Julie Matheson

CFP Business Specialist | Local Government Expert | Community Advocate

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:


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

43 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.


  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 !

  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.

  21. Julie Matheson
    May 23, 2018

    To the honourable Major and Councillors

    As residents and homeowners of Redfern st, Subiaco (Daglish Precinct as per LPS 5), we are OPPOSED to the above named draft planning schemes.

    We are happy to list our reasons for rejecting the draft if required.

    As ratepayers, we ask kindly that you promote our NO vote.


  22. Julie Matheson
    May 25, 2018

    I write with regard to the above property in Gloster Street and the Local Planning Scheme 5.

    We (family of 5) have had the absolute pleasure of living in Perth for over 10 years now, the last 6 of which have been in our home in Gloster Street.

    As a family, we are wholly against LPS5 and urge you strongly to reject, completely, this proposal before irreparable damage is done to one of Perth’s greatest and most historical suburbs. I asked each member of my family to state why they were against LPS5, I am including their responses for you below.

    “The increase in traffic on our narrow street will be absolutely change their historic, village feel of our road, one where children can play, safely in the knowledge that all neighbours are friends first and neighbours second” Claire (mother and wife)

    “Subi is a historical gem, we even have our own museum we are that old! If these changes go ahead, then all of this will be lost, forever” Sophie (daughter, aged 13)

    “When i visit my friends outside of Subiaco, I always love to come home as the
    neighbourhood has such a lovely green tree lined feel to it. It makes me feel happy and proud to live here.” Samuel (son, aged 12)

    “I like living and playing in Gloster Street and Subiaco. I don’t want anyone to ruin or change the way it looks, it looks just fine to me.” Lucy (daughter, aged 7)

    To their comments I will add my own;

    “We chose where we live for a reason. In our opinion It is the best house, on the best street, in the best suburb, in the best city, in the greatest country on earth. Don’t destroy Subi the way the City of Perth destroyed its heritage, don’t let anyone make that mistake, please.”

    We feel that the LPS5 changes will alter the environment we live in permanently and for the worse. We believe that the LPS5 will create a sterile, soulless environment with high rise developments perched on the edge of blocks, completely changing the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

    If you wish to discuss the impact of this with me, or my family, please get in touch..

    Your sincerely,

  23. Julie Matheson
    May 26, 2018

    Dear Julie,

    I couldn’t agree more.

    It is so obvious that common sense does not enter into deliberations with these groups [DAP and SAT].

    The over-riding concern that I have is the lack of concern for safety with elderly residents, children and traffic all converging in a small, crowded area, which has been our experience with DAP and SAT.

    Any application of attempting to circumnavigate the extent of DAP and SAT powers, is to be applauded. So I would definitely support rejecting the new Local Planning Scheme for Subiaco, Jolimont, Daglish and Shenton Park.

  24. Julie Matheson
    May 28, 2018

    Dear councillors,

    I’m writing to express my concern at the proposed WAPC changes to development and density around railway stations and major transport routes.

    I understand my neighbourhood (Daglish) is one of the areas affected.

    Daglish – including areas near the railway station and along Stubbs Terrace – has a very high concentration of Californian Bungalows that have strong heritage/character value. They are an asset not just to the City of Subiaco, but to Perth. Once they are gone, they can’t be replaced.

    What we have is unique. Why implement planning changes that will risk destroying the heritage of the suburb, especially as I understand the City of Subiaco has already met density quotas. Also, my area has already recently gone up in its density. To make next jump is unrealistic.

    The proposal would also lead to significantly increased road congestion (it is already bad) and reduce the urban canopy.

    Is undeveloped railway land available that could be developed before looking at areas such as the lovely garden suburb of Daglish?

    Could creative solutions be looked at – such as instigating shuttle buses to and from the railway stations from new high density areas (such as the Monaro Quarter)?

    I respectfully ask that you oppose these proposed changes.


  25. Julie Matheson
    June 12, 2018

    I am a proud Subiaco resident and owner of a house on Redfern Street. Our house was built early in the 20th century as many in our neighborhood.

    I went to the Daglish Station precinct information evening on 24/5.
    Thank you for the organisation of events by the city.

    If the draft scheme PS5 is accepted as is, the zoning of my house and the ones around us on our lovely street will change from R20 to R80. Ouch!

    If you don’t mind, I have a few questions for you:

    1) I read various articles on the Post and the Western suburbs, among them “Outrage won’t stop infill” 10 days ago.
    I fully agree that one doesn’t achieve much by just saying No and banging the table. So, yes, any actions or requests should always be undertaken in a constructive way. Absolutely.
    And I understand and accept we need to increase density.
    I am however a bit perplexed.
    The city planning officer showed us on his screen the draft scheme that the city put forward to the state. The city’s initial draft LPS5 scheme (endorsed in August 2017) presented the City’s preferred option for the future with some zoning increase around the stations. This scheme retained most of the R20 zonings in the ‘heritage’ and ‘character’ areas of the City.
    I can but only assume that this initial city’s draft was as per the state’s growth target requirements (density and increase around train stations).
    That draft city scheme wasn’t accepted by the state and hence this new draft scheme presented to the residents. I understand the state has the legal authority to act as they did. OK. But then, why didn’t the council start then to discuss (fight?) and negotiate, constructively, but strongly, with the state to get your first draft accepted and put it (not the state’s) for consideration by the residents? Was the city’s draft scheme flawed? If the city draft scheme wasn’t flawed, why isn’t this the basis for a negotiation/ argument against the state‘s scheme?

    2) Quote” Advocacy for responsible growth that respects our character” Unquote.
    Unless mistaken, this was one of the top things that you put forward before the October elections. Do you believe that this amended draft allows responsible growth that respects our character?

    3) I understand you want to get the residents’ opinion before you start “negotiating” with the state.
    I believe however that the city should fight for what the council believes is right, even without community submissions and further engagement with his residents. My point is that there is a mandate given to the council and I believe keeping our village-like atmosphere, its heritage, and incredible character is clearly one of them. During the October elections, I recall that all the candidates talked about the specific character of our city.
    I would have thought that the council wouldn’t need submissions to feel strongly about this and therefore would strongly (but constructively ) fight for keeping this incredible character of ours.
    I know that some of the residents will support the proposed zoning changes having in mind a quick short-term view and personal benefit. I know one of them!
    Is this scheme to the benefit of the community, our kids, our future? Do we want to be remembered as the residents that allowed such a thing to occur? Does the council want to be remembered as the council having not fought strongly against losing the city’s character?
    To put things in perspective, I would bet that the city of Shanghai or Singapore considers today that they should have kept more traditional houses instead of building skyscrapers, don’t you think?
    So, this third question is: if you responded no to my second question, why are you waiting for submissions to defend our heritage and the history of the city?

    I will submit formally my opinion on the scheme and strategy in due time.
    Meanwhile, I would welcome your responses.
    Please let me know if you prefer to talk.

  26. Julie Matheson
    June 27, 2018

    Mayor and Councillors of the City of Subiaco,

    I feel that the proposed City of Subiaco Draft Planning Scheme No 5 is not in keeping with community expectations and I unequivocally oppose the excessive increase in housing density in the draft LPS5 in it’s entirety. My reasons are based on the attached submission.

    Even though Subiaco already meets broad infill targets in terms of persons per hectare, my main suggestion for the future is to sink the train line from Subiaco to Swanbourne.

    Perhaps we should market this idea as ‘non-pork barrelling Metronet’ – then maybe it may receive the attention it deserves, rather than destroying our village.

    Yours Sincerely
    (owner and foot stamper)
    Onslow Rd, Shenton Park

  27. Julie Matheson
    July 3, 2018

    Dear Councillor,
    I have lived at my current address at Redern Street, for 26 years and intend to continue to do so for as long as possible. Subiaco, as you know, is an outstanding place to live.

    Like everyone in the Daglish Station Precinct I am very worried about the proposed increases in the R-codes the Subiaco Local Planning Scheme 5 (LPS5) represents. In my case my home goes from R20 to a proposed R80, opposite me to R100. These are dramatic and unprecedented changes that I feel will destroy the character and heritage of the area.

    It is extraordinary in that on the one hand LPS5 seeks to promote high density housing/apartments in this area whilst on the other the Council has recently proposed heritage listing for Hamersley, Lawler, Sadier and Redfern Streets seeking to preserve the existing houses. What is going on here?

    I accept the need for Subiaco to ‘do its part’ in stopping the urban spread of Perth by accepting higher urban densities, where appropriate. However, this must be done in a manner that best serves the interests of all, and:

    • Does not come at the cost of the destruction of heritage and character and the loss of the State’s history.

    • Addresses the ramifications of the R-code changes. (I am sure you are aware of these.)

    • Is transparent and accountable.

    Over the last few weeks I have knocked on many doors and spoken to literally hundreds of people. I can tell you that around 70% do not agree with LPS5, 20% do not agree, but felt there was nothing they could do, 10% agreed. I am sure these figures will be born out when the public consultation period closes. Either way they represent an overwhelming rejection of LPS5 by the Subiaco community. As an elected Council member I would expect you to support the wishes of that community.

    The question is how to best proceed in amending LPS5 to ensure the community’s wishes are acted on. To this end I firmly believe rejection of LPS is the only option. My reasons are simple:

    • It did not include adequate community consultation. (A three month period is not enough given the scale of changes proposed.)

    • The existing scheme is so flawed it would be easier to start again. (The changes the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) imposed on Subiaco Council are vastly different from the original scheme submitted to them.)

    • It would be a gross failure of duty for the Council to accept this level of changes (what everthe final outcome of any negotiation with the WAPC) without their ramification being consider. (It beggars belief that the WAPC could propose these changes without any prior studies regarding schools, parking, infrastructure and other areas so dramatically affected.)

    • The current process is not transparent and accountability to the Subiaco community.

    My concern is that when the community consultation period finishes Subiaco Council will summarise the submissions received, make recommendations and negotiate with the WAPC. Their deliberations from there on, and recommendations to the Minister of Planning, are entirely behind closed doors. We will not know what the outcome is until LPS5 is tabled in Parliament months/years (?) hence.
    Moreover, the WAPC has full discretion to accept or reject Subiaco Council’s recommendations as it chooses. It has the power to implement the LPS5 housing densities as proposed, if it so wishes.

    The WAPC has already demonstrated its position on older suburb infill in its actions with Nedlands Council. That Council met its infill targets by rezoning around Stirling Highway. The WAPC still rezoned other areas around QEII and the University of WA to higher densities against the wishes of the Council and community. It can (and likely will) do exactly the same to Subiaco.

    With this lack of transparency and accountability the only process to ensure the wishes of the Subiaco Council and community are met is for Council to vote to reject LPS5. It then asks permission of the Planning Minister to develop a new comprehensive plan for Subiaco. That process will allow time for the necessary transport, schools, infrastructure and other studies to be undertaken. These will both address the issues raised by the R-code changes and support the implementation of the new plan.

    To this end I would ask you to vote in Council to reject LPS5 and seek the permission of the Planning Minister to undertake a two year study to determine the new comprehensive plan. I suggest that study seek to:

    • Engage all stakeholders and seek compromise and agreement to the plan and the changes it proposes.

    • Allow time for the necessary transport, schools, infrastructure and other studies to be undertaken that will both address the issues raised and support the implementation of the plan.

    • Engage the Subiaco community in a positive and supportive way in which they are part of the planning process and feel they have a say in the future of their suburb.

    • Become the document of agreement between the Subiaco community, Council and WAPC such that its recommendations are implemented as agreed and are reflected in the new R-codes / other changes needed to implement it.

    There is a story told of the US president Roosevelt that when asked the secret to negotiations said, ‘speak softly, but carry a big stick’. I hope you will accept this letter in the spirit in which it is written and consider the arguments made. As to the big stick, I think the community’s response if its wishes are not respected will speaks for itself.

  28. Julie Matheson
    July 5, 2018

    Dear Mayor and Councillors

    As a Subiaco ratepayer of 46 years, I find the infill proposition put forward by the State Government so outrageous and unbelievable, that only now do I feel ready to comment.

    Has Rita Saffioti even set foot in Subiaco! No people in their right minds would think that 3 units, 3 storeys high on a typically small Subiaco block, could possibly be a good thing.

    It has been stated on many occasions that Subiaco has, and will in the future contribute more than its share of infill. The Council’s idea of a more palatable, amended version of the planning scheme, is just playing into the Government’s hands. The Subiaco Council needs to understand that the ratepayers do not accept any change until all our concerns are addressed. And there are many.

    I live at Gloster Street which is currently zoned R20. The proposal is for R60, 3 units, 3 storeys high, while over the road, it could be R80. The thought of bulldozing the beautiful old homes in Subiaco and Shenton Park is appalling.

    Huge issues of concern are parking and congestion on our very narrow roads, as well as destroying the heritage history and character of the suburbs. Subiaco is one of the few cities in Perth with such beautiful leafy streets and heritage housing. To consider destroying these beautiful suburbs is pure madness and shows no consideration for the enjoyment of future generations.

    Please Subiaco Council, stand up to the government and protect our magnificent City. Bury this disastrous and ludicrous idea, and get on with the important business of restoring vibrancy and life into our city.

  29. Julie Matheson
    July 11, 2018

    Dear Councillor,,
    In our late 70s we recently downsized to Shenton Park from City Beach and what a delightful surprise, the suburb is a gem, akin to Sydney’s Paddington. A wonderful outdoor museum of Perth’s development styles since Colonial days and beautifully integrated so that each inevitable new development unobtrusively fitted within the original ideal. The delightful streetscapes created with 4600 trees planted in 1906, partly thanks to Alexander Rankin, which are still a delight.

    1. Unfortunately we now find that under Local Planning Scheme 5 this area could be re-zoned to R80. Our home is already on a small 500sq.m block and only 3m from the back fence, yet we could find a 5 storey development between us and Railway Road, 32m away, especially as the house there, has been unoccupied for 2 years and left to become derelict. Under the new re-zoning plan we would lose most of our light and sunshine during each day as well as be subjected to increased stress levels, serious loss of privacy, increased noise and pollution, increased vehicle and tenant noise, anxiety at the prospect of high rise walls, as well as a reduction in the value of our property.

    2. Recent developments throughout Subiaco, as well as, the many sub-divisions on private blocks, have made a substantial effect on the population density of the area, Subiaco has 5 times the high-rise density of Greater Perth, twice the medium rise density and half the density of single homes. The planned changes should recognise this very significant fact. The developments around Subi-Centro and the Fine China Precinct developments were made in areas of very run down light industrial estates and the result is a triumph. There were very few if any beautiful, heritage private homes in the area and buyers well knew the final development plan.

    3. Even the most casual look at an aerial scan of the threatened areas shows an extremely high density of established private homes already, but throughout the area there are also some very large areas of vacant, or soon to be vacant, land like PMH and KEMH. High rises around the Rosalie Park playing fields would not overshadow current homes, the Shenton bushland, if developed as carefully as the Churchlands University site could surely support native bats, black cockatoos and homes for people. There are other areas available, including land released from burying the railway line. The old Irwin Barracks is close to the railway line and seriously under-used. Kitchener Park would have been another very sensible area for inner city housing and is close to the railway line. In Brisbane, the area around the river which is also close to the city has been developed with high rise accommodation such that hundreds of citizens now enjoy river views and commute to their work via river ferry. Smart thinking. Kitchener Park would have been another very sensible area for inner city housing and is close to the railway line The former City Beach SHS on an extension of Cambridge street was surely the better choice for the new SHS, except for the possible future value of that site to our greedy developers.

    4. The idea that this extraordinary level of environmental destruction is ‘to increase vibrancy’ and ‘to boost boarding numbers on trains is seriously flawed. The current performance of the bus and train system shows a steady decline in the percentage of users and increasing costs (WA Auditor General report 23). Bus service efficiency has meanwhile fallen by 28%. Bus use has fallen 3% and train use is down 4.1% this year. As far as vibrancy is concerned, Michael Kimmelman the Architecture critic of the New York Times, visiting Australia at the moment, notes that throughout the world some of the most vibrant cities have had ‘the heart ripped out of them’ by over development which hasn’t adequately considered the needs of the incumbent residents.

    5. My daughter lives in a Federation style home in West Leederville near Northwood Street and has seen and experienced the distress of suddenly looking out onto a 6 storey building, not to mention having to cope with the serious traffic build up on Cambridge Street and the development of the Railway Road rat run. A suburb in the process of being ruined, thanks to this insatiable property development greed. Another example is West Perth already ruined Formerly an exclusive suburb for wealthy merchants and politicians, it is now part of the inner mixed zone, and has predominantly office blocks which have displaced residential buildings.( Wikipedia)

    Ms Saffioti you must re consider Local Planning Scheme 5 for Subiaco, an already over-populated suburb. Maybe the target of 3.5 million people in Perth by 2050 should also be re considered, can this Swan River City support a population that size? The current infra-structure along with water, jobs and basic facilities are clearly not adequate already. Whatever the conclusion, I would ask that re zoning this, already crowded area be re considered. Please SAVE SUBI

  30. Julie Matheson
    July 11, 2018

    Dear Councillor,

    As a resident of the City of Subiaco please find enclosed my submission on the above proposals. I have used information only from published government sources. Recognising your very limited time I have summarised my thoughts below.
    Reference proposed changes as detailed in the documents above.
    1. It is understood that we must allow for an increased population for Perth in the future, including Subiaco.
    2. The use of some high-rise dwelling blocks, e.g. on the PMH and KEMH sites is accepted, provided the result does not impinge on the life, financial stability and good health of the current residents.
    3. The result should include the reasonable requests of residents flowing from discussions that have taken place between various officials and residents in the past 10 years and reflected in official documentation.
    4. Subiaco has 5 times the high-rise density, twice the medium rise density and half the separate house density of Greater Perth. Therefore, any changes should recognise this very significant fact.
    5. The station precincts of Shenton Park, Daglish and West Subiaco are being asked to shoulder a very heavy and unacceptable burden. In Shenton Park, 700 sites are earmarked for possible high rise and the planned increase of population would render these areas 3 times as heavily populated as at present. Remaining properties could be next door to blocks that can reach 7 storeys, situated very close to boundary fences.
    6. Reasons given for this extraordinary level of environmental destruction are ‘to increase vibrancy’ and ‘to boost boarding numbers to ensure the viability of the train stations’.
    7. The current performance of the bus and train system shows a steady decline in the percentage of users and increasing costs. Current Transperth subsidy of $410m, rising at 6% per year is a factor in this equation. Bus service efficiency has meanwhile fallen by 28% while costing $1.18 per passenger kilometre. Bus use has fallen 3% and train use is down 4.1% last year. (WA Auditor General report 23).
    8. A study of the map of the location of incoming and outgoing workers in Shenton Park/Daglish, shows that the current and proposed train lines cannot bring the level of increased patronage required to justify the proposals in these precincts.
    9. We reside in Shenton Park and are already feeling increased stress levels and anxiety regarding the prospect of high rise walls, shading of sunshine, increased noise and pollution, (both vehicle and tenant noise), loss of privacy and reduction of value of our property. Easier rules on tourist letting are also deeply concerning.
    10. While a stated reason for these changes is to reduce traffic congestion, with a great majority of residents choosing to use cars for travel, the new arrivals will only increase congestion in a city that already has serious traffic and on street parking problems.
    1. The plan should be modified to confine the heavy emphasis on high rise buildings to new sites where the result is not destructive of the lives, welfare and property of residents.
    2. The proposed high-rise developments in the Shenton Park, Daglish and West Subiaco precincts are not justified or viable on the basis of current or projected public transport boarding figures or of their economics.
    On this basis I strongly request a halt to LPS5, both Scheme and Strategy and a considered respectful, collaborative approach pursued with residents that does not subject them to a severely degraded standard of accommodation and lifestyle.
    Yours faithfully.

  31. Julie Matheson
    July 11, 2018

    Dear Minister Saffioti and CEO,

    I am writing to express my views about LPS5, to express my strong objection to LPS5 which I consider is not in the best interests of the City of Subiaco. I urge you to reject LPS5.

    The City of Subiaco, as the third oldest City/suburb in WA, has a rich history and heritage, including many buildings reflecting architectural styles of many eras. The old buildings, many of which have been lovingly and expertly restored, contribute to Subiaco having a beautiful and unique appearance. I don’t think there are other suburbs that are able to have the leadlight tour, something that can happen in Subiaco.

    The dramatic proposed increase in density will lead to a significant decrease in number of character homes in Subiaco. This will result in a change to the appearance of the suburb and its attractiveness. It will also inevitably lead to a change in the kind of lifestyle one can lead in Subiaco: being able to buy a property with a house and a bit of land around it is far more pleasant and more user-friendly, especially for families with young children. It is such a pleasure to be able to live in a house with a garden but this will no longer be possible with what is proposed in LPS5.

    LPS5 does not contemplate planned density increase but rather allowing larger buildings if and when people apply to redevelop. No doubt some people will make money. But the area is not suited. The roads are narrow, there are already parking problems and traffic difficulties. The schools are full to capacity. There will be no ability to create new green spaces as could occur if a large area was being developed. The major roads would have a significant change in appearance. And the difficulty with increasing development around a railway station (Shenton Park and Daglish are very small railway stations that may not be able to cope with a significant increase in usage) is that it will not be attractive to people with significant resources because there will be no view. So the apartments will be expensive because land in Subiaco is a limited resource but without the expected advantages of expensive units. This will not create more affordable housing but rather will create a range of expensive apartments that are unlikely to be seen as sufficiently desirable to warrant the expense. Proximity to rail is unlikely to be a sufficient attraction to overcome the negative feature of increased noise.

    Greater density will inevitably lead to removal of trees on existing properties and there will be little opportunity to replace them. The increased shadow cast by taller buildings will contribute to the decrease in green cover. This is something that Subiaco is so careful about at present.

    Subiaco already has some high densities areas – areas that were able to be planned with green spaces. The availability of the green spaces and the consistent planning of the appearance are clearly key reasons why somewhere like SubiCentro “works”. There are other areas that may be able to be developed in the same way like the Oval or the PMH site. This sort of planned development is infinitely preferable to what is proposed in LPS5.

    The general desire to increase the density in existing areas rather than continually building new suburbs, paying for the development of new infrastructure, is understood. To achieve this outcome by destroying the village atmosphere in a beautiful, character-rich area like Subiaco is just too high a price. I love living in Shenton Park because of the appearance of the area, because there is a sense of space, because there is a small shopping centre nearby (and not a large one), because of the delights of Subiaco Farmers’ Market not far away, because you can get to know your neighbours without feeling they are on top of you. Allowing 4 storey apartment blocks to be built there will just change the appearance and the feel of the neighbourhood in a negative way.

    I urge you to play your part in ensuring that the unique heritage, character and feel of Subiaco is not diminished but enhanced by whatever development is approved or planned. Please reject LPS5 in favour of a plan for the good of the community, a plan that maintains the desire for people to live in Subiaco.

    Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

  32. Julie Matheson
    July 11, 2018

    Hon. Rita Saffioti
    Minister for Planning
    9th Floor, Dumas House
    2 Havelock Street
    WEST PERTH WA 6005
    Dear Minister,
    I wish to formally submit my strong objection to the Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 (‘LPS5’) and the Draft Planning Strategy (‘DPS’). I have lived in my property at the address shown above for the past 29 years with my husband and two children and although my home is not directly affected by LPS5 and the DPS I consider that the proposed scheme will have a detrimental impact on the area and my enjoyment of the suburb for the reasons outlined below:
    • The City of Subiaco (‘the City’) has a rich and unique history and character reflected in the architectural landscape. The beautiful period homes, both grand and humble are an integral part of Subiaco’s charm and a key reason for my husband and I choosing to reside in Subiaco when moving to WA from NSW in 1989. Our home was built in 1913 and we have spent substantial amounts of money and time to maintain the façade to enhance our streetscape. This scenario would apply to many, many other families living in Subiaco including those residing in the precincts affected by LPS5 which document does not address the negative impacts it will have on these historic and unique areas of the City.
    • The re-zoning of many or most of these areas from R20 to R80 or R100 will permit the demolition of character homes and the building of apartment blocks and high density housing which will, without doubt, destroy the appearance and the amenity of the area and eventually the suburb. The situation exists at the moment where unless a character house, regardless of its beauty or charm, is heritage listed it is able to be demolished and replaced with a new-build that is not only out of keeping with the streetscape but actually destroys it – a situation that very recently occurred in my street i.e. 7 Francis Street, Subiaco.
    • Homes and streetscapes should not have to be heritage listed to be protected. Heritage listing is a long and complex process and has very strict criteria. The majority of homes in Subiaco may not meet heritage listing criteria but it is their character which forms a vital part of the streetscape which gives Subiaco its charm and appeal to both residents and visitors.
    • Further, the loss of the trees and green space resulting from the higher density builds has not been addressed by LPS5 and the negative impacts on the whole of the City. There is an absolute necessity for more green space in an inner-city suburb like Subiaco which will be very negatively impacted by the loss of trees and open space particularly in the re-zoned areas of the City.
    • There appears to be no justification for the level of infill and increased density requirements of LPS5. Subiaco already has high density housing – I live on a 350sqm block as do most of my neighbours. There are already a high number of apartments (mainly low-rise) and town houses which would give Subiaco a density equal to or higher than any other suburb in the Perth metropolitan area.
    • The State Government is highly likely to use the old Princess Margaret Hospital site for high density residential and office space and part of the Kitchener park site for high density residential space as well as utilising the King Edward Memorial Hospital site in a similar way when that facility eventually moves to the QEII site. This will have a significant impact on increasing the density of the City without resorting to the destruction of character and charm of the suburb vide LPS5.
    • The appearance of the area as a result of LPS5 being formalised will be an ugly, high rise, mish-mash of cheap builds along various corridors to cash in on Subiaco’s charm and character by developers seeking to make a quick buck. These people will have made their money and moved on while leaving behind their mess and a situation where future generations will wonder how this destruction could possibly have been enabled and condoned by a state government.


    • Subiaco Council has not had prior consultation with the community regarding the proposed increased housing density which it must know has caused great concern to residents within and outside the affected areas
    • The areas that are earmarked for higher density seem to have been chosen haphazardly and the proposed development for Rokeby Road South will create, in my opinion, an ugly high-rise strip in the middle of Subiaco which will ruin the suburb forever.
    • I understand that Subiaco is an inner-city area that has excellent facilities and that increased density is inevitable but the current proposals seem so rushed and not thought through. The redevelopment of the PMH and Kitchener Park sites will increase density over the short/medium term at a pace that will allow supporting infrastructure to be built/expanded to meet the new demand. Lack of sufficient supporting infrastructure causes many issues including social problems which will have significant ramifications for the City
    • The residents of Subiaco have voiced concern over many years about the direction of planning for the City but seem to have been dismissed as a vocal minority, or more recently as ‘foot stampers’. I, for one, am most grateful to the vocal minority and community groups who have raised concerns about Council’s development and zoning plans as I have not had the time to do so. It is not clear to me whose interests/views are being represented by Subiaco Councillors and I am concerned that some Councillors may be more concerned with furthering their political careers or the interests of developers than actually meeting with and consulting with Subiaco residents and business owners.
    It pains me that residents are compelled to spend their time preparing submissions like this to try and ensure that those elected at both the local and state government level actually act in the best interests of the electors. Residents/voters should not have to fight so hard to be heard, to have their environment protected, to not have major changes to their suburbs foisted upon them without genuine prior consultation and to not have to rely on the generosity and incredible commitment of groups who spend copious amounts of time and energy attempting to achieve a fair hearing
    Please take time to listen to the people of the City of Subiaco and help preserve its character, charm and heritage. I love Subiaco and hope to live in the suburb for many more years as I think it is the best place in the world (seriously!). I love its proximity to everything including schools, hospitals, public transport, cafes, restaurants, shops, the village feel where I know my neighbours, greet friendly familiar people every morning at my local café and have a long association with other residents over the past 29 years.
    Thank you for consideration of my submission.

  33. Julie Matheson
    July 11, 2018

    Hon. Rita Saffioti
    Minister for Planning
    9th Floor, Dumas House
    2 Havelock Street
    WEST PERTH WA 6005 10 July 2018

    Dear Minister

    Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy

    The property at the above address, Lawler Street in Subiaco, falls within the area affected by LPS5, the Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy.

    I wish to advise that I strongly object to Draft LPS5 and the Draft Planning Strategy. I further advise that I believe neither the scheme nor the strategy is in the best interests of the community. Thus I request that City of Subiaco Council and yourself as Minister for Planning should reject Draft LPS5 and the Draft Planning Strategy.

    I understand that Planning Schemes are intended to be reviewed every five years, and Planning Strategies every 15 years. If this is indeed the case why is the Government attempting to work to a 2050 density target in 2018?

    Your most welcome May 2018 Green Paper envisages a transparent planning system with increased community engagement in planning rather than reactions to proposals. Would it be fair to say that Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy is the last of the old rather than the first of the new? Let’s put it back in the drawer and use the work done so far, including the community movement that created Save-Subi, to deliver the best outcome for the City of Subiaco and for the State of Western Australia.

    With regards to Draft LPS5 the location of R100, R80/R80 mixed use and R60 density is somewhat haphazard. Our single storey property on Lawler Street backs onto the double storey 20 unit development, Devon Gardens, on Bagot Road. Devon Gardens and adjacent unit developments between Federal Street and Douglas Avenue are scheduled for R100 in Draft LPS5 which could mean a six storey development almost in our back garden; a serious loss of amenity to our currently R20 property.
    Under Draft LPS5 our property is proposed for R80 zoning which allows up to 5 storeys. The City of Subiaco is also currently seeking to include it in a Heritage listing. Both the Heritage listing as well as LPS5 coming into force will give us the worst of both worlds. While Heritage cannot affect density, it can affect streetscape and the nature of any alterations. Thus we will have both loss of amenity and restricted, read more expensive, development options. In addition to the loss of amenity described earlier, this rezoning has a poor outcome for the value of our property when taken together with the actions of the City of Subiaco which can only preserve our verandah and two front rooms.

    To allow rezoning from R20 to R80 will open up the opportunity to redevelop existing Federation and inter-war Californian Bungalow homes into housing and apartments that will not be in keeping with the amenity of the area. To allow that to be intentionally destroyed can only be described as impossibly short-sighted. It will be a tragedy; gross negligence to this as well as future generations.

    With regards to Draft Planning Strategy I understand WA State Government policies which support the planning schemes are either currently being drafted or under active consideration prior to drafting. A major part of Planning is the R codes. Since the R codes are about to change it appears premature to be pushing ahead with such a radical scheme as Draft LPS5.

    The scheme is radical in light of the adopted vision as stated in LPS 2014. This is for Subiaco to be “a friendly inclusive community with many interests respecting and building on our heritage setting and modern village lifestyle”. This vision should not be abandoned. Subiaco is an attractive location precisely because it is different to most of Perth Metro area. This difference should not be diluted, rather it should be enhanced to maintain and highlight the unique character of the City of Subiaco.

    In fact there was neither prior consultation with nor justification to the community on the proposed increase in housing density as contained in the current Draft LPS5. We appear to have simply been caught up in a one-size-fits-all MetroNet net. Neither the State Government nor Subiaco Council has advised the public what will be done to meet the infrastructure needs of a higher density Subiaco. Particular attention should be paid to sewerage, drainage, water and power. Kerbside collection is very reliable but waste disposal overall looks like a work in progress. Emergency services have had scant attention since we lost our Police Station and fire services, schools, traffic management would need to be assessed. In the natural environment, tree canopy along with green and open spaces, including outdoor sporting facilities, also need to be addressed if the community is to accept there actually is a plan.

    You will know that the current high population density in Subiaco reflects our roots from the first days as spillover accommodation, often camps, during early Perth population surges. This eventually led to workers cottages and generally after The Great War to some larger houses. The present housing diversity is a credit to the work of Tom Dadour during the 1970s when we were predominantly cheap rentals for students. It is the people who make Subiaco not the houses. We are not against higher density if properly justified and in keeping with our capacity. We note that Subi Centro is still building and we expect KEMH to be redeveloped as housing when the time comes. Are there similar plans for Princess Margaret Hospital?

    My wife and I considered moving east and for a few years lived nearer our grandchildren in the electorates of Wentworth (NSW) and Maribyrnong (Vic). Neither of these, although both very attractive, are a patch on the Curtin electorate and on Subiaco in particular. We love the community feel of calm leafy streets and parks where we can walk to shops and talk to friends and strangers alike. There is a strong village feel to Subiaco. We walk our little dog around the beautiful streetscapes. Once home we can drop into a café or bar. Our cars have been covered in dust from building works for the more than 25 years we have lived here. Subi has never stood still.

    Thank you for considering my opinions. Please call or email if I can provide additional information on any of these matters.

  34. Julie Matheson
    July 11, 2018

    Hon. Rita Saffioti
    Minister for Planning
    9th Floor Dumas House
    2 Havelock Street
    West Perth
    Western Australia 6005


    City of Subiaco
    P O Box 270
    Western Australia 6904


    We are owners and occupiers of 6 Francis Street Subiaco and we are writing to object to the Draft LPS5 and the Draft Planning Strategy.
    We chose to buy a house and live in Subiaco four years ago as it is a suburb with a friendly village type atmosphere and we were moving from the country. The houses here are small and individual and on small blocks. Some of them, such as ours, are over a hundred years old and have been sensitively renovated and modernised. To change many of these blocks to R100, R80 and mixed use is outright vandalism and should be most emphatically disallowed. If just one of these houses in these particular pockets is sold to a developer the value of the others in the immediate neighbourhood is immediately reduced and that is apart from having to put up with increased density, increased car parking requirements and the overshadowing that taller buildings will bring. The local people, who are a wonderful mixture of people and part of the charm of living in Subiaco will be disenfranchised.
    We find it extraordinary that the ratepayers of the City seem to be unable to have any say in the kind of environment they wish to live despite paying the Council to look after the environs for them. We find it outrageous that planning for a city should be based on a target density per hectare. We have witnessed high density living and its accompanying social problems both here and overseas and would not want to live in a high density area.
    As the current redevelopment of the Subiaco Oval site and the future development and use of Princess Margaret’s Hospital site continue and are assessed it is surely not a good time to pass a new Planning Scheme. There are too many unknowns and the history, amenities, character and all the advantages of living in Subiaco will be put at risk if this Scheme is passed.
    We urge that the Draftt Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy are resoundingly rejected.

  35. Julie Matheson
    July 11, 2018

    Hon. Rita Saffioti
    Minister for Planning
    9th Floor, Dumas House
    2 Havelock Street
    WEST PERTH WA 6005

    Dear Ms Saffioti,

    Re: Submission regarding Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy

    I am writing to express my strong objections to Local Planning Scheme 5. Although I am not directly affected by the planned rezoning, nonetheless the changes will have a significant impact on the City of Subiaco as a whole. I strongly urge that you reject it.

    The proposed plan is influenced by the Perth and Peel@3.5million strategy in which railway stations are to be used as a focus for infill activity, including all stops along the Fremantle-Midland line. Although this approach is quite suitable for those stations that already are active hubs, the situation is different in a place such as the City of Subiaco. The nature of the stations on the north-south lines is quite different from the older east-west lines.

    For historical reasons there are four stations (West Leederville, Subiaco, Daglish and Shenton Park) within or adjoining the City. Only Subiaco can be regarded as a standard hub with suitable supporting infrastructure. Daglish and Shenton Park are small, with already limited parking at best. The current plan would appear to have taken a “compass-like” approach and effectively inscribed an 800 metre circle around each without taking into account the particular circumstances.

    The Perth and Peel@3.5million framework specifies an ideal density of 25 – 30 persons per hectare. The established areas of Subiaco have a density of 33 persons per hectare overall. Although there is variation between localities all fall within the specified density range including Shenton Park (33 persons per hectare). The population density is probably the highest in Perth and is indeed the highest along the Perth –Midland rail corridor. It could be said that the infill target has already been met!

    Assuming that the Draft is influenced by Perth and Peel@3.5million then it would need to satisfy “The 10 urban consolidation principles that guide infill development” contained in the March 2018 document. There are two pertinent paragraphs:

    1. Housing
    Provide well-designed higher-density housing that considers local context, siting, form, amenity and the natural environment, with diverse dwelling types to meet the needs of the changing demographics.

    2. Character and heritage
    Ensure the attractive character and heritage values within suburbs are retained and minimise changes to the existing urban fabric, where appropriate.

    The Draft as it stands does not take into account the considerations in item 1 and would be highly likely to adversely affect the character and heritage values outlined in item 2, particularly as the proposed zoning changes would affect a significant proportion of the residential areas of western Subiaco/Shenton Park and Daglish.

    The City of Subiaco is one of the oldest areas of Perth and has developed a particular village charm that is unusual in Perth and easily ruined by unsympathetic development. It is also unusual in its heritage residential landscape, quite different from token historic sites elsewhere surrounded by contemporary structures. The proposed Draft would potentially negate other moves by the Council to encourage retention of heritage. The current ambience of the City of Subiaco was what attracted me to move here in the first place. Visitors from out of state (including from inner city Melbourne) have all commented on how attracted they are, and how unique it is. I would not want to see this transformed into a bland generic place.

    In addition to the aesthetic aspects there are other matters regarding the Plan. Parking and traffic are already constrained, particularly given Subiaco’s narrow streets. As the Draft directly affects the western part of the City, increased traffic would be introduced onto the main thoroughfares of Aberdare Road, Railway Parade and Nicholson Road, these already being congested during peak-hour traffic. Already the existing primary schools are at maximum capacity and the planned Inner City College does not appear to have any capacity for a larger population. There is also the potential effect on the green canopy if multi-story developments were to replace current residential dwellings.

    I do realise the significant problem posed by Perth’s increasing population and the fact that an indefinite low-density expansion is not tenable. There are already projects in progress, that to me at least, which allow infill, but without the difficulties previously mentioned. The Subi Centro project has yet to be completed, while the developments of the Subiaco Oval and the recently closed PMH will add to the infill density of the City. The optimal development of these resources and the retention of the residential ambience of the Subiaco/Daglish/Shenton Park precincts would be a wonderful model for what an inner-city area can achieve.

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission.

  36. Julie Matheson
    July 13, 2018

    Dear Honourable Minister Safiotti, Minister for Planning,

    I implore you to abandon the LPS5 which will completely destroy the remaining character of WA’s 3rd oldest City as well as destroying the lifestyles of its inhabitants.

    After 43 years in City Beach, my husband and I carefully researched where we should move to for a convenient retirement. We met with planners from the Government’s SRA, were shown projected models for Subi Centro and took away the planning document to study. Convinced that it was what we wanted, we made the move. Unfortunately Minister Alannah McTiernan successfully destroyed our dreams by completely changing the rules. Instead we are surrounded by high rise apartment blocks – the slums of the future. She also used her ministerial power to force in social housing on very expensive blocks in Subi Centro. Consequently with the huge increase in density, neighbours are set against neighbours over lack of sufficient parking, traffic is highly congested and properties are overshadowed by others.

    We are also very alarmed at the way green space has been reduced with the building of the new high school in an already congested area – with severely limited parking and drop off zones.

    Our granddaughter bought a townhouse in Subiaco Road so she could either walk or catch the train to her work as an engineer in St Georges Terrace. Her investment and lifestyle have been destroyed with the plans for that area.

    Our son and his family live in and love the heritage area of Subiaco that your Government will destroy if LPS5 goes ahead.

    It is not too late to listen to the residents and reject LPS5.

  37. Julie Matheson
    July 13, 2018

    Hi Julie

    On an evidentiary note, the global population is set to DECREASE from approx 2070 onwards. There is no excuse for expensive, high-density development that only benefits developers while we risk forever losing the character, history and identity of the area for current and future generations.

    We don’t need to populate any further: we are populated enough in Subi. And we are developed enough.

    The focus must be on restoration and regeneration of the Subi character, identity, and vibrancy with a LONG-term vision – not 10-15 years but right out to 2050 – and it needs to be done properly using formally recognised foresight methodologies by qualified foresight practitioners and full consultation with the communities. Vibrancy will not be achieved by high-density – see West Perth as a neighbouring example. An example of a low-density, low-height city that is INCREDIBLY vibrant and attractive to locals and visitors is Cork in Ireland. Let’s follow THAT example.

    I know we can rely on you, Julie, to put the community voices forward and protect this jewel of a suburb from overdevelopment.

  38. Julie Matheson
    July 13, 2018

    As proud residents of a site adjacent to Rokeby Road south, we have earlier expressed our unequivocal opposition to Amendment 35, because of its clear intention to allow a proposed development on the Chipper site on Rokeby Road which would seriously diminish the livability of the residential area to its west, including and particularly, the Duke Street Heritage Site. We subsequently offered our full backing to the Save Rokeby South movement, in support of its opposition to this planning amendment. Our commitment to this included participation in their workshop and contribution to the preparation of the Rokeby South Precinct Community Vision “Directions” document which arose from that workshop. So our support for and commitment to an appropriate development strategy and plan for Rokeby South should not be doubted.

    We are disappointed that with the release of the TSP5, we must again now express our total opposition, this time to Schedule C, which is clearly and specifically targeted towards allowing this same development that we objected to in Amendment 35.

    We find this addition to TSP5 to be an extraordinary move on the part of the planners, to propose a change to the Rokeby South area simply to accommodate the aspirations of just one developer. That this is the case is readily apparent from the crafting of 2.1.2 in that Schedule; to my knowledge there are currently no other sites of “at least 700m2 or where vehicular access is provided via a street other than Rokeby Road or via a right of way” currently available for development in Rokeby South.

    Such pandering to a single developer, when other developers such as those approved for the development of 368 Rokeby Road are prepared to work within the current limits, is frankly appalling and we have to wonder why the Council would accept this proposal,particularly when done in such an underhand manner.

    As stated above, we are fully supportive of and committed to the orderly and empathetic development of Rokeby Road South, particularly of those properties which are currently unoccupied and becoming shabby.We wonder why the Council does not engage fully with the group which has mobilised to achieve this, accept its vision statement, and encourage other areas within Subiaco to undertake a similar process of community engagement and consultation. The Minister for Planning and her staff must surely welcome such an initiative.

  39. Julie Matheson
    July 13, 2018

    Re – Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy (the Scheme)

    I strongly object to the Scheme. I submit that the Scheme should be rejected by the Minister and the Council.

    The reasons for my strong objections are as follows:
    • building a haphazard and substantial mixed use and density Scheme next to a railway line will seriously and substantially detract from the community of Subiaco,
    • I support heritage listings and preservation of heritage within Subiaco, and
    • I support mixed use and density development of areas of no or little heritage significance within Subiaco. I understand that there are areas within Subiaco that can adequately meet higher density targets, and
    • the Scheme is an example of the application of policy without due consideration of other relevant factors – the infrastructure to support such an increase in density in these heritage areas, the context of the stations (small and limited parking), community values, heritage values and green values.
    I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Scheme.

  40. Julie Matheson
    July 13, 2018

    I am a homeowner and resident of Heytesbury rd in Subiaco.

    I am strongly opposed the outrageous changes proposed in the Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy. These changes will not benefit anyone in the community who already lives here, or anyone living here in the future. You and the Council should completely reject these, for numerous reasons listed below:

    There is no need for any more high density housing in Subiaco. This suburb has already met its target for high density housing. It is one of the most densely populated areas in Perth and the current model for projected growth in this state is based on outdated information that needs to be revised.

    Subiaco primary school is already full. There was a waiting list when the oldest of our three children started at kindergarten there last year. Where will all the children of residents in the new high density housing go to school? There will be thousands of people living in the new developments, with a proportion of those being children who will need to be educated locally.

    There is no area allocated in the proposed plans for open space. Play areas for children are vital if they are living in high rise apartments and do not have gardens of their own, or for children who do have their own garden but just want to play somewhere else with their friends. Adults also enjoy open spaces, if they want to go for a walk in a park, or just sit under a tree and relax.

    There will be a loss of trees and canopy (for people and wild life). We have a 35cm long skink living in our back garden and I know of one nearby person who found a possum on her property! Where will the birds and other wildlife go when the canopy and private gardens are removed to make way for high density housing? Life is much more pleasant for people living and walking (even driving) along tree lined avenues where there are no high density buildings.

    Subiaco already has a well-established built environment – many of the buildings have been here well over 100 years. High rise developments are totally out of keeping with the current streetscape. While we are used to seeing local building and renovation work on a modest scale, turning any part of the suburb into a construction site of the scale which developers will impose on us will also create disturbance and havoc for years. Trucks carrying materials to and from site will be noisy, as well as leaving debris along the street – and where will all the builders park when they are working?

    Parking is an issue with many other streets in the suburb (particularly during the working week – this suburb was NOT developed with the motor car in mind). My home does not have rear access or on-site parking (it was one of the very first homes to be built in Heytesbury rd), so visitors have to park in the street. It is already difficult for people to find parking when they come to our home as the closest places are regularly already taken. It will become even more of an issue if high rise developments are allowed as the occupants and visitors to this development (particularly along Rokeby rd) will also need to find somewhere to put their cars. People living in apartments near the station won’t necessarily use public transport, they will still use their cars.

    The scale of the proposed development is completely incompatible with the adjacent properties. Adjacent homes will suffer from shade and lack of privacy. My own home is 7 doors away from Rokeby rd, so the proposed high buildings there will be visible from my own back garden. The current vista from my back garden is a pleasant one of trees and other homes’ rooftops and it would be unsightly to have the proposed high rise buildings towering in the background.

    One of the reasons we moved our three young children back from London to Subiaco was so they could enjoy the benefits of growing up in a village atmosphere, where the homes and businesses have charm and character (a rare commodity in generally bland Perth) and where our offspring could enjoy the benefits of their own garden. We did not want them growing up in an area of such high density as proposed in LPS5.

    My family have had a long connection with Subiaco, starting with the birth of a grandfather in Coolgardie Street in April 1919. Nearly 100 years later three members of my immediate family own heritage homes in this suburb, while other relatives live in the surrounding suburbs that will also be similarly affected by the proposed scheme. My own home was built in 1903. I have gone to tremendous effort to research the history of the house in order to locate the descendants of previous owners and occupants who may be in possession of old photographs of it, to use in the restoration. Owners of heritage properties in Subiaco (whether they are listed or not) view themselves as the custodians of the city’s history and consider it a privilege to restore and maintain their homes and retain them for future generations. Once these old buildings are gone, they cannot be replaced and Perth will lose a portion of what little history it has.

    Please do not destroy a really special and unique suburb in a move that will only benefit the developers and not the majority of residents who really love where they live. We do not want to see our beautiful suburb becoming a high-rise ghetto or yet another soul-less West Perth.

    Thank you for reading my submission.

  41. Julie Matheson
    July 13, 2018

    The CEO of City of Subiaco,
    Rokeby Road, Subiaco. 6008.

    Draft Local Planning Scheme 5 and Draft Planning Strategy

    CEO, City of Subiaco, we wish to inform you that we vehemently object to Draft LPS5 and the Draft Planning Strategy.

    We have lived in Shenton Park for the past 32 years and chose to live here because of the proximity to the city, the single storey residential homes, the university, the QE11 area, schools, parks – including Kings Park … all of which will be destroyed if the rezoning were to occur. The re-zoning of many or most of these areas from R20 to R80 or R100 will permit the demolition of character homes and the building of apartment blocks and high density housing which will, without doubt, destroy the appearance and the amenity of the area and eventually the suburb. Also, the loss of the trees and green space resulting from the higher density builds has not been addressed by LPS5 and the negative impacts on the whole of the City. There is an absolute necessity for more green space in an inner-city suburb like Subiaco which will be very negatively impacted by the loss of trees and open space particularly in the re-zoned areas of the City.

    The main reason for rejection is that Subiaco has already met the Government’s “Perth & Peel @ 3.5 m” 2050 targets set for it. The established areas of Subiaco have a population density of 33.3 persons per hectare; this is within the WA Government’s target density of between 25 – 35 people per hectare. Subiaco exceeds virtually all other suburbs in this capacity. This alone is sufficient reason for rejection. This figure is before the development of the next phases of Subi Centro and the Subiaco Oval / Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) redevelopments are taken into account. The WAPC is working on 2006 estimates on which their policies have been based. Policies must be reviewed before forward planning can be undertaken.

    We believe the scheme is not in the community’s best interests and that Council should REJECT it. It has the potential to totally destroy the entire fabric of Subiaco/Shenton Park as well as Daglish/Jolimont and that it does not really reflect the changes to density which have already been undertaken – such as the high rise in the Subi Centro area (North Ward), nor does it consider other changes which will come about in the not too distant future – namely the old PMH site (and the KEMH site too which will become available in the not too distant future (both of which could become ‘high rise’ areas with little to no effect on the residential nature of Subiaco) and the old football area which can support not only a school, but also with the removal of the stands and changes to the properties along the north side of the stands – as well as the existing car park (saving only the old gates building to Subiaco Oval) could well and truly allow for increased housing ergo density with little to no impact on the residential nature of Subiaco.

    I am sure you are aware of the anomalies between Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) policies, such as the WAPC Draft Apartment Design Policy and the number of stories permitted in a Mixed Use area as advertised by Council in LPS5. Subiaco is basically a residential area – even with the north ward changes and ‘high rise’ which have been undertaken. I would suggest and request that the current fabric of Subiaco remain a home’s only zoning … with any rezoning to be undertaken only where it will not greatly impact on the home/residential nature. I find the proposed zoning changes to the Daglish/Jolimont and Central Ward/Daglish station area to be not acceptable from many perspectives – social, traffic, parking, the environment to name but a few of them.

    It is also of concern to me that Subiaco Council has not had prior consultation with the community regarding the proposed increased housing density which it must know has caused great concern to residents within and outside the affected areas. I have always thought that consultation – particularly in very significant changes like this that that community consultation was an essential ingredient in what should be open and transparent government.

    The areas that are earmarked for higher density have been chosen haphazardly and the proposed development for Daglish, Shenton Park, Jolimont, the Hay St area as well as Rokeby Road South will create ugly high-rise zones throughout Subiaco which will ruin the suburb forever. Moreover, the current primary schools are already full to capacity and even with the new secondary school … that will be inadequate for the current needs let alone any increase in population. Creating arbitrary density in areas of Shenton Park, Daglish, Subiaco and on Thomas Street is neither necessary nor is supported by the community. The State Government has allowed for across the board redevelopment which implies that every lot in more than 50% of Subiaco’s residential area, currently mostly zoned R20, will have R80-R100 zoning. That is neither needed nor desirable and therefore is unacceptable.

    The City of Subiaco is the responsible entity representing and looking after the interests of its ratepayers. It is beholden on its elected councillors to oppose LPS 5 in its entirety. I would and do expect the Mayor and all Councillors to REJECT the proposal.

Leave a Reply to Julie Matheson Cancel 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 )

Connecting to %s


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