PADD and City of Nedlands Correspondance
Ken Eastwood - 19 May, 2008
Subject: Re: Dalkeith Area Redevelopment Steering Committee meeting 15th May 2008
To PADD Supporter Base
Re: Dalkeith Area Redevelopment Steering Committee meeting 15th May 2008.Hello to you all,
At last Thursday night's meeting of the above Steering Committee and in emails that followed that meeting, Cr Tan made several accusations against PADD which related in particular to PADD's views on whether or not the Council should allow all the landowners of lots on both sides of Waratah Ave between Alexander Rd and Robert St the right to subdivide their lots.
Our Chairperson, Paola Lovi, responded to Councillor Tan in email form to respond to each of her accusations.
All the email correspondence is set out below for you to read.
We will shortly be emailing you all a survey to find out your views on subdivision of this area alone (no other area is being discussed for subdivision). We will then put your views to Council.
With best wishes,
Ken Eastwood
Deputy Chairperson PADD.PLEASE SCROLL DOWN RIGHT TO THE BOTTOM AND READ THE EMAILS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Cr Tan’s most recent response to Paola
-----Original Message-----
From: touchofzen@iprimus.com.au [mailto:touchofzen@iprimus.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, 17 May 2008 2:13 PM
To: Paola LoviDear Paola,
It seems I have inadvertently caused a ruckus.
For the record,I have acknowledged and applauded before, in an email,the
work that PADD has done in representing and informing the local Community
about the future plans for the development of Dalkeith. That statement,
and opinion, remain unchanged.The ruckus seems to have escalated from a simple request to seek clarification
on your statement of PADD's stance on sub-division in Dalkeith (and, at the
last Meeting, in reference to Waratah Avenue between Alexander Road and Roberts
Road). This request came about because
(i) I felt that you (as Chairperson of PADD)had been suddenly and unfairly
put in a 'hot spot' at the Meeting and I wanted to give you an opportunity
to re-iterate/change your statement.
(ii) What you had said at the Meeting (I felt) did not compute with the original
PADD submission, nor with what some respected members of your committee had
said in their personal submissions to Council during the Consultation process
(I still have those copies with me)
(iii) I was aware of a number of other public submissions that were tolerant
of R20, 2storey max, 500m2 min, side-by-side sub-divisions in Dalkeith.
When you replied with the rationalisation, I simply meant that it was very
lengthy and difficult to get the gist of. Therefore, in not being able to
understand it, I could not accept it. Perhaps had I stated matters in this
more 'tactful' manner; the resulting antagonism could have been avoided.I personally (and I categorically state that it is my own opinion) do not
agree with a few of the Motions that were passed; and shall vote against
them at Council; only because I feel they may be too short-sighted and restrictive,
and do not support the Committee-accepted "Vision" for Dalkeith.
I have never liked 'piece-meal' approaches to planning, preferring instead,
to look at the whole picture first ... which is why I feel R20 sub-division
of Waratah Avenue around the proposed commercial centre and from Alexander
to Roberts Road, should be carefully considered now ... and not at some later
stage in time, when it would become RE-ACTIVE Planning - which is never good.
Once again, this is only an Opinion, which I am, in no way saying, is necessarily
the Right one. I accept the difference in opinion from your technical advisors.
This is not a bad thing ... as it allows for different ideas to be put across for others to consider.
We are all trying to do what we think is best for the Dalkeith Community
and the City of Nedlands; and should be prepared to accept differences of opinion without
(i)judging them as categorically Right/Wrong; OR
(ii) taking them to/at a personal/accusative level
I am not anti-PADD, nor pro-ADD. I just have an independant and somewhat
differing opinion from others; and am unafraid of voicing these opinions
which I base on research and not hearsay. (Again, I feel that I have
to state clearly that this is a general statement and not directed at
anyone person or group in particular)
In the end, Council will make that final decision on the path it thinks best
for Dalkeith.
May it the best one for all concerned.
Finally, as I wish to put a quick end to what I feel could destroy what has
been a good working relationship among intelligent and professional adults
in the Steering Committee, I shall not be replying to any further emails
on matters that have been addressed above.
I choose not to respond to any personal innuendos about my integrity or commitment
or ability as a Councillor of and for this City as I consider this to be
undignified and unbecomming. Suffice to say that my Conscience is clear and
I sleep well at night.
(Please note that my non-response does not indicate any agreement/admission
on my part, of what is said in the emails received.)Until the next Meeting,
Kind regards and best wishes,
Irene TanPlease feel free to call me if I have not adressed any issues in your
recent email(s) to me. Thank you.
