid leases for privately owned carparks the developers said were “available” to meet any shortfall from the hotel project. “The majority of the car bays being cited are predominantly owned by private businesses,” she said. Ms Bailey also said she was quoted $100,000 to remove two bays from her building for the sake of waste access and she believed one rule should apply to everyone. Shire planners attending the JDAP hearing said cash in lieu was not requested from the proponents because there were no immediate solutions for nearby parking and the money would therefore be returned anyway. “We don’t have a plan, so if we were given the money to spend, there’s not the land (nearby) where we could develop parking,” senior planning officer Don Bothwell said. JDAP presiding member Tony Arias disagreed with that interpretation. Mr Arias said accumulating a war chest of cash in lieu contributions could help the Shire buy land for parking “as it becomes available”. The Shire’s Responsible Authority Report to JDAP included details provided by planners on Tuesday, as well as rejecting the concept of a voluntary compensation agreement. “With cash in lieu not being an option, the applicant has suggested utilising a voluntary developer agreement,” the report said. “Under this potential pathway, there would be a deed for payment for an agreed monetary value for an agreed number of car bays. “The Shire is not supportive of this option in any event as it does not solve the car parking shortfall in the immediate locality,” the report said. “The fundamental issue is that there are no areas within the town centre available or contemplated for the provision of additional car parking in proximity to the proposed hotel in lieu of what is provided onsite for the proposal.” The developer’s local consultant, Dane Gaunt from Urbis, said one parking bay per hotel room was an outdated model for determining any financial compensation. “Ultimately, the Shire concluded that (cash in lieu) was not the way they wanted to go because they did not have a supporting plan,” Mr Gaunt said. Developer Jamie Fini said to meet carparking requirements, the existing buildings would have to be demolished and mature trees removed. He argued carpooling, tour groups, tourists arriving by bus, and corporate retreats would reduce the need for parking. Mr Arias amended the final approval to include a cash in lieu requirement. However, specific costs associated with that condition were not available to the Times before deadline.