The Goose Drank Wine?

There is a song from the 1960s which starts: Three, Six, Nine, the goose drank wine. A bit of a nonsense song, really, but harmless.

But when three becomes six, the result can be anything but harmless.

I have heard that the State Government's 3% budget cut across the board will somehow become 6% for public transport and that this will be achieved through severe service reductions after 8pm.

This would effectively mean that anyone without a driver's licence can't go out in the evening unless they live close to a train station (and want to go somewhere that is also close to a train station) or can afford to use a taxi (if they can get one, which is problematic in the evenings, especially Friday and weekends). This would increase the social isolation of disadvantaged groups in the community and those who are unable to or choose not to own or drive a car. This group includes systematic over-representation of women, seniors, people with disabilities and teenagers.

No doubt it will be buried in the overall message - and the Public Transport Authority will be left to make the announcement about service reductions (and take the flack - unfairly).

Perhaps it doesn't actually breach the accessible public transport action plan (which is enforceable through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Federal Court), as the service cuts will apply to everyone without discrimination, but it is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of it. The practical effects of such cuts in services would certainly be discriminatory.

Ironic, really, that the much-vaunted action plan, which was the first substantial public transport action plan accepted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, was signed by the previous Liberal/National Government in 1996. Now we have its successor seriously considering subverting the spirit, if not the letter, of that agreement - and potentially facing embarrassment in the Federal Court.

Ironic, also, that the new Minister for Transport is also the Minister for Disability Services - and therefore has a dual interest in this matter.

Perhaps someone should remind the Treasurer (and the rest of the bean-counters in the Barnett Government) of the statement that Albert Einstein had on the wall of his office at Princeton University:

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

Tilting at the State Administrative Tribunal?

My previous post talked about the value of challenging conventional wisdom ('Tilting at Windmills'). This post revisits that theme in relation to planning and development approvals.

Sometimes, Council is urged not to refuse a development 'because you won't have a chance with any appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal' (SAT). This argument can be superficially persuasive, especially where the Town's planning staff have recommended approval.

However, Vincent has developed a good track record in the SAT in such cases, largely because we take the trouble to present the case properly, rather than imposing on our staff to defend a decision that went against their professional advice and recommendation. Council's practice, which I helped instigate, is to be represented by an independent town planner, an elected member of Council and,if possible, a representative of the affected local community in such cases.

The most recent such case related to 13 Melrose Street and is notable because the SAT upheld every ground on which Council refused the development application. In doing so, it has reinforced and clarified an earlier upholding of a Town of Vincent decision on what constitutes a multiple dwelling. This is important because at certain density zonings, multiple dwellings are allowed a higher dwelling density than would be allowed for grouped dwellings.

The SAT also placed a clear onus on the applicant to justify variations from the requirements of the planning codes and Town of Vincent Policies.

In its decision dated 7 November 2008, the SAT determined:

a) that the proposed development was incorrectly classified as multiple dwellings and should properly be classified as grouped dwellings. Grouped dwellings are not benefited with tge density advantage associated with multiple dwellings in accordance with the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008). The Tribunal therefore found that the proposed development exceeded the density of development allowable on the site.

b) that car parking provision was inadequate on site and that a thorough case had not been made to demonstrate the capacity of off-site car parking to augment parking requirements.

c) that although overlooking and privacy issues could be addressed by comprehensive balcony screening, such a measure would be at the expense of the quality and amenity of the development.

d) the Tribunal accepted the Town of Vincent's argument that the development did not display high quality design standards that would allow discretion under the relevant planning policy to grant a reduction of site area per dwelling. Accordingly, additional units should not be accommodated in the development as sought by the applicant.

This last point means that the proposed density could not be supported even if the development were to be classified as multiple dwellings. As the Tribunal accepted the argument that the proposed dwellings should be classified as grouped, not multiples, the proposal for 7 units was almost twice the number of units allowable.

The SAT support of Council's refusal also highlights the importance of having clear and logical policies, consistently applied, for the management of development in the Town. The own's Policy on Single-Bedroom Dweelings was only adopted in April this year (2008). This is probably its most significant test to-date - and it has come through with flying colours. It will continue to do so as long as we use it sensibly and consistently to ensure that such developments are consistent with both the amenity of the locality and the amenity of prospective residents.