Paola’s response to Cr Tan’s accusations against PADD
Original Message --
From: "Paola Lovi" <paolalovi@bigpond.com>
To: <touchofzen@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:50:20 +0800Dear Cr Tan,
I agree with what Joe Porter has put to you (set out below) but have some
comments of my own to add.
I will start my response to you with a summary of your accusations against
PADD. You accuse PADD of:
a) "attempting to clarify" its position on the issue of subdivision. I am
not sure what you mean by this;
b) "a sudden turnaround of a public statement" on the issue of subdivision;
c) not properly informing its supporters of its position on the issue of subdivision;
d) "splitting hairs" on the usage of the terminology "not greater than R20"
zoning for the lots on both sides of Waratah Ave between Alexander Rd and Robert St;
e) "so often claiming to be representative of Dalkeith residents";
f) "successfully putting the Development Plan in a very tight box that is
focused solely on the commercial area on Waratah Ave".
By "subdivision" you are referring to subdivision of the lots on both sides
of Waratah Ave between Alexander Rd and Robert St and not the issue of
subdivision in general.
Your accusations suggest that PADD has been less than honest with its
supporters and/or duplicitous. I strongly refute all of your accusations.
You are of course entitled to your own views but I prefer to speak in terms
of facts. These are the undisputed relevant facts:1. you, as a councillor, were part of the Council that on 28 and 30 November
2006 identified Dalkeith as an area that should be infilled and developed.
It was not the State Government or anyone else but your own Council who put
Dalkeith on the agenda. The State Government identified Stirling Hwy and
other traffic corridors to the Council but not Dalkeith. This still lies
solely at your feet;2. you, as a councillor, knew about the now abandoned Dalkeith Concept Plan
in at least October 2007 and did nothing about notifying the Dalkeith
residents about it. It was dropped into our unsuspecting laps during the
xmas/new year break of 2007/2008 and scared the hell out of us. Had it not
been for the endeavours of the Jacobys (two local residents) in bringing
the now abandoned Concept Plan to the attention of the Dalkeith residents
much of what was proposed might have been allowed unchallenged. We don't and
will never know the extent to which the individual councillors including
yourself would have challenged the Concept Plan had PADD not challenged it;3. you, as a councillor, were part of the Council that was responsible for
dropping the now abandoned Concept Plan into the laps of the unsuspecting
residents over the xmas/new year period and you were part of the Council
that gave the residents until 15 February 2008 to respond in writing to it
and as part of that, to read and grasp the contents of a 91 page technical
document (the guidelines) and all the literature that it was necessary to
read to properly understand it;4. PADD was formed by a group of Dalkeith residents including myself for
the sole purpose of campaigning against the now abandoned Concept Plan which
included informing the Dalkeith residents of the contents of the Plan, its
ramifications and providing them with a voice to challenge it. The Dalkeith
residents and the PADD supporters have at all times been fully informed
about what PADD stands for and what its campaign is about;5. the ADD group was formed by Mr Cliff Matson specifically to campaign in
favour of the petition seeking R20 and R25 subdivision of all the lots on
both sides of Waratah Ave between Alexander Rd and Robert St. The ADD group
was formed after discussions were held between Mr Matson and PADD and after
PADD made it clear to Mr Matson and his fellow petitioners that PADD's
involvement was to be limited to challenging the Concept Plan and that PADD
did not wish to become involved with his petition or the issue of
subdivision which we consider to be quite a separate issue. Mr Matson and
his fellow petitioners were at no time under any misapprehension of this
being PADD's position and we note that it is not Mr Matson or his fellow
petitioners that is stating otherwise but you (for reasons unknown to us);
6. Mr Matson's subdivision petition was presented to your Council on 12
September 2006 and PADD had nothing to do with that. It was you and your
fellow councillors that did not grant Mr Matson's petition and had it lie on
the table to be considered at a later date. Then what followed is that you
and your Council chose not to present Mr Matson's petition to the Dalkeith
residents in the now abandoned Concept Plan but a very different proposal
for very high density infill in that area. It was specified in the Concept
Plan as "subdivision" but in true planning terms it was not "subdivision"
but something else. Amongst other things it proposed all the lots in that
area being carved up to form 160sqm to 350sqm lots with multi-storey mixed
used developments. It was that concept that PADD was required to turn its mind
to and did turn its mind to in point 6 of its written submission to Council
to which you refer. PADD was required to make a value judgment at that time
and guess what the majority of the residents would find most acceptable;7. PADD reached its stance on the issue of "subdivision" in relation to
those lots following lengthy periods of consultation with its technical
advisers for which it has a lot of professional respect. PADD was warned
against setting precedents which may not be viewed as fair by the population
at large (in particular those that are not allowed to subdivide), against destabilising
long established boundaries and about the need to conduct proper and
thorough consultation with the neighbours of those seeking subdivision
(which to date have not been conducted) before being proponents of any
subdivision. We cannot forget the rights of those living adjacent to, nearby
