newsletters

My comments are as follows:

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The document contains a vision statement, namely:

“to provide a vibrant, pedestrian friendly destination, offering a diverse range of housing options and services not only to the local residents but the wider population in an innovative and sustainable manner”.

However there is no explanation as to why the study has been undertaken. Is it to rejuvenate a run-down commercial/retail centre? Is it to increase housing diversity and population in Dalkeith? Is it because there is pressure for change from the State Government? Is it because of requests from local landowners to increase their land values?

Many would argue that a vibrant, pedestrian friendly destination already exists. Some may like a wider range of shops and services but recognise this is difficult to achieve in a local centre with competition from expansion of regional centres at Claremont and Subiaco. Most would question the wisdom of attracting a wider population, beyond local residents, given the increase in traffic that this would bring.

Not everywhere has to be “vibrant”. It is choice that is needed. In Dalkeith most residents want spacious family friendly development – houses or large units (not maximum of 70 sq metres), in a quiet living environment. They have the money to buy it and protect it.

THE CONCEPT

The scale of commercial/retail expansion is excessive in the extreme.

Current shops in Waratah Ave struggle and often vacancies occur. The surrounding residential population is stable and unlikely to change significantly. Any increased commercial/retail demand in the Western Suburbs will be taken up by expansion at Claremont and Subiaco where even here, there is very little development of four stories and above.

The scale of residential use is grossly excessive.

Apart from the two storey shops near the corner of Adelma Road, almost all buildings in the precinct are single storey. There would be a significant conflict of scale with new 4-5 storey development, resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy. There would also be over shadowing, traffic and parking conflicts.

Mix of residences above shops and offices misunderstood

The proponents of the study have confused what has been achieved in East Perth and Subiaco and what is appropriate for Dalkeith. In the former cases all land was cleared and under the control of a redevelopment agency that acted quickly; in Dalkeith land is privately owned, redevelopment would be ad hoc over many years, presenting significant difficulties for old and new occupiers. There is some sense in adding residences to commercial/retail areas but none in allowing commercial/retail uses into residential areas. The former increases population while the latter is more likely to decrease it. What is Plan B, if the first new buildings fail to attract buyers/tenants and developers lobby to be allowed to build something different (say 10 storey tower blocks) to get their return?

THE DETAIL

Many details are not thought through, eg:

Underground car parking is unrealistic. Often mandatory, it is expensive to provide and the requirement for temporary ramps from Waratah Ave before the rear laneways are in operation, to be replaced by later permanent ramps, is completely unrealistic. From the user’s point of view underground parking is less attractive than surface parking, which is more open and less associated with crime.
Overshadowing requirements will be difficult, often impossible, to satisfy. eg. the minimum development on Alexander Road with no more than 50% overshadowing of the adjoining lot at 3.00pm on 30 June.
Implications of piecemeal development have not been considered. The dramatic increase in allowable development will greatly increase land prices. Some will benefit (those that redevelop early) while most will lose. The first redevelopment projects will blight the area (because of the conflict of scale with adjoining development) and destabilise the whole peninsula (because there are no logical boundaries of cut-off. The requirement for minimum development will not allow half measures; it will be all or nothing.
Changing population demographics, brought about by implementation of the plan, have not been considered. Smaller residential units replacing family accommodation will change the demand for community (Council) services. What are the social needs of the new residents? Will hotels/taverns be needed? Will these be accepted by existing residents? The guidelines are silent about the future of the Dalkeith Hall and NEPHS. If families are removed from Circe Circle, and replaced with units, there will be less children living near the Dalkeith Primary School; those attending the school will have to come from further away and are more likely to be driven than walk or ride a bike there.
Loss of greenery will dramatically change the appearance of the area. More building bulk means less greenery, less birds, more air conditioning, more energy use, less sustainability.

THE PROCESS

It would appear the normal planning process has not been followed:

SURVEY – CONCEPT – DETAILED PLANNING, WITH COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AT EACH STEP

Objectives not stated
No triple bottom line studies done (environmental, social, economic) eg.

No commercial/retail floor space demand study undertaken
No traffic study done
No community needs assessment

However requirements for signs, solar collectors and other details worked out

DO THE JOB PROPERLY OR NOT AT ALL!

Max Hipkins
Planner, architect, engineer
Fellow, Planning Institute of Australia
President, Local Government Planners Association

24 January 2008