Summary Public Submissions and Consideration Attachment 4 Updated 27 April 2021

Comment Authority Comment Ensure that Subiaco Road and Court Place support a low speed Subiaco Road will be transformed into a slow speed environment, with vehicle environment and supports pedestrian/cyclist movement Court Place proposed to be completely pedestrianised to support around the public realm, and that a pedestrianised environment is pedestrian movements to and from West Leederville Train Station and provided to support access to Bob Hawke College. Bob Hawke College.

Key elements of the pedestrianisation of Court Place include; raising the carriageway level to be flush level with the existing pathway, removing existing on-street parking, implementing a consistent material treatment and limiting vehicle access to local traffic. Ensure that the public realm design includes environmentally A 6 Star Green Star Communities Rating is sought for the Subiaco sustainable design initiatives such as water reuse and water sensitive East Project Area, and is a core objective of the Subi East Master Plan. urban design. Achievement of a 6 Star Rating demonstrates best practice in environmentally sustainable design, key elements of the 6 Star rating to be delivered in the public realm includes: • use of water wise urban design and extensive use of passive irrigation/bioretention pits; • provision of significant vegetation, with a minimum 20% site area being comprised of soft landscape; • inclusion of the Whadjuk Elders Group and Aboriginal Consultancy in the development and documentation of the landscape; • use of the Woody Meadow landscape design, supporting innovation in sustainable landscape design; and • integration of public wi-fi.

Ensure that the landscape design reflects the character and heritage A range of public spaces are proposed, differentiated by their function, of the area, and includes native vegetation. space and type of landscaping. A key aspect of the landscaping is the retention of existing mature trees, including the Aleppo Pines, and the introduction of a significant number of mature trees along Subiaco Road and within the Heritage Hates Plaza.

The two primary drivers of the landscape are:

• the Biddi Trail, an interpretive trail which includes a diverse range of native planting and public art installations which reflect the six seasons of the Whadjuk people, providing visual interest all year round. • The Woody Meadow planting initiative which emphasises dense native planting which is water sensitive and easily maintained to enable greater biodiversity and establish a unique sense of place. Ensure that sufficient community facilities are incorporated into the A public toilet and changing facility is located within the North Public design of the public realm to support the use of the space by a range Open Space to support the use of the public realm. Seating, water of ages, requirements and groups. Allow for the potential future City of fountains, bike racks and barbeques are provided throughout the Subiaco Community Facility. public realm to cater for a range of user groups.

In addition to the provision of broader facilities, a playscape is proposed which will provide opportunities for play for a range of youth groups, from early ages to teens.

Space is reserved for the future Subiaco Community facility consistent with the Subi East Master Plan. Concern that the proposed public realm does not provide enough The extent of public open space is consistent with the Subi East active open space for the current and future demands of residents, the Master Plan and provides a total of approximately 3.9ha of public use of Bob Hawke College and is insufficiently flexible to account for realm, providing a range of active and passive recreation space and a range of potential uses. delivers a public realm which caters for a diversity of user groups and abilities.

The Subiaco Oval is reinstated to its 1938 dimensions which exceeds the previous Subiaco Oval size, and is consistent with the size and orientation of Subiaco Oval when it was first connected to the Subiaco Heritage Gates.

The public realm design is supported by the Department of Education, in consideration of the requirements of Bob Hawke College which is designed as an inner city school. Concern that the built form identified in the public realm development The built form which is identified in the public realm application is not application surrounding the public realm is inappropriate due to the a component of the public realm works and will be subject separate approval processes.

proximity to Bob Hawke College, incompatibility with the established Subiaco character. Concern that the proposed public realm development application does The public realm application does not include the provision of a not provide sufficient infrastructure which supports population primary school, consistent with the Subi East Master Plan. It is noted projections in the area, such as primary schools. that the provision of primary schools is a matter for the Department of Education, who have provided support for the public realm works, and the Subi East Master Plan. Concern that the development application does not confirm the The figs located adjacent to Haydn Bunton Drive are not included in retention of the three fig trees located adjacent to Haydn Bunton Drive. the public realm application and will be protected during the public realm works. Concern that the proposed trees and shade structure would not The proposal includes shade provided by mature trees as well as a provide sufficient shading and protection from high temperatures and shade structure along the Northern Public Open Space which provides UV. a significant amount of shade.

Detailed plans have been submitted confirming that the shade structure is solid and does not rely on vegetation growth for shade.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb 1. Hilda Street, Object Shenton Park Late Submission Your request for my comment on the landscaping proposal for Lots 500 and 501 is in italics below. In summary the Scheme Objectives are at core: No measures of performance are proposed, and no timescale. As a consequence the proponent can do almost nothing and say they have achieved the vague and nebulous wording in the objectives. If the past can be any guide, the proponent will draw a long bow to the ‘intent’ implied in the wording so as to minimise benefit to anyone but the proponent and the developers undertaking any work or involvement. You list: • Sense of Place; • Economic Wellbeing; • Urban Efficiency; • Connectivity; • Social Inclusion; and • Environmental Integrity.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb Sense of place is historically established as “recreation” at that location. The Whadjuk people moved between the River, Kings Park to Mongers and Herdsman via a route that may have taken them as far west as the hill where Hamilton Rd crosses the rail line today, but rarely if ever would include a wander of the route proposed in the proposal around the now-Oval site. Since European settlement the Perth Common was principally recreation. It was vested to Subiaco for recreation just after the turn of 20th C. It became the home of Subiaco AFL in WA 1905 after the Shenton Pk site was abandoned. Tennis, bowls, cricket were all active recreation there. Building the stands in support of active recreation is very much in line with the intent of sense of place, to support participation by the people of Perth in AFL. Celebration of the best in the Sandover Walk and related memorabilia have been filed in the circular cabinet, it seems. Loss of that sense by converting public land to private residential is anathema to sense of place.

Economic Wellbeing - The public realm works provide a catalyst for future development within Subi East. The creation of attractive public spaces will encourage investment and quality development. Moreover, the quality public spaces provided will attract residents and visitors alike to the locality. The quality open space will provide a place for future residents to recreate ensuring the ability to live, work and play in Subi East.

These assertions are without evidence. A catalyst is a helping-intermediary for change that is not consumed in the change. The loss of active Public Open Space in favour of flats is clearly consumption of the elements involved, and the catalyst asserted. The loss to the general locality from one element in the proposed change is likely to cause the change to fail chaotically. In the face of inadequate facility for recreation, not only generally in Subiaco, but with 6000 additional residents in SubiEast, will make this ‘neighbourhood’ decidedly unattractive. Has anyone at DWA addressed this and the traffic along Coghhlan and Subiaco Rds with the (even) 3000 residents and 2000 students twice daily? What are the numbers, as distinct to the warm, fuzzy words here? What research exists? As a Blatant example, I see nothing to address the overlooking of student active sporting grounds and the school itself. How can that be for the wellbeing of students? Proposals to use Mueller Park as an extension of the BHC is a clear example of the resource provisions for the School in planning failure of Dept Education to direct DWA in meeting its obligations. Primary schools for each 1500 residents is infrastructure DWA failed to plan. Wellbeing of East Subi’s 6000 anticipated residents lacks a lot. If the Master Plan was financially constrained, its aspirations should have been appropriately limited instead of allowing one element – flats – to be retained at the expense of every other factor.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb Urban Efficiency - The public works build and enhance existing transport systems by providing infrastructure to accommodate a future residential population in close proximity to the West Leederville Railway Station. The proposal further enhances the connection to the West Leederville Railway Station through streetscape improvements, particularly to Court Place and Subiaco Road.

This is a meaningless set of words. Efficiency is a ratio measure of one measured element divided by another measured element that is causally related to the first. How does connection to the WL Rail Station improve any measure of efficiency? The terms are undefined and therefore open to argument from the failing respondent assessing their value.

Connectivity - A reduction in car dependence is enhanced with the provision of a variety of recreation activities and community facilities in close proximity to a future residential population. As detailed above, the proposal enhances connections to public transport systems through improved streetscapes. Universal access is proposed throughout the development to ensure accessibility for all.

More fluff and bluster. Car dependence was claimed as the way to make QEII a successful development, then based on light rail when approved by McGinty. THAT was clearly wrong and the majority of staff still make their way via cars to be parked in the local government areas. What evidence is there that the 6000 plus residents will dispense with their cars and rely wholly on public transport? What evidence is there that parents are not dropping off and picking up students at BHC NOW? The failure to provide the minimum active POS for the residents in the ‘neighbourhood’ – just under half – and none available within cooee is the opposite of these words. The community facilities for recreation nearby to the ‘neighbourhood’ are already well under the DLGSCI recommendations of 6.5 sq m per person, so how are they to take up more. Rosalie is already over-capacity, turning away kids who cannot engage in local sports because of existing demand. Are you going to turn away BHC kids and WAFC to provide a little access to proposed residents? If you were really serious about providing an acceptable landscape and environment for recreation, you would relinquish the space over the rail lines for high-rise flats so they are set back from the Oval and recreation space. That land is already owned by the State. Do not trot out the specious and discredited excuse that lowering the line and capping makes this solution too expensive. The line does not need to be lowered. Building over with frame-structure has insignificant cost to any anticipated high-rise frame- structure for flats; properly designed noise and vibration isolation produces no different impact than having the line so proximate anyway.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb

Social Inclusion - The landscape and public realm works create a variety of open spaces and cultural experiences that will be able to be enjoyed by all. The six season Bidi provides a cultural and education experience acknowledging the traditional owners connection to the land. The Oval and Northern Open Space elements provide future opportunities for community events and activation. Environmental Integrity A 6 Star Green Star C.

Social inclusion was one of the first casualties of the process: Inputs from the community of Subiaco have been treated with ignore and contempt. Where overwhelming objection to the DWA proposals were charging ahead in contradiction of community input, those objections were deemed ‘flawed’ and excluded from consideration in producing published results. Instead of the community view of 90%+ opposing in 700 submissions, the elimination (without evidence of ‘fraud’ mere assertion) of most submissions suddenly became published-figures of 90%+ in favour of the DWA proposals. DWA and this State Government were right in propagandising “fraud” as this is the clearest example of fraud in the process of ‘consultation’. To reduce active public open space, from less than State recommended levels to less than half the recommendation, not only in the ‘neighbourhood’ but in the locality generally is exactly opposite to social inclusion. Integrity is mentioned in the next section, but the MOU with Subiaco was predicated with the need to provide 1.73 Ha active POS to replace Kitchener Park planned for such purpose. The changed wording to suit untrammelled residential development that eliminated the clear intent is another example of integrity among the DWA staff and ministers.

Environmental Integrity - A 6 Star Green Star Communities v1.1 rating is sought for the proposal highlighting the environmental credentials of the proposal. Landscape treatments, including the woody meadow, highlight environmental imperatives of low water use and sustainable landscaping outcomes. The woody meadow planting further provide an opportunity to create local habitat and ecosystems. Concomitant with the above, water sensitive urban design initiatives are utilised throughout.

Building high-rise apartments on land planned for recreation is quite the opposite of any integrity, let alone environmental integrity. Assuming somehow that attaching Greenstar ratings in breach-of-integrity buildings could be considered as an ‘environmental’ benefit is laughable to any reasonable person with a long-term interest in the locality. Removable of the stands to allow return to recreation facility was rational and welcome move. Building over the rail line shows integrity in making use of vacant crownland at minimal cost

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb to taxpayers. Yet the minister trotting out discredited propaganda that ’lowering the rail line’ was the counter to environmental integrity shows the quality of this proposal.

Recognising the sensitivity and responsiveness of DWA to this significant issue I do not hold my breath. It has treated any counter-view so appallingly that this difference will fall into the same filing locality within the Department.

2. Tate Street, West Support Leederville Concept overall looks great but a few things I'd like to emphasise include: 1. Please keep concrete/pavement areas minimal and provide as much shading as possible (as a comparison, the Elizabeth Quay precinct has way too much concrete/paving with no shading, making it too unbearable to access the space on sunny days). 2. Pedestrian connection from West Leederville through Haydn-Bunton Drive is important to retain/improve. 3. It would be good to keep dog walkers in mind for the public realm planning - at present, I only ever see dog owners utilising the oval in the mornings and evenings. 4. The pergolas at Market Square can sometimes attract people who choose to drink or sleep in these areas. It would be good if the shaded structures in the Subi East public realm are designed with passive surveillance in mind to deter this sort of behaviour. 5. It would be good to see sustainable initiatives incorporated in the public realm such as recycling bins, solar powered lighting, water reduction and reuse, etc. 2. Address not Support supplied We considered the proposed development applications, and we have a suggestion:

According to the plan Subiaco Road will be connected to Haydn Bunton Drive. We strongly think that the whole project would create more livable and enjoyable environment, and the project would be more successful as a whole if Subiaco Road would be made a shared access area for cars, pedestrians and bicycles. It is important, because there are two big public schools located on the road, one large sport oval, one park and access to Telethon Kids Institute. It is obvious that it will be a lot of pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the Bob Hawke College and Perth Modern school, and it is important to create a safe passage for kids to these schools, so shared use for Subiaco Road, and slowing down the proposed car traffic would be very important for safety and usability of the whole project. 3. Churchill Avenue, Comment Subiaco Hi, Do you have enough seats for all our elderly residents and those who want to relax? Do you have water fountains for drinking, refills and dogs?

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb You forgot the dogs!! There are already 700 dogs in Subiaco. There are no off lead parks in East Subiaco except for Mueller Park. This is up to 2km from some residents homes. Old dogs and elderly cannot walk this far. Mueller park is surrounded by four busy Rds. We need a small low fenced section for small dogs at the westerly end of the Oval park. (With seating and water fountain please.) You are neglecting a vital part of our community but still have time to remedy the problem. PLEASE?

4. St Leonards Support Avenue, West Generally Supportive. Leederville For consideration - 1. Inclusion of cricket nets? 2. Pedestrian/cyclist bridge over railway at St Leonards Avenue. 5. Barker Road, Object Subiaco The plans for Subiaco Oval reserve are completely against any good planning. There is huge demand for active recreation space, and that will be a disaster when 6000 more people move into the area. Where are the primary schools? There will be one (insufficient) school oval. Build is will overlook the school oval! Traffic chaos will perpetuate, with two major high schools within 200m. Such bad planning, and exacerbated by the lack of active open space. 6. Coghlan Road, Object Subiaco Landscaping and Public Realm DA should encompass the entire reserve as Crown Land. The plans fall well short of community standards and expectations. There should be no land sold to developer for blocks of high-rise flats. The Reserve in an important part of the character and history of the area. See the Petition dated 1903 which spells out the purpose of the Reserve:

To the Honorable The Commissioner for Lands

We, your humble petitioners, ratepayers and residents of Subiaco, Leederville and West Perth, being interested in the preservation of the Reserve lying between Subiaco and Mueller Roads and Thomas Street and Rokeby Road, desire respectfully to bring under your notice - First :-- That the Reserve referred to is not secured to the people by a fixed tenure, and may possibly be diverted to other uses. Second :-- That we earnestly desire to have the Reserve placed in class A. for the health and recreation of the people forever. It virtually adjoins the three Municipalities of Perth City, Subiaco, and Leederville, and would prove a priceless boon in the future to the large population settling round it. Third :-- We therefore beg your earnest and favourable consideration for the prayer of your petitioners.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb And we, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c. The 1903 petition was favourably received by the Government of the day and the rest is history. The 14.4 Hectare "A" class Reserve 9337 was, 11 months later, created for the benefit of the Western Australian community, especially Aboriginal people who were given the opportunity to enter the city from reserves with a special permit to play football.

How could you not PRESERVE THE RESERVE from private developers? 7. Subiaco Road, Support Subiaco I really support maximum utilisation of a wide variety of local native plant species, with a special focus on including some threatened species where possible and also species that flower at different times throughout the year if possible and provide food and habitat for local insects, bees, birds and lizards.

These should be complemented by food trees/plants that can provide the community with local opportunities to pick fruit, herbs and vegetables in accessible locations. Other than native plants, food-plants, and essential grass for the oval itself, I do not think there is any place for non-native plants. 8. Francis Street, Object Subiaco I am fully aware that DevelopmentWA (‘DWA’) and its paid puppets at Element will just bin my response but will still summarise just a few of my thoughts and impressions of this not very carefully planned or designed Landscaping Development Application:

1. Report – Item 5.2.1 Scheme Objectives - Table 3 Sense of Place states ‘The retention of the Heritage Gates (and) redefinition of the 1938 Oval boundary...’will contribute to a sense of place’.

This is incorrect. The people who are trying desperately to preserve some meaningful football heritage in the precinct do not think so either. It is appalling that the merest nod to heritage has been given with the reinstatement of just four turnstiles which look mean and meaningless. ‘…Redefinition of the 1938 Oval boundary…’ is just another way for DWA to make a total dog’s breakfast of the size and orientation of the Oval to suit greedy property developer needs. Don’t make reference to the 1938 Oval boundary unless you plan to adhere to it – otherwise it is just a continuation of deceptive conduct and deceitful behaviour on your part.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb 2. Report – Item 5.2.1 Scheme Objectives - Table 3 Economic Wellbeing states ‘The quality open space will provide a place for future residents to recreate ensuring the ability to live, work and play in Subi East.’

This is incorrect. Future residents may well be able to live and work in Subi East but they certainly won’t be able to play there too. This is the basis of the serious concerns raised by current residents and ratepayers in Subiaco – that there is a massive shortfall of open active green space in this Subi East redevelopment. We will have 2,000 students plus 5,000 – 6,000 additional residents in this small pocket of the City with only the Oval for quality green space. It is beyond belief that in this current climate DWA and the McGowan state government have decreed that an infill area should have drastically reduced green space for its future residents.

3. Landscape Report – Public Realm Item 2.1 Landscape Design Subiaco Oval Master Plan The two diagrams/depictions of the Subi East precinct (Slides 8 and 9) demonstrate clearly just how little green space there is planned for this area. Despite the thick black dashed lines surrounding the green space in a desperate attempt to blur the boundaries in the first diagram, and the colourful pictures again trying to draw the reader’s focus away from the abysmal lack of green space the overwhelming impression is of swathes of concrete structures and hard surfaces interspersed with a bit of greenery.

4. Landscape Report – Slide numbers 26-34 inclusive, 38-40 inclusive, 44, 50 – 61 inclusive, and 64-66 inclusive

This total of 28 slides depicting residents/visitors milling around the Subi East precinct is my favourite bit of this farcical Landscape plan. Only six of the slides depict anything other than very passive recreation use – if this is the future of Subi East then perhaps the Oval could be turned into a cemetery as the residents would die of boredom in record time. Let me step you through some of the hilarious slides: o Slides 50, 52 and 53 each have a lone child kicking a football (or perhaps an empty jumbo jar of Valium) but based on the scale provided, the poor old kiddie has just 6 metres or less space for the ball/jar to travel before it hits someone sitting on a bench or walking past this highly unusual activity. o Slide 64 is special because it depicts TWO children kicking a football – but only 12 metres of space before it lobs through the entry doors to a concrete tower of flats.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb o Slide 60 ups the ante with a child on a scooter and three adults with bicycles. However, only one of the adults is actually riding their bicycle – presumably they must have to take turns sharing the limited space. o Slides 65 and 66 save the best for last depicting a few adults moving/jogging on the Oval – where else? The sky is dark and the moon is out, so obviously this is late evening/night when the community is finally able to access the Oval. Of course, it could be that the figures are actually running away as fast as they can from the concrete jungle – or perhaps being chased by police – but it is not clear exactly what is happening here.

While the slides show just small numbers of people around the oval, the distance restrictions of any lockdown would mean that the number of people who could safely access green space would be dramatically reduced. The slides show only extremely passive recreation use of the Oval precinct which is a real shame.

While I have made light of the many flaws in the Landscape Planning documentation, I seriously think the mental health and well-being of the residents would be severely affected by this mean and stingy allocation of open green space for passive and active recreation – sacrificing the welfare of the residents for the greed of property developers at the behest of corrupt Government. 9. Francis Street, Object Subiaco I have considered the Development Application for Subi East and am extremely disappointed that there is so little real open, green space for little children to play, bigger ones to kick a football or dogs to chase a ball. It is all much too designed, too many bidis, woolly meadows and art pieces for what should be just clear open space to do whatever the local residents and visitors would like to do. Subiaco has so little unrestricted green space. Mueller Park is empty most of the year, apart from a couple of special events and this is partly because it is much too "designed". The Oval, from what I understand is restricted most of the time to the use of Bob Hawke College so that open space is gone for local residents, who are the ratepayers and I presume be paying the upkeep.

Please submit a more open and green plan.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb 10. Rawson Street, Object Subiaco We don't need accommodation and apartments on the Subiaco oval site. We need more public open space. Now that the Bob Hawke College has been situated there, any further development should be educational not residential. Much needed primary and pre-school facilities would be appropriate and eliminate the privacy issues that will have serious future consequences associated with the high rise residential development currently proposed that will overlook Bob Hawke College. Any discussion with responsible educators will endorse this. Make this an educational site. 11. Cunningham Object Terrace, Daglish I am concerned that the underlying matters are being smoothed over with ‘landscaping’. The area of green space 1.7ha that has been misappropriated and stolen from the public must be ‘given back’. Once this has been resolved let’s talk landscaping- until then this is a pathetic public consultation. 12. Salisbury Street, Object Subiaco Good Afternoon

I have sent in a number of submissions in the past regarding the trees, vegetation and the cultural history of this Oval and Kitchener Park.

I strongly disagree with the - Transplanted Fig Tree - and the vagueness of this Landscape Plan. The 3 x historic Figs should remain together on this site . It should NOT be removed. The 3 x figs belong to the people of Subiaco and need to remain in Subiaco . The City of Subiaco should be able to keep the trees in the City of Subiaco.

We lost 3 other figs during the storm and the removal of the wall, and these trees should not be touched. The plan mentions nothing about the age of the trees, their history and it is written as if the community have never commented on them. I am shocked.

Half the trees the artist has placed in the draft will never grow as the apartments will overshadow them. As for the ' Green Link will run through the northern section of this site' where the pines are - it is a link of only few metres wide! Hardly a great green link and am disappointed once again that the community has missed out on keeping more active and passive green spaces.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb

As for the cultural history of Kitchener Park, it is hard to believe that all the history of this park has been ignored. I sent through many old TROVE newspaper articles about this history of tennis, bowls and other clubs at Kitchen Park, but it appears they have not been included in the history of the area. Very disappointing. This history starts around the 1920''s!!

Here is a link to tennis at Kitchener Park tennis and bowls https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=tennis%20kitchener%20%5Bpark

https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=bowls%20kitchener%20park&l- state=Western%20Australia&l-category=Article

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/37462682?searchTerm=bowls%20kitchener%20park

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/38002838?searchTerm=bowls%20kitchener%20park I have put in so many submissions, that I feel they have all been ignored. I think the overshadowing from the high density apartments will make this whole area a wind tunnel and very dark. 13. Salvado Road, Object Wembley I live a couple of blocks from this development but more importantly, I am actively involved in operating a community sporting club in Subiaco. I disagree with the State Government's plan to limit the only active space in Subi East to the footprint of the old Subiaco Oval. Exactly WHERE are all the additional people living in these new apartments going to play sport? (Please don't say Lark Hill Premier McGowan - you are embarrassing yourself). This is a very short sighted approach to planning. How are all of these people going to stay active when you give them just a postage stamp sized field to play on, and when other active spaces are at bursting point? This place will look more like Hong Kong before we know it. The council are useless at lobbying but the State Government care only about development and have not given adequate consideration to "whole of life" requirements. It is too late, I know. My comments are worthless (even though you call this public comment). There is no consultation. What a shame. The only way to insist on change is to vote governments out. Then the cycle begins again. 14. Zebina Street, East Support Perth SUBI-EAST DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AT LOTS 500 AND 501, ROBERTS ROAD SUBIACO

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb The following comments are on behalf of the Board of PerthAlive. The proposed plans for the development of the public realm and landscaping around the Subiaco Oval constitute the first stage of the Subi-East project and therefore set the standard and context for the subsequent built form stages of the project. As such, PerthAlive is keen to ensure these initial plans establish the quality and effectiveness in amenity and liveability we wish to see reflected in the later elements of Subi-East, and ultimately in the development as a whole.

Background PerthAlive is primarily interested in seeing the development of Multi-age Precincts (MAPS) in Perth. MAPs are large, vibrant mixed-use developments in already established areas, designed to suit all generations. They comprise at least several hundred dwellings within walking distance of a major transport hub, urban town centre and associated facilities. MAPS focus on social sustainability, with dedicated accommodation for a community hub and include an on-site service provider offering lifestyle and aged care services. PerthAlive provided input to the development of the Subi-East MasterPlan, and we were very pleased to see a number of key outcomes identified in the final plan that would contribute to Subi-East developing as a MAP supporting a vibrant and connected community catering for people of all stages of life.

Comment on the current Stage 1 proposals The current proposals appear very consistent with the vision and aspirations of the Master Plan. In particular, PerthAlive wishes to commend and support a number of the key elements: 1. Walkability New shared pedestrian and cyclist paths, shady spaces and related road parking and speed modification to accommodate pedestrian priority. Bicycle parking areas. East-west pedestrian route, encouraging movement to the internal public open spaces. 2. Connectivity Green route through precinct, linking Market Square to Mueller Park. Enhanced connections to public transport (train station, bus stops), encouraging reduced car dependence. Key access and link in case of future pedestrian bridge across Thomas Street. 3. Liveability Green community space (gardens, native plantings, exercise areas, gathering spaces). Multi- generational recreation and amenity in close proximity to (future) residents, for use of existing residents and visitors. Universal access throughout to ensure accessibility for all. Safe spaces with open views and lighting to enhance visibility, passive surveillance and hence safety. 4. Community

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb Community spine to facilitate social interaction, incorporating shade structures, garden beds, ablution facilities, changerooms and activated nodes (play, exercise, BBQs, seating) fringed by wide paths. Civic square for events. Oval and northern open space to provide opportunities for community events and activation. Proximity and design of the community elements in apparent alignment with the proposed future Community Hub.

Conclusion PerthAlive is very supportive of all of the key elements of the proposed plans for the Stage One development, and particularly those which support MAPS, as highlighted above. We expect that the proposed public realm and landscaping works will improve the amenity and liveability of the development, and act as a catalyst for further high quality in the built form as envisaged in the MasterPlan. There