and behind the landowners petitioning for subdivision. At the end of the
day, PADD has not campaigned against the subdivision petitioners but has not
actively campaigned in their favour. That is the job of ADD and ADD knows
that full well;8. then as the process continued to evolve, PADD analysed and acted on the
majority of the several hundred resident submissions presented to your
Council in February 2008. Our analysis showed that approx 9.5% of the
resident submissions commented in favour of the subdivision petition in
general terms and approx 80% wanted to focus any changes on the commercial
area of Waratah Ave. We could not ignore that. If we are incorrect in our
conclusions on that issue then please correct us. We have had a mountain of
paperwork to read, digest and analyse associated with the Dalkeith
development issue since xmas 2007. We have done our best to do so and to
accurately present the facts but we are always happy to stand corrected if
we get something wrong;9. PADD has at all times sought to properly and accurately follow the wishes
of the majority of the Dalkeith residents. The day that we cease being truly
representative of the wishes of the majority of the Dalkeith residents is
the day that we cease our campaign. It is as simple as that. We have no
personal agenda to push (regardless of what you might think).I will be circulating this email to the PADD supporter base. If they have
similar complaints to yours to level against PADD then I am sure we will
soon find out. Like I said, if PADD is not seen as properly representingthe
wishes of the majority of the Dalkeith residents then I will be happy for
one to stand aside. I live far enough away from the proposed redevelopment
precinct - I became involved in an effort to perform what I thought was an
unselfish act of public service for those that I believed were not being
properly informed or heard. So far, your accusations come largely from a
voice in the wilderness and I hope that remains the case.As a councillor who has taken an oath to properly represent the interests of
all the residents and electors of the City of Nedlands and not just those in
your ward of Melvista, why don't you make it your business to ensure that
all the Dalkeith residents and electors are fully informed about what
decisions were made by the Steering Committee last night, explain the
ramifications, notify them of the Council meeting scheduled for 10 June 2008
and the importance of that meeting and that they should attend it if they
want to be heard. You are the one who has taken on the official
representative responsibility. PADD has done more than enough.Paola Lovi
Chairperson, PADD.Joe Porter’s response to Cr Tan (Joe is a PADD exec member)
Original Message --
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:36:01 +0800
From: "Joe Porter" <joe@porterscpa.com>
To: <touchofzen@iprimus.com.au>Dear Cr Tan
This is not as complicated as you are making it.
The submission put in by PADD, as I understand it, was a response to the
draft plan. The content of the draft plan was so outrageous and the
timeframes so tight, that it required a quick response. PADD mobilized
itself as a civic action group in very short order. PADD did the best it
could in arriving at a representative view. The response put in was
directly in relation to the draft plan. The area in question in the
draft plan had ridiculous density and ridiculous retail and commercial
suggested redevelopment. The PADD position in its submission included
reference to "not more than R20" because PADD was responding to the
ambit claim of the planners, the developers, the state government or
whoever it was who came up with the rubbish that was in that draft plan.
It clearly says "not more than R20". This is not legal jargon it has
lear meaning. PADD said "not more than R20" because when you are faced
with a likelihood of 160m2 blocks and 600% increase in retail and
commercial floor space with 3, 4 and 5 storey monstrosities across the
road from R10 established houses, you have to put forward alternatives.
PADD thought that IF rezoning was to occur then it should be limited to
not more than R20".The plan was then abandoned by you and your fellow Councillors, much to
the relief of everyone and thank you!Several members of the PADD Committee have since read all of the
submissions from the people of Dalkeith. Analysis of the submissions has
been conducted by several people. It is clear that the overwhelming
majority want the residential areas to stay as they are. PADD did not
have this information when making its own submission which was based on
the best available feedback from the people of Dalkeith at the time.The view point of PADD, as far as I know, has not changed in relation to
rezoning of this part of Waratah. The view is IF it is rezoned then it
should be "not more than R20". What is hard to understand about this?What was discussed last night was the timing of when the debate should
be had about the rezoning of residential parts of Waratah. You have a
planning expert with years of experience sitting on Council with you and
who is one of the representatives of the Dalkeith Ward. You have
Emeritus Professor Martyn Webb saying exactly the same thing as Cr
Hipkins - the rezoning issues for residential areas of Dalkeith are a
separate issue to the Commercial Area and should be looked at as a
separate exercise at another time. You pay attention to neither.This is what PADD is also saying. Nothing has changed. PADD said in its
submission that any rezoning of Waratah residential area should be to
not more than R20". This cannot be said to actually endorse the
rezoning to R20 - this is a ridiculous assertion to make an factual
incorrect. It is not legal jargon it is just plain wrong of you to assert
this.I think you did yourself a disservice last night in what I found to be a
personal attack on the credibility of PADD for purposes unknown to me.
