YOUR VIEWS

CL Zelestis QC & KNC Zelestis - 15 Feb, 2008

Subject:: Submission

SUBMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED DALKEITH RE-DEVELOPMENT:
CONCEPT BUILT FORM DESIGN GUIDELINES
DECEMBER 2007

  1. We support the submission made by the association known as People Against Density Dalkeith.  However, we wish to add some additional submissions of our own.
  2. These submissions deal separately with matters relating to planning and design issues and matters relating to process – both the process by which the draft guidelines were prepared and the process to be adopted by the Council now.

Planning and design

  1. The principal planning consideration which should guide the development of an appropriate plan for Dalkeith is that the development should maintain the essential character of the locality and be in the best interests of residents, it being a mainly residential area. 
  2. The area the subject of the draft guidelines has a well established, clearly defined character.  It is set within one of the most attractive residential areas in Perth.  It has an unhurried style and an uncluttered appearance about it.  The scale of the present development along the commercial strip in Waratah Avenue is consistent with the low rise, low density, virtually exclusively single residential, garden suburb nature of the area.
  3. Proper planning principles require that any alteration to the character of the area should be evolutionary and consistent with the primary characteristics of the surrounding locality.
  4. In contrast, the scale and density of the proposal is not only without parallel in similar areas of the municipality of Nedlands, it is without parallel in any comparable locality elsewhere in Perth.  It is quite inconsistent with the existing character of the area.
  5. The guidelines refer repeatedly to the area as the “village core” or “village centre”.  What the guidelines fail to make clear is that, if they were implemented, there would be nothing whatsoever village-like about the area.  On the contrary, the guidelines would see the area become dominated by large scale buildings of the kind that have been built in recent years in parts of West Perth, Subiaco and East Perth.  A visit to those areas quickly reveals the destruction of local character which has occurred.
  6. There is no proper planning foundation for buildings in the area to exceed 3 storeys and even 3 storeys should be the exception rather than the rule, having regard to the existing character of the area.  A more appropriate limit is 2 storeys.
  7. The suggested rationale for the proposal is the revitalisation of the village.  That is a false and misleading suggestion.  As has been observed, the proposal would be destructive of the village character which presently exists.
  8. Moreover, there is no demonstrated need for additional services to be provided in this area, particularly given the proximity of the development that is already occurring in the nearby Claremont business centre.  At least that development is occurring in a place that is not intimately connected with residential areas bearing the character of those in Dalkeith.
  9. Nor is there a proper planning case for apartments and offices to dominate the area in question.  There are other parts of the municipality where these uses are well established and where there is room for expansion of those uses (eg, Stirling Highway, Broadway, Hampden Road).
  10. The extension of the proposed guidelines into the Circe Circle area, including nearby the Dalkeith primary school, is particularly unwarranted from a planning perspective.
  11. Overall, the proposal reflects a pre-conception about the desired result, rather than a genuine attempt to provide for development that preserves what makes the area such an attractive and desirable one.

Process

  1. Notwithstanding the many glosses in the City’s document dated 31 January 2008 headed “Frequently Asked Questions”, the fact remains that the consultative process relating to these draft guidelines has been substantially deficient.  Those deficiencies include that initial consultation was confined to the landowners whose properties would be directly affected by the implementation of the guidelines and who had a vested interest in supporting the proposal.
  2. Moreover, there was no clear explanation to the residents of Dalkeith or of the City of Nedlands generally of what the true subject matter of the proposal and no consultation of residents when the plan was being prepared.
  3. Local Government is a fundamental element of representative democracy.  It is essential to representative democracy that there be effective consultation, particularly as regards proposals which have the potential to radically affect residents and their interests.  .
  4. This has meant that what has been presented bears the character of a radical concept, which neither explores more acceptable and appropriate alternatives nor provides any reasoned justification for what is proposed in it.
  5. There should be an inquiry by the councillors as to the true reasons why the processes of planning and consultation were not more inclusive and transparent.  Transparency and open government are vital elements of local democracy, especially as regards planning matters.
  6. As regards future consideration of the proposal, the difficulty with the Council making a decision based upon the present draft guidelines, and submissions made in response to them, is that there has been inadequate planning consideration given to appropriate alternatives.  In these circumstances, by far the preferable course is to start at the beginning again.  The Council should adopt a set of guiding principles, arising from the responses of the community, and have them incorporated in a fresh draft document prepared by staff and consultants who are independent of past events.

C.L. Zelestis QC

K.N.C. Zelestis

15 February 2008

back