Token Consultation on Flawed Report in City of Vincent

The City of Vincent Draft Open Space Strategy (https://imagine.vincent.wa.gov.au/public-open-space-strategy) was approved by Council for consultation on 13 November.

Consultation closes 28 November, which is, at best, effectively less than two weeks consultation time. Readers of the City's e-mail newsletter would only have found out 23 November, which gives less than one week to respond.

This is not good enough, no matter how much community involvement there might have been beforehand. Contributions made during the development process are important but do not replace the need for individuals and community organisations, including those who were unable to participate earlier, to be able to comment on the specific proposals and how they have been arrived at.

Some of the basic mapping information is wrong and/or misleading, too - for example, I live immediately opposite Hyde Park and 30m from a pedestrian-friendly crossing that goes directly to an entry path to the Park, but the map shows me being over 200 metres access distance from any public open space.

Maps also don't recognise that high-level parks also serve the functions of lower-level parks. The extreme case of this is that Banks Precinct is shown as being 801-1600 metres from a 'local park' even when just across the road from Banks Reserve, which has a sheltered playground typical of local parks.

I am bemused by Figure 4 (below). How is it that, for example, all properties immediately opposite Hyde Park are shown as being at least 100m for POS and in some cases (including my own house) more than 200m from POS. Even if I go to the nearest formalised pedestrian crossing point, I only have to walk 30 metres to it and then 20 metres across the road.

There's a big difference between 50m and 201-400m!

[Mayor Emma Cole has responded to me saying that the anomaly about Hyde Park will be rectified before further consideration by Council, but the problem with identifying one such anomaly so easily is that one is forced to wonder how many other anomalies/errors there are.]

There are other apparent anomalies, as well - most notably showing the whole of what used to be Loton Park as POS when most of it is closed off as nib stadium. A similar argument can be mounted with respect to Dorrien Gardens (Perth Soccer Club), Robertson Park (Tennis Centre) and Litis Stadium. Although these are noted in the text, it would be helpful to have this differentiated on the maps. 

[Whilst subsequent correspondence has clarified that 'closed-off' areas with no public access were recognised in the strategy analysis, it would be sensible, as well as courteous to the reader, to show this on the maps.]

Maps showing access to local, neighbourhood and district POS are even more misleading, as they fail to recognise that higher level parks such as Hyde Park serve all the functions of local, neighbourhood and regional parks (see eg Figure 5, below). There is absolutely no reason for 'local' open space to be provided when you have Hyde Park just across the road. 

The presentation is even more ludicrous in the case of the western end of Britannia Road  and most of Banks Precinct which are shown as being 801-1600m from local POS (coloured red), despite being immediately opposite Britannia Reserve (which, admittedly does not have a children's playground at the northern end) and in close proximity to Banks Reserve (which does have a children's playground), respectively,

This is token consultation on a flawed report.

Architects Not The Repository Of All Wisdom

A week ago, I wrote about the importance of communities in the planning and development decision-making process (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/11/keeping-planning-review-issues-alive.html).

Yesterday, I was taken to task by the President of the Australian Institute of Architects (WA) for apparent not understanding the unique role of architects. According to Suzanne Hunt architects can do no wrong and we should entrust development decisions to them because of the unique skills and experience.

Well, I beg to differ - and fortunately the West Australian published my riposte in today's letters page.

In neither of my letters did I mention (because the West would be less likely to publish if I did) the undeniable fact that many 'specialist members' of the DAPs have an endemic conflict of interest as most of their income is derived from large landowners and property developers - not necessarily in the case of any specific development but generally (see my submission to the Review of the WA Planning System).

I'm not the only one who didn't like Suzanne Hunt's reply to my first letter - and the West also published a letter from Tony Phipps of Riverton based on personal experience. As I pointed out in my letter, architects don't have literally to live with the consequences of their planning decisions, but communities do.

Keeping Planning Review Issues Alive

Further to my earlier post about the need to keep a close eye on the current Review of the WA Planning System, especially in the lead-up to the festive season, here is my response to an article in the West Australian of 14th November, featuring the views of David Caddy, Chairman of the WAPC.

