Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note the member for Hindmarsh was speaking about taking the time to listen, making sure that everyone has a chance to put something forward, and that is what I rise to speak about. I rise to express disappointment on behalf of my constituents and ratepayers of Swan who reside in South Perth. I also note that many residents from Tangney are unhappy with the direction the City of Melville has taken on the issue I am going to talk about and they have formed a Melville action group.

The decision being taken is to approve the draft for a high-density, high-rise planning regime in the Canning Bridge precinct of Perth. There has been widespread and almost unanimous opposition from local residents in both council areas and I must admit I have not had one resident approach me and say, ‘This is a fantastic idea.’ The draft Canning Bridge Precinct Vision document, which outlines this plan, defines a Canning Bridge precinct as an 800-metre radius centred on the Canning Bridge train station. On the Swan electorate side of the bridge an arbitrary circle has been drawn demarking the area to which this regime will apply. Information my office has received from the Western Australian Planning Commission suggests that this will lead to 1,600 more dwellings on the South Perth side of the precinct by 2031. It has been met with a resounding opposition from local residents. Worryingly, it has now been endorsed by the City of South Perth in the face of this opposition. The other council involved, the City of Melville, is set to vote on this issue tomorrow night.

I want to run through how this process has developed into such a contentious issue in my community. When this issue first surfaced earlier in the year, people were concerned about the lack of consultation and the lack of information available. The residents are not antidevelopment but have felt that, through the whole consultation process, they have not been listened to. I have been to a few of the meetings and I must admit I also felt they were not being listened to.

The WAPC issued the draft for comment and subsequently extended the consultation period timeframe, which gave some time for the local residents to raise their objections and for a full public reaction to emerge. Public meetings were held, including one down by the Canning Bridge, which I attended with the local state member, John McGrath, MLA for South Perth—a hard-working local member—and Janet Woollard, an Independent MLA who listens to her constituents and understands their needs. It was clear at this meeting that there was an overwhelming opposition to this proposal in the community. Many of the main concerns from local residents centred on the proposed tower block developments. The draft plan foreshadows buildings potentially 20 storeys high which would undoubtedly come to dominate the skyline and the surrounding areas. In a submission one local resident said:

It’s ironic that one of the very things (the leafy quiet feeling of community) that draws people to live in Applecross will be eroded by it and eventually disappear altogether under inexorable encroachments of successive high-rise developments. Witness what happened to South Perth.

The same sentiment has been echoed by many residents of Como. There is a palpable fear in the community that these tower blocks will change the nature of what are quiet and indeed leafy suburbs, which is what attracted people to these areas in the first place. There has also been anger over the inevitable destruction of green space. The Como Beach action group raised concerns about the Olives Reserve, the only park on the river side of the Canning Highway for nearby residents. The group also raised concerns about the potential use of green land at the end of Melville Parade.

Other concerns included the possibility of compulsory acquisition of properties, impact of noise pollution and devaluation of properties. One resident summed up his views about the plan as more traffic, more congestion, parking issues, reduced street parking, overshadowing, less trees, more noise, more pollution, extensive zone of high rise buildings, existing views impacted, reduced privacy and overlooking issues, lack of public open space at ground level and security concerns.

After making detailed submissions and attending public meetings and lengthy consultation sessions, local residents would have hoped to have been heard. However, it is the inability of the council or the Planning Commission to take any of these points on board that has angered the local residents. This has led some local residents to declare it is a sham consultation process. A submission from one local resident declares:

This section states that the visions have been identified through ‘extensive community and stakeholder consultation’. Many of these dot points however were not discussed within nor arrived at through the conducted community forums and it si not clear from where many of the points have eventuated.

A number of points were put forward by the consultant running the workshop sessions as his own personal thoughts and were not pur forward from the community nor supported by those in attendance. Another submission states:

… we do not recognise the community forums held or sponsored by the South Perth City Council and other governments to date as legitimate community consultations for the following reasons:

1. Material information that would significantly affect residents and owners—including but not limited to the bus ramp at Cassey Street, the rezoning of heights to 10 storeys, and the rezoning plan leading to the elimination of many existing river views—was known and foreseen as a possibility by the governments before and during the community forums.

2. That this material information was either vaguely presented, downplayed or not presented at all by the governments in their published documents or in the community forums.

3. That this material information was then used by the governments and government contractors as the basis for the first published vision in a forum(s) that deliberately excluded community participants.

One of the local councillors has responded to concerns about consultation by publishing a diary of consultation events on his Green for Tangney blog. Yes, that councillor stood for the Greens in the federal electorate of Tangney at the August election. I feel this process and the council have been politicised by his lack of independence. Anyway, his blog goes like this:

My diary of consultation around Canning Bridge transport and other issues includes the following events:

21 July 2008: initial presentation by GHD, joint events for the city of South Perth and Melville citizens and the south of Perth yacht club two sessions—midday and evening;

29 July 2008: council briefing, city of Perth with GHD councillors and staff;

11 August 2008: community engagement sessions—one at South Perth senior citizens for South Perth residents within the 800 metre zone.

These are just samples of what is on his blog.

In the end this councillor concludes that there have been almost 40 consultation events. However, one of the residents has said that you can hold 400 public consultation events and it would be pointless unless you listen to what the people are actually saying to you. Another area in the fanciful concept of this draft is about TODs. A TOD is a transport oriented development, but a submission by a resident about the draft on TODs notes:

Section 1.3 of the draft is titled ‘Principles’ yet the section sets out ‘key elements of TOD’ The concluding paragraph states, “This study will consider ways in which the above principles of TOD can be delivered effectively and in a timely manner to the Canning Bridge precinct”.

Transit oriented development planning is a theoretical exercise which cannot simply draw out the main elements of the approach and apply them on the ground in a one-size-fits-all scenario guaranteed to arrive at success, particularly from one country and one culture to another. The section of the element principles is only a vague outline of the details of design within a TOD and is far too broad and non-specific to be applied literally. The component that is most likely to result in a successful TOD is the connectivity in the area, particularly between the identified elements. This aspect has not even been identified. In addition, the principles of TOD have not been applied in any way that is cognizant of what is actually occurring on the ground and in the existing areas.

I would like again to point out that the residents opposing this plan are not antiprogress. Stakeholders commended the recommendation for a southbound Manning Road on-ramp. This is an issue I have spoken about many times in this parliament and during the campaign I was pleased to be able to launch a Liberal election commitment of $10 million towards the construction of this long overdue piece of infrastructure. It was interesting to note that the Labor candidate also called for this infrastructure to be implemented as well but got no commitment for it. However, we were not given the opportunity to form a government and sadly will not have the opportunity to help build the Manning Road on-ramp for the people in that area.

In conclusion, concerned residents have founded two pressure groups: the Como Action Group and a Melville action group. I applaud them for this. As with other action groups, sometimes councils need to understand the passion of these people for their suburbs. The consultation process should actually achieve some results and not just ‘I hear and I feel what you are saying’ and then totally ignore the input of the people who voted for them in the first place. These groups are talking about running candidates against the sitting councillors at the next election in 12 months. I would encourage them to do that as part of the Australian democratic process and would warn those particular councillors who are not listening to their local residents that they do so at their own peril. The fact that they can do it is what is great about our country.

In this spirit I call upon the planning commission and the local councillors to listen to the people, shelve this plan, conduct a real process in consultation with the community and embrace the notions for how they want to live. I would like to thank those residents who have contributed and helped me put this speech together with their submissions.

See this speech in context