Cr Julie Matheson for Subiaco

REPRESENTING SUBIACO, SHENTON PARK, DAGLISH AND JOLIMONT

New Local Planning Scheme 5

The WA Planning Commission is proposing a new Local Planning Scheme for the City of Subiaco.

The new Scheme is not original or bespoke for Subiaco. It’s based on a WA Planning Commission template proposed for other councils in WA.  The City of Nedlands has the same template too!

Consultation has commenced. A special edition of Subi News will be dedicated to the infill proposed in this new Scheme.

Join the Save Subi! campaign dedicated to informing residents and ratepayers about the disastrous density proposed by the WA Planning Commission by clicking here>>

Any comments or suggestions received by me will be recorded in the comments section below:

LINK TO LPS 5 DOCUMENTS

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertisements

22 comments on “New Local Planning Scheme 5

  1. Julie Matheson
    April 18, 2018

    Hi Julie,
    I was very pleased to get a couple of letters from the Council last night about the TPS.
    This is a great step in the right direction so thank you Subi Council.

    I can’t wait till July to comment however.
    The diagram sent out in the letter, is not correct.
    The green reserve in the Subiaco Town Centre is no longer there.
    It is all but consumed by the biggest planning blunder in Subiaco’s history – Thought Bubble High.
    It is ironic that the call for community consultation follows a totally unconsultative phase of political opportunism and the unprecedented theft of Kitchener Park.

    If you study the diagram, one can see, the City is chronically short of active green space with great expectations of housing thousands more residents.

    Thought Bubble High will seriously impact the future quality of life of the local community and thousands of new residents with no where to swing a cat.

    Any buildings, whatever they may be, should be around the green reserve, not on it.

    For your consideration;

    Move the Dept of Sport and Rec in Leederville to an empty CBD office building and retro fit for Thought Bubble High. Next to an oval and a station!!! Saves the Government $60m plus $10m road works plus $20 million for compensation of Kitchener Park and opens 12 months sooner.
    One of many options with a better outcome.

    If only the Council started this consultation process 5 years ago when we all knew Subi Oval and the Children’s hospital were moving!

  2. Julie Matheson
    April 19, 2018

    Dear Ms Matheson,

    I am horrified at what Subiaco planning committee is trying to do to the Subiaco neighborhood in regard to allowing building of 3 and4 story buildings into established residential areas. I would like to hear where you stand on this issue. To me, this is a deliberate ploy by the labour party to reduce the value of housing in Subiaco. These streets where they are proposing higher numbers of dwellings are on narrow streets where children play. By building 3 and 4 story housing here, the streets will become even more congested with cars and put the lives of children at risk in doing so. Please say ‘no’ to this plan.

  3. Julie Matheson
    April 23, 2018

    What a complete nightmare. Row after row of homes on quiet leafy streets, significant distances from the train station being rezoned from R20 to R60 or even R80, in Subiaco, Daglish and Shenton Park. Blocks of R20 homes rezoned to R100.

  4. Julie Matheson
    April 23, 2018

    As far as the proposed five-storey development between Bagot and Nicholson Road along Rokeby Road is concerned, I do not support more than two stories (ground and first) for reasons of streetscape aesthetics, and advocate that if approval is given to five stories – there be a SETBACK from the road on which any development is intended.

  5. Julie Matheson
    April 23, 2018

    As a general rule, I would be in favour of every block in our area having an open space or small park. Austin Street for instance, where I live, has a small park on the western side which creates a sense of community. I would also support such areas having seating (benches) as well as minimal playground facilities. Whenever a corner block is sold, where the house has no heritage value, and if the price is not prohibitory, I would advocate that the Council consider purchase, in order to create such open spaces. Some of us protested against the small lawn area near the Railway Station being removed to create yet another food outlet/restaurant, but our voices were not heard. It is fatal to remove all open areas, and difficult to correct the deficiency, down the track.

  6. Julie Matheson
    April 23, 2018

    Although it does not affect me personally, I am opposed to increasing density on small blocks, i.e. building up and extending homes so that there is no longer any free space around the dwelling. This is particularly the case in Subiaco, and I would not like to see this trend continued into Shenton Park. Psychological health should be measured by the degree of openness to the environment and not by the height and depth of the buildings in which one lives.