Of course, the limitations of a letter mean one can't deal with all the issues raised by the article, but it at least keeps the powers-that-be aware that community concerns are real, have not gone away and will not go away unless they are properly recognised in the outcome of the review.

Letters, West Australian, 16th November, 2018.
Click picture to enlarge

For balance (and for those who might have missed the original article) here is the piece with David Caddy's views.

https://thewest.com.au/business/commercial-property/resistance-site-size-hurdles-for-medium-density-uptake-ng-b881016356z
Click frames to enlarge

Planning System Review: Be Alert In Lead-Up To Christmas

Back in July, I drew attention to the WA Government's review of the planning system and posted my submission to that review (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/07/green-paper-modernising-western.html).

Objectives of the planning review include:

• Making strategic planning the cornerstone of all planning decisions;
• Opening up the planning system so that it is understandable to all;
• Clarifying local and State planning roles and functions of the WA Planning Commission and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage;
• Responding to community concerns about accountability and transparency of Development Assessment Panels;
• Formally recognising the need for community participation;
• Creating more certainty for industry and cutting red tape; and
• Refining developer contribution schemes. 

The Green Paper did not, in my view, satisfactorily address some of the key issues that have been of concern to communities across Perth in recent years. Indeed, in some respects, its proposals would exacerbate those problems - most notably through expanding the role and influence of so-called specialist members of the DAPs to include domination of the WA Planning Commission as well.

In addition, there was no mention at all of enhancing the rights of individuals and communities in the appeal process.

Over 240 submissions were received and the review team in the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage is reviewing the submission to assist the Government in responding to the Green Paper.

Unlike most such Inquiries and Reviews (including, for example, the current review of the WA Local Government Act - https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/localgovernment/strengthening/Pages/LGactreview-submissions.aspx), submissions do not appear to be available online for us to read. We will have no idea, therefore, of the views expressed, by whom they were expressed or how much the Government response actually relates to them.

There has been silence on the matter since submissions closed on 20th July, 2018, but given various statements previously made about 'quick wins' - not to mention the fact that we are approaching the halfway mark of this term of government - it would be reasonable to expect some response within 6 months. That puts it, of course, fairly and squarely in the silly season, when families are on holiday and most of us have our minds on other things than the WA planning system.

I might well be unduly cynical in drawing attention to the possibility that the Government's proposals for change might be announced in the lead-up to Christmas/New Year, thus slipping under the radar of many, especially community organisations that tend to go into recess in December/January. 

Indeed, I hope I am proved wrong, but just in case, I'll be keeping a close eye on what happens and bring it to attention here and on my Twitter account.

West Australian Looking For The Bad In Local Government

On Friday 14th September, the West Australian reported on the newly-released Annual Report of the Local Government Standards Panel ('Councillors face complaints surge', West Australian, 14 September), focusing on the increase in complaints rather than the substance of the report. 

The substance provides a rather less pessimistic picture.

Overall, there were fewer than six complaints per ten councils and less than one-third of those determined were upheld. That's less than one upheld complaint for every five councils in WA over the whole year.

For metropolitan councils, if we exclude Melville, which accounted for over a quarter of metropolitan complaints, there was less than one complaint per council. 

For non-metropolitan councils, if we exclude Port Hedland, which accounted for nearly 20% of regional complaints, there was one complaint for every three councils. 

These rates are hardly evidence of of systemic problem. Indeed, it could be argued that were the rates any lower it would be evidence that people didn't care sufficiently about local government. If anything, these rates are a strong suggestion that Melville and Port Hedland should be looked at much more closely for issues specific to them.

Even a 44% increase in such a small number is evidence of the axiom that "100% of very little is still very little" (usually expressed more bluntly than that) rather than anything else. There is not even any mention (nor was there in the LGSP report) of whether the 21 findings that a breach occurred was an increase on previous years, although this is surely a more important measure than the simple increase in the number of complaints.

Most important of all, the report (not to mention WALGA's reported response) ignores the fact only 17 of 82 complaints (just one per eight councils) came from the communities local councils serve. 

Source: Local Government Standards Panel Annual Report 2017-18 

WALGA's reported response, blaming newly-elected councillors being 'less aware of the rules of conduct' is pure supposition and appears to have more to do with WALGA's agenda to increase its influence by having mandatory training for all elected members than it has to do with the LGSP report itself.

The West Australian also fails to mention the stress imposed on the two-thirds of complained-against councillors where complaints were dismissed.

The Annual Report of the Local Government Standards Panel is available for download at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/4011623a58e1eb7c0c121e964825830500335e4b/$file/1623.pdf

West Australian, 14 September 2018

-->

Bursting Their Banks

One of the things I love about living opposite Hyde Park is the variety of weather and scenery.

Today, I thought I'd take advantage of a sunny break in the rain to see how the lakes were doing. No sooner had a I got down there than the heavens opened and I had to run back again!

And the lakes? They're doing fine and are actually over both the new and old banks for the first time this year. With lots more rain forecast, could we see the causeway between them underwater as happened some years ago?

Even our black swan brood seems to have been forced to seek higher ground - don't think they'd have expected to share it with zebras, though.

Green paper: Modernising Western Australia's Planning System

The WA Government recently initiated a review of the WA Planning System and released a Green Paper outlining a range of possible proposals - https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Planning-reform.aspx.

Submissions can be made in response to this Green Paper until  Friday 20th July.

Whilst there can be considerable improvement to the current situation, I believe that the Green Paper ignores a number of key issues, such as third-party appeals and the dominance of decision-making by so-called 'specialist members' who, almost by definition, have systematic conflicts of interest since much of their professional income is derived from large landowners and property developers.

My key contentions are that:
-  The planning process and resulting plans are inevitably seen by those seeking to maximise their financial return from investment in property as a constraint. They, therefore, have a vested interest in claiming that the system is unfair, complex or otherwise works against them.
-  The community (individually and collectively), in many cases, have neither the resources nor the incentive to participate in the development of plans. Consequently, their efforts are mainly directed at the development approval stage.
-  Community willingness to be part of the planning process is substantially eroded by development approvals that stretch the boundaries of or are in breach of gazetted planning schemes.
-  The decision-making (development-approval) process is inevitably weighted in favour of those with the greatest resources. In recent times, this imbalance has been structurally incorporated into the Development Assessment Panels, where ‘specialist members’ have an inbuilt majority. Such specialist members have an unavoidable conflict of interest, as much of their professional income is derived from large landowners and property developers.
-  The decision-making (development approval) process is weighted against the community, as there are no third-party appeal rights. Consequently approvals go unchallenged, whereas refusals are subject to ‘reassessment’ at the behest of the applicant.
-  It is critical that people and communities are effectively involved in ‘shaping strategic plans for their communities’. This will only happen, however, when it is demonstrably clear that those strategic plans actually inform decision-making and that development approvals are consistent with those plans.
-  Putting ‘specialist members’ effectively in charge of both the planning (WAPC) and the decision-making (DAPs) would be a recipe for alienation (at best) of much of the community – and more, rather than less, confrontation at the development stage.
-  To the extent that the complexity of existing plans and policies is a problem, it is more one for individuals and communities, who have limited resources, than it is for property-owners and developers, who are more likely to be in position to be able to engage professional advice.
-  To the extent that there are problems with out-of-date, conflicting or ambiguous plans and policies, the issue is only partly the planning system itself and more the way in which the system operates, including the time taken for the WA Planning Commission to assess, seek (sometimes trivial or editorial) amendments to and finally approve new local planning schemes.
-  Restructuring or reorganizing the planning system, even if it does reduce complexity and increase efficiency, carries its own costs of transition. Those with the greatest resources, typically property-owners and developers, are in a much better position to understand and adapt to the changes than are individuals and the community.
-  The Green Paper proposals for ‘connected smart growth’ take a restricted, almost physical-determinist’ view, ignoring (and sometimes running counter to) those things that make communities work and be places people want to live.

My full submission is set out below. Double-click on individual pages to enlarge.

Mary Street Trees: My Requests To Vincent Council

Tuesday 19th September.

I took the opportunity to address Vincent Council about what happened to the Mary Street trees and the need to ensure there is no recurrence either there or in respect of any other Trees of Significance in Vincent.

I'll be keeping an eye on this issue, hoping that Vincent Council will follow up.

A few weeks ago, City of Vincent contractor, Beaver Tree Services, severely cut back five of the Hills Weeping Fig trees at the William Street end of Mary Street

I have been informed that the work carried out went far beyond what was approved on the basis of “normal tree maintenance”.

This has totally changed the aesthetics of this highly-valued treescape, probably permanently. Instead of welcoming shade when turning into Mary Street in summer, people will still feel the full force of the sun.

I understand that the works were carried out at the request of the adjoining property owner on the basis that: the trees were encroaching over the property and roof of their buildings and continuously depositing leaf debris in their gutters.

This, in itself, sets a dangerous precedent for Mary Street, as almost every property owner could probably make a similar claim.

Indeed, I recall that when I was on Council we had a similar type of problem with root invasion from the Mary Street trees that could have resulted in compromising the integrity of the streetscape. This was resolved by Council carefully considering a range of options for the whole street, rather than simply responding to the initial request in isolation.

The CEO has assured me that the City’s staff followed Council policies on Street Trees and Trees of Significance. I am not doubting this was so, but what happened to the Mary Street trees demonstrates an urgent need for improvement of those policies, including:

1.    More effective requirement to ensure that contractors do not start work on trees of significance without supervision by Vincent staff.

2.    Penalties for non-compliance with the Street Trees and Trees of Significance policies.

3.    Development of specific management plans for each of the four listed street treescapes: Mabel Street, Mary Street, Money Street and Monger Street.

4.    Requiring that external requests for works on any Trees of Significance be notified to Council, with an officer report on actions to be taken, so that elected members are
(a) informed; and
(b) have the opportunity to require further consideration, including community consultation, before the works are carried out.

In addition, I request that:

1.    The Mary Street treescape be nominated for inclusion on the WA State Heritage Register. There are currently 20 trees or groups of trees on the register and the heritage values of the Mary Street trees are enhanced by the proximity of the Sacred Heart group of buildings that are also on the State Heritage Register.

2.    Where substantial limbs are removed from trees, alternatives to re-use the timber, rather than simply chipping the ‘prunings’, be investigated.

3.    Council and the community be advised of what action is taken against the contractor.

Back To The Past With Michael Sutherland

Perth City Council candidate (and rejected former Mt Lawley MLA) Michael Sutherland wants to take the City of Perth back to the 1990s, when it paraded the slogan "Your car is as welcome as you are".

I truly thought we had got past this sort of idiocy long ago, with inner cities focussing on walking, cycling and public transport, instead of creating yet more traffic congestion by encouraging people to drive to the central city.

Sure, no one likes to pay for parking - witness the number of Perth city commuters who park on my street every day and walk or get a cheap (2-section fare) bus into the city.

But what we have to realise is that car use is not costless (to the driver (self-evident), to other drivers or to the community) and nor is parking.

In peak periods in Perth, every additional driver on the roads imposes congestion costs on other drivers that are even greater than that driver's cost of using the car. On top of that, there are the costs of air pollution, climate change and social impacts - such as community severance by heavy traffic, with which inner urban residents like me are are only too familiar.

Nor is car parking costless, especially in central cities where land costs are very high. Where parking is free to the user (such as at suburban shopping centres), the cost is paid for by businesses (through council rates and/or lease rentals) and ultimately is factored into the prices paid by consumers. The critical difference, where car parkers don't pay directly, is that everyone pays, whether they get there by car and use the parking provided or not.

Public transport to Perth city has never been better - and current proposals for its development will make it even more so - so why, oh why, would we want to turn back the clock 20 years or more and turn the city into a traffic sewer once again.

Reflections For 'Christians' Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

From the UK, but so so relevant to the Australian alt-right right now. Couldn't have put it better myself.

NOT Michael Sutherland for Perth

I am reminded by former Mt Lawley MLA, Michael Sutherland, standing for City of Perth Council that he once said to my daughter about me (when I was (successfully) campaigning against Barnett's local government so-called reform), that it would be better if I went away and played bowls. 

I might say the same about him, but that would be an insult to all those (young as well as old) who enjoy playing bowls - which obviously didn't bother Sutherland when he was suggesting that I "go away" and do so.

