newsletters

9 Viking Road
Dalkeith
WA 6009

12 February, 2008

Objection to Nedlands Council Development Plan for Dalkeith

The proposed plan is totally unacceptable on the following grounds and needs to be thrown out in its entirety. No attempt should be made to modify it. Dalkeith is a quiet, leafy, established suburb with beautiful surroundings. It is not vacant, unused, unoccupied land ready for some totally ill-conceived development, such as that proposed.

1. My wife and I have spoken to almost all residents surrounding our home in Viking Road between Curlew and Wavell, in addition to our many friends in our suburb. Many families stated that they had spent a lot of money buying properties in this area for the relative safety and security of their families. They were appalled by this proposal, which would increase population and traffic density enormously.

2. If it is necessary to erect a development of this size in the inner city area it should be made near the Perth-Fremantle railway line where transport is already established. The proposed scheme would increase private vehicle use in the suburb to an intolerable level. Traffic jams would be the order of the day, especially at peak periods.

3. The requirement that many new homes would be 70 m2 would bring in a whole lot of single people, particularly opposite the school. There are currently established homes in that area of Circe Circle with families living in them.

4. The proposal to have buildings as high as five storeys in the development is absurd. It would completely change this suburb; for the worse! My preference is that buildings should be restricted to a maximum of only TWO storeys, and I have a preference for only ONE storey to remain where this is already the case.

5. The proposal involves removing virtually all trees in the area proposed for development. This would be sacrilege. Has the Council not heard of global warming? I maintain a significant number of large trees on my own property to do something for the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen. I am already upset by Council allowing the removal of all trees on individual quarter-acre blocks where houses are demolished in the suburb. Council is already allowing the creation of a concrete jungle in Dalkeith even prior to the ridiculous conception of this preposterous proposal. We should revert to the system of requiring an application to be made and approved by Council before ANY large trees are removed. Current policy is already one of environmental vandalism. Where on earth does Council think the birds are going? If trees are removed wholesale, as is being allowed under current Council policy, the suburb will become much warmer. The ill-conceived proposal for development would vastly accelerate this process.

I could easily add a number of further objections, but I assume that the above few would focus the Council on the fact that I, as a rate-payer, am TOTALLY opposed to the proposed development. Council members should remember that they are on Council to represent the rate-payers and residents in their area.
Council should not heed any suggestion that there have been insufficient objections to this proposal. First, the turnout at the Dalkeith Hall last night (11 February, 2008) would have proved that to the councillors, had they all taken the trouble to be present to listen to their electorate. Disappointingly, almost none of them came, which I found strange. Second.....
IS COUNCIL ASKING THE CORRECT QUESTION OF RATEPAYERS?
I would say “Certainly not!!”. Council is asking for objections. They will, however, no doubt be aware that there are both ignorance and apathy amongst voters in general. I have spoken to many ratepayers who are simply unaware of this ridiculous proposal, while others claim that they are too busy to respond. Had Council, having produced this proposal, asked ratepayers to write in support if they approved it, I believe that they would have had ZERO response other than for a possible very few who had vested interests. In addition, how is it that the letter informing their electorate was dated 20 December, when they would know that people had Christmas to arrange and also many people would be away on holiday?? No better timing could have been achieved had Council wished to limit, as far as possible, the number of objections that they received.

Professor RGF Giles