  7. Julie Matheson
    April 23, 2018

    As far as heritage listing of homes in these areas is concerned, provided there is consultation with the Heritage Council and with a heritage consultant, I can see no reason why homes should not be listed. There are many who wish to obtain a heritage home and pass them on to others who hold their homes in similar regard.

  8. Julie Matheson
    May 6, 2018

    Hi Julie

    What I want to understand is how can the current government changed the ” goal posts” so drastically with the introduction/expansion of METRONET ?

    “Towards Perth and Peel@3.5million – DIVERSE CITY BY DESIGN – FACT SHEETS” July 2015

    In a 2015 planning document produced by the Department of Planning – high and medium density was targeted around Station Precincts and it mentioned Subiaco as the lead example.
    Now we have Metronet targeting little old Daglish !! In just 2-3 years everything has been turned on its head !

    Station precincts
    Station precincts are areas surrounding train stations and bus interchanges suitable for medium to high density mixed use and/or residential development. Higher densities should be concentrated within 800 metres or 10 to 15 minutes walk of any station precinct. Density and activity decrease at distances further from the station. Some of these areas that are close to existing centres will be more suitable for residential development. Other station precincts will support mixed uses.

    Surely they just can’t call Daglish a ‘station precinct” when they have Claremont down the road and also Shenton Park targeted for a tunnel and expansion ?

    Any light on this would be greatly appreciated.

  9. Julie Matheson
    May 7, 2018

    Dear Minister,

    Following on from Niki Peinke’s email to your office, I would also like to take this opportunity as a long term resident of Subiaco to register my opposition to the proposed rezoning of large areas of property within the City of Subiaco to support the transformation of train stations into hubs for commercial and residential development.

    We have been asked by the City of Subiaco to “have our say” on the Draft Local Planning Strategy/Scheme but as the WAPC makes the final decision on the strategy – I thought it best to take the direct route and provide my say to you, although I’m not sure whether you will have the time or inclination to read this email personally but it makes me feel better to outline my concerns to the person who ultimately wields the power.

    I certainly do not profess to hold any experience in town planning and I feel sure that the majority of residents who may be affected by the proposal would also not be experienced in planning but what we are is passionate about where we live and what happens to the future of this beautiful and unique part of Western Australia.

    During last year’s local government elections the term “a village within a city” was frequently used when relating to the City of Subiaco and it really is an apt description representing both the historical heritage homes and buildings that mostly abound in the southern, eastern and western locales of the City as well as highlighting that we have a vibrant commercial and retail hub that predominately dominates the North East and North end of the City. Subiaco has managed to successfully plan and build its high rise and commercial precinct close to the main train station servicing Subiaco, without detracting from our heritage areas which are predominantly low rise single dwellings.
    Personally, I liken this planning model to Paris’s La Défense. La Défense is Paris’s major business district, located three kilometres west of the city limits. It is Europe’s largest purpose-built business district with 560 hectares (1,400 acres) of area, 72 glass and steel buildings (of which 19 are completed skyscrapers), 180,000 daily workers, and 3,500,000 square metres (38,000,000 sq ft) of office space. La Défense contains many of the Paris urban area’s tallest high-rises but is isolated from the uniform lower level skyline of central Paris. A perfect planning continuance for Subiaco!
    Why is it that European cities are so good at retaining the provenance of their cities whereas Western Australian Governments have never been good in protecting our heritage. So many amazing historical buildings in the City of Perth alone were destroyed to make way for modern developments. I would hate to see this happen to the City of Subiaco.
    My Husband and I purchased our house in 2003. We chose to live in Subiaco for its “village feel” and heritage style residential area and so we would not have to endure modern multi storey developments next to our property. We love, as many residents do, the old charm of Subiaco, the quiet streets and we always felt secure that this special part of the metropolitan area would be respected by the Council and Government for exactly what it is – unique! It would be an absolute tragedy to see a future mishmash of design, development and building heights within this lovely City. But you won’t care Minister Saffioti, by then you would have done your job, and … after all is said and done – you don’t live here.
    Surely Subiaco has already met its quota of medium and high density within the Subi Centro and Subi Village developments in the 1990’s and there are more and more medium to high density developments on the way in this area of the city, let alone the 1,100 dwellings that will be built on the Montario Quarter, old Shenton Park Hospital site that is within steps of Shenton Park railway station.
    – You say you want housing affordability … How can you be assured that any future developments within the City will deliver housing affordability? This surely is out of your control.
    – How can you be assured that any future developments will not perpetuate an already unsustainable parking problem in the streets of Subiaco? Do not believe that people who reside in these proposed developments will not own cars – they will. Where will they park? Will each high density development be required to include a basement car park? Because the streets are already full and the QEII current (PCH) and future developments (King Edward replacement – Women’s and Children’s Hospital) will only create further stress on the streets, let alone an increase in local population within the new developments.
    – How can you assure the residents of Subiaco that any future developments will be in keeping with the heritage style of the local area … do we rely on Council to police this? I doubt it as DAP usually overrules any Council objection.
    – It will be most interesting to see how the draft Bayswater Town Centre Plan plays out.
    – Developing 2 storey townhouses or worse 3 storey apartment blocks amongst historical homes (many of which are located in small, quiet streets, away from the rail stations) will not be in keeping with the style of the area and will not preserve the heritage of the precinct.

