Submission BY vicki redden
I support the proposals as made in submissions of endorsement by the South Perth Peninsula Action Group and Mike Allen of Mike Allen Planning.
In Australia when you purchase property there are inbuilt provisions that stop unscrupulous landowners from moving in next door to you and building a noxious, noisy chemical plant for instance. Or in our case here in South Perth there should be clear guidelines and laws that stop unscrupulous investors and developers seeking and receiving approval for buildings which do not comply with the intent of the Town Planning Scheme, nor blend with the existing character of the area as stated in Directions 2013 Planning Guidelines.
Planning schemes with their zoning laws, codes and other provisions are there to give some certainly that the value of one’s land and that the use of land around will be maintained and the ambience and surrounds one bought into will be protected.
An orderly and properly planned scheme should not be arbitrary, ambiguous or have anomalies - they must define a clear basis for permissions and restrictions to which land can be used.
The unrestricted “open-endedness” of the arbitrary variation provisions existing in the current Scheme has proven to be unclear by the example of the Supreme Court Case challenging the JDAP approval of 74 Mill Point Rd.
JDAP was able to use unlimited discretion clauses to permit a development of 97 metres or four times over the existing Scheme’s provision of 25 metres. Also, the same development was allowed on the basis of a “Minor” variation even though the particular lot size was 20% under the required minimum area.
Therefore the existing Scheme is clearly flawed as it provides no clear limits for height, plot ratios, overshadowing, setbacks and minimum lot areas. The extent to which this discretion has been applied renders the Town Planning Scheme useless.
I therefore believe it is an imperative that the modified proposed Amendment No 46 be approved as it will restore the public’s confidence in the Statutory Planning Process and will install within the specifically prescribed areas the necessary limiting development controls as to what is allowed or not allowed to be approved.
I support putting a limit on the height of buildings in South Perth as urban infill needs can be accommodated with medium density which does not add to the significant social and traffic problems
I propose that the limit of bonus in height be graduated up to 20% not 100% as suggested in the new wording.
I support the removal of the Mill Point Perth peninsula from the Special Design Area.
I propose removing from the SDA, all of Mill Point Rd Nth up to the Judd Street intersection
I support a ban on buildings which would cause shadowing to surrounding dwellings and the public open spaces such as the Foreshore and wetlands to the west.
I support the removal of zero setbacks in residential streets
I propose that there be no variation to lot and frontages limits on all Development Applications in the SDA
I propose that all Development Applications be required to pass ALL performance criteria before any bonuses are applied.
I support the mandatory 1.5 minimum non-residential plot ratio
If more infill area is required then I suggest that the Station Precinct should be extended south and east to increase the catchment area, which will enhance the case for a station as well.
I suggest that South Perth Golf course and Richardson Park be redeveloped. This area would provide a very lucrative housing area. It would provide a greater population for the proposed Train Station and new sporting facilities could be upgraded and included as part of the Developer Contribution Scheme.
The South Perth Golf Course is a very mediocre course, it is an expensive private club used by a very small % of people. This course could also be relocated, where an excellent course and facilities could be built as part of Collier Park and the old Agricultural Department Land, now up for reuse.
The combination of dubious decisions and lack of guidelines has resulted in proposals for mega high-rise buildings being concentrated in a small area near the PO and down Mill Point Rd north. This intensity of development was never included in the modelling or planning, so no research has been conducted into the resulting consequences.
None of these buildings fit with what was communicated in the objectives set out in the Station Precinct Plan, which was designed to provide the business case in support of a train station. If approvals for mega high-rise in this northern end of the SPP continue we will not see a balanced revitalisation over the whole precinct. The largest area and the area most in need will never get the infill and revitalisation that has been the major part of the vision communicated to the public.
The very lucrative residential market has been consumed by the few developers who were able to take advantage of the loopholes created by the (deliberate?) ambiguous wording in Amendment 25.
A Local Planning Strategy should be conducted as a matter of urgency so that thoughtful and considered planning of dwelling numbers, skylines and streetscapes can be envisaged by developers and the community.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS SCHEME
I believe that the Developer Contribution Scheme is grossly underutilised considering the affect these massive buildings are having on the community during construction and once they are inhabited. The neighbouring communities are being subjected to noise, dust, road blockages, traffic congestion and this is going to continue for how many years?? After construction the community is going to be subjected to even worse and permanent traffic problems, because as Mains Roads reports say there is little that can be done to alleviate the problems in Mill Point Rd Nth or in the Mends/Judd/Labouchere area, and of course zero-setbacks removes any scope for road widening.
In a recent GHD report the following recommendations were made to the CoSP:
I am aware of the Art contribution scheme and although in theory it sounds good, in practice the developments I read about are using the “Community Art Donation” to improve the façade or lobby of their building which is only adding value to their building and not a lot to the community. It merely makes their buildings more marketable.
In many other cities the developer contribution schemes involve such things as developers contributing to train stations, childcare centres, libraries, swimming pools - items that are of great benefit to the community. I suggest that something of similar significance be implemented here in City of South Perth. There is a limit to the value of another “twisted bronze ball”
The impact to the ZOO animals from surrounding construction is significant and to my knowledge has not been discussed, nor any compensation sought or received. As a docent at Perth Zoo I see considerable stress in the animals from the noise and proximity of construction.
A significant contribution by a number of developers to something at the Zoo, facilitated by the City of South Perth, would be greatly appreciated by Perth Zoo and the public. The City of South Perth gains enormously from having the Zoo in their locale and I believe it would be a huge win/win for all. Just recently the Australian Bird aviary had to be closed to the public as it was deemed unsatisfactory and there are no funds to improve it.
I suggest that if a development does not provide adequate open space, landscaping and visitor parking in its plans, then a Levy or Contribution should be incurred to provide those facilities. Our rates and taxes should not be being used to provide facilities that a developer failed to incorporate.
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
Towering high-rise living is becoming more common in many cities, but famed social researcher Hugh Mackay says it is detrimental to social wellbeing. It is a big mistake, Mr Mackay said. “In 100 years we’re going to look back all of this and say, ‘That was an error, this is not how people are meant to live’.” Mr Mackay’s research suggests when people are crammed together in high-rise buildings, there is less social interaction. High Rise apartments create disunity and disharmony
Glances are avoided in the lifts and hallway conversation is stifled as people become more obsessed with their privacy given their proximity to others. It’s a funny thing about humans,” he said. “The higher density the housing, the less likely we are to socialise as we become more focused on our privacy.”
This has led to a culture of people who, even though they are living metres away from each other, never meet their neighbours. Mr Mackay says medium density housing – “terraced town houses or small unit complexes” – should be preferred as it would avoid the problems of high-rise.
In his book “ the Art of Belonging” Hugh Mackay says "....humans are, by and large, social creatures that need to live in close proximity to each other….. the natural human tendency is “to seek the security of being woven into the social fabric” – whether it is a community within a city or suburb, or whether it is a sporting community, cultural community, or work community. Humans are congregators, living in “cohesive communities” that produce “coherent moral systems.”
When communities fragment or disintegrate, so do moral standards. We are not good at surviving in isolation. We rely on communities to support and sustain us, and if those communities are to survive and prosper, we must engage with them and nurture them. But the tension between independence and interdependence is why we feel conflicted and confused. In our modern, smaller households we can do that by living in a small to medium city, village-like suburbs, or smaller apartment blocks. But not in 'mega-cities' in a high-rise skyscrapers.
MacKay stated in a speech in Perth in 2015 that “…..City planners will come to the realisation that "high-rise" is wrong, wrong for people and wrong for communities. High-rise towers are good at creating detached, isolated and disenfranchised clusters of people - a new type of ghetto”
Other researchers like Danish architect and planner, Jan Gehl, insists people living above the fifth floor lose their connection with “mother earth” and the society below. I would say that anybody living over the fifth floor ought generally to be referring to the airspace authorities. You’re not part of the earth anymore, because you can’t see what’s going on the ground and the people on the ground can’t see where you are.
What type of communities is South Perth trying to create?
It is very easy to find numerous articles, reports and research on the disadvantages of living in High-rise apartments. This type of housing has been widely criticised by many researchers and organisations for over-shadowing and destroying streetscapes and skylines. Skyscrapers have high life-cycle emissions compared to medium density housing and in some instances are associated with mental illness and socially dysfunctional behaviours.
RMIT planning expert Michael Buxton, commented recently on the scale of high rise approvals saying the speed of approvals is causing huge problems "This is a really irresponsible way of planning a city. What high-rise does is separate large numbers of people from the street, so we end up with a city that is detached from street life and one that is based on enclaves and secured access ” And Buxton says his research shows that high-rise towers were "among the world's worst energy performers".
This does not sound like the statements made in Council’s various policies on Sustainability, Climate Change, Energy Efficient buildings – more studies and analysis is required before large scale high-rise is accepted as the fashionable way to proceed.
WHO BENEFITS FROM HIGH-RISE?
Residential housing, apartment and commercial property sales fluctuate constantly – at the moment many are at an all-time low. This scheme needs to be flexible enough to accommodate these fluctuations, but not bow to pressure or be manipulated by investors who have money to move from their country of origin, or from developers who are understandably interested primarily in ROI
Multi-national property investment companies are funnelling money into the Perth apartment market, just as is in cities such as Toronto, London, New York, Hong Kong and Dubai.
Developers and Investors ideals are not aligned with those of the local community and local council town planning schemes should not be designed to facilitate this transfer of funds without real benefits flowing to the community for years to come. By all means encourage investment in the city, but this should primarily be for the benefit of the whole community not just those with very vested interests.
Date submitted: 4th February 2016
In Australia when you purchase property there are inbuilt provisions that stop unscrupulous landowners from moving in next door to you and building a noxious, noisy chemical plant for instance. Or in our case here in South Perth there should be clear guidelines and laws that stop unscrupulous investors and developers seeking and receiving approval for buildings which do not comply with the intent of the Town Planning Scheme, nor blend with the existing character of the area as stated in Directions 2013 Planning Guidelines.
Planning schemes with their zoning laws, codes and other provisions are there to give some certainly that the value of one’s land and that the use of land around will be maintained and the ambience and surrounds one bought into will be protected.
An orderly and properly planned scheme should not be arbitrary, ambiguous or have anomalies - they must define a clear basis for permissions and restrictions to which land can be used.
The unrestricted “open-endedness” of the arbitrary variation provisions existing in the current Scheme has proven to be unclear by the example of the Supreme Court Case challenging the JDAP approval of 74 Mill Point Rd.
JDAP was able to use unlimited discretion clauses to permit a development of 97 metres or four times over the existing Scheme’s provision of 25 metres. Also, the same development was allowed on the basis of a “Minor” variation even though the particular lot size was 20% under the required minimum area.
Therefore the existing Scheme is clearly flawed as it provides no clear limits for height, plot ratios, overshadowing, setbacks and minimum lot areas. The extent to which this discretion has been applied renders the Town Planning Scheme useless.
I therefore believe it is an imperative that the modified proposed Amendment No 46 be approved as it will restore the public’s confidence in the Statutory Planning Process and will install within the specifically prescribed areas the necessary limiting development controls as to what is allowed or not allowed to be approved.
I support putting a limit on the height of buildings in South Perth as urban infill needs can be accommodated with medium density which does not add to the significant social and traffic problems
- City of South Perth has stated that it will accept the additional 8300 dwellings required to accommodate the additional people expected in Perth by 2050.
- But no-where does it state that all these dwellings are to be within 500 metres of the South Perth PO as recently expressed by group of developers.
- The Canning Bridge area is larger, and already has a train station, and the north-west section of the Bentley-Curtin campus offers enormous opportunities especially if government offices currently there relocate as expected long before 2050. That area is slated to be served by light rail at some point in the future.
- The provisions in the newly worded Amendment 46 to contain the level of development within the Station Precinct is entirely consistent with the broader objectives put in place by the State government’s urban consolidation agenda.
I propose that the limit of bonus in height be graduated up to 20% not 100% as suggested in the new wording.
- “In the current Special Design Area, where there is no upper height limit where all required performance criteria in Table B are met. The modified provisions will impose absolute limits on the extent of a variation from the applicable basic building height limit. Under the modified provisions, it is proposed that building height would be constrained to no more than 100% 20% above the applicable basic height limit”
I support the removal of the Mill Point Perth peninsula from the Special Design Area.
- This area is already revitalised, it has an established residential lifestyle and ambience that has been developing over the past 10-15 years - all aspects included in the South Perth Council’s vision for a friendly inclusive city.
- The height of the newly proposed buildings is totally out of context with the surrounding neighbourhood – it doesn’t blend, fit or merge with ambience of the area. This is a stated guidelines in Directions 2031 from WA Planning
- The historical avenue of London Plane trees along Mill Point Rd North is the dominant visual feature of the street. The Precinct Plan emphasised the central importance of trees to this particular streetscape and this would be wholly undermined by mega high-rise and zero setback development
- There is very limited potential to infill in this area and because of that, mega high-rises will become an eye-sore, more like Totem Poles or Asparagus Sticks. As each building is only reviewed individually, not as it fits with others, there seems to be no mechanism to direct development where it is most useful and where it will be able to blend and merge with the surrounding existing houses.
- The traffic on Mill Point Rd Nth already exceeds Mains Roads traffic recommendations for a local distributor by 40% (Shawmac). The proposed building at 74 Mill Point Rd will take the vehicles per day (vpd) to 60% over recommended levels. The Shawmac report is clearly misleading as it compares traffic numbers to estimated 2031 levels. Since there is no chance of modifying this road there is no opportunity to accommodate more traffic – there is only the ability to limit traffic by not approving buildings that add significant vpd. Traffic congestion in this area is already acute. This road is the major flow street for much of the traffic that enters South Perth from the freeway.
- No comprehensive and cumulative traffic studies have been completed. Original studies were modelled and reported when the vision for the SPSP was forecasting 1000 new dwellings – that number has already been approved and the revitalisation of the Richardson/Lyall/Charles Sts has not even started. Using the same formulae adopted by GHD and Shawmac, our statisticians have calculated that buildings already approved in the Station Precinct will take the traffic to over 200% of Main Roads recommendations for a Local Distributor.
That situation will be untenable! - Allowing high-rise residential buildings is exacerbating the car-centric society. Nigel Westbrook – the Associate Dean at School of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts at UWA, when asked to review the proposal of a 29 storey building at 74 Mill Point Rd said, “… if accepted and thus establishing a precedent, would create a far from satisfactory urban design outcome with regard to both public open space, amenity, load upon existing streets, and integration with an adequate public transport network. It is clearly a car-dependent project that, if repeated by similar future projects along Mill Point Road, will create deleterious environmental and functional consequences”.
- Increased traffic in this area will reduce and inhibit pedestrian and cycling activities which contradict other ideals stated by Council – counter to what Shawmac state in their report.
- This area is outside the station catchment area, it is well serviced by buses and the ferry, so provides no support for the business case for a train station.
- Creatively rewriting the 800 metre walking distance to now being an 800mt catchment radius, does nothing to encourage people to walk further than they will. Adding a “pedestrian ramp” also does nothing to reduce the distance – just obfuscate the real point in question.
The ramp could be built from the CBD, but it will still not make people walk that distance!
I propose removing from the SDA, all of Mill Point Rd Nth up to the Judd Street intersection
- All the points from the above item are relevant here.
- If these reasons are accepted to remove some of Mill Point Rd Nth then the same reasons apply for the whole section of street.
- The blocks of land between Ferry St and Judd St intersection for which DA have been submitted (coincidently attempting to receive approval prior to this Amendment is finalised) can all still be developed with similar boutique style apartments..
- Or if this removal is not possible at least ensure there is a graduation of heights up to the Civic Heart complex which should be the feature as one enters the area or views the skyline from a distance.
I support a ban on buildings which would cause shadowing to surrounding dwellings and the public open spaces such as the Foreshore and wetlands to the west.
- Shadowing from these very large buildings will limit future solar facilities which does not promote energy efficiency and sustainable design, which is also a Council ideal.
- The measure of shadowing needs reviewing – at the moment it is measured at 12 noon in winter – what about the shadow over the foreshore and neighbours for the other 12 hours?
- These mega-towers will steal sunlight from their neighbours. As an example, residences to the west and south west of the proposal at 74 Mill Point Rd will essentially be in a solar eclipse every morning for 2 hours – some only seeing sunshine in winter after 10am. There is most certainly a regulation or R-code that this height contravenes.
- Council’s communications of a new proposal should be extended to the occupants of any property which will be shadowed by the new proposal at any time of the day – in this case communications would need to be sent to tenants on the Mends St Jetty.
I support the removal of zero setbacks in residential streets
- Zero Set should only be introduced into greenfield developments. Such a change in character is difficult to merge with surrounding neighbours.
- The character of South Perth should be enhanced not destroyed.
- These areas are not Heritage or Federation retails strips like Vic Park or Fremantle. Greenfield developments like East Perth/Claisebrook were easily able to introduce a specific style or setback.
- The boundary walls of a Zero setback are an overpowering and a severe disruption to the visual amenity and character of adjoining properties which already has a setback greater than Zero
- Zero set-backs in most streets in the station precinct will not add to the vitality but in fact disrupt the street-capes with some jutting out and some not.
- Zero Setbacks are obviously preferred by developers who can sell that additional meterage and not provide it into the streetscape or open area or green space
- Zero setbacks are for areas where land is extremely scarce – this is not the case in South Perth
- Zero set-backs destroy the tree-lined streetscapes for which South Perth is famous and which enhances liveability – the trees were the overwhelming important feature in the surveys that have been conducted.
- As an example of all these points – just look at the construction on Charles and Labouchere Rds, where trees have been removed and can never be replaced.
I propose that there be no variation to lot and frontages limits on all Development Applications in the SDA
I propose that all Development Applications be required to pass ALL performance criteria before any bonuses are applied.
- What point is there in having rules and regulations if they are not going to be upheld.
- Clarity and certainty in the scheme is more important than allowing some variation or discretion somewhere for some proposals.
I support the mandatory 1.5 minimum non-residential plot ratio
- Although, I would also support further re-wording of the commercial/residential plot ratio in light of the blatant attempts to exploit a loophole in the “Commercial” status of the planning scheme provisions. To raise the commercial component of new buildings, developers are calling the apartments 'serviced apartments' or short stay which qualify as commercial space. Later these units will be able to be sold as normal apartments when council has no planning control over the development. As serviced apartments do not require as many car spaces and once sold as a permanent residence significant future parking problems will arise.
- It has never been shown that South Perth has a need for such a huge number of serviced apartments. The previous CEO and Mayor stated they “wanted the market to determine” what would be built in the SDA. If there was a marketable call for serviced apartments they would have already been included in the previous proposals – not just used as a loophole to get past the commercial/residential ratio.
- The intent of the commercial/residential ratio in the original Town Plan Scheme was to encourage employment – serviced apartments will do no more than residential.
- In reality, there should be no difference between an apartment and a serviced apartment in terms of commercial or residential.
- It is a bad faith attempt by developers to circumvent planning controls which limits the ratio of residential to commercial uses – and another reason why strong guidelines and limits are required because no-one can rely on good faith from developers.
If more infill area is required then I suggest that the Station Precinct should be extended south and east to increase the catchment area, which will enhance the case for a station as well.
I suggest that South Perth Golf course and Richardson Park be redeveloped. This area would provide a very lucrative housing area. It would provide a greater population for the proposed Train Station and new sporting facilities could be upgraded and included as part of the Developer Contribution Scheme.
The South Perth Golf Course is a very mediocre course, it is an expensive private club used by a very small % of people. This course could also be relocated, where an excellent course and facilities could be built as part of Collier Park and the old Agricultural Department Land, now up for reuse.
The combination of dubious decisions and lack of guidelines has resulted in proposals for mega high-rise buildings being concentrated in a small area near the PO and down Mill Point Rd north. This intensity of development was never included in the modelling or planning, so no research has been conducted into the resulting consequences.
None of these buildings fit with what was communicated in the objectives set out in the Station Precinct Plan, which was designed to provide the business case in support of a train station. If approvals for mega high-rise in this northern end of the SPP continue we will not see a balanced revitalisation over the whole precinct. The largest area and the area most in need will never get the infill and revitalisation that has been the major part of the vision communicated to the public.
The very lucrative residential market has been consumed by the few developers who were able to take advantage of the loopholes created by the (deliberate?) ambiguous wording in Amendment 25.
A Local Planning Strategy should be conducted as a matter of urgency so that thoughtful and considered planning of dwelling numbers, skylines and streetscapes can be envisaged by developers and the community.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS SCHEME
I believe that the Developer Contribution Scheme is grossly underutilised considering the affect these massive buildings are having on the community during construction and once they are inhabited. The neighbouring communities are being subjected to noise, dust, road blockages, traffic congestion and this is going to continue for how many years?? After construction the community is going to be subjected to even worse and permanent traffic problems, because as Mains Roads reports say there is little that can be done to alleviate the problems in Mill Point Rd Nth or in the Mends/Judd/Labouchere area, and of course zero-setbacks removes any scope for road widening.
In a recent GHD report the following recommendations were made to the CoSP:
- The City coordinates and funds the construction of upgraded sewer and water mains.
- The City arrange a developers contribution scheme in order to recoup the cost of upgrading sewer and water infrastructure from developers as the precinct is gradually redeveloped
I am aware of the Art contribution scheme and although in theory it sounds good, in practice the developments I read about are using the “Community Art Donation” to improve the façade or lobby of their building which is only adding value to their building and not a lot to the community. It merely makes their buildings more marketable.
In many other cities the developer contribution schemes involve such things as developers contributing to train stations, childcare centres, libraries, swimming pools - items that are of great benefit to the community. I suggest that something of similar significance be implemented here in City of South Perth. There is a limit to the value of another “twisted bronze ball”
The impact to the ZOO animals from surrounding construction is significant and to my knowledge has not been discussed, nor any compensation sought or received. As a docent at Perth Zoo I see considerable stress in the animals from the noise and proximity of construction.
A significant contribution by a number of developers to something at the Zoo, facilitated by the City of South Perth, would be greatly appreciated by Perth Zoo and the public. The City of South Perth gains enormously from having the Zoo in their locale and I believe it would be a huge win/win for all. Just recently the Australian Bird aviary had to be closed to the public as it was deemed unsatisfactory and there are no funds to improve it.
I suggest that if a development does not provide adequate open space, landscaping and visitor parking in its plans, then a Levy or Contribution should be incurred to provide those facilities. Our rates and taxes should not be being used to provide facilities that a developer failed to incorporate.
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
Towering high-rise living is becoming more common in many cities, but famed social researcher Hugh Mackay says it is detrimental to social wellbeing. It is a big mistake, Mr Mackay said. “In 100 years we’re going to look back all of this and say, ‘That was an error, this is not how people are meant to live’.” Mr Mackay’s research suggests when people are crammed together in high-rise buildings, there is less social interaction. High Rise apartments create disunity and disharmony
Glances are avoided in the lifts and hallway conversation is stifled as people become more obsessed with their privacy given their proximity to others. It’s a funny thing about humans,” he said. “The higher density the housing, the less likely we are to socialise as we become more focused on our privacy.”
This has led to a culture of people who, even though they are living metres away from each other, never meet their neighbours. Mr Mackay says medium density housing – “terraced town houses or small unit complexes” – should be preferred as it would avoid the problems of high-rise.
In his book “ the Art of Belonging” Hugh Mackay says "....humans are, by and large, social creatures that need to live in close proximity to each other….. the natural human tendency is “to seek the security of being woven into the social fabric” – whether it is a community within a city or suburb, or whether it is a sporting community, cultural community, or work community. Humans are congregators, living in “cohesive communities” that produce “coherent moral systems.”
When communities fragment or disintegrate, so do moral standards. We are not good at surviving in isolation. We rely on communities to support and sustain us, and if those communities are to survive and prosper, we must engage with them and nurture them. But the tension between independence and interdependence is why we feel conflicted and confused. In our modern, smaller households we can do that by living in a small to medium city, village-like suburbs, or smaller apartment blocks. But not in 'mega-cities' in a high-rise skyscrapers.
MacKay stated in a speech in Perth in 2015 that “…..City planners will come to the realisation that "high-rise" is wrong, wrong for people and wrong for communities. High-rise towers are good at creating detached, isolated and disenfranchised clusters of people - a new type of ghetto”
Other researchers like Danish architect and planner, Jan Gehl, insists people living above the fifth floor lose their connection with “mother earth” and the society below. I would say that anybody living over the fifth floor ought generally to be referring to the airspace authorities. You’re not part of the earth anymore, because you can’t see what’s going on the ground and the people on the ground can’t see where you are.
What type of communities is South Perth trying to create?
It is very easy to find numerous articles, reports and research on the disadvantages of living in High-rise apartments. This type of housing has been widely criticised by many researchers and organisations for over-shadowing and destroying streetscapes and skylines. Skyscrapers have high life-cycle emissions compared to medium density housing and in some instances are associated with mental illness and socially dysfunctional behaviours.
RMIT planning expert Michael Buxton, commented recently on the scale of high rise approvals saying the speed of approvals is causing huge problems "This is a really irresponsible way of planning a city. What high-rise does is separate large numbers of people from the street, so we end up with a city that is detached from street life and one that is based on enclaves and secured access ” And Buxton says his research shows that high-rise towers were "among the world's worst energy performers".
This does not sound like the statements made in Council’s various policies on Sustainability, Climate Change, Energy Efficient buildings – more studies and analysis is required before large scale high-rise is accepted as the fashionable way to proceed.
WHO BENEFITS FROM HIGH-RISE?
Residential housing, apartment and commercial property sales fluctuate constantly – at the moment many are at an all-time low. This scheme needs to be flexible enough to accommodate these fluctuations, but not bow to pressure or be manipulated by investors who have money to move from their country of origin, or from developers who are understandably interested primarily in ROI
Multi-national property investment companies are funnelling money into the Perth apartment market, just as is in cities such as Toronto, London, New York, Hong Kong and Dubai.
Developers and Investors ideals are not aligned with those of the local community and local council town planning schemes should not be designed to facilitate this transfer of funds without real benefits flowing to the community for years to come. By all means encourage investment in the city, but this should primarily be for the benefit of the whole community not just those with very vested interests.
Date submitted: 4th February 2016