October 2011 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1203/41
Perth Waterfront
Transcript of Hearings
City of Perth
Recording and Transcription This transcript is produced from live audio recordings. Whilst every care is taken in its preparation absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No changes are made to grammar and syntax.
Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1203/41
Perth Waterfront
Transcript of Hearings
City of Perth
October 2011
Disclaimer This document has been published by the Western Australian Planning Commission. Any representation, statement, opinion or advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith and on the basis that the government, its employees and agents are not liable for any damage or loss whatsoever which may occur as a result of action taken or not taken, as the case may be, in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein. Professional advice should be obtained before applying the information contained in this document to particular circumstances.
© State of Western Australia Internet: www.wa.gov.au
Published by the Western Australian Planning Commission, 140 William Street, Perth WA 6000
Locked Bag 2506 Perth WA 6001
MRS Amendment 1203/41 Transcript of Hearings File 809-2-10-0008 Pt 3
Published October 2011
Internet: www.planning.wa.gov.au Email: [email protected] Phone: (08) 655 19000 Fax: (08) 655 19001 National Relay Service: 13 36 77 Infoline: 1800 626 477
This document is available in alternative formats on application to Communications Services.
Introduction to Metropolitan Region Scheme major amendments
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is responsible for keeping the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) under review and initiating changes where they are seen as necessary.
The MRS sets out the broad pattern of land use for the whole Perth metropolitan region. The MRS is constantly under review to best reflect regional planning and development needs.
A proposal to change land use reservations and zones in the MRS is regulated by the Planning and Development Act 2005. That legislation provides for public submissions to be made on proposed amendments.
For a substantial amendment, often referred to as a major amendment (made under section 41 of the Act), the WAPC considers all the submissions lodged, and publishes its recommendations in a report on submissions. This report is presented to the Minister for Planning and to the Governor for approval. Both Houses of Parliament must then scrutinise the amendment before it can take legal effect.
In the process of making a substantial amendment to the MRS, information is published as a public record under the following titles:
Amendment report This document is available from the start of the public advertising period of the proposed amendment. It sets out the purpose and scope of the proposal, explains why the amendment is considered necessary, and informs people how they can comment through the submission process.
Environmental review report The Environmental Protection Authority must consider the environmental impact of an amendment to the MRS before it can be advertised. Should it require formal assessment, an environmental review is undertaken and made available for information and comment at the same time as the amendment report.
Report on submissions The planning rationale, determination of submissions and the recommendations of the WAPC for final approval of the amendment, with or without modification, is documented in this report.
Submissions This document contains a reproduction of all written submissions received by the WAPC on the proposed amendment.
Transcript of hearings A person who has made a written submission may also choose to appear before a hearings committee to express their views. The hearings proceedings are recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts of all hearings are reproduced in this volume.
TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Day One
Thursday 28 July 2011
MR PRATTLEY: Okay, can I declare this meeting of the Hearings Committee for the Perth Waterfront MRS amendment open and I also acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we are meeting and welcome my fellow Hearings Committee members. Can I just ask for confirmation that you have both had an opportunity to read and understand all the information we have got before us in these hearings?
MR HICKS: Mr Chair, I have read and am fully across the documents before us.
MR FERRARO: Mr Chair, I too have also. I have also read all the documents and all the submissions that have been provided. Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: And I would like to confirm that I have done so also. Thank you. We will now adjourn until we have the first submitters available to meet with us.
28.07.2011 1 Prattley Mr Nigel Shaw representing Himself
MR PRATTLEY: Well, welcome. Thank you for your submission. The other members of the committee have confirmed that they have all had a chance to read and absorb the submission so this is really a chance to elaborate and add whatever you like.
MR SHAW: Okay.
MR PRATTLEY: You understand you have got about 20 minutes and - - -
MR SHAW: Sure.
MR PRATTLEY: Maybe 15 minutes or so to get yourselves right and five minutes to answer questions if we have any.
MR SHAW: Sure. Yeah, look, I think I've probably only got about 10 minutes I would like - I wouldn't mind reading this, if I could.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, sure.
MR SHAW: To the committee. It just clarifies, I think, where I'm coming from. By way of introduction, gentlemen, I was born in Perth in 1950 and have been a part of significant change, seen a lot of significant change in our city and metro area. I'm an architect, a planner, and former state and national president of the Australian Institute of Architects, and I have always, and I think the Chairman would concur that I've always, been an advocate for the positive benefits that appropriate change in particular to our built environment can bring.
In this case, I believe that the vision for our city's relationship to the Swan River and its environs would be greatly enhanced if the boundaries for the amendment were extended to include all land from the freeway at the western edge to Langley Park in the east. The boundary extension could be considered now as part of this current process or as we proceed.
The rationale behind this is to build the greatest possible flexibility into the proposal in order to achieve the best possible outcomes over a long period of time, and my reasons are as follows:
One, if the freeway, road and associated rail systems need any modification to achieve best outcomes, then this should be allowed to occur without further rezoning. Two, similarly, part of the published rationale for the project involves consideration of Supreme Court Gardens as a substitute or replacement for The Esplanade and its various civic functions, so this should logically form part of the proposed amendment area.
28.07.2011 2 Shaw Three, in addition, enhancement proposals are under consideration, or have been under consideration, for the Concert Hall and the associated roads and carpark to the riverside of the current civic and cultural zoning. This area should again, in my opinion, form part of a larger area zoned special use/civic and cultural.
Four, further to this , the civic heart of the city exists in the Treasury precinct, including the Town Hall and St George's Cathedral, Supreme Court, Council House, Government House, the Concert Hall and the Federal Courts. It is fitting that these icons of heritage, governance and culture are able to form part of a focussed acknowledgement of the river, where the pioneers first established the foundations of our city.
Five, in this vicinity, the road systems servicing the proposed amendment area, in particular Riverside Drive east of Barrack Street, must all be allowed to change as required, which would or could occur under a special use zoning but perhaps not as easily under the current zoning of other regional roads and parks and recreation.
Six, economically, and this is debatable, I guess, as all of these issues are, the high infrastructure costs associated with the inlet proposal could be spread over a much larger area of potential development scenarios.
Seven, politically, a more extensive proposal puts all the cards on the table either in the short or longer term, providing a bigger frame for the painting of government's ideas. It also avoids the inevitable, inverted commas, sleights of hand, if you like, that become necessary at the edges of a defined area during the realisation/construction stage. That can cast a political cloud over the whole process and, pragmatically, eight, we should all understand that any so-called master plan is, or should be, a robust series of documents capable of change over time for economic, social and/or cultural reasons. Therefore, the greatest possible flexibility needs to be built into the rezoning process and the rezoned area.
Finally, Mr Chairman, point nine, philosophically, I believe that we should be more than courageous and envision Perth as more of what it is and less of somewhere else. It is unique city, having a generous frontage to a significant river basin, where the river pauses informally on its way to the ocean. The city can acknowledge this in many ways and the scheme area needs to allow for as great a frontage to the river as possible. A planning and development scheme that provides the greatest flexibility and foresight will be embraced by generations of young people who currently can't quite understand why we hesitate to touch the water, one of the most basic of sensual experiences.
So with these thoughts in mind, I propose, Mr Chairman, that the extent of the proposed public purpose (special use) reservation defined in the location of MRS 1203/41 be increased westwards to incorporate all parks and recreation plus the land between the freeway reserve and Swan River, and eastwards to include Victoria Avenue, incorporating land designated other regional roads, parks and recreation and public purpose (carpark). Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you very much, Mr Shaw. Questions?
28.07.2011 3 Shaw MR HICKS: It would help me very much, Mr Shaw, if we can talk about the intent of the waterfront project itself.
MR SHAW: Yes.
MR HICKS: I think I hear from what you are saying that you are a pretty strong supporter of the overall intent and purpose of the waterfront project. I hear that your concern is, though, that we are limiting too tightly the area that we are looking at in one go. That is the basic concern. It's not that the waterfront project in terms of its intent and purpose is improper, from your point of view but, rather, we have limited it too much in terms of what we are attempting to cover and that, therefore, for the reasons that you have gone through, we will under-do what we are trying to do.
MR SHAW: That's it, yes, pretty much in a nutshell. I do support the concept of the proposal. I have reservations about the detail.
MR HICKS: Sure.
MR SHAW: Okay? But I don't believe it's appropriate at this time to talk too much detail in these issues because all those points will be raised by others and as it proceeds. What I am concerned about is that if we put lines on paper, and everyone understands, of course, that's how we have to do it, I believe the lines should give us more flexibility and should give government more flexibility to address the river in the short, medium and long term.
It would seem to me that the proposal is not so much shoehorn but it's taking a rather convenient piece of geography and saying, "Okay, this is what we're going to do and that's our frontage to the river" and all of the debate and the discussion about Riverside Drive and, you know, the freeway, the Convention Centre, the Concert Hall and all those things, are gong to, sort of, left to another piece. It seems to me that we have a great opportunity here to have a very large or significant and appropriate, special use zoning which deals with as much as the Swan River frontage as we can associated directly with the CBD. So, yes - - -
MR HICKS: Thank you, that clarifies it.
MR SHAW: My nutshell was bigger than yours but - yes.
MR PRATTLEY: And, of course, you're right, we're dealing with the MRS amendment here rather than the detail of the design so - - -
MR SHAW: So it seems appropriate to you, chairman, to make these sorts of comments?
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MR SHAW: Okay.
MR FERRARO: Mr Shaw, can I just confirm that the drawing, or drawings, that you
28.07.2011 4 Shaw imported in your amendment - - -
MR SHAW: Yes.
MR FERRARO: - - - reflect what you have actually said? I will just - I will put it to you - I'll just show you what was in it, your submission.
MR SHAW: Yes.
MR FERRARO: Can you just confirm that that, in fact, is consistent with your verbal submissions?
MR SHAW: It is.
MR FERRARO: Okay.
MR SHAW: As to the best of my - yes, it is.
MR FERRARO: Yes.
MR SHAW: Because the Convention Centre, of course, is under a special use zoning and so that, by default, is already there. So it really is, yeah, confirming - - -
MR FERRARO: Yes, all right. Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: I don't have any further questions. We appreciate very much your support and the thought you have put into your submissions. Thanks very much for that.
28.07.2011 5 Shaw Mr Ian Molyneux representing Himself
MR PRATTLEY: Come in, have a seat. I'm Gary Prattley, chairman of the Commission, chairing the panel. Thank you very much for your submission. Thank you for travelling a long way to come and talk to us, by the look of it.
MR MOLYNEUX: Yes. It was a bit windy, I should say.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MR HICKS: Did you come up this morning?
MR MOLYNEUX: Yes. It's been blowing sideways most of the way.
MR PRATTLEY: Well, thank you for your submission. Obviously, we have all had a chance to read it and the relevant material. We're happy for you to talk to it I understand we have got about 20 minutes.
MR MOLYNEUX: Okay.
MR PRATTLEY: I apologise if some coffees arrive in the middle of it, but while we were waiting, in a previous gap, we sent out an order.
MR MOLYNEUX: Okay. Well, thanks for inviting me as well, and I will be as brief as I can, but I have got an interest in the subject for probably the last 45 years or so. As a student, I did a scheme for Heirisson Island and this year I visited it and it looks like my drawings. So these things do take a long time; but the point of it is that - one of the major points, I think, for me is that - I have divided my submission into two, addressing the scheme amendment, which is obviously a formality, and then the master plan, which I would take to be ideas showing the potential, not necessarily going to be the final answer.
My experience also has been that whenever a pocket park such as this might be described as 'proposed' it is more or less in, sort of, a vacuum field. For example, I did a study of the Entertainment Centre when it was being proposed to be registered as a heritage place, and it did occur to me that, despite it not being a heritage place, it was a pretty good piece of concrete to form an open amphitheatre and I felt a bit ashamed of myself for not having said so earlier when I saw recently that it was being demolished.
So I feel that there probably ought to be a structure plan for parklands for the city within the context for planning these sorts of things, and the reason why that is so important, apart from the obvious, is that I think we are talking about "location, location, location" and parklands do, of course, contribute to the location. I guess, not being a resident of the city, I might have missed a lot of the debate, but I see that the buildings as such are being there to pay for the project possibly, but also being given a very marvellous location, and my
28.07.2011 6 Molyneux comment on that would be that the city, CBD area, is already huge enough and not needing to be expanded. So this project is not being done to expand that.
So the other points that I have listed under the submission on the master plan, obviously ideas such as siting the future Parliament House and secretariat - that's possibly a long way off, and whether one believes in secession or not, I believe that building is obsolete and it would be probably the only building use which I feel most people would universally agree is a use that ought to be allowed on the waterfront. Most other commercial uses we have strenuously avoided, that, throughout the metropolitan region in the past, and so it raises the question really for you to choose yourselves, out of my comments on the master plan, which are those set aside as being extraneous ideas to your purpose here today.
I think what the master plan does point up is the fairly major problems that one would be well aware of, the traffic management in that area, and I suppose the biggest thing that is obvious is that we are trying to develop, essentially, a recreational parkland water facility but we are having to drag a freeway through it, leave it through it, whereas the other choice of simply leaving it where it is and elevating it would seem to me to be a more sensible proposition.
I think also I have a bit of professional expertise dealing with mud sites such as we are dealing with there, and engineering-wise there would be problems with putting large heavy weights and buildings on that site, but not insurmountable.
So I would very much express my opinion, I suppose, and I would suggest to the government they start digging a hole and making a lake immediately within the existing parameters of the land use permitted, but also I would like to point out that I believe that land use that is proposed in the scheme amendment ought to extend the whole length of the city frontage of the city and, in fact, I have written in the past about the landscape of Perth being a lake with a circle of parkland around it, and we keep losing sight of that circle, loosing bits of it. I think if we could amalgamate and have a homogenous character we would be building the city that we think we should have, that is world class in terms of its iconic meanings and so forth, as well as being a place that, more importantly, will make all of the land around the river a highly desirable place for people to live in, in the centre of the city.
So that, sort of, pretty well, is the gist of the further explanation of my reasons for writing what I did. It may be that you have questions on that or you are happy that you can understand what I am saying from what I have read, which would be remarkable for me. I'm fairly verbose and - I note my email got to you about one minute before the deadline - - -
MR PRATTLEY: It got here anyway.
MR MOLYNEUX: - - - and hence I thought maybe I had forgotten something, I hadn't put in yet. Again, I guess I recognise that your function here is really dealing with the amendment as such rather than the master plan, is it, or is it - -
MR PRATTLEY: It is, yes. Yes, we are in our capacity, in this exercise at least, dealing with the amendment itself.
28.07.2011 7 Molyneux MR MOLYNEUX: Yes. Well, on that score - - -
MR PRATTLEY: It doesn't mean to say the comments you make can't be put in the melting pot.
MR MOLYNEUX: Right, yes. I suppose, on that point, I think the idea of aligning Mounts Bay Road as it is, the western half through on the line of Terrace Drive, has always seemed to me to be a very important thing, that this could be the local feeder road for the front of the city. That would be where cafes and so forth would obviously go, and parking areas, and if we dug out the soil, we're digging back to the old soil line, what is now Terrace Drive would still remain there as a bypass freeway, and that's its function at the moment. As I understand, it's pretty hard to get rid of that function planning-wise. So even if that was duplicated, that would, sort of, give it some flexibility in its alignment and where the road land or the bridge crosses the gate into the pond and where it connects with the Narrows Bridge. I haven't attempted to deal with any planning issues but I did put an entry into the scheme, must be over a year now, about the ideas for Perth - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Oh, yes, yes, yes.
MR MOLYNEUX: - - - and I think my scheme is very similar to Gary Banham's winning, or part winning, scheme. We had similar ideas about dig out the land and instead of bringing the city to the river, take the river back to the city, as being a much, much cheaper proposition and certainly you are going to lose some land use of what is now lawn, but certainly those land uses could probably go anywhere else. If you need to raise funding for the development, what about selling some air space over the railway line down to Margaret River? That would more than pay for it, I'm sure.
MR HICKS: Railway line?
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you. Questions?
MR HICKS: You are right, Mr Molyneux, to identify that this is basically about the scheme amendment and you have broken, as you say, your submission into two parts.
MR MOLYNEUX: Yes.
MR HICKS: I just want to in particular go back to your four points under the scheme amendment here.
MR MOLYNEUX: Yes.
MR HICKS: Your third point says: The government should feel encouraged to be more expansive in town planning vision terms.
MR MOLYNEUX: Yes.
28.07.2011 8 Molyneux MR HICKS: I just want to check with you what you have in mind. Is it things other than the ideas that you have raised here or is it a general point that you are making?
MR MOLYNEUX: Both, but I think it should be more expansive in its thinking of this park area being part of a major systematic park system for the city, which is aimed at producing locations where people would want to live, and that depends very much on where can you get views and sunshine without being overshadowed by large office buildings. Then the second point is in terms of expansiveness, expanding the thinking for the design of this particular landscape.
MR HICKS: Yes.
MR MOLYNEUX: And, therefore, what are the uses that you are planning to allocate under this zoning or rezoning or whatever it is that you are doing. At least from the brewery through to the causeway and out on to Heirisson Island, they are all to me part of the same riverfront landscape and we have the scheme of John Oldham's where we landscape the freeway interchange, again where holes have been dug out after the freeway was built. A bit of lack of maintenance of plants is probably what we've got there but, by and large, I think that idea carried through with the most tremendous parkland opportunity that we have, and even taken further around to East Perth, to the power station. You would then have good reason for people to want to live there and good reason to be able to walk to the river, to the water, without a long haul across what is essentially a freeway to get to the edge.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you. Yes, Eugene?
MR FERRARO: Mr Molyneux, you don't see any issue with any of the historic significance of The Esplanade at this stage?
MR MOLYNEUX: No. I think anything that I would see as an issue could be handled in the design stage.
MR FERRARO: Yes.
MR MOLYNEUX: And I notice the National Trust's submission actually named some - my personal view is I don't think any of them are of such significance as would have priority over the sort of design I am talking about.
MR FERRARO: Yes.
MR MOLYNEUX: So that would have to be a value judgment taken. Some obvious things like Talbot Hobbs' sculpture, which is a good piece of work in its own right and significant, and there is the statue of Yagan on Heirisson Island and nobody would know it's there at the moment. There's probably good reasons for having a sub-area of sculptures of notable persons. You know, that's a design idea that could go anywhere. So maybe Talbot Hobbs' sculpture can be shifted.
28.07.2011 9 Molyneux I suppose I didn't touch on too the idea behind the Parliament House being relocated here. Traditionally, we have this trio of the state and the church and the vice-regal, or royal, whatever you like, and that's where all the drama and theatre has happened in the past. We don't have that world any more and therefore we don't necessarily need to be thinking of having a parade ground, but there would certainly be, with the right sort of design of this parkland, with the change of uses of old buildings as I have suggested - you would have the opportunity for grand parades. If the Queen's visit wants to be a focus of a major public parade, then you could come and off this site some way or another, and again it is a design - - -
MR FERRARO: Yes, I agree.
MR MOLYNEUX: Call for expressions of interest. Who wants to hold a parade? Who wants to develop these sorts of - who wants to use - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Very good. I don't have any further questions.
MR MOLYNEUX: Right.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you again for your ideas and submission.
MR MOLYNEUX: Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you for coming all the way up.
MR MOLYNEUX: It's a pleasure. It's probably my last thing I'm going to say on the subject.
MR PRATTLEY: Hopefully not.
MR MOLYNEUX: I don't live here any more. I'm very happy - - -
MR PRATTLEY: We appreciate your time.
28.07.2011 10 Molyneux Mr Ken Adam and Mr Ralph Stanton representing CityVision
MR PRATTLEY: Welcome, how are you? The committee members have all had the opportunity to read all the material and consider it, and you have got about 20 minutes to present, reinforce, whatever you choose, your submission and for us to ask any questions.
MR ADAM: We have prepared some notes, which I will leave with you rather than distribute them, before we go. I guess although CityVision's submission deals with a number of different points, the amendment itself relates only to the severing or the diversion of what in terms one views to Riverside Drive and so that's fundamentally what we want to talk about this morning.
MR PRATTLEY: That's the issue that we are dealing with rather than the detail or the design at this stage.
MR ADAM: Indeed, and of course it is the single most fundamental aspect of the development. We would begin, I guess, by noting that two options were looked at early in the piece. We are aware of that because we had a briefing on them. One was not taken any further and never taken to the public, and never was the public given the opportunity to compare these two options, one with and one without Riverside Drive as a continuous route.
We are quite firmly of the opinion, and we think your own report on the amendment substantiates it, that the option that was not made public and not discussed is the superior one, by a very significant margin, we would say, and that option is reflected in the CityVision plan which you have seen and of which a copy sits on the table at the moment.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MR ADAM: It is also reflected very strongly in the Premier's publicly expressed opinion about how this development ought to proceed and it remains a question how a second-rate solution to this problem was made persuasive enough to change the Premier's, in our opinion, sound opinion as to how this development ought to proceed.
In our notes we have taken section 5, the transport access and transport section to the amendment, paragraph by paragraph, and if we can go fairly quickly through those - the first paragraph says two things: that there are significant structural changes embodied in the scheme and it is axiomatic that any attempt to successfully reconnect the city and river must address the barrier, real or perceived, that Riverside Drive represents. Now, those are both factual statements and we don't disagree with them, but it is painfully obvious that the adopted plan does not meet that criterion of successfully reconnecting it. What it does - it doesn't deal with the barrier, it simply shifts it around three sides of a rectangle.
28.07.2011 11 Adam, Stanton Going on to what is the alternative plan where Riverside Drive continues as a bridge across the inlet, it not only maintains continuity of traffic without adding a number of intersections to traffic movement, but it also allows for pedestrian access underneath the bridge, which is a much more successful way of overcoming the barrier than requiring pedestrians to cross the rather convoluted diversion, as it were, at grade. Albeit that the traffic might be reduced to some degree, nevertheless, it is a rather false claim to say that this adopted scheme improves pedestrian access because it patently does not, and certainly not by comparison with the alternative.
We agree strongly that priority for access to the foreshore ought to be given to pedestrian and cycle, non-motor, traffic. That's not exactly the point. We say, apart from the comment that I have just made, that the alternative plan does actually prioritise and provide for very safe and comfortable pedestrian movement. Nevertheless, the real issue here is whether Riverside Drive can - whether we can afford to make Riverside Drive - to take it out of the system, and we don't believe for a moment that that can be the case. So that prioritising pedestrian and cycle and other access to the foreshore is an absolute priority, it doesn't have to be at the expense of Riverside Drive.
Essentially, the next paragraph goes on to say that the master plan is based on the premise that roads must be designed as normal city streets. The alternative plan actually better reflects the city, extension of the city grid, than the adopted plan, and that is partly a matter of style but it is partly a matter also of the simple geometry. The point is all feeder roads to freeways in the main in urban areas are normal city streets. It's a rather strange thing to say that, you know, that they are not. I mean, it's demonstrably the case that feeder roads are normal city streets and, in any case, it is implicit in that statement that the connections to the freeway would be removed. In fact, there is no such proposal to disconnect Mounts Bay Road and Riverside Drive from the freeway, so the statement made in the report is not only dangerous but it's actually misleading because it implies something that is not actually going to be the case.
I think you should chip in every time I miss something.
MR STANTON: What you missed is - you missed the Graham Farmer Freeway. The assumption is that the plan takes advantage of the freeway, the Graham Farmer Freeway, and the extra lane that is going to be built each way in the tunnel. That freeway is a complete bypass, it doesn't give access to the city, whereas the Riverside Drive gives access all the way along to the city, so people coming through can come in this way, people coming through from here can keep going on to Mounts Bay Road or on to the freeway and cutting it here will remove that ease of movement. There is no alternative. The Graham Farmer Freeway is not an alternative. It's only an alternative insofar as complete bypassing traffic is concerned. So that's a point which should be strongly made.
28.07.2011 12 Adam, Stanton MR ADAM: I think what's not particularly well understood is that Riverside Drive actually performs four separate functions, and one of them, which is completely ignored, is its long- standing historic, traditional role as a tourist, if you like, route, and as a pathway, which is how Mounts Bay Road and Riverside Drive originally were conceived, from the Causeway all the way through to the University of Western Australia and beyond to Claremont. The proper service of that function depends on its continuity and to interrupt it in this way is destructive of that particular facility.
So moving on from there, the report talks about the master plan placing emphasis on alternative forms of transport, bus, rail and commuter- we strongly support that, but it doesn't have any bearing at all on the issue of the continuity or otherwise of Riverside Drive, so it doesn't actually bear in that sense on the issue, except we would point out again that the alternative plan, with pedestrian access underneath a bridge, does actually provide much better for both legibility and comfort of pedestrian and cycle networks.
The report deals with the - or makes the claim that traffic modelling shows an impact of manageable - we find this entirely lacking in credibility. The traffic modelling, of course, has not been provided or debated, and we simply do not believe for a moment that any traffic modelling could demonstrate that when the city is twice the size it is now, taking Riverside Drive out of contention as an east-west route is remotely manageable. The Graham Farmer Freeway was always planned to be widened, so nothing new about that, and that would accommodate the additional traffic for a little while to come. We don't question that, I'm sure the modelling would show that, but when Perth is double its present population there is no way that you could persuade any rational professional person that the traffic congestion would be manageable with Riverside Drive taken out of contention.
It is our view, and it's well understood, I think, in traffic management terms, that roads like Riverside Drive can carry quite significant volumes of traffic at managed low speeds. The assumption a lot of people make that high traffic capacity roads have to be high speed roads is actually demonstrably not the case. Anyone who knows anything about traffic knows that the optimum speed for maximising traffic capacity is actually quite low, in fact.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MR ADAM: So we say in conclusion, and again, jump in when I leave something out because I'm bound to - - -
MR STANTON: Well, we should explain that when you take that out, that piece there, then the traffic that now comes up - it's not just the factor of getting across it, for the people of the city getting to the foreshore. It's also a factor of the tail - you know, traffic banking up as it's trying to get on to the freeway in the peak in the evening, or off the freeway in the peak in the morning, in both directions. If you have an extra set of traffic lights and controls as in the proposed plan - the back-ups and tail-backs occur now as people come off that freeway, anyone who comes up from South Perth will know that to be the case, and it will just be worse and worse.
28.07.2011 13 Adam, Stanton So in general, in the view of the citywide or central citywide traffic planning, it's essential to keep that link open. There's no alternative. There is just no alternative.
MR ADAM: So we have summarised our conclusions in the notes and we think that if this plan proceeds in its present form it will become a matter of deep regret in the future, when the problems that we see so clearly actually emerge. It just seems to be to us to have been a very significant missing step in the process that there wasn't a proper canvassing and a proper assessment of the respective clauses of two different solutions and a canvassing of public - in a very full way of public and professional opinion about that.
So thank you for hearing us.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you.
MR STANTON: Just one thing. I think we should re-emphasise is that we are not against this at all in a general way. I mean, we've been on this since CityVision began - - -
MR PRATTLEY: I appreciate that, yes.
MR STANTON: So we are concerned about how it's done and what impact it is on the city. There's another thing we could suggest, and that is if - this is a real bone of contention, and I know it's been included in the future plan for Perth and so on, it looks like it's pretty well committed, but there's a solution, which might be to leave the zoning as it is pro tem and do an experiment, cost-free experiment. Close the roads and see what actually happens. If we are wrong, then go ahead with the plan. But you will soon know whether it works or not by closing the roads and putting - and virtually cost-free.
MR HICKS: The ultimate transport modelling scheme.
MR STANTON: Exactly right.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes. That does assume you do all the other things as well.
MR STANTON: Well, you would have to - - -
MR PRATTLEY: The other lanes on the tunnel - - -
MR HICKS: The mitigating aspects.
MR PRATTLEY: Questions? Stuart?
MR HICKS: No, Chairman, I think I'm across this.
MR FERRARO: No, as I said, I understood the submission pretty well. The excavation of The Esplanade is part of the option. You don't see that - we've received some submissions that are really quite concerned about that. So any comment on that?
28.07.2011 14 Adam, Stanton MR ADAM: Well, the only comment we would make is that we think the inlet as proposed is over-scaled. I mean, that's a question of opinion, if you like, but, obviously, the smaller the inlet the less likely you may - - -
MR FERRARO: Yes.
MR STANTON: Our scheme actually shows the retention of the top - or the northern bit of The Esplanade, quite a large paddock; but the other thing our scheme shows is there is plenty of development around this thing, keeping the road. You don't have to lose any in terms of sort of, space, volume, or land use, you know, without - - -
MR ADAM: Because of the change, the reduced size of the inlet, the actual development area east and west in our scheme is - the developable area is substantially the same, a few thousand square metres, a few hundred square metres.
MR STANTON: And we're not really plugging our scheme. It's just we've drawn it up so you can see what we're trying to illustrate.
MR PRATTLEY: I think we understand - I understand the principle of what you are proposing. I guess there's a couple of questions I have. You talk about the freeway being a complete bypass, doesn't give access to the city, but the proposal that is currently being proposed still give access to a fair bit of the city from Riverside Drive.
MR ADAM: Oh, that's understood. That's understood.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, and I suppose the fundamental of this is going back to the principle of whether we want a major connector to the freeway across the front of the city. Many cities are trying to get rid of those functions from their foreshores. That's the fundamental issue, I suppose: is it a function of the city to provide a route for through traffic?
MR ADAM: Well, look, our response to that simply would be, number one, in the long term the city will not be able to cope with just one east-west bypassing route. Number two, Riverside Drive can be traffic managed to carry significant volumes of traffic.
MR PRATTLEY: I don't dispute that. Yes.
MR ADAM: Without significant environmental problems. Number three, with that, pedestrian connections underneath it provide a compelling better access and service.
I might add that when we were given a briefing on the two options that were under consideration, the major objection that was raised to what CityVision was then arguing for was that a bridge across the inlet would present a significant visual obstruction and so on. We note that you have now got two very convoluted bridges and an island, and if they don't constitute a much more significant visual intrusion then I will go hee. I note that as a humorous, I suppose, aside to the whole thing. It's not the key issue. It shouldn't be the key issue. Our concern is about the proper function of the whole system.
28.07.2011 15 Adam, Stanton The recreation of pathway aspect of this is not to be discounted. That's how Riverside Drive and Mounts Bay Road always was seen and - - -
MR PRATTLEY: I can't quite comprehend how we lose that function by a slight deviation. In terms of that tourism function, I think it's a very different issue to the through traffic sort of function.
MR ADAM: We could agree to disagree about the way - - -
MR PRATTLEY: We are not here to debate it anyway.
MR ADAM: No.
MR PRATTLEY: Okay, no other questions? Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your time and thoughts and a comprehensive submission. Thank you very much for the time and thought you have put into your submission.
MR ADAM: Thank you.
28.07.2011 16 Adam, Stanton Ms Sue Graham-Taylor representing History Council of Western Australia
MR PRATTLEY: Welcome, Sue. Thank you for joining us. I apologise for that. I thought you had come as the public gallery to listen to Ken - so, obviously, we have had a chance to consider the submissions fairly closely and we look forward to your elaborations on them. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into it.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Thank you. I just thought I would start by saying what the History Council is, in case you don't know.
MR HICKS: Thank you. That would have been my question.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: It's the peak body for history in Western Australia and so we have - we represent about 13,000 historians, interested people, history teachers, the Royal WA Historical Society, the National Trust - we represent archivists, family historians. So there's about 13,000 altogether. Librarians, museum professionals, archivists, and we aim to promote the studies of preservation and the use of history in Western Australia, and probably more broadly.
I am also a professional historian myself and I actually recently, or a year or so ago, won the inaugural Battye Library fellowship at the State Library. So as the topic for that fellowship was the history of Perth water - so I've done a lot of research on Perth water and some of the results of that research are available on the State Library website under Swan River Stories.
The History Council is specifically concerned with the motive behind the MRS amendment, the Perth waterfront. If the aim is to facilitate the development and thus destroy the history and heritage of the waterfront site, we would be against it.
You probably know The Esplanade reserve is a vital reminder and a remainder of our city's earlier waterfront past. It served the needs of the early settlers and also those of succeeding generations. The land was reclaimed for the people by the people, and it grew out of the community frustration about what was lacking in their city at the time, and that was a reserve for community recreation, somewhere where people could walk and conduct sporting pursuits, and for what they called "health walk" pursuits.
In modern times we also feel that there is something lacking in the city. We have lost our connection with the river and, just as the recreation ground grew out of the need and shortcomings of the city in the 1860s, there's a modern day need to do something to revitalise the area and to link the city with its foreshore. The History Council respects this need, but any development must maintain and be informed by history and heritage. Perth planners in 100 years time might also wish to reflect the changing needs of their community and do something again to that site. So it's really vital that the reserve remains in community ownership and is not turned over to private developers.
28.07.2011 17 Graham-Taylor As I said in the submission, The Esplanade reserve was perhaps the earliest infrastructure project in Perth and it was carried out at the request of and with financial support of the community. They set up a fund to raise money to do the dredging. The muddy and the shallow shoreline and the smells and what they thought was making them sick was as much a problem as the lack of available space for colonists to congregate and to play sport.
Work began on reclaiming the area between Barrack Street and William Street jetties in 1867 and at that time the state put almost the entire state budget into ordering a dredge from England. Three thousand pounds the dredge cost the Black Swan. They ordered it from England, assembled it in Fremantle, and it was a problem right from the start. They called it the "steam dredger affair" because it really didn't work as it was meant to work and, yeah, it was a bit of a problem, but they had invested the money and the process of reclamation took place over quite a long period.
The site was handed to the Perth Municipal Council by deed of grant in 1880 for the free recreation and enjoyment of the people forever. It was renamed The Esplanade Recreation Ground in 1885 and almost every significant public event that has taken place in Perth since that time has been held on the reserve. The celebrations of responsible government, federation, troops have left for war, Governors have arrived, there have been unemployment and secession rallies, America's Cup parade and also Anzac Day parades. So, yeah, it has been very, very important to the Perth community, as well as lots of festival events and arts events.
With the construction of Riverside Drive from 1937 onwards Perth lost its once vibrant Perth port area. The land is now covered with the Convention Centre, the bus port and the freeway interchange and, most recently, the construction of Perth's underground station. It saw the disappearance of the last William Street jetty structures, and all of that went. I was rung by people who were doing the digging at the time and they said, you know, "We just wish we could stop because of what we see here. You know, things that have been thrown off the end of the jetty, the jetty timbers" but it wasn't something that they could do because there was no archaeological work done.
Every scrap of heritage value will be eradicated with this Perth waterfront development. Can we afford to lose this last vestige of our early waterfront heritage, our community's sense of place, of ownership, and hand it to private developers? Perth isn't very good at recognising its heritage and, in fact, a sign of a mature city is a city that recognises its heritage. I feel that surely the 21st century planners are able to design without destroying every link with our past. Surely The Esplanade reserve itself could be at the heart of any development rather than being dug up and destroyed.
The documentation proposes - and there has been a lot of talk of an indigenous cultural centre but the History Council points to the need to be much more inclusive. This site is of European significance as well as Aboriginal, social, cultural and environmental significance and we feel that it would be a really good site for a museum of Perth or a museum of the river.
28.07.2011 18 Graham-Taylor I think in summary that's, you know, what I'm trying to say - that, you know, we feel the history and heritage is being destroyed here and I just wonder if I could ask you a question.
MR PRATTLEY: Sure.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: The development as proposed will require the lifting of the heritage status on the site and that would require the consent of Parliament. When is that proposed? We have written to the Heritage Council and they say nothing is being done yet but - - -
MR PRATTLEY: I'm not sure of the exact timing on that. Do you - - -
MS AITKEN: We have had discussions with the Heritage Council about what happens with heritage listing on the reserve and the other areas within the vicinity of the project which will be impacted. Their view is that the heritage - as you would know, the heritage goes with the title of the land and at the moment the titles aren't changing as we speak. We will be doing that process as the project moves forward.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
MS AITKEN: And once those titles are created, then they will need to - or once that process has been initiated, then they will probably need to look at how they realign the heritage impact statements and all of the corresponding material to that. So it is something that we have discussed initially with the Council but it is something that will happen as the project moves forward.
I guess, just on that, with the heritage material that we are preparing we will be noting the impacts on heritage associated with our proposal and we will be forthcoming in saying that we do realise there is an impact on heritage aspects within the project area and we will also make recommendations within our documentation about how the Heritage Council may wish to proceed in the future with relation to the actual listings themselves and interpretation and those kinds of things.
MR PRATTLEY: Stuart, do you have any questions?
MR HICKS: This is very interesting, and I'm very interested in what you are discussing, and I would love to have a read of the work that you have been - you, yourself, have been doing.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Mm.
MR HICKS: Something really important for me - please, to help me understand - it's my understanding, and I'm not an expert but it's easier for me to tell you what I think I understand and then get the right - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
28.07.2011 19 Graham-Taylor MR HICKS: What we as a European community have done along our riverfront is we have adapted it very significantly through the years, right back from 1868 - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
MR HICKS: - - - almost continuously ever since. Riverside Drive between the wars and the filling in of the bay - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
MR HICKS: All sorts of things. So it's a story of continuing adaptation of how we use the front of our river, and in many cases the land use has changed in various ways. I have seen those wonderful pictures of what they used to call the 'bazaar' down on the waterfront back in the days when the baths were there and there were ships - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
MR HICKS: All sorts of things, and that sort of thing, so it's been a fantastic, continuing evolution of how the city relates back to its river. The interest I have is how we can appropriately recognise, therefore, what we have been doing in the past but continue to evolve in the future so that as a city in the 21st century, if we have yet other needs that evolve for us - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Mm.
MR HICKS: How we can do that without finding that we've got to freeze ourselves at some particular point and say with respect to our past we need to just leave it there. We can't go any further. Do I make myself clear?
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
MR HICKS: It's important for us to understand that side - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Because of the way the river has been shaped and so-called improved over time - it was for particular health reasons and, you know, they felt that the smells, the damp vegetation, was making people sick and they saw that the mud had to be improved, and so the Swan River Improvement Act in 1925 was what - most of the development and most of the dredging was based on that Act. They felt that there would be no longer the algae and the problems around the edge of the river if they dredged it to about five to six feet all the way around. So that was the aim, to improve the river and that's what they mostly have done.
But then you can see now that the reclamation around the river, the big areas of grass that you see, the Nedlands foreshore, for instance, those sorts of areas - they are now realising that that's really not what we should have by the side of the river. We should go back to more natural - - -
28.07.2011 20 Graham-Taylor MR HICKS: Yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: - - - riverine vegetation, which is the Point Fraser development.
MR HICKS: Yes, yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: You can see why they are doing that.
MR HICKS: Yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Because there is no way in which the pollutants and the nutrients are being sieved or stopped before they go into the river, and so you can see now we're thinking that we really should look at the river itself rather than us - you know, because we have put the - the emphasis has been on improving it for us, so putting, putting walls up and that sort of thing, and I think now with this project, you know, that if it did go ahead, you know, I would want something really big to be done about the drainage. There's a huge drain going from Lake Monger - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, we are well aware of it.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: And, yes, if something could be done to improve that in a modern city we really shouldn't have that sort of - - -
MR HICKS: Yes, yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: So to make that a, sort of, living drain rather than one that just brings the pollutants into the river, because I think the proposal seems to be that they will just move it a bit because it's right in front of where the development goes. But I think - yes, and I know the Claisebrook Catchment Group, for instance, is wanting to have more natural areas around, bring back Black Swan, which - yeah, so it's interesting to look at the way we have shaped the river and why.
MR HICKS: Is there no more space hereafter for us to continue to evolve the river for human perposes?
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Now we know a lot more.
MR HICKS: Yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: We know how what we've been doing is impacting on the river.
MR HICKS: Yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: So, you know, I think we need to be very careful about what we are doing.
28.07.2011 21 Graham-Taylor MR HICKS: It's a scientific question, isn't it?
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes, our scientific - - -
MR HICKS: Using modern science to make sure we don't do the wrong thing.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes. I think the Swan River Trust and other river authorities have now recognised the social importance of the river and a lot of the work they are doing has been based on looking at the values that people hold.
MR HICKS: Sure.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: And so, yeah, we need to do a lot of work to engage the community in future river works instead of - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Certainly we are very conscious of the issue of the drain. While it doesn't formally form part of this project, it is an issue that is being addressed separately.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes. Oh, that's good, because it would be quite expensive, I presume, but it would be a worthwhile contribution.
MR PRATTLEY: The comments on the indigenous museum - I understand that that - obviously we are dealing with the amendment at this stage in terms of the land - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
MR PRATTLEY: - - - rather than the detail of the proposal. I think that we haven't been specific in any sense in the master planning about the museum at this stage because there's a lot of negotiation and thinking to do about that.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Mm.
MR PRATTLEY: But the concept behind that was of a national indigenous museum being located there, given the significance of Western Australia in particular in the indigenous community.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes.
MR PRATTLEY: Rather than perhaps a local one. But I think there will be a lot of thinking and discussion and talk before that emerges into a formal proposal.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes, because they are going to have one at UWA, which will be on the riverfront as well so there will be an indigenous cultural centre there.
MR PRATTLEY: Eugene, did you - - -
28.07.2011 22 Graham-Taylor MR FERRARO: Well, I just - we've had a couple of other submitters also mention the issue about the importance of the area being a collection point for grand parades and, you know, sitting on this committee, I have just through the Battye Library and seen some old photos of the area and noticed that. Any comment - you know, when we talk about grand parades we don't necessarily need a parade ground. Is there any comment about that sort of thinking from your point of view that you would like to add?
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes, well, it has always been used for big community events and I think the last huge one, apart from the odd rally like the forest rally that took off from there - - -
MR FERRARO: Yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: - - - was the America's Cup - the return of the America's Cup, where the site has been absolutely packed.
MR FERRARO: I was - - -
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Yes, so it's not just for formal parades but it's for gatherings. I mean, it probably doesn't need to be as large as it is. You know, obviously something needs to be done, it is very large, but it would be really good if that site - because it was the community that asked for it.
MR FERRARO: Yes.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: And the community that contributed to it. If some of it could form the basis for some sort of gathering point - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Sure.
MR FERRARO: Yes. Good. Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you very much for your contribution.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you for listening.
MR PRATTLEY: We appreciate your effort and we will take all of that into consideration.
MR HICKS: Thank you.
MS GRAHAM-TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Nice to meet you.
28.07.2011 23 Graham-Taylor Mr Karl Haynes representing The National Trust
MR HAYNES: Welcome. Thank you very much for your submission. As you are aware, you have got about 20 minutes so it's an opportunity for you to add anything additional if you wish, talk to us about it, or for us to ask you questions. So, yes?
MR HAYNES: Look, the principal reason to actually request an opportunity to make a direct verbal contribution was to reinforce that the National Trust is very supportive and keen of the development and the whole proposed reconnecting Perth back to the waterfront. There are clearly many, many advantages to that from a National Trust perspective. Conservation isn't about stopping change, it's about managing change, understanding those values.
We, on many occasions, are confronted with scheme amendments that, in our view, have not fully addressed some of those heritage concerns, with the recognition that heritage issues are addressed further down in the planning process. However, a scheme amendment establishes expectations and is supported by various plans. They, themselves, in our view, need to be addressed at the very upfront part of the planning process.
We recognise that in developing heritage places there are losses of heritage values but there are also opportunities to enhance heritage values, to retain values, et cetera., and we feel that the waterfront development is very much in that league, that there are many important benefits in heritage terms from the development. That, of course, for us, would be underpinned by an effective interpretation strategy that can explain the place and give it its context. In fact, some of that has been lost and this is an opportunity to regain it.
In that regard, we have issues, or concerns, about the extent of the public domain and the remnant elements of The Esplanade and how that is going to be managed in the actual development phase. So that interpretation strategies recognise the place as being an important place of public use and of public engagement.
We are concerned about the relocation of the kiosk. Our concerns are stated in the submission. We do feel, however, that actually retention may, in fact, add or be able to be used creatively in the project and strengthen the public domain aspect of the development.
We also feel that some consideration needs to be given to the scale and height of the development, or in relation to some of the historic buildings, the most obvious is the Lawson Apartments, as well as the potential impact on what has become a genuinely iconic building, and that is the bell tower, and there is the vista from the Swan River from the west.
An issue has been raised with us, and we haven't got the necessary expertise to comment on it, but it has been raised with us, and that is the impact of height in relation to shading of the public spaces of The Esplanade and how that is dealt with. So that is something that we are keenly interested in.
28.07.2011 24 Haynes So very much that was the point of this, it was simply to reinforce the fact that we are extremely supportive but we feel that there are a few elements and details that need to be given further consideration on heritage grounds.
MR PRATTLEY: Great. Thank you for that. Stuart, did you - - -
MR HICKS: Thank you, Chair. Can we talk, Mr Haynes, a little bit more about the trust's view in terms of interpreting what has been there before and also, I understand from the submission and what you have just said, an inclination of the Trust for there to be somewhat more public space than what is there. Are you able to help us understand a bit better as to what would be an ideal resolution?
MR HAYNES: Okay. We're not arguing for a substantial increase in public space but the impressions we get from the plan are that the public utility of the place may be compromised by the issues of shading.
MR HICKS: Yes.
MR HAYNES: And not compromised but maybe enhanced by the retention of the kiosk as an entry into that public space, the boardwalk around it. So I can't go into - I can't give you, like, square metres - - -
MR HICKS: No, no, no.
MR HAYNES: - - - but that kind of broad concept of the public utility of that area around the cove is very important as part of giving the development the capacity to allow interpretation of the place as a public place. For us, on an interpretative level, there is very much the European aspects of , you know, The Esplanade from the 1880s as a sporting, recreation place, as a place of political activity, as a place, as I understand it, involving Anzac parades and things like that. These are all elements that can be incorporated and, in fact, they are elements that are lost now in many ways, and this is an opportunity to bring that truth back of the place.
MR HICKS: Mm.
MR HAYNES: In the area of indigenous, there has obviously been a lot of work and consideration as far as the indigenous centre and, of course, our view on heritage is that needs to be examined holistically. So we, you know, would like consideration and understanding from an indigenous point of view, as well as the history of the reclaimed land, you know, and the bringing back of the connection.
MR HICKS: Thank you.
MR HAYNES: That's not a problem.
MR PRATTLEY: And obviously there's a lot more work to be done on the indigenous
28.07.2011 25 Haynes centre in terms of consultation and thinking through exactly what that will be as perhaps the next stage of the work. Eugene, have you - - -
MR FERRARO: No, I'm good. I understood the submission and the explanation was good.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, I don't have any further questions either.
MR HAYNES: Excellent. Well, I hope after all these years of planning and such - - -
MR PRATTLEY: We can get some - - -
MR HAYNES: - - - we can actually get something, you know?
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MS AITKEN: Can I just add something, sorry, Mr Chair?
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MS AITKEN: We have engaged consultants to progress the heritage interpretation aspects of the project and they are really commencing that project now, and they will actually be in touch with the National Trust shortly.
MR HAYNES: That's Ian Hocking?
MS AITKEN: Yes.
MR HAYNES: We have had indirect discussions - - -
MS AITKEN: Yes.
MR HAYNES: So in that case, I was actually reinforcing the - - -
MR PRATTLEY: I think we all see that as a very important part, you know.
MR HAYNES: Excellent.
MR PRATTLEY: From memory, there are three and a half hectares of public domain there where we can put plenty of interpretative material into that.
MR HAYNES: Okay, thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you very much.
MR HICKS: Thanks for coming in.
28.07.2011 26 Haynes Mr David McVilly representing Himself
MR PRATTLEY: Gary Prattley. Good to meet you, David. This is Stuart Hicks and Eugene Ferraro.
MR McVILLY: Hi. How are you?
MR PRATTLEY: Well, welcome. Thank you for your submission. Thank you for being early. You are the last one today. You can - the last one was really short and we had a couple who didn't turn up.
MR McVILLY: Oh, okay.
MR PRATTLEY: So you have about 20 minutes, or longer if you need now - - -
MR McVILLY: I would hope not but - - -
MR PRATTLEY: - - - - but we have obviously all had a chance to read your submission, all the other submissions, and it's an opportunity for you to elaborate on that, talk around the points, and for us to ask you any questions.
MR McVILLY: Well, if you have read through the submissions you know that I am a resident of the Lawson Building, where it is situated, its age, its recognised cultural heritage significance within this state and outside.
Historically, the city has, of course, had to progress and move around that building, but historically there is an unfortunate pattern where it would seem that the advances that are made are not being made with reference to that cultural and heritage significance. I have detailed through the submissions and hopefully attached documentation in relation to how that area had developed in the past and the construction of Exchange Plaza and how, despite very early indicators that that building wasn't going to travel above the third floor, and therefore impede upon the Lawson Building, there was a late amendment, the building rose to the entire height of the Lawson Building, such that you only had a difference of metres between the buildings and, of course, any privacy along the apartments that side was lost completely due to the office inhabitants being able to look directly into the apartments, which is still the case. It's something that the residents have been obliged to come to grips with and, ultimately, when the apartments are being sold, resold, it does necessarily affect the value, but it also resulted in not just the loss of amenity, not just the loss of privacy, but also impinged upon the actual integrity of the building. However, you like to define that, it did.
The concern that I have now is that we are faced with a similar period of growth where, from the documentation that I have been able to sight, scan, consider, there doesn't seem to be much consideration of the existence of the building, let alone its cultural and heritage value,
28.07.2011 27 McVilly and there is also the concern that when it comes to the point of the waterfront project being embarked upon, construction works being initiated and continuing, the way in which that is done and the time frames within which that is done and the timings that are embarked upon there are necessarily going to have a negative impact upon the residents of the building and, therefore, the continued use of that building as a residential premises.
Whether it is unfortunate or not, you have a recent comparison here with the St George's Terrace street scaping, where the Lawson Building hadn't actually been informed of the project prior to it being embarked upon because it had simply been forgotten. It simply was not noted to exist. So none of the requisite notifications were sent out in the first instance, and then when it came to out of hour planning permissions and permits being granted there was, for a considerable period of time, what appeared to be a rubber stamping of the consent sought by the entity that had been engaged by the City of Perth to conduct the works without reference to the residents, without reference to the reasonable needs of the agent that had been making the request for the permits, and without any scrutiny of the reasons, if any, that had been provided.
It has only been after a very protracted period of dialogue between Gary Dunne and the residents of Lawson that there was an inkling that there was a difficulty and an even longer period before there was any address of the concerns that the residents had where, you know, at 4.00 in the morning there would be jackhammering - you know, very audible noises which were in contravention of the requisite - or the applicable - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Permit.
MR McVILLY: - - - noise restrictions and approvals, and there were continual breaches of the approvals that were given, yet very little redress and very little change in behaviours. It was fortunate that the street scaping was for a finite period and had actually advanced to a degree that it has been largely completed at an earlier point than had been originally projected. But that served little comfort to the residents, and you do have a situation where people have moved out, people have put their apartments on the market, due to the fact that they have no confidence in the City of Perth to actually manage properly the situation that presented with reference to St George's Terrace, but also with reference to the much larger scaled enterprise which is going to be the waterfront project.
That is putting aside the actual physical location of the project and what that is going to entail in terms of buildings, in terms of overshadowing, wind tunnels, the mosquito problem that I have seen flagged in newspaper reports at an earlier point in time, which have probably been the subject of submissions before you already. Various physical, practical concerns in relation to the project as a whole upon its design and construction and completion which, I don't know have been addressed in a vacuum, but certainly haven't been addressed in the documentation that I have seen with reference to this particular building.
28.07.2011 28 McVilly The submissions - sorry, they are a little bit disjointed and rambling but you do have - I have endeavoured to identify deficits that I have seen in the - I have gleaned from the documentation that was available; the impact upon residents, the use of the building as a residential premises, the exclusion of the building from what appeared to be the current proposed investigations and heritage assessment of the project area, and the question of visual amenity and visual impact because, at the end of the day, from what I understand and - what I understand of the awards grants attached to the building to date, it is a construction of significant value in terms of heritage and culture and I would hope that efforts will be made to retain that and to retain its primary function as a residence.
Unfortunately, even with reference to garbage collection and street sweeping, as things currently sit, you have a situation where the City of Perth for a period of two years has not addressed that, so you will have garbage collected maybe four times - at its worst, maybe seven times in the course of anything down in Sherwood Court - from about 7 pm in the evening ranging through to 6 am, with, you know, intervals of hours, hours between, but it took a period of two years and intense lobbying and, I think, three or four meetings with Lisa Scaffidi, Frank Edwards and Gary Dunne to actually - not so much acknowledge the problem but actually address it and, in part, that was due to the fact that they were not getting information from the relevant departments to confirm that - say that there was a street sweeper at 4 am. The department kept saying, no, there was not, but then you have - - -
It's a building that attracts - because it is a building with particular character, you do attract residents, owners, who are attracted to those elements of a character building.
MR HICKS: Sure, sure.
MR McVILLY: And they have taken it upon themselves to capture footage of each and every transgression.
MR PRATTLEY: Sure.
MR McVILLY: And send quite a few, quite a few, emails to the City of Perth - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Yes. I have those stories from Lisa. Yes.
MR McVILLY: To document - I'm trying to put things in a very tactful way.
MR PRATTLEY: No, no, I understand. Yes.
MR McVILLY: To document these breaches, the comings and goings down Sherwood Court, which are necessarily going to increase with the works done in relation to the waterfront project, but then also, once the infrastructure is in place, what is going to happen. That's something else that needs to be considered and addressed.
28.07.2011 29 McVilly MR PRATTLEY: Yes. As an inner city resident also, it's one of the delights of inner city living, I think, the street sweepers, rubbish collection - it doesn't seem to matter which city you live in, unfortunately. I agree, it does interrupt.
Obviously, our task is to look at the MRS rezoning rather than the master plan itself or building design or construction details, but I think the points you make are certainly relevant and need to be taken on board as this matter progresses forward.
Stuart or Eugene - have you got questions?
MR HICKS: Chairman, thank you. Let me feed back, Mr McVilly, what I think I am hearing from you and you can tell me whether I've got it right. It's simply being as efficient as I can and making sure I understand what you're saying.
What I think I'm hearing is that you are saying on behalf of the residents of the Lawson Building that the existence of that building and its residents and its owners needs to be recognised - - -
MR McVILLY: Yes.
MR HICKS: - - - because of two particular major concerns. Concern number one, that any possible intrusion might occur because of the waterfront works - noise, dust, amenity, inconvenience, whatever, for a major project that will last a number of years; and secondly, any possible permanent damage to the integrity, character, amenity, heritage values of the building - - -
MR McVILLY: By redevelopment itself.
MR HICKS: - - - with issues like views, et cetera, et cetera.
MR McVILLY: Yes.
MR HICKS: Those are two principal concerns that you are expressing on behalf of the residents; and finally, I'm hearing that concerns are heightened by the previous experience - - -
MR McVILLY: Yes.
MR HICKS: - - - of the residents of the building.
MR McVILLY: If not heightened, I think they have to be informed by the previous experiences.
MR HICKS: Chairman - it's my effort to feed back what I'm hearing in a nutshell from you, and that's pretty accurate, is it?
28.07.2011 30 McVilly MR McVILLY: Yes.
MR HICKS: Thank you.
MR FERRARO: No, I'm good.
MR PRATTLEY: I don't have any additional questions, so thank you for a very considered and thoughtful submission. The points in there we can take on board as this matter progresses further.
MR McVILLY: Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you very much.
MR McVILLY: I do have one question, I suppose.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, yes.
MR McVILLY: Will there be a further point at which any findings will be made or - made public?
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, the process is that the committee prepares a report which will go, in this instance, to the Central Perth Planning Committee, as the delegate of the Commission, and they then make a recommendation to the Minister, and the report and all the responses to all the submissions are then tabled in Parliament for a period. That is the process that is followed.
MR McVILLY: And so can the individual applicants - there's no further - not correspondence, but notification given?
MR PRATTLEY: Steve, what's our process in terms of advice to individual applicants and - - -
MR RADLEY: Once the amendment is tabled in parliament it becomes part of a process where submitters are able to lobby their politicians and have any issues raised in Parliament.
MR PRATTLEY: But in terms of direct response - - -
MR RADLEY: Every party is notified once we table the amendment in Parliament and once Parliament has made a decision on the amendment.
MR McVILLY: But nothing in the interim.
MR RADLEY: No.
28.07.2011 31 McVilly MR HICKS: Chair, can I explore another issue then with Steve? In this case, Mr McVilly has elected for it to be a private and not a public hearing. Does that mean that the transcript of what he is saying to this committee doesn't appear as part of the Parliamentary records?
MR RADLEY: This will become part of the public record and will be tabled in Parliament.
MR HICKS: Okay, so everything that we have said to each other today is in transcript - - -
MR RADLEY: Yes.
MR HICKS: - - - before the Parliament as part of the process as well, whether it is in public or private hearing. In that sense, it's - in that sense, it's quite public.
MR McVILLY: I just wondered if, in fact, there was any interim communication which - and apparently there's not.
MR PRATTLEY: The short answer to that is there is no.
MR McVILLY: Yes. Thank you very much.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you very much for your time.
MR McVILLY: Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: We appreciate the effort you have put into it. Thanks again. 'Bye 'bye. Okay, as there is no further comment or discussion, I will declare the committee meeting closed.
MR FERRARO: Adjourned.
MR PRATTLEY: Adjourned, sorry.
28.07.2011 32 McVilly
Mr Brian Muir representing Himself
MR PRATTLEY: Can I declare this hearing committee reconvened. Welcome back, everybody. Welcome and thank you for your submission. Sit down. We've got around 15 minutes for each person to speak, for us to ask questions or whatever we feel is necessary. So I hand over to you. Thank you for your interest and your efforts in putting in a submission.
MR MUIR: The title of my original submissions was a bit flowery, but it's actually very real to me. I've been living in the city for nearly two years now, attracted by the encouragement from both the City of Perth and the state government, with promises of a new recycling plant along with the revitalisation of the city.
Testimony to the success of the scheme is the recently published figures of the increase in resident numbers from 12,200 to 17,487 from 2006 to 2011, a jump of 42 per cent. The number of apartments in this time has risen by 27 per cent. I, as one of these new inner-city dwellers, love the new lifestyle that I have encountered and I also welcome the riverside development.
However, I have grave concerns over the management process of the project that may seriously impinge on the lifestyle and standard of living that I currently enjoy. To be more specific, I query what planning has or will take place to manage the building program in a manner that will minimise the impact on residents and workers during the process.
To illustrate that point, I'd like to use a development which is very close to us, and that's the ABC building site on Terrace Road. The site currently being developed is a little less than 0.7 of a hectare. While I recognise that such developments will cause an inevitable and unavoidable disruption to those around it, residents over the past many months have been subjected to semi-trailers queuing in the parking bays along Terrace Road, commencing from between 5.15 and 5.30 each morning.
The squealing of air brakes and the engines that remain running for much of the time between arrival and site commencement, normally about 7 o'clock, makes sleep almost impossible on some occasions. There have been as many as 17 trucks queued, causing inevitable problems, including road safety. We have had trucks unable to fit into the bays and so straddle part of the road, causing passing traffic to veer onto the wrong side of the road to pass.
Noise: many of the trucks keep their engines running for long periods of time.
Pollution: exhaust fumes have on occasion caused us to have to close all windows and doors to keep out the fumes.
Road debris: mud or dust has been a constant factor over the last month, with most residents giving up having a relatively clean car to drive in. I would make the point that the development has done what they could in difficult circumstances. Obviously mud is going to fall out of trucks, so I have no problems with that, but it is a problem.
Congestion: as you can imagine, having so many trucks taking up to three normal carparking bays, prevents a lot of other vehicles that normally park in Terrace Road; they fight for the very few bays left.
02.08.2011 1 Muir This, combined with the traffic stoppage caused by reversing and leaving trucks, and incorrectly stationary vehicles as previously mentioned, when they sort of jut out onto the road, has created a situation of many near misses - fortunately only near misses.
The ABC site has created problems and, although there is strong evidence of a total lack of traffic planning and management, I accept the problems as an inevitable consequence of development. The worrying link to the river development, however, is: the area involved in the ABC is less than 0.7 of one hectare. The river development has a combined developmental area of 19.75 hectares, 28 times the area of the ABC site.
In the same vein, the ABC will have impact on residents and workers for one to two years whereas the river development is said to take 10 to 15 years, depending on what report you read. Rather facetiously, I might say, a little extrapolation is that it possibly means 17 trucks lining up, as they were in Terrace Road, multiply that by 28 times the area of development compared to the ABC and we can look at 476 trucks lining up in the surrounding residential and commercial streets. I say that facetiously, but who knows?
The challenge then is to ensure that lifestyles are not threatened while development occurs or, in the words of Ms Debra Goostrey, WA chief of the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the challenge would be to ensure the city did not stop while the riverside development happened.
What can then be done to ensure that the challenge is met and adequately satisfied as mentioned in my original submissions, and obviously in the terminology of a layman I would suggest the following - and here I sort of repeat it there, if you'd like me to go through those.
The challenge is dealing with the quantity of heavy-duty vehicles required for such a massive undertaking.
Considerations: routes to be used for transport. The obvious route will be Riverside Drive or the freeway and Riverside Drive off-ramp. It is vital that these routes be monitored and the vehicles confined to specific directional flows to minimise local traffic flows.
Possible solutions: outlets such as Victoria Avenue, Hill, Bennett, Terrace Roads and Plain Street, all through normal and residential and commercial areas, should be banned routes and built into any contracts.
Holding areas for heavy vehicles: with the number of vehicles, all vehicles will not be able to access the work areas at the same time. Currently, heavy vehicles waiting to drop, for example, concrete off at building sites in the Perth CBD simply choose a residential or commercial parking area close by and wait until called in. These vehicles, as previously stated, normally traverse two or three car bays, leaving their motors running, and that's sometimes necessary if you've got a concrete truck which needs to be turned over, but often leave large areas of oil, as evidenced in Terrace Road. Exhaust fumes from trucks can, as previously stated, necessitate the closing of all windows and doors.
Possible solution: designated holding areas set aside for all heavy vehicles, with communication systems coordinating their arrival schedules. Herrison Island might be one suggestion for a holding yard for vehicles coming from the east. Vehicles will need to be turned off when in a holding yard, unless logistically it is necessary - for example, a concrete tumbler. There may be other areas that could be turned into holding yards if this is going to be a long-term situation.
02.08.2011 2 Muir Another challenge is the working hours and construction designation. Noise and construction by-products - dust, vibration, et cetera - lead to the need for consistent workable hours, making use of the rights of key stakeholders, and I've just highlighted some hours that I think would be acceptable there: Monday to Friday 7.00 to 5.00, Saturday 8.00 till 1.00, Sunday no work except in emergency situations and these hours should be applicable to all precinct areas. That is, heavy vehicles are not to enter the area before these hours, because I personally think that 5 o'clock in the morning or quarter past 5 is just ludicrous.
I would add a further challenge to my previously submitted document, and that is the challenge of providing sufficient motivation and guidelines to contractors to ensure that all agreed obligations are met. Part of the solution would be from the outset, protocols relating to, for example, traffic movement should be embedded into all contracts. It is not enough to rely on contractors and their workers to establish acceptable standards. It just doesn't happen.
Another challenge would be the liaison and input processes between providers of development and key stakeholders, commercial and residential. So often providers implement policy and actions that severely impact on city stakeholders without the proper vetting of policies that they are implementing.
For example - and I know it's a long way from the building project envisaged, but I'm sort of taking some of the things that have happened in Perth recently in the past 18 months: fun runs, Run for a Reason marathons. They have been riddled with inaccuracies that directly affect traffic flow. The Main Roads table showing street closing for the Hospital Benefits fun run had so many errors as to make it totally impossible to interpret. When organisers and presumably Main Roads were notified some six days ahead of the event, no changes were made to newspaper advertisements or internet advertisements. Significant confusion and traffic blockage resulted partially due to this. For such a long-term project as has been contemplated, stakeholder and general public disruption must be managed and ongoing.
Efficient and effective conduits for communication must be established between stakeholders and providers. Currently in those sort of events that take place there seems to be no adequate process for rectification when mistakes are made, and there hasn't actually been a single event here where we haven't had significant problems and faults in the information disseminated to the public.
A possible solution is that as part of the organisational infrastructure, representatives of key stakeholders, commercial and residential, could be appointed. These individuals in no way would be obstructionist but would be there to represent the key stakeholders and to provide valuable insight into how to create a seamless process of development. I think that's pretty much all I have to say.
MR PRATTLEY: Thanks very much, Mr Muir. Obviously our task here is dealing with the actual amendment itself rather than its structure and delivery, but I think the points you make are very pertinent and certainly we'll take it on, as normally the kinds of conditions that we're talking about here would be imposed as part of the approvals for the work, whether it's buildings or (indistinct).
I know there has been consideration given, and certainly in this state and in the excavation, that one would hopefully allow for a fair bit of - some of the issues that we're talking about to be handled on site which, given a critical area of traffic flows, it's going to be a major issue. Stuart, did you have any questions?
02.08.2011 3 Muir MR HICKS: Chairman, thank you. Mr Muir, I think your submission does acknowledge that it's impossible for the project to have no effect on residential amenity and you're not even daring to suggest that, and I hear a heartfelt and experienced call for the appropriate authorities to take these matters into account as this very major project goes ahead. As the chairman has acknowledged, this is an MRS amendment hearing and I think your points go beyond the remit just of the hearings here today, but I think you've obviously had experience and given a great deal of thought to this and it's very important for us to make sure that the relevant authorities do take those issues into consideration as the project goes forward. It's bigger than any project hitherto and it's going to take longer than any project hitherto and I think that helps drive the concern that you're expressing to us today. Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: I should say I live on Adelaide Terrace - not quite on the terrace but in Adelaide Terrace - and I do understand the impacts of construction at present, particularly on Saturday mornings when they bring in all the cranes and close off all the streets and you can't go anywhere. Eugene, have you got any questions?
MR FERRARO: No. I just think that the points you made are extremely valid in terms of when it reaches construction. To me it sounds like there will be a need for some sort of management plan, construction management plan, that can be put in place at the time that construction goes ahead and it should address all these things, and I would be surprised if the project doesn't have that sort of thinking in its construction.
MR MUIR: Good.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you very much for your contributions and considerations.
MR MUIR: Okay. No worries.
MR PRATTLEY: They're significant and we appreciate it.
MR MUIR: No worries. Thank you very much.
MR HICKS: You're nonetheless enjoying inner-city life obviously.
MR MUIR: It's wonderful.
MR HICKS: As is our chairman.
02.08.2011 4 Muir Mr Colin Chomley representing Himself
MR PRATTLEY: Welcome. Thank you for your submission. We've had a chance to read it, but this is an opportunity for you to speak to it and for us to ask you any questions, if we have any, and as you understand, roughly 15 minutes.
MR CHOMLEY: Yes, I do. I had a look at that. Thanks very much. I live in Mosman Park. My name is Colin Chomley. I take an interest in these sorts of things. I am a councillor at Mosman Park as it happens. I think this is my 12th year as a councillor at Mosman Park, so it's not altogether strange to me, all the planning and that sort of thing, and the sort of decisions that different people have to make and everything. But this one has really caught my eye - the Perth waterfront. I cannot believe that it's being built now. I don't know whether you've read my submission or not.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, indeed.
MR CHOMLEY: I'm going to run through it again, if I may - - -
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MR CHOMLEY: - - - because I know I can do it within the 15 minutes. I must say that I originally thought, given the huge problems the above project will cause, both trafficwise and pollutionwise, I thought it would never see the light of day. Unbelievably, I can see that they're now intent on doing it.
I strongly object to this, and it's really all about traffic and re the traffic problems it will cause. The inlet is going to block completely. All traffic heading from the eastern suburbs to the western suburbs that has come from the Causeway and indeed down Plain Street, Barrack Street, et cetera, no driver could seriously contemplate trying to get around the square river inlet.
I always knew it would be a huge and unnecessary blockage of traffic, but now I read that up to 15,000 cars a day will be diverted onto St Georges Terrace, Wellington Street and Graham Farmer Freeway once Riverside Drive is blocked. That's out of the words, by his own volition - Mr Finn who said that; it's going to drop from 30,000 to 15,000.
The reason for that is that you are taking away - and I table these, ladies and gentlemen. These are the photographs that I've taken from the Convention Centre. Now, that's on a light day, but you can see the traffic lined up there and that's with the other lane that's just cleared, 15,000 cars a day that flow beautifully from one side of the terrace to the other - I really don't know where they're going to go.
Turning our attention to the traffic coming the other way - that is, travelling from the west and trying to get across to the east via the Causeway - the same number of cars will be effectively blocked as well, because the square road around the river inlet will be a minefield of traffic slowers and presumably people. One can expect huge volumes of people trying to get across what used to be Terrace Road to get to the river, boats, inspect artwork, et cetera.
02.08.2011 5 Chomley Regarding pollution, I'm talking about the water quality in the square inlet that is going to eventuate. It probably won't be more than three, four metres deep. I think it's actually maybe going to be five, but four metres deep, and cannot possibly be washed out by river flow because it is a square inlet attached to a circular bank. How is the water going to be kept clean and not full of flotsam and jetsam? It will be a true backwater and nothing will change that.
But of the two problems above, it is the complete, almost professional gridlocking of the western bound traffic which desperately concerns me. "Thank you very much. I think not," is what I've written here. What are the planners thinking in promoting this idea?
Riverside Drive is one of the smoothest, nicest and efficient drives in Perth as it flows past the Bell Tower heading west and you are proposing to block Riverside Drive and shunt that massive amount of traffic - over 15,000 cars a day - through and around the top of the city block. Really, what is everyone thinking here? Does everyone really think and believe that the square inlet of water right there, which will block free-flowing traffic for zero gain and obscene expense, is a good idea?
If the planners had made provision for a bridge over the top of the water so that the fair citizens of Perth could continue to get from the west side of the east side and vice versa, then one might easily have started to understand the plan - but still have rejected it. You're going to add 15 to 20 minutes and $5 in petrol to every trip that westbound drivers make when it's finished, not to mention more accidents, and exponential explosive angst as well. Again, thank you very much; I think not. Again, eastbound traffic will not be able to take on this route any more as well.
In short and with great respect, it is truly the most ludicrous, expensive and unnecessary idea I have ever seen promulgated in Perth. The planners and the government must think that they have a Darling Harbour, Sydney in front of them, but they do not.
Now, I don't know how many people know Darling Harbour, but it's very deep, it has a wide- faced opening, it self-cleans and it works very well because it's different and it's very deep and it works. This is not Darling Harbour. You've got a river that you can almost walk across. It doesn't run any more. It didn't run last year. It might run this year hopefully, but it doesn't run any more, and I really don't think - I don't know what it's going to do. I see also that you have blocked off effectively, with the little island and the Indigenous Cultural Centre that you're going to build right at the point - so the water will be hard to get in and out of anyway.
What you have here is an almost stagnant river that you can nearly walk across and the government is planning on building something which offers nothing by way of an increment in the quality of life for Perth. All it does offer - and I say this with absolute sincerity - is a completely strangled city which we would pay the price for, for the rest of our lives in Perth.
I ask the government, you planners - and the Perth City Council for that matter - in all sincerity to collectively consider what you're doing here and to forthwith scotch this bizarre plan. There we are. That's what I feel.
MR PRATTLEY: Well expressed. Thank you.
MR CHOMLEY: So what's the retort to that, in simple terms?
MR PRATTLEY: This is not a forum for debating.
MR CHOMLEY: No, of course not. I read that too, as well.
02.08.2011 6 Chomley MR PRATTLEY: My simple rejoinder would be - - -
MR CHOMLEY: "We don't believe you."
MR PRATTLEY: Well, these are issues that have been carefully considered to this point through both the modelling of water issues and of traffic, no-one is pretending it won't have an impact on traffic, but there are other - you know, there is a wide variety of views about the extent to which the city should be a thoroughfare for through traffic. There are clearly different views about those issues, and quite simply we won't get the environmental approvals for this unless it can be demonstrated that the water quality can be maintained (indistinct). That's the simple answer. Stuart, did you have any questions?
MR HICKS: Let me explore this with you. I think I know the answer but it's important that I visit it. I know your answer, but let me just explore it to make sure that I understand. What I think I'm hearing is that there is no way, from your point of view, that this project could be improved sufficiently to go ahead.
MR CHOMLEY: Yes, that's right. I don't believe - I think it's a no-no.
MR HICKS: Yes. It's not just a question of the traffic.
MR CHOMLEY: Yes.
MR HICKS: It's a question of the cost and it's a question of the water.
MR CHOMLEY: Yes.
MR HICKS: Pollution issues and whatever. So it's not a question of enhancing it or making adjustments to it.
MR CHOMLEY: No.
MR HICKS: It's a question of recognising that it's no go.
MR CHOMLEY: The only thing I could add to that: if there was a bridge and the traffic continued to flow, a six-lane bridge, three-three, a different story perhaps. But the traffic concerns me desperately because I just know, flowing from the - I live at Mosman Park and go to the airport consistently. Other people are back and forth, eastern side, western side. That's where they go, and I really don't know where they're going from hereon in. That's what concerns me, yes, absolutely. There we go.
MR HICKS: Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Eugene, do you have any questions?
MR FERRARO: No. I think it was all very, very clear.
MR CHOMLEY: If I could just add one - I'm just surprised there hasn't been more reaction. I don't know why I'm out on a limb on this one, because I'm sure I'm not really, because I think when they start digging the first - when they turn the first sod and the water starts to come in and they say, "Sorry, boys, you can't come any more. Sorry, boys, you can't come. Off you go," and take them onto St Georges Terrace or Wellington Street or Graham Farmer Freeway and add another half an hour to your watch and another $10 worth of petrol, good luck to you. That's the tragedy. I don't know. Anyway, thank you very much for that, folks.
02.08.2011 7 Chomley MR PRATTLEY: Thank you for expressing your views so clearly.
MR CHOMLEY: Yes. And as you can see, that's what I believe: that's going to disappear. Thanks. Everyone is well aware of that.
MR PRATTLEY: I think most of us use it fairly regularly.
MR CHOMLEY: Yes, fair enough. Thank you very much.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you. We appreciate your contribution.
MR CHOMLEY: I have written to the Premier as well, but I didn't get a reply from him. I know him well - Colin. He's a mate of mine. I said, "Colin, what are you doing?" Anyway, thank you very much.
MR PRATTLEY: I'll let him answer that question. Thank you.
02.08.2011 8 Chomley Mr Max Hipkins representing Himself
MR PRATTLEY: Again, thank you for your contribution. Obviously this is the opportunity you're going to get to enhance your submissions. As you realise, we've got about 15 minutes.
MR HIPKINS: Yes.
MR PRATTLEY: We've read your submission. I'll hand over to you to talk to it.
MR HIPKINS: Okay. What I'm going to present is an alternative proposal, and Stuart and I have been in this position before where I have presented to the government an alternative plan which is cheaper and from the Citys view, better.
My background is that I'm an architect, planner and engineer. I've got previous experience with the City of Perth and the Swan River Trust, the National Trust and CityVision. I'm currently a member of CityVision and the National Trust Council, but these thoughts that I'm presenting are my own.
I participated in the foreshore design competition in the early 90s and I was director of planning for the City of Perth from 2000 to 2005, where I spent three years working on the city foreshore. I think I can say with all modesty there's only one other person who's spent longer on the city foreshore, and that's George Gillam.
I was involved with the Mandurah railway integration on the foreshore in the time I was at the City, and the railway was planned to bisect the western foreshore and all the roads on the foreshore had to be cut to construct that railway and temporary roads had to be constructed, and what I tried to convince the government at that time was to use the opportunity as a catalyst for foreshore development so that you build roads further back from the foreshore. These were temporary roads but they actually become permanent. Now, this opportunity was wasted, but I believe the ideas are still relevant.
There are advantages of moving the foreshore focus westwards. There's no disturbance of heritage-listed Esplanade and activities, including the Anzac Day services and concerts. It's closer to the growth area of the city. It joins the existing Convention Centre carpark. It masks and integrates the Convention Centre. Mount Eliza provides some wind protection from the south-westerly winds, and the focus that I'm suggesting is that it occupies the Narrows interchange, not parkland.
I think one of the major criticisms of the government's current scheme is that it's taking away parkland. What I'm suggesting is we don't touch any parkland, we locate the project in the Narrows interchange, and finally it does make sense to integrate with the railway.
These were some diagrams that were prepared about 10 years ago. Scenario 1 is what we've got at the moment. Scenario 2 is moving the foreshore roads back. This was what happened with the temporary roads, but unfortunately after the railway was constructed we put the roads back to scenario 1. Just moving the roads back gives you quite an area for development.
With scenario 3, if you tighten up the loop road onto the Narrows bridge you get more land, and if you really want to go the whole hog, the reverse loop on the Narrows interchange, if you eliminate that you can get even more land.
02.08.2011 9 Hipkins So these are drawings produced by Steve Woodland, who is now the government architect, and basically he advocated the alignment of William Street being emphasised, with a pedestrian bridge over to the foreshore to avoid pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. He also - in fact, he was the first I think to identify the opportunities for moving the roads back and developing the foreshore there.
This was the state media release in 2003 and basically it just proposed development along the foreshore with a few jetties - not very imaginative, but these were diagrams that appeared in the press.
I worked at the City of Perth and produced some alternative plans for locating the focus of development in the Narrows interchange, and there are two options here. Both of them keep all of the movements of the Narrows interchange. No roads have been taken away; they have just been relocated.
So we're talking about a low-rise scheme which doesn't create shadows, which sits comfortably in front of the city and masks the Convention Centre. There are three connections. One is at the podium level across. The other one is where there is the window to the river, and the idea is to build a bridge across there with some shops on the bridge, and thirdly to come around the other end of the Convention Centre via a walkway here.
So the idea is to have an inlet with a bridge, and this was the second option, which had more people accommodated. The idea was that they would be tiered to look over the river, and there were a number of little sketches to show how this would fit in with the landscape. So very much a low-cost scheme, but it connects the city with the waterfront.
Having done those two plans, what I did was to employ consultants to look at the shape of the harbour and to advise on river pollution. I'd just like to read the first three recommendations of this report:
Conclusions and recommendations:
(1) The foreshore development should not involve the creation of enclosed embayments, since the resultant water circulation in the area is unlikely to achieve flushing in all conditions and poor water quality may result.
(2) Built areas extending into the river should be on piled structures, ie a jetty. Piled structures obviate the need for dredging and will reduce the construction impacts of the project, particularly considering the potential for elevated heavy metals in the river environment.
This is a Google photo, midday in winter, and you can see the length of the shadows over the proposed inlet. Overshadowing will be a major problem. It doesn't matter so much in summer, but in winter it will be cold and blustery because of the south-west winds. So overshadowing is a major problem with the current scheme. South-west winds: the inlet faces the south-west and the wind will whistle through it.
Silt deposition is a problem according to the environmental report. Flushing will not take place. By extending the salt water into the shore you get saltwater intrusion and this will affect all of the vegetation near that inlet, and the other thing to remember is that there are poor building foundations on which you wouldn't build high-rise buildings if you had any choice.
02.08.2011 10 Hipkins Having identified an alternative solution, it was based on the fact that where there was an extension out into the river, it equalled the excavation of the foreshore so that there was no net loss of river. However, the plan had to be revised as a result of the environmental study and what this done is, the shoreline is maintained, so this is a jetty structure which doesn't interfere with the flushing and we've not disturbed the heavy metals in the river.
In 2007 the government came up with its alternative. There was a token acknowledgment to the arm into the river, the whole purpose of which was to provide protection from the south- west winds and to provide a north-facing shore so that you get sunlight coming into this in winter so it makes it attractive. But basically this plan just extends some jetties into the river.
When I suggested that there could be a project located in the Narrows interchange, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure produced this plan, which developed the whole of the interchange. Well, the problem with this is you're taking away a lot of the movements of the interchange.
The previous government's plan for the foreshore: basically, the new plan is just a scaled- down version. It still has all of the problems of the previous plan, with overshadowing, flushing and pollution of the river. The irregular shoreline will not help matters.
What I propose is this alternative. It was in fact accepted by the City of Perth. The City of Perth adopted this plan and I would like to ask that you give it serious consideration. It's a lot cheaper, it's a lot better for the City and it will produce a much better outcome for pedestrians. I do have a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the government's plan and the plan that was adopted by the City of Perth.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you.
MR HIPKINS: But I am not naive enough to realise that the detailed design work of the government scheme is pressing ahead and detailed drawings have now been produced, so I think it's unlikely that the project is going to be substantially modified, but I couldn't resist just letting you know that there is a better plan. It's cheaper and it's better for the City.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you, Max. Questions?
MR HICKS: Chairman, I don't think so. As Mr Hipkins has indicated, he and I have been in similar situations, for which I'm grateful, but I don't have any further questions from today.
MR PRATTLEY: I don't think there's anything.
MR HIPKINS: Okay.
MR PRATTLEY: I appreciate the time and effort you've put into presenting this material to us. Obviously it is an alternative view and we're required to consider the MRS amendment as it is before us at the moment. We'll have to consider this obviously in that context as opposed to the detailed design issues of the project itself.
MR HIPKINS: But I think I'd like to emphasise that it does solve a lot of problems that Colin identified of cutting Riverside Drive. Riverside Drive remains, all of the on and off ramps of the Narrows interchange remain, and I believe this alternative overcomes all of the criticism about loss of heritage and overshadowing and flushing, et cetera. So I seriously commend it to you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you for that.
02.08.2011 11 Hipkins Mr Greg Smith representing Himself
MR PRATTLEY: Welcome. Thank you for your submission. Obviously we've had a chance to read your submissions, along with everybody else's, and we're happy for you to speak to us and for us to ask you any questions we might have arising from it.
MR SMITH: Yes.
MR PRATTLEY: You understand we're talking about a 15-minute time frame?
MR SMITH: 15 minutes.
MR PRATTLEY: I'll hand over to you.
MR SMITH: Thanks very much. The availability of the amendment report and the submission form, form number 41: at about 11 o'clock on 27 May 2001, I came into the office of the WA Planning Commission at 469 Wellington Street. The amendment reports were not available and the forms were not available. That interrupted my capacity to make a submission and it's contrary to the requirements of clause 43 of the Planning and Development Act, which requires the report and, you would imagine, the forms for making the submission to be available in the offices.
Page 10 of the amendment report tells us that the report will be available and the forms will be available. They weren't available, and after some hassle I managed to get some forms, but as you can see from my submission, I used other forms for another amendment as well. So I don't think you met your requirements under the act to provide the document and the forms. That's point 1.
The amendment proposes to reclassify the land to public purpose reserve. The amendment report describes public purposes as "hospitals, high schools, universities, prisons" and other special uses. That's on page vii of the report. The report on page 3 suggests inter alia that the uses of the buildings will be "residential, commercial, office, retail, hotel, short stay, hospitality uses".
The report is disingenuous. These are not public purpose uses. As a matter of law - Van Der Meyden v the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (1980) - where land is reserved for a public purpose it is inferred that the use is a public purpose.
Public submissions. The report provides for three options after you've listened to the public submissions, written and verbal: that the amendment is supported, modified or withdrawn. In good faith, it must be assumed that these submissions are given due and proper consideration.
On 14 April 2011 in the West Australian newspaper on page 13 the article referred to the costly planning blunders of Sydney with the Darling Harbour and Melbourne with the Docklands. The article quoted the WA Planning Commission chairman, Mr Gary Prattley, as saying "the finished product will not necessarily look like the artist's impression, and the government was committed to the project, including creating an inlet between William and Barrack Street and rerouting Riverside Drive".
02.08.2011 12 Smith On the assumption that the reporting in the newspaper is correct and that the Chairman of the WA Planning Commission made these comments, then I would submit that G Prattley cannot listen to these public comments and hearings with an open mind. I submit that his comments pre-empt the hearings and, as a consequence, his present on the hearing committee creates a conflict of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it would illustrate a failure to comply with his fiduciary duty.
I think in my written submission I've made it quite clear that I'm of the opinion that the heritage and the amenity are inextricably linked, and I think that the proponents have completely ignored this linkage in what I can only assume is gross groupthink. The loss of a number of buildings of heritage value, the loss of the Moreton Bay figs of heritage value, is to my mind incredibly important, and I think these are all documented in the heritage register, and of course the place is on the state register. It's a permanent entry in the state register.
So from the public's perspective I think it's incredibly important that we're losing Perth's most important place and Perth's most important space, and it has been that since pre- Federation. Pre Federation, Western Australia got self-government. Pre Federation, the troops that went off to the Boer War had their photos taken. So it's the oldest significant place in Perth. It's a public thing.
From a private amenity perspective, from zero to 30 my address was South Perth. I would catch the ferry from South Perth to Barrack Street. Barrack Street was in essence my destination and my origin was Mends Street. The moving of the ferry to a different location destroys part of my personal memory and part of my personal amenity. The departure point Mends Street is still there, but the arrival point would no longer exist. So from zero to 30 I caught the ferry, not every day, not every week, but regularly.
From zero to 15, I attended at least once a year the Esplanade with my parents for the Anzac Day parade. This is a very important site for our military history and I'd like to say that my father fought in World War II, my mother's brother fought in Tobruk and New Guinea and was killed in Korea, and my father's father was killed in World War I. He was buried in France. The end of World War I, where did they celebrate the end of the war? They celebrated it on the Esplanade. Every significant social event in Western Australia's history, from proclamation, end of the war, secession rallies, to America's Cup, to astronauts visiting Perth, all of these incredibly important social events in the history of Perth have been celebrated on the Esplanade.
In conclusion, I see the proposed $440 million expenditure on this proposal, as said in the paper, to be a complete waste of money. There's no opportunity cost been assessed. It is a proposed act of vandalism. It destroys our heritage. It destroys our amenity and my amenity. It sells off public land. It is a loss of Perth's most significant open space. What's next, I ask. A sensitive, 10-star, green, sustainable, aesthetically pleasing sensitive, residential development for Kings Park? I hope not.
If the WA Planning Commission is interested in doing something creative with the land, I make two suggestions: (1) that during the Festival of Perth you put in some toilets and shower facilities and provide people with free camping on the Esplanade so during the Perth International Festival, Perth would have a real interesting international touch which will draw tourists from all around the world - a specific type of tourist - like when the recent prince in England married Kate Middleton. You had camping for the wedding. We could have camping there for the Perth International Festival.
I was down there for the Beck's Bar entertainment this summer. It was an incredibly good spot to spend part of the night and I'm sure it would help make the International Festival of Perth a real international event.
02.08.2011 13 Smith The other option for the land, I would suggest, would be as - and remember that's only for the festival I'm suggesting camping - would be the use of the land for sport and recreation for one of the three primary schools that have been identified as needed for the City of Perth.
As I'm sure you understand, the City of Perth - the state government is promoting Perth central business area as a place to live, and I believe a report into the primary school needs of the City of Perth has identified three primary schools are needed for the proposed population. I can't see where any of those primary school students are going to get their required open space unless places like the Esplanade are kept.
So the last, the PS conclusion, is I want the amendment withdrawn for the substantive reasons I've given and I want the amendment withdrawn because of the failure of the WA Planning Commission to adhere to the legal requirements of the availability of information to do with this amendment. Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thanks, Mr Smith, for your thoughts. Obviously your questions in relation to the legal issues, we will defer to the crown solicitor's advice on those matters.
MR SMITH: Thanks very much.
MR PRATTLEY: Questions?
MR FERRARO: No, thank you. The presentation was very clear.
MR PRATTLEY: Again, thank you for expressing your views so clearly.
MR SMITH: Cheers.
MR PRATTLEY: And for your contribution.
MR SMITH: No worries.
02.08.2011 14 Smith Ms Louise Sales representing Hon Lynn MacLaren MLC
MR PRATTLEY: Welcome, Louise.
MS SALES: Thank you.
MR PRATTLEY: Thanks for the submission from Lynn MacLaren, who you're representing today. Obviously we've had a chance to read the submissions. This is the opportunity for you to speak to it in roughly 15 minutes or so and for us to ask you questions.
MS SALES: Okay. I guess, as outlined in the submission - you got a copy?
MR PRATTLEY: Yes.
MS SALES: Lynn has got a number of concerns, following consultation with key stakeholders and also with consultation with her constituents. We actually had a lot of public interest in this. It surprises me that you got so few submissions, because we certainly heard a lot about it in our office. So I guess I'll just go through them in turn.
Lynn's first concern was the inadequacy of the public consultation process and there was a general feeling in the members of the public that contacted us that the plan seemed to be really quite far advanced and they were concerned that they wouldn't be able to have major input into the actual scheme. They thought it was very much a fait accompli and that it was basically going ahead and that there wouldn't be much opportunity to do very much other than kind of tweak the current design. So one of Lynn's recommendations was that a proper public consultation process be put in place.
The second concern was the likely impacts of the proposed development on Aboriginal heritage. I understand that there used to be a campground in that area. Lynn strongly supports the proposed National Centre for Indigenous Art and Culture at the site, but I understand that there's currently been no funding allocated for that and Lynn would obviously like to see funding for that centre being prioritised within the proposed design.
The other major concern that was raised by our stakeholders was the impact of the proposed development on European heritage and especially the Florence Hummerston building and the Moreton Bay figs. So Lynn was recommending that all the existing Moreton Bay fig trees and historic buildings and monuments should be integrated into the development rather than removed.
I understand that the Burra Charter, which guides heritage conservation in Australia, is clear that relocation is only acceptable in limited circumstances and should not lead to the loss of heritage value of the place where the building is relocated to, so that's particularly significant for the Florence Hummerston kiosk, as I understand that the proposal was to move that to the Esplanade gardens.
Another major concern of Lynn's was the loss of public space. Obviously that area is allocated as public recreational space and I understand quite a lot of that will be turned over for private development, which a lot of our constituents were concerned about. So Lynn recommends that the plan be completely revisited to address community concerns regarding the loss of amenity and public space.
02.08.2011 15 Sales There was also a lot of concern about the scale and nature of the development, particularly the size of the buildings. There was concern that the current proposed development is actually over size and there were also concerns about the shadowing of the buildings, because what's being proposed is really quite high, and particularly in winter when the sun is quite low in the sky, there are concerns that there will be overshadowing which will make it undesirable for amenity, and cold, and there are also concerns about wind tunnel effects as well in a development that size.
So Lynn was proposing that the plan be completely revisited to address community concerns regarding the visual amenity of the proposed development and to prevent shading the foreshore and the creation of wind tunnels. So, yes, she really thinks that the buildings should be scaled right back in size and set back.
There were also concerns raised among our constituents regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development, particularly the dredging associated with the project, which I understand from the environmental assessment report - that identifies some adverse impacts such as turbidity and displacement of marine fauna. I don't know if you've had any - Lynn didn't have the opportunity to consult with conservation groups to see what the potential impacts might be on the dolphin populations, but I understand they're already under quite a lot of stress in the river, so that's obviously something that should be very carefully looked at.
The transport implications of the proposed development: that was actually something that Lynn really liked about the project. I think it's quite a good move by the government to remove Riverside Drive and I know that there's been a lot of opposition from the public to that, but there are actually other jurisdictions, such as Portland in Oregon, that have successfully removed roads and the chaos that was predicted hasn't actually, people make other transport arrangements. Ideally the proposal would be combined with light rail, such as the proposed Knowledge Arc, to provide a transport alternative to using private motor car, and that would really encourage people to use other transport modes to access the site.
We received a submission from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance. They were really concerned about the loss of that cycleway along Riverside Drive, so that's obviously quite a popular route for cyclists. So they were really concerned that that remained in place, be it a footbridge, and they were ideally suggesting that cyclists and pedestrians should be separated in some way.
There were also concerns regarding the planning implications of the proposed development. Obviously Directions 2031 proposes the development of a network and hierarchy of centres to provide a more equitable distribution of jobs and activities throughout the metropolitan area, and it seemed that this proposal, combined with the Northbridge Link project was actually going in the opposite direction. It's actually encouraging more activity in the CBD rather than - so Lynn was proposing that the project actually be scaled back, made less ambitious and that some of that money be injected into some development in other network hubs around the city.
Another concern was the sustainability of the proposed development. Lynn really believes that this is an ideal opportunity to encourage sustainable development and to basically demonstrate world's best practice sustainable development, but from the plans that we've seen so far, the government doesn't seem to have picked that up.
I understand from Lynn's questions in Parliament that the structures would only be required to meet minimum green star ratings and Lynn really thinks that the government can do a lot better than that really and this is a real opportunity to showcase a whole range of sustainable development techniques.
02.08.2011 16 Sales Lynn also had some concerns about the potential impacts of climate change on the proposed development. I understand that the Minister in Parliamentary questions said that the development allowed for a 0.9 metre sea level rise, but he did concede that the public promenade might be subject to flooding in extreme storm events. So, yes, Lynn just wanted to make sure that we were actually preparing for the potential impacts of climate change.
MR PRATTLEY: (indistinct) 0.9 metres and more flooding (indistinct) public promenade was (indistinct) probably be the driest place in the centre of Perth.
MS SALES: Yes. So I think Lynn just wanted to make sure that, yes, that was taken into account in the planning design. That kind of summarises it. Sorry, I rattled through it quite quickly.
MR PRATTLEY: We appreciate it.
MS SALES: Does anyone have any questions?
MR PRATTLEY: Obviously we're dealing with the colour of the map, I suppose, and the amendment itself to enable the applications to take place which will address a lot of the more detailed issues, so at this point in this process at least involved in some of those levels of detail. I think many of them are fundamental principles that are (indistinct) what we are trying to do. Stuart?
MR HICKS: Louise, the main thrust of what I understand Lynn has been saying - I'm double-checking that I've got the message in its proper sense. What I think I'm hearing is that she conditionally supports this particular project. She's not opposing the project, but in particular her concerns are that the structural elements might be too ambitious, to use I think the word I think you did a moment ago. It's a little bit too grand. So there's one set of concerns there.
The other main one is that in addressing this project that we be really thoughtful about the environmental issues, about water quality and climate change, about the dolphins and the river, the general air quality issues, best-practice sustainability structures and things like that.
If we can address those two particular issues then there's a measure of support from Lynn and - I was going to say her constituents, but she can't speak on behalf of all constituents. But that's certainly where Lynn would be coming from, as I understand it.
MS SALES: Yes. As I understand it, Lynn is not opposed to development on the foreshore and she actually thinks it can be potentially enlivened and that the area is currently underutilised and, yes, that some development is - - -
MR HICKS: Thank you.
MS SALES: Yes.
MR HICKS: That's what I wanted to confirm.
MS SALES: Yes - as long as the heritage values, as well, are protected.
MR HICKS: Sorry, the heritage is another one, yes. Environment and heritage and structural issues.
MS SALES: Yes, I think so.
02.08.2011 17 Sales MR HICKS: And public consultation.
MS SALES: Yes. She thought that there was inadequate public consultation, which might be why - I mean, I would suspect that that could be why you didn't receive many submissions, is because the public think it's a fait accompli and the design is going ahead as it's seen currently.
MR PRATTLEY: There will be application processes as well, for the actual designs, as opposed to the enabling side of it, which is really what we've been dealing with.
MS SALES: Yes, I understand it's the MRS.
MR PRATTLEY: The MRS certainly enables the indigenous heritage, for example. I think it's fair to say as Chair of the Perth Waterfront Taskforce, that there's still very strong support from everyone that that happens (indistinct) and obviously the process is there for engagement with the indigenous community in working up that idea may take a lot longer.
MS SALES: So that's why there's been no budget.
MR PRATTLEY: Yes, that's why there's not yet. Probably a future government action once we've worked through with the indigenous community, what they would like, what's possible, how we want to progress that forward that's the primary reason for it not being shown in the budget exercise at this stage. I think that's fair to say isn't it?
MS SALES: What's happened to the cable car idea?
MR PRATTLEY: Again that's provided for. That's another issue, where there are lots of issues, where it ends at Kings Park reserve and similar things that are probably going to take longer to resolve, and we see that as an integral part of the - - -
MR HICKS: It's provided for in the planning sense.
MR PRATTLEY: But not in a budgetary sense.
MR HICKS: Not in a budgetary sense.
MR PRATTLEY: And I think there's also a view that that's the kind of project that can be privately funded but we see that's there's an important link between environmental issues and the new reserve. Do you have any more questions?
MR HICKS: No, thanks, chair.
MR PRATTLEY: Thank you very much. We thank Lynn for her submission, and it's nice to have someone saying, appreciating that (indistinct) the foreshore as a traffic (indistinct) isn't the only answer.
MS SALES: Thank you. Thanks very much for your time.
MR PRATTLEY: Thanks very much. We should formally close the hearing committee. Thank you both for your participation and attendance and consideration. We will now proceed to work on the report.
02.08.2011 18 Sales