The attack continues here in this email. I object to you suggesting that
PADD has lied to its membership and changed its tune and I object to the
constant calling into question of whether or not we are putting forward
a representative view.Yours sincerely
Joe Porter
3 Philip Rd
DalkeithCr Tan’s accusations against PADD following the Committee meeting of 15 May
Original Message-----
From: touchofzen@iprimus.com.au [mailto:touchofzen@iprimus.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 16 May 2008 12:44 PM
To: Paola Lovi; austcan@bigpond.net.au; 'John Bell';Dear Paola,
Thank you for the attempted 'clarification' of PADD's position on the
sudden turnaround of a public statement on Point 6 of its Alternative
Community Development Plan For Dalkeith.In my opinion, however, this clarification should be made to the people
of Dalkeith who supported PADD on all 6 Points of your original
submission; and not necessarily to Council.The splitting of hairs on "not greater than R20" is more legal jargon in
a lengthy and convoluted email that does not over-ride the simple fact
that R20 WAS acceptable to PADD in its original submission.You admit the issue of subdivision in the redevelopment of Dalkeith is
very complex and emotive - all the more reason then for PADD as "the
representative of Dalkeith residents" (as this group so often claims to
be) - to remain involved and explicitly clear in its stance on the issue.The argument put forth by PADD supporters at last night's Meeting has
successfully put the Development Plan in a very tight box that is
focused solely on the commercial area on Waratah Avenue.However, if this is what PADD feels is what the residents of Dalkeith want,
so be it.Cr Irene Tan
From Paola to the Council immediately following the Committee meeting of 15 May
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
I would like to clarify PADD's position on the issue of subdivision
within the defined Dalkeith redevelopment precinct boundaries in light
of the heated debate that ensued at last night's Steering Committee meeting.It is correct that in PADD's written submission to the Council dated 14
February 2008 PADD stated that " in relation to precincts 2 and 17 (ie, the
properties on both sides of Waratah Ave between Alexander Rd and Robert St)
where the Concept Plan proposes multi-dwelling high density
redevelopment with lots being as small as 160sqm and a maximum of
350sqm, we propose a zoning of not greater than R20 with lots not
smaller than 500 sqm. No battleaxe building". We were careful to use
the words "not greater than R20".From the outset, PADD sought to distance itself from the subdivision
issue/debate and not become involved in it for a number of reasons
including the danger of setting precedents, destabilising planning
boundaries long before set and on advice from its technical advisers.PADD decided that it could take this position because the issue of subdivision was not the
central issue in the proposed Dalkeith Redevelopment Concept Plan. We
made the PADD position on subdivision very clear to Mr Cliff Matson
the petitioner for subdivision on Waratah Ave between Alexander Rd and
Robert St) from as early as January 2008 and that is why he set up the group
ADD because PADD did not wish to be involved in a campaign actively
supporting the petition. At the same time however, PADD was required to make a
submission in response to what the Council was proposing for precincts 2 and
17 (the properties on Waratah Ave between Alexander Rd and Robert St)
because it formed part of the Concept Plan dated December 2007. At the time
of making its submission in February 2008, PADD thought it reasonable to
propose a zoning of not greater than R20 for the relevant lots assuming that
Council was going to allow some increase in density in that area and
assuming that the only question to decide was the nature and extent of
the increase in density in that area.The process continued to evolve from February 2008 and in March, PADD
conducted an analysis of the several hundred resident submissions
received by Council and came to the conclusion that approximately 9.5%
of the submissions specified some support for subdivision in the
relevant area. I tabled the PADD analysis to the Steering Committee as
part of my public address on 3 April 2008.PADD has, from the outset, sought to responsibly campaign in favour of
what the majority of the Dalkeith residents have said they want within
the parameters of sound planning principles (in relation to which it
follows the advice of experts in the area of town planning). That is
why PADD supported the motion put by Cr James and Cr Hipkins at last
night's meeting.
A clear majority of the residents want the efforts of PADD focused on
improving the Village Character Area buildings and amenities on Waratah Ave
and that is going to be an onerous task in itself. Those landowners
seeking to subdivide their properties will need to campaign for
themselves on that issue and PADD has never said anything contrary to
that to its supporters or the residents at large.PADD has been consistent and transparent in its views on subdivision
and maintains its stance. The issue of subdivision is a very complex
and emotive one and if PADD can remain distant from that issue then
that will be its preference.Yours faithfully,
Paola Lovi
Chairperson, PADD.