YOUR VIEWS
James and Samina Trevelyan - 15 Feb, 2008
Subject:: Submission
To: Carlie Eldridge; dalkeith@nedlands.wa.gov.au
Cc: nedlands@mp.wa.gov.au; JanJack@IInet.net.au; dham2429@bigpond.net.au; JHamilton8@Westnet.com.au; gmews@bigpond.net.au; rekha@bigpond.net.au; Paola_Lovi
Subject: Dalkeith Planning Proposals - ResponseDear Carlie
Attached please find our submission on the current planning proposals for Dalkeith. Please forward these on to the Mayor and Concillors for their consideration.
In summary we are opposed to this proposal: it should be rejected as it is out of character for the area and there is insufficient analysis of the consequences to enable an informed decision to be made. We have outlined these issues in the attached document and would be happy to discuss this further if you would like more detailed comments.
Thanks again for your help on the generator issue last year - there has not been any sign of a recurrence this year.
Thanks
James & Samina
c.c. Sue Walker, MP Nedlands, nearby residents
Brockman Avenue
Dalkeith 6009
Western Australia
15th February 2008To Mayor and Councillors
City of Nedlands
c.c. C. Eldridge, Planning DirectorDear Mayor, Councillors and Planners
We are writing to express our serious concern at the new proposal for the Dalkeith Concept Draft Built Form Design Guidelines.
Not only is the current proposal unacceptable: the documents presented at the council web site show that there has not yet been any serious investigation of the consequences of such redevelopment plans.
No informed decision can be taken without full consideration of the consequences.
The consultation process has been unsatisfactory, especially when compared with previous issues such as transport usage surveys in which full printed information sent by post was followed up with individual residents being interviewed by telephone and in person. The information distributed by post has been hard to understand, and has not revealed the true extent of the proposals.
While we understand the need for greater housing diversity in inner suburbs of the Perth metropolitan area we think that the proposal that has been presented is quite inappropriate for this area.
We chose to live here because we enjoy the quiet environment and because it is close to where we work. We can walk to work and often do when the weather conditions permit. We work at the University of Western Australia, probably near the extreme limit for people who work in that area and who would like to walk. There are no significant employment opportunities in the centre of Dalkeith so it does not make sense to provide additional development at that location.
We understand that the commercial viability of businesses in the Dalkeith Centre is marginal, particularly with ongoing developments in Claremont, Broadway and Hollywood.
It is clearly desirable to provide some diversity of housing in the Dalkeith area but the proposal as presented so far concentrates that development in one location and opens the way for developments which are quite out of character with the existing nature of this very pleasant place to live.
We would much prefer a staged approach in which opportunities are provided for redevelopment allowing mixed residential and commercial use of space in the Dalkeith Village Centre area. There is a large underutilised area of land that could be much better used. Providing additional residential accommodation in the existing commercial area would satisfy the need for diversity, increase opportunities for using public transport along Waratah Avenue and also allow residents to get used to the idea of mixed residential developments in Dalkeith. However, these developments need to be kept within the existing scale of buildings represented by the Dalkeith Village Centre and the old cinema building.
Providing the opportunity to build up to five stories is totally unacceptable particularly as it would convert Waratah Avenue into a closed tunnel with little sunlight through the winter. It would also become a wind channel making it less pleasant to walk to the existing shops. The elderly people for whom it is supposed to provide accommodation would be exposed to much more noise, and hooliganism, some signs of which are already appearing.
The coffee shop near Alexander Road caters well for mothers, children and older people, but would become must less attractive with more intense traffic and commercial development. The area would no longer be child-friendly – families would no longer feel comfortable sending their children unescorted to the shops for small errands. This would increase the use of cars which is counter to the aims of the proposal.
The proposal misses the point. Not everyone in Perth wants a noisy commercial centre nearby like Subiaco Centro or the Claremont complex along St Quentins Avenue and Bay View Terrace. The beauty of Perth is that it provides a diversity of suburban and recreational spaces. This proposal reduces that diversity and flexibility. The present proposal runs counter to the aims of increasing diversity in the Perth inner metropolitan area.
We would like the council to reject the current proposals and engage with interested citizens (including us) in developing more appropriate proposals in keeping with the characteristics of a residential suburb.
Detailed Comments on Documents
Urban Design Study (Precinct 18) June 2007
This is an attractively produced document with some useful information. However, it falls far short of a serious assessment of the consequences of undertaking this kind of development. For example, there is no analysis of the increased number of residents and the impact that would have on businesses in the area. There is no assessment of the net population increase within walking distance of the existing Dalkeith Centre. The planning study envisages continuous commercial shopfronts along the central area for development between Alexander Road and Adelma Road on both sides. However, it is not clear that there is sufficient residential accommodation to justify this volume of commercial business. Nor is there any serious assessment of traffic flow in and out of parking areas associated with the residential complexes. Given the proposal to restrict traffic flow on Waratah Avenue it is not clear what the traffic implications would be, particularly at peak times. While information has been presented on solar radiation and wind patterns, there is no attempt to discuss this in context with the developments proposed. This information is merely presented: it is not used for any analysis.
The Request for Tender document quotes Jeremy Dawkins but makes no mention of redevelopment in Dalkeith:
•“Intensification of activity along Stirling Highway and other corridors such as Hampden Road will offer opportunities for new civic and commercial activities and for housing choice and affordability, while potentially reducing travel demand and supporting improved public transport.
• We would expect the Council to seek ways of managing these activity corridors which allow transitions in land use and land configuration. This will require block by block solutions, with significant incentives for amalgamation and comprehensive redevelopment, in the form of opportunities for new uses and higher densities.
• Innovative responses are required to manage the expanding activity centres (including UWA and QEII), both to manage their impacts and to respond to the needs of those involved, whether staff, students, patient’s families etc.
• In places considered most appropriate by the Council, residential and mixed redevelopment will be required, in response to the above issues and to offer the local community options or different thousing types to suit households which are smaller, less well off and/or at different life stages.”It is not clear why this document has resulted in proposals for development in Dalkeith which has limited space and available land to make a significant impact on the overall issue of housing diversity.
Yours sincerely
James Trevelyan and Samina Yasmeen