    In short Minister, respectfully, re visit your plan for the City of Subiaco.

    Sincerely,

  10. Julie Matheson
    May 7, 2018

    Dear Mrs Saffioti,

    I have spoken to numerous people about this issue, and everyone is passing the buck…but from what I can gather, the buck stops with you, so I am going to address this appeal to you.

    Just to explain, I own a Real Estate Agency in Subiaco and have been selling homes here for over 30 years. I have my ear closely to the ground as far as the sentiments of the residents in this whole area are concerned, and I can tell you right now, they are all in shock.

    This has occurred as a result of a letter from the Subiaco Council to a great many residents proposing a change in zoning from R20 to a mix of R60, R80 and even R100 depending on how close they are to a railway station.

    For this to be proposed in one of the oldest and most significant historical areas in Western Australia, in a suburb that is rich with beautifully restored Turn of the Century Character homes, which have become the fabric of the entire area, is absolutely preposterous as it would be heartbreaking, if it were to ever go through.

    I can only imagine, that whoever first put forward this concept, that they were not at all familiar with this area, or its historical significance, or the impact that it would have on its residents or in fact anything apart from a directive from somebody that said you have to have a mass of apartments around train stations.

    In the last 15 years, Subiaco has been assaulted by many apartment blocks which have added thousands of apartments to the area, most of which are empty, and caused Subiaco to die a death, because what the area has had to lose because of them. Please don’t now destroy the very homes that define this area.

    If you seriously think that if you build thousands of units within 800sqm of a railway line, that people in this area are going to sell their cars, walk the 800 metres and catch trains everywhere….or buses…I am sorry, but that person would be completely out of touch.

    There are already numerous areas around Subiaco that have already been programmed to build more units, like the Princess Margaret Site, the Oval site, the Selby street Para quad and rehabilitation centre and many areas north of the Oval along Subiaco Rd, that to consider destroying Subiaco and turning it too into a development site would be absolute craziness.

    So…please…can you put this to rest for Subiaco Residents right now…and assure them that their Historical suburb is not going to be destroyed by irresponsible, irreverent, and totally absurd town planning.

    I would greatly appreciate an acknowledgement, and your comments on this email.

  11. Julie Matheson
    May 7, 2018

    Dear Minister Saffioti,

    Everything important on this Density issue has been said so eloquently below, so I will keep it brief.

    I think we all agree the notion of high density living next to Public Transport is essentially a sound one.

    However, Subiaco has already done its bit, as it is perhaps the most highly densely populated suburb in Perth! Enough already.

    Additionally it’s been a real battle to protect the Heritage factor in Subiaco and there are so few suburbs in 2018 that represent our history in Western Australia.
    With hundreds of Federation Homes already bulldozed in Subiaco, these high density proposals in an already densely packed area are yet another threat to ambience of the City of Subiaco and the built history of Western Australia.

    Yours sincerely,

  12. Julie Matheson
    May 9, 2018

    Dear Mrs Taylor and all
    I am horrified and very concerned about the proposed rezoning to R60, R80 and R100 of a number of streets namely GLOSTER STREET where I live, plus Lawler St., Redfern St., View St., Hensman St., Federal St., Browne St., Sadlier St., Coleraine St. and Heytesbury Road. Also Gray St., Rankin Rd, Waylen Road, Morgan St. Herbert Rd. Hilda St., James St., Yilgarn St., Commercial Rd.
    We DO NOT want potentially 4000 more residents living in our quiet and leafy suburb ! This will overload the streets and create more parking problems, including the schools and associated daycare centres will not cope. The last thing we want is a Northbridge lifestyle – noise and more noise !
    I was born in Subiaco and have lived most of my life in this area, including several years in Duke Street and Salisbury Street (and Jolimont) – I LOVE this suburb and don’t want to see this peace destroyed !
    PLEASE CONSIDER

  13. Julie Matheson
    May 10, 2018

    Dear Julie,

    I would like it noted that I am strongly opposed to the proposed changes being considered as part of the Draft Local Planning Scheme being put forward by the WA Planning Commission, and open for public consultation at present to the local residents of Subiaco. My partner and I have lived and worked in this suburb for years – first living in Cuthbert St, now in Gloster St, and having worked in Hay St and Barker Rd. I think we are qualified to have our voice heard, and would request any feedback that you care to provide, please.

    In the meantime, here are some of my thoughts as to why (which I have provided into the requests for public submissions by the Council):

    1. Aren’t there enough apartments for now, in Subiaco North: around Coles, Subi station, and the long-empty Pavillion markets? Please let’s just allow this whole development area time to bed down, and importantly – rent out – before we change things further.

    2. Why is proximity to the RAIL LINE the single criterion on which so much importance is put, as opposed to proximity to other modes of transport: bike paths, walking trails and bus routes? Why is one mode of transport being given such priority? Presumably the majority of train users are those at working age, but just as valid are the opinions of community members who don’t use the train so much: e.g. families and retired people?

    3. There must be other factors taken into account, such as heritage and community values, as well as pressure on infrastructure from the massively increased populations the proposed increase in density will have: increased crime, increased traffic congestion, increased noise, decreased sense of community, decreased safety, and the loss of vegetation for our already strained environment.

    4. Are ALL OTHER COUNCILS in the broad Perth area being affected in the same way, having these massively impactful requirements imposed on them? It is astounding that 50% of our South West Subiaco area, where we live, is going to be facing increases from R20 to R60, R80 and R100 – is this really happening in every single area that borders every rail-line around the greater Perth area – if not, it’s plain unfair. Have we really reached the point where all areas in the greater Perth vicinity must cater for population growth pressures at an EQUAL rate, by kissing goodbye to the older, historic pockets because there is simply no other way around it?

    5. What about policies that dictate existing EMPTY sites (e.g. Pavilion markets) must be used up before changing the zoning on beautiful, established and valued areas?

    6. It’s complete madness to knowingly ignore the few remaining and unique pockets of character homes in favour of more multi-storey apartment blocks, with all their associated pressures on PARKING, TREES, BIRD-LIFE and NOISE POLLUTION, as I’ve previously touched upon. Forgive me being emotional rather than purely objective, but this is a very emotive topic – once gone, it can never be recreated.

    I am happy to be contacted for more information.

  14. Julie Matheson
    May 11, 2018

    We should write our submissions to Ben Wyatt, Member for Victoria Park. He has first hand experience of density infill in Vic Park with the loss of old homes, urban tree canopy, and battle-axe developments on every street.

  15. Julie Matheson
    May 14, 2018

    Dear CEO

    We note that our home in Evans Street will be affected by LPS5.

    We strongly object to LPS5 and believe the scheme is not in the local community or Perth’s best interests.

    We have been living in the western portion of Shenton Park with our young family for the last ten years. We feel (and are told by friends who visit) that it is a uniquely beautiful place, with tree lined streets filled with characterful (mostly heritage) houses which allow for a lovely socially interactive community.

    We have previously lived and worked for many years (as an Architect and Landscape Architect) in the UK and Europe and this portion of Shenton Park is one of the most idyllic places we’ve seen for raising a family. We also believe Shenton Park offers excellent amenity with a range of housing, great cafes, schools, shops and facilities- the level of amenity is unparalleled in Perth.

    The streetscapes in the area are, we believe, are some of the best in Perth. Mature street trees form a cooling canopy and although the housing is generally modest, it includes a large proportion of excellent heritage buildings, most of which have been well cared for and renovated for modern living. Although these buildings may not be formally recognised (on a heritage register or municipal inventory), they have a fine grain / character which modern houses do not and typically have facades which allow for a more socially interactive neighbourhood.

    The proposed changes to the Shenton Park precinct would affect much of the area between Onslow Rd, Nicolson Rd and Lake Julabup. With relatively small blocks being proposed as R60, R80 and R100, the likely outcome (and presumably the outcome desired by those who put it forward), would be the demolition of much of the existing built fabric. The smaller blocks would be unable to be rationally developed, so a number of them would have to be amalgamated over time- leading to many years of slow decline due to the houses not having any value (in comparison to the cost of the developable land). “Landbanking” resulting from high land values compared with the price of the buildings, would mean residents would be unlikely to upkeep or sensitively develop their existing homes, leaving them to degrade. The development allowed by these changes is totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood. Those remaining buildings / residents would be left the usual bland / rubbish “multi residential” infill that will destroy any trace of the current streetscape. Having been an Architect for more than twenty years I believe (and my Planner friends agree) that no “design guidelines”, setbacks or other planning measures would be strong enough to save any semblance of the current amenity. Perth only has a few places like the west of Shenton Park, and this plan would have it replaced with the soulless, sterile housing found everywhere else. It seems absolutely unbelievable that while every other progressive and “planning savvy” place in the world (from Copenhagen to Singapore to Melbourne) they are trying to maintain or create areas like Shenton Park, our Planners are actively seeking to destroy them.

    We believe sensible infill development can be achieved in Shenton Park (and in Subiaco and Daglish) at a level close to what is being proposed but with far less of a negative impact on this beautiful and unique area. It is (we think) disappointing and strange that members of the public have to make submissions like this to explain to Planners (who should be telling the rest of us how to do it) that the better and more sensible way to plan is by adjusting the location and level of development depending on the type of area which is being developed. Most people we’ve spoken to strongly object to the current plan but all have agreed that increasing density on Railway, Onslow and Nicholson Roads is preferable to the incredibly simplistic and naive ‘concentric circle’ option. The housing in the area is reasonably densely packed (when compared to the Perth average) on relatively small blocks, however there are ways to further increase the density without killing the area. By offering subdivisions to those on suitably sized block, or those with laneways, we’d end up keeping the existing character streetscapes. This seems to have happened to good effect over large swathes of Melbourne. Equally, there are massive pockets of land to the west of Shenton Park Station which are currently used for stacking wood, storing / selling sand and panelbeating- can this land be developed for housing?

    The changes as planned would slowly destroy a modest, characterful and beautiful part of Shenton Park and displace its thriving community.

    Yours sincerely

  16. Julie Matheson
    May 15, 2018

    To Mayor and Councillors of City of Subiaco

    We find it difficult to believe that the Subiaco Council and WA Government are considering changing the zoning of parts of Subiaco, Daglish and Shenton Park from single residential to higher density.

    The areas under consideration are known for their heritage family homes and tree lined streets and have always been desirable places to live because of these aspects. We moved here 20 years ago for these reasons. We are dismayed to think that the general ambiance and feeling of community will be lost by this change of zoning.

    Subiaco, Daglish and Shenton Park already have a great number of units, town houses and apartments with ever more being built. WHEN WILL THIS STOP? Surely this is enough and we do not need to compromise residents quality of life and LOSE FOREVER lovely heritage homes and streets to appease misguided ideas and ever hungry developers. This is not degraded or industrial land which needs rejuvenating.

    Higher density housing in these areas will still not be affordable for many as present prices indicate. It is still beyond many people’s budgets just for a new 1 bedroom apartment.

    Please consider what you will be doing to a residential area which has been known for it’s heritage housing and family friendly lifestyle if this zoning goes ahead.

  17. Julie Matheson
    May 15, 2018

    I attended a LPS5 drop in session:

    I found out nothing beyond what was apparent from the letterbox drop. I honestly still couldn’t tell you what the draft scheme would really mean for my street:
    • I asked what type of development might be able to go up next door to me (including if amalgamated with another lot). I was told they couldn’t comment on hypotheticals.
    • I asked if an application to amalgamate lots in my street would likely be recommended for approval. Again that was something which couldn’t be commented on.
    • I asked how we might form our own view about the types of development which could go up next door. The answer: Get professional advice.
    • I asked which part of the R Codes I should consult, to form my own view on the types of development which could go up next door. I didn’t get a compelling answer.
    • I was also surprised there was not a talk/presentation followed by public questions, before breaking out to one on one Q&As with planners.

  18. Julie Matheson
    May 17, 2018

    I heard Minister Safiotti’s view on ABC radio yesterday relating to North Subi. It might well be that she was softening up Subiaco for much greater density on PMH site (and maybe KEMH), for the 18 story preference the MRA indicated. Subi Council proposed a 12 storey limit under an orderly planning scheme for the site.

    Greater density on that site (than the 60% with R160) would provide all the density required to meet the ‘adventurous infill targets’ of 9000 additional residences. Its proximity to City of Perth CBD would make it interesting as a site to which to downsize, and into which allowing young people to move.

  19. Julie Matheson
    May 18, 2018

    We are the owners and occupiers of our home on Heytesbury Road Subiaco.

    We are totally dismayed and disappointed by the proposed zoning and density changes proposed in this Planning Scheme. Actually that is an understatement – we are horrified!

    Subiaco, Daglish and Shenton Park are very special small suburbs with some of the best surviving heritage houses in Perth. There is so little of this character and heritage left in our city, to allow this type of development will destroy it and is unbelievable it could be allowed to happen.

    There is already a substantial amount of high density development in these areas with more to come once the PMH site is developed.

    This is an example of very lazy planning , someone has just drawn a circle 800m around the train stations . There has been absolutely no thought of the make up of the areas or the impact of the proposal.

    The impact of the extra traffic and volume of people will be huge on our narrow streets. To possible allow up to 4 storey apartments between heritage houses is unthinkable. It will totally ruin the amenity and streetscape. The value of the existing properties not allowed to be developed will plummet.

    The schools in these areas are already under a huge amount of pressure, can you imagine how much worse it will be with so many extra children living here.
    We think the character, amenity and heritage of our beautiful suburbs will be destroyed.

    Please, please, please DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

  20. Julie Matheson
    May 21, 2018

    What is SaveSubi’s position on LPS5?

    Simply put, we are calling on the Council and State Government, via Planning Minister Rita Saffioti, to reject this ill-conceived plan. Chuck it in the bin where it belongs!

    We are already meeting our density targets and the new targets being pushed by this State Government in the name of their Metronet policy are neither justified nor necessary. Not by a long shot. Metronet should not be a “one size fits all” approach as it currently is. There are places where their policy will work well and places where it won’t and the City of Subiaco is clearly a place where it won’t. We already have amenity, small, compact blocks, significant parking issues on our narrow streets and along with the Town of Vincent, the highest density of people per hectare in the state! Enough already!

    The Subiaco Council and the State Government need to slow down the Metronet bullet train, do some serious thinking, show some real leadership and redo the draft Local Planning Scheme for the City of Subiaco that actually GIVES BACK to this City. We have given the State Government the whole Subi Centro area which is still under redevelopment for high density apartment blocks and they now have the whole Subiaco East precinct including Subiaco Oval under their control as well.

    We want a new planning scheme that protects our history and heritage and works to enhance the amenity that brings people to live here in the first place. You don’t need 4, 5 or 6 storeys for that. We have a major train station hub already. Daglish and Shenton Park can remain or be further enhanced as heritage stations. There are other solutions. Give us creativity, vision and high quality planning instead please! Our City deserves it and we shouldn’t accept anything less.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on April 18, 2018 by in Planning and tagged , , , .
%d bloggers like this: