Southern Gazette (South Perth) - - OPINION -

I CAN’T let this let­ter go by with­out cor­rect­ing the many as­sump­tions and er­rors for the sake of oth­ers who may be won­der­ing.

The very tall build­ings to which Lin­den Knight (Use own money, Nov 8) refers in South Perth were ap­proved by the Joint Devel­op­ment As­sess­ment Panel (JDAP), not by coun­cil. I sym­pa­thise with the pur­chasers of an apart­ment in a non­com­pli­ant build­ing which is the centre of so much con­tro­versy, but much of the fault lies with the de­vel­oper try­ing to get ap­proval for some­thing that has def­i­nitely not met all the local reg­u­la­tions.

The coun­cil rec­om­mended to JDAP that 74 Mill Point Road be re­fused for a num­ber of rea­sons. The elected coun­cil­lors unan­i­mously agreed and the Mayor made a dep­u­ta­tion to JDAP ex­press­ing her many con­cerns.

The vot­ing bal­ance of JDAP weighs to the three gov­ern­ment ap­pointed members over the two local coun­cil rep­re­sen­ta­tives and so, all over Perth the rights and wishes of local residents and coun­cils are be­ing eroded.

Civic Heart and the oth­ers were un­law­fully ap­proved by JDAP which was proven by the Supreme Court that over­turned the first ver­sion of Lu­miere.

The de­vel­oper of Lu­miere seems to as­sume that any build­ing around the height of Civic Height is "en­ti­tled" to be ap­proved. It is wrong for any­one to bench­mark height against a non-com­pli­ant build­ing.

Lu­miere is not be­ing sin­gled out as a ran­dom event. This site at 74 Mill Point Road is in a well-es­tab­lished res­i­den­tial area of five-toeight storeys with five me­tre set­backs.

That set­back has al­lowed the av­enue of lon­don plane trees to flour­ish for over 100 years and gives this street unique beauty. This pro­posal would be the first zero set­back on the street, mean­ing it would be built right up to the foot­path a me­tre from those trees and 450 per cent taller than any­thing around it. The shad­ows will cast across neigh­bours for most of the day.

Residents need to think se­ri­ously about the traf­fic that will be gen­er­ated from these build­ings.

A res­i­den­tial tower of 35 storeys brings hun­dreds of cars that traf­fic pro­fes­sion­als es­ti­mate pro­duces 1400 car trips in and out ev­ery day.

There are more than 4000 car­bays al­lo­cated in the build­ings that have been ap­proved or pro­posed in this area. That works out to 12,000 or so car trips ev­ery day.

In me­tres, 5000 cars equates to 25km of bumper-to-bumper traf­fic. Peo­ple com­plain about the traf­fic now – if all build­ings ap­proved are built, there will be grid­lock.

The rea­son for al­low­ing the bonus in height is based on a train sta­tion, which we now know is not go­ing to hap­pen for at least 20 years. So the whole idea of giv­ing 450 per cent bonus in height to a build­ing that is over a kilo­me­tre from the phan­tom train sta­tion is to­tally ir­ra­tional.

We op­pose this and all other su­per­sized build­ings be­cause South Perth de­serves bet­ter and should not be pushed down the path of "profit at any cost".

VICKI REDDEN, South Perth Penin­sula Ac­tion Group.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.