Tilting at Windmills?

I recently mentioned a (probably apocryphal) ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" to a friend, who asked me of its origins. After some research, I'm still not sure, but I was 'interested' to find that Bobby Kennedy had used it in 1966:

There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged -- will ultimately judge himself -- on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

Many might think that recent events in world markets, in climate change and the price of oil (for all that the last has dropped temporarily) mean that we are truly living in interesting times.

But Kennedy was really talking about not letting the magnitude of challenges deterring us from at least trying to make a difference in the world. Too often we are daunted or allow ourselves to succumb to futility, expediency, timidity, and comfort.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills -- against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration, and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs… It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education.

I'm sure that we have all succumbed to all these at some time in our lives. And when I think about that, I realise that these were the times when I felt bad - about myself, about other people, about the world. These were the times when I wanted credit for what I had done, rather than simply valuing my having achieved something.

I think, then, of the times spent tilting at windmills, attempting the impossible - sometimes simply putting a thought out there in the hope that someone else would pick it up and make it their own. I have lost count of the times this has worked. There is truly nothing as powerful as an idea that someone has been convinced is their own.

I am often reminded of this on Council - but then find myself buoyed by the small achievements. Last week, Council's draft policy on streetscapes appeared doomed by the large number of objections, despite many supporters of the policy not having made written submissions because the consultation document assured them that if they did not make a written submission it would be assumed that they had no objection. In the end, we were able to find a way through that allowed:
(a) the views of the objectors to be recognised,
(b) the draft policy to be improved in response to comments received
(c) those streets where residents were supportive to progress with streetscape protection and
(d) residents of other streets to 'opt-in' later if there was sufficient support in their streets.

My sincere thanks to my fellow Councillors for voting overwhelmingly to support this approach.

Circuses without Bread: 888 must not overshadow 8888

Today is the grand opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

Much has been made of China's human poor rights record in relation to the Olympic ideals. Comparisons have even been drawn to the Berlin Olympics of 1936, although most of these are flawed as Berlin was awarded the Games before Adolf Hitler infamously came to power.

The Chinese apparently believe that 8/8/8 is an auspicious date. Perhaps it is.

But for the Burmese people a previous date of eights, 8/8/88, was anything but auspicious. To millions of Burmese, the day will only bring agonizing memories of a defeated uprising for democracy. An estimated 3,000 fell to the bullets of a brutally repressive military regime, as the Burmese people rose in revolt on August 8, 1988, remembered since then as 8.8.88 or simply as 8888. A large number of protesters fled the country, to survive as refugee populations in neighboring countries ranging from Thailand to India. On the 20th anniversary of the uprising, the Beijing pageantry will be blurred for many, many families as they tearfully recall the time they were torn asunder.

The 20th anniversary of 8888 promises only a tough and lengthy struggle for the people of Burma, one in which they cannot hope for real assistance from the world's best-advertised democracies. Whether the very small number of Burmese athletes win medals in Beijing or not, the pro-democracy movement can only look forward to the loneliness of the long-distance runner.

[Thanks to J. Sri Raman for the above information: http://www.truthout.org/article/the-games-they-play-burma]

The spectacle and hype of the Games opening is akin to circuses without the bread for many in the world, not least those who are denied simple human rights and the right to determine their own futures.

Sometimes It's Important to Make a Statement of Principle

In my younger days, I heard the excuse 'but what can one person do' more often than I care to remember. I thought then, and I still do, that it smacked of an abnegation of individual responsibility rather than being an objective statement about reality. If we really believe something, we should be willing to stand up and be counted - and the more of us that do so, the more likely it will be that you will, individually and collectively, make a difference.

Anyone who doubts that should look at the influence that GetUp had on the most recent Federal election.

So - what has this to do with the Town of Vincent?

On Tuesday 22 April, Councillors will be asked to rescind two policies on the basis that what Vincent does or says will make no difference to the bigger picture.

