A challenge issued to Baverstock naysayers
WE rarely question the advice of professionals such as dentists, doctors or lawyers, so when did it become OK publicly to shame and disregard the professional advice of planners, architects and urban designers?
Higher density development around railway stations and urban centres is renowned as being a sensible approach to urban planning and reducing sprawling car-dependant cities of the future.
I challenge any of the Baverstock naysayers to find any serious planning documentation that does not support this planning direction and ask that they use it in their arguments rather than citing irrelevant grounds such as financial gain.
I would also challenge the naysayers to ask where they will live in Cottesloe when they wish to downsize and age in place because the housing choice is dismally poor.
I also question the motives of the so-called "Cottesloe Ratepayers Association", which does not represent the views of the whole community and should not be using its name publicly to denounce residential progress and its own ratepayers.
The Department of Planning plays a vital role in shaping the future of Perth, and professionals in the development industry make decisions based on good design, planning merit, sustainability, future housing trends and affordability.
They should be respected, and our local residents and councillors should be guided by their advice and base their decision on such advice.
Cottesloe’s local planning strategy clearly identifies transit-oriented development, and its Town Planning Scheme should be updated to reflect this, and better align with other Government documents supporting this.
Gary Baverstock should be congratulated on his development, which ticks the box for good planning, aesthetics, sustainability, walkability and affordability whilst allowing our older Cottesloe residents to age in place.
You do not tell a chef how to shuck an oyster, and you should not be telling planners how to best design neighbourhoods.
Jaime Atkinson, Cottesloe.