On the subject of insults (this time to electors of the City of Perth), what about truth in political advertising? 

Truth in Advertising: An Independent Voice?

Sutherland spruiks himself as "an independent voice", but he was a Liberal MLA before the last WA election and just a couple of months ago was seeking to be replacement Liberal senator for Chris Back who retired for family reasons. The fact that he invited Peta Credlin, the former chief of staff for ousted Liberal leader Tony Abbot, to Perth for a fundraiser at his Mt Lawley branch (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/former-wa-liberal-doesnt-believe-peta-credlin-invite-will-damage-his-senate-bid-20170705-gx59ua.html) should tell us something about where he sits in the Liberal Party spectrum.

Unlike his inner city counterpart, Eleni Evangel (MLA for Perth, 2013-2017), Sutherland did not distance himself from the Liberal-One Nation preference deal. Whereas Ms Evangel said: "I do not support One Nation or their policies" and she had “no time whatsoever for intolerance or discrimination of any form". All Michael Sutherland is reported as saying was that he "did not believe the deal alienated voters". [http://www.communitynews.com.au/guardian-express/news/mt-lawley-and-perth-liberal-members-have-differing-views-on-preference-deal-with-one-nation]

Truth in Advertising: Will The Real Michael Sutherland Show Himself?

I don't normally comment on people's appearance (being no picture of sartorial elegance, myself), but, while on the subject of lack of truth in political advertising, compare the picture Sutherland is using for his facebook page (which appears to be the one used for lord knows how long while he was an MLA) with the reality revealed in his diatribe about homeless (mainly aboriginal) people and Wellington Square.

Contractor's 'Error' - But Vincent Policy and Practice Must Be Better

Thanks to the Perth Voice for its coverage of the Mary Street tree mutilation (below) and to Mayor Emma Cole and Vincent CEO, Len Kosova, for their detailed responses to me on matters I raised in emails with them.

However, I am less sanguine than Mr Kosova about the adequacy of Vincent's policies to prevent recurrence, especially as they appear to give property owners the right to have trees pruned up to the property boundary without having to provide any reasons for doing so - I understand that the Mary Street pruning was approved on the basis that the trees overhung one property and deposited leaves in the gutters.

Incidentally, if the 'problem' was essentially one of leaves in the gutters, surely it would be more cost-effective to install good leaf-guard in the gutters.

Whilst pruning to the property boundary might not be a problem in typical streetscapes, with smaller and spaced-out trees, exceptional treescapes, like Mary Street require greater protection.

I sincerely hope the City assesses its option with regard to the contractor, including the potential for seeking damages and removing this contractor from the City's preferred contractor list, but nothing can remediate the mutilation. 

It is essential that Council take steps to minimise the potential for recurrence. With this in mind, I shall be requesting Council to:

a) Put an immediate ban on any works on the Mary Street trees, unless clearly and demonstrably required for safety purposes, until such time as the issues leading to the recent mutilation have been adequately addressed.

b) Develop a specific management plan for the Mary Street trees, recognising the importance of maintaining the appearance of the streetscape as well as the health of individual trees. 

c) Nominate the Mary Street treescape for inclusion on the State Heritage Register - there are already 20 trees or groups of trees on the Register. 

The current Street Trees policy (2.1.2) does not adequately address the Mary Street situation - for example, it appears to grant an unqualified right to property line pruning (Clause 4), which is not appropriate where such pruning might adversely affect the value and amenity of the rest of the treescape.

https://perthvoiceinteractive.com/2017/09/08/what-a-fig-up

Mary Street Trees: Judge for yourself what has been lost

I've been searching for a 'before' picture to compare with mine of the devastated Mary Street trees - not easy, as most people take pics under the cooling canopy of the trees.

However, Google Maps (street view) to the rescue, albeit with some camera distortion, with a picture taken in March this year.

So, just ignore the Water Corporation's contractor's workers (who were, for once, on-site and actually working) and judge for yourself what has been lost - what are now the 'twin-peaks' just in from the left about 1/6 were previously 1/3 of the way in from the left.

To put it in simple terms, 15% of the canopy width has been lost. There has also been substantial loss of material from the lower levels of the trees.

The pictures also seem to indicate that the pruning the southern side of Mary Street at the William Street end has been more severe than was apparent from the visible cut marks.

Source: Google Maps, Street View.

More on Mary Street Trees

Lunchtime on Monday 4th September - and no response (not even an acknowledgment) from elected members of Council (with the honourable exception of Cr Matt Buckels and, today, Cr Dan Loden (1pm) and Cr Jonathan Hallett (3.30pm)) nor the City's Administration.

Since the previous post (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/mary-street-trees-butchered.html) a bit more research has revealed that the city of Vincent reviewed its Significant Tree Inventory in 2013. It's consultant's review was unanimously adopted by Council on 5th November 2013.

On Mary Street, the consultant's recommendation was: "Monitor the sunscald injury for the trees on the south side and the production of reparative tissue to close the wounds. Consideration should be given to minor crown lifting to improve clearance for high vehicles."

No mention here of any problems with the trees that would merit even consideration of drastic reduction of any of the trees such as is now all too painfully obvious at the William Street end of Mary Street. Note the 'before' picture in the consultant's report (below) and the current, post-vandalism view.

NOTE: This post was amended 4pm Monday 4th September to acknowledge the response of Cr Dan Loden and Cr Jonathan Hallett.

Mary Street Trees Butchered

Mary Street is one of Vincent's iconic streets, with heritage buildings and heritage trees that give it a unique ambience.

Why, then, have five of the trees on the northern side, at the William Street end, been butchered, totally changing the look of the street - not to mention removing welcoming shade in summer? 

It is noticeable that these five trees are alongside just one property. If this tree vandalism has been undertaken at the behest of the owners of that property, this sets a very disturbing precedent.

In addition, this appears to be contrary to the spirit, and probably the letter, of the 2014 Vincent Greening Plan, especially that part dealing with enhancement and management of tree canopy. The Greening Plan shows Mary Street as being comparable to parks and reserves in its contribution to vegetation cover. 

Given the importance and value of Mary Street, and the magnitude of the intervention, it is strange that I can find no mention in Council Minutes of any works being required nor the reasons why they might be. 

To make matters worse, there is no evidence of the trees or the substantial limbs removed being diseased in any way. 

I am, of course, assuming that the works were actually carried out by or for the City of Vincent. If I am wrong, I apologise to Council and staff - but then the proverbial book should be thrown at whoever WAS responsible for this vandalism.

NSW: In Retreat, Confusion and Cost - and Property Developers Disown Their Own Baby

Yesterday, the good news (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/people-power-does-it-again.html).

Today, the fallout, in the form of confusion and costs.

The NSW Premier cites 'uncertainty' as the reason for backing down, but any uncertainty is entirely the making of the NSW Liberal government in trying to force council amalgamations for purely ideological reasons.

Now the about face, which could have been avoided by not embarking on this ideological farce in the first place, leaves many councils uncertain about their future. This includes councils that have, often unwillingly, embarked on the merger process. It will be particularly messy where one council opposed the merger or where mergers involved splitting council areas (see last para in the item below).

There is also the issue of cost. All affected councils will have had to spend a lot of rate[ayers' money on this aborted process - just as in Queensland and WA. Not unnaturally, these councils will want to recoup those costs from the state government - although in shifting the burden from ratepayers to taxpayers (and adding legal costs for seeking recoup through the courts), it is not clear that anyone wins - except the lawyers, of course.

And we should not be surprised that the property development industry, a prime mover in the 'bigger is better' ideology, is now backing away and blaming the NSW government for getting its process wrong!

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/07/councils-first-clarity-now-confusion

People Power Does It Again.

Queensland communities forced the demerger of several forcibly-amalgamated councils - a partial, but significant, victory.

WA communities forced Colin Barnett to back down completely on forced local government amalgamations.

Now NSW communities have achieved the same, although there is a problem with councils that have already amalgamated against the will of one or more of the councils and communities concerned.

Congratulations to all those who have worked so hard in NSW.

Another one in the eye for those who said we were wasting our time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-27/council-amalgamations-scrapped-in-nsw-after-government-backflip/8748164