One of these (Policy 4.1.8 - Nuclear Free Zone) is a simple philosophical statement that has little practical application (I doubt there would ever be a proposal to build a nuclear power station in Vincent). It nevertheless has a potentially powerful supporting impact for communities that might be faced with a nuclear power station in their backyard - just imagine if GetUp hadn't been instrumental in getting rid of John Howard!

The other (Policy 1.1.8 - Selective Purchasing - Burma) is definitely of practical - and humanitarian - concern. It might well be the case that, even in the absence of such a policy, the Town of Vincent would not purchase products from Burma - but that isn't the issue. The political situation in Burma hasn't improved since the policy was first adopted in 1999.

The military dictatorship still refuses to transfer power to the rightfully-elected government under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi.

The military dictatorship still refuses to restore to Aung San Suu Kyi freedom of movement, freedom of association or freedom of expression.

The military dictatorship still oppresses the Burmese people and denies them basic human rights, that you and I take for granted.

I believe the policy makes a valuable statement and should be retained.

It would make a very unfortunate statement if we were to rescind the policy, as it could be taken to mean that we no longer objected to the Burma military regime and its oppression of the Burmese people. It would be doubly unfortunate to do so when the United Nations has just reiterated its condemnation of the abuse of human rights in Burma:

The UN Human Rights Council on Friday 28 March strongly condemned systematic abuses of human rights in Burma by the Asian nation's military rulers, including the holding of a high number of political prisoners. The 47-nation body also passed a separate resolution extending for another year the mandate of the UN investigator for Burma. The Council expressed "deep concern at the situation of human rights in Myanmar (Burma), including the violent repression of the peaceful demonstrations of September 2007 and the failure of the government of Myanmar (Burma) to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of these violations.

Let us not, even inadvertently, give succour or encouragement the perpetrators of this violence against a peaceful people.

You can find these policies on the Town of Vincent website (http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/2/209/1/policy_manual.pm). Let's hope they are still there after Tuesday's Council meeting.

Where Will They Go To School?

The current debate about relocation of the Margaret Kindergarten has raised a great many questions about the future of inner urban areas and the people who live in them.

Certainly, it makes sense to relocate the kindergarten not only closer to the primary school to which it is attached but also closer to where the parents of the children live. On the other hand, those children and their families also need park space. Whilst each child will spend one year in kindergarten, they will benefit from parkland for many more years.

But the debate has also started to put a spotlight on some of the potential weaknesses of the State Government's push for higher density in inner urban areas.

One of those is that with smaller backyards and more people living in the same area, we will actually need more public open space.

Another is where will the children go to school. For decades, state governments closed inner urban schools. That process has, thankfully, ceased but already the cracks are appearing in the education infrastructure. Look at the primary schools around the Town of Vincent and they are all full and many are over-subscribed.

It is true that family sizes are falling, but there is no guarantee that the number of children in Vincent will not increase. However, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy - if schools in inner urban areas are inadequate, families with young children will choose not to live in those areas. That would be to the detriment of the diversity that we in Vincent publicly claim to value.

So where is the future planning for the education of our children and grandchildren?

We are told by the Education Department that existing school sites cannot accommodate any more children (hence, the Mt Hawthorn Primary School site cannot accommodate the kindergarten) but equally there are no more school sites planned in the Town. As some people have already said, perhaps we could do with a more innovative approach to school design and architecture to make better use of existing school sites without adversely affecting their amenity and heritage.

The most obvious planned increase in population in Vincent is for the Oxford Centre, Leederville, with the proposed redevelopment of the car parks owned by the Town. This redevelopment will produce some large buildings - perhaps one of these should incorporate a primary school with a play area on the roof. This would provide additional schooling opportunities for the children of parents who work in Leederville (and there will be many more people working in Leederville in the future) and the 'green roof' would provide environmental and energy benefits for occupants of the buildings.

Come to that, we could require green roofs for buildings in the redevelopment - that would also help provide the green open space for residents, workers and visitors.

Residents, Ratepayers and Planning Appeals - Leveling the Playing Field

I have often been asked whether ratepayers or residents have any right to appeal against a planning approval for another property that adversely affects their amenity or lifestyle. The answer is, unfortunately, 'Not in Western Australia', although why WA should be different from other states has not been satisfactorily explained.

The response when the question is raised usually (see, for example, Janet Woollard's question in Parliament in May last year - below) rests on three things:

1) the danger of frivolous or vexatious appeals - which doesn't appear to be a problem elsewhere. Are WA people likely to be more frivolous or vexatious than others? On the basis of my 12 years in local government, I seriously doubt it - and frankly we should be outraged by any such suggestion.

2) the fact that residents and ratepayers may have some rights when an appeal is raised by others. However, this can only be the case when a developer or property owner appeals against a Council refusal or against a condition of approval. In the latter case, the State Administrative Tribunal will only consider the specific condition the local government seeks to apply and which is being appealed, not whether the development should have been approved at all.

3) the democratic process, which means that the community can express a view on the performance of individual councillors by voting or by standing for Council. However, this is no comfort to those who are adversely and irremediably affected by specific development approvals. In any case, not everyone has the time or inclination to be a local government councillor, which requires long term commitment to be effective.

Vincent, in fact, goes further than any other local government, where Council overturns a planning officer recommendation for approval of a development, with our practice of being represented at such appeals by an independent planner, an elected member and one or more members of the local community - not by our planning staff, who would have extreme difficulty defending a decision that was in direct conflict with their professional advice.

However, Council cannot empower local residents/ratepayers to initiate appeals against its decision to approve a development.

Even the 'best' of Councils will occasionally not get it right. Rather than just say that disadvantaged residents or ratepayers can express a view every two years or even phone us to let off steam after the decision, we should have the integrity and courage to allow direct redress - provided there is a reasonable basis for doing so.

The current planning system is biased in favour of the developer (whether an individual or a large-scale company) who can respond to a refusal by either an appeal or resubmitting the application (with or without amendment). The developer only needs to get the answer he/she wants once - other affected property owners need to get that every time.

This imbalance means that Councils should, if anything, err on the side of caution where there is any doubt about whether a development application should be approved. There is a parallel here with the Westminster convention on the use of the casting vote:

In the House of Commons the casting vote is held by the Speaker or the chairman of a committee. The convention is that the Speaker’s casting vote always gives the House another chance to discuss the subject before any final decision is taken.

It's time to level the playing field - and a Private Member's Bill likely to be introduced into the WA Parliament this year aims to do just that.

Third Party Appeal Rights and the WA Parliament

On 17 May, 2007, the Member of Alfred Cove, Dr Janet Woollard asked the Minster for Planning and Infrsatructure:

In Victoria, third party participation in the planning appeal process has been in place since 1963, and the process is not considered frivolous, costly or irrelevant.

(1) Will the minister explain why Western Australia remains the only state in Australia in which, other than when a local council and a developer disagree on a development application, there is no right for a third party to become a party to a state appeal process?

(2) Does the minister agree that members of the community should be given the opportunity to contribute, or object, to planning applications at a tribunal level?

(3) Will the minister ask the State Administrative Tribunal to provide this Parliament with an analysis of the cost effectiveness of third party appeals, perhaps based on the Victorian model?

The Hon Minister, Alannah MacTiernan replied, in part:

Third party appeals is a very vexed issue. It is not true to say that in Western Australia there is no right to appeal, or, indeed, be joined in a matter. However, there is no right for a third party to actually initiate an appeal. I guess we need to make a judgement about what is in the best interests of the community. Certainly at this point in Western Australia’s history, the idea that we would divert precious planning resources into appeals, many of which unfortunately will be, I think, judged frivolous, is not something that I believe could be justified. I point out that local government is elected by the community. Elections are held every two years. I urge people who are not happy with the sorts of planning decisions that are being made by their local governments to stand for council. It is really important, if people are concerned about these democratic processes, that people take the initiative to get involved, rather than just stand on the sidelines.

You Heard It Here First!

Two weeks ago, I drew your attention to what was in the white space between the lines of statements made by Allanah MacTiernan, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, about the location of the new major sports stadium. That is a great present (and relief) for the Town of Vincent residents who live int he area between the railway and the river.

[Incidentally, reading between the lines is second only to being able to read upside down (when you're sitting on the opposite side of the desk from someone) in value if you really want to know what's going on. I got to be very good at both reading specialities during my years in the public service - but that's another story!]

I didn't anticipate that an announcement would be made at the same time of $500 million for a world class museum on the banks of the Swan River in the East Perth Power Station, but that is another thing that should warm the hearts of those same residents.

A museum will attract a substantial number of people - but not 60,000 at a time! Moreover, those people will be coming throughout the week and weekend, but in manageable numbers that suggest that public transport will be able to make a very substantial contribution. We will, however, still need to ensure that those who do come by car don't infringe on the residential amenity of the Banks Precinct.

The proposal I made on 24 January (previous post on this blog) looks even better with the museum. An 'inner collar' transit service will help get the crowds away from the new Subiaco Stadium in a more orderly way (especially those who are heading for the Northern or Southern suburbs). It will also provide convenient access to the new museum for many inner urban residents who live too far away to walk but don't live close to a train station - so would otherwise drive their cars.

A side benefit of the museum might arise from associated activities that provide opportunities for this isolated part of Vincent. I am sure that the East Perth Redevelopment Authority will be looking closely at its plans for the remainder of the East Perth Power Station site to include a suitable mix of activities (not just residential) to take advantage of the proximity to East Perth train station (improving access for pedestrians across East Parade in the process) and the proposed "inner collar". But not with a full road link for Summers Street across the railway - more like a 'green bridge' (public transport, pedestrians and cyclists - and. of course, emergecny vehicles only), please. Who knows, it might even be sufficient to get a Brisbane-style fast ferry service (perhaps linking the Belmont racecourse development, the East Perth Powerstation Museum, the Burswood development and the City and on to the University of Western Australia).

Does Alannah know something we don't?

I have previously expressed my concern (shared with many East Perth residents) about the proposal for a 60,000 (or even 70,000) seat sports stadium on the East Perth Power Station site. Well, perhaps the cat has been let out of the bag.

Speaking at the University of Western Australia Summer School yesterday (23 January), the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTiernan is reported (West Australian, 24 January, p13) as saying that the Northbridge Link, the Mounts Bay foreshore area and "other projects including the cultural centre and East Perth Power Station redevelopment would collectively deliver 10,500 residents and 19,000 jobs in the city". How likely is that if a major sports stadium were to be built on the East Perth Power Station site?

Perhaps the whole stadium proposal was smokescreen to soften up residents of the area to be more accepting of high-density residential or mixed-use development on the site.

A report was released this week that give qualified support to a light rail service between the city, Subiaco and the QEII Medical Centre. At a cost of $400 million, this would be an expensive shuttle service and does nothing to help residents of the Northern Suburbs who would only be able to get to the QEII Medical Centre by public transport by travelling through the centre of the City. Wouldn't it be more sensible to link also to Leederville Station, which provides direct train access to the whole coastal strip (north and south) without having to travel on congested central city roads.

This also makes sense if the major stadium is to be located in Subiaco, as the link to Leederville could provide an alternative public transport option for people from all points north and south along the Clarkson to Mandurah railway.

And while we're about it , let's make it more of system and link round to East Perth (through Vincent) via Beatty Park and Members Equity Stadium, the East Perth Power Station redevelopment andending up in the Royal Street hub of East Perth, which could also be an eastern terminus of the Subi-City shuttle.

I must admit, though, to having severe reservations about light rail - and not only because of the cost. One of the most consistent messages that the people of Vincent have given me over the 12 years I have been a Councillor is that they want power lines put underground - and not just in residential streets. Light rail requires an intensive overhead infrastructure as well as the rails in the roadway. And those rails aren't very friendly to cyclists or pedestrians (especially those who rely on mobility aids, including wheelchairs). Earlier this year, in Cologne, Germany, I witnessed a cyclist fall when her bicycle wheel became trapped in tram tracks - fortunately there wasn't a tram bearing down on her at the time, but she was very shaken and upset.

There are alternatives that are environmentally responsible and less intrusive, using, for example, in-road electronic guidance and on-board power systems such as gas/electric hybrids (similar to the Toyota Prius car) and, of course, hydrogen fuel cells. Let's at least have a look at these before inflicting yet more poles and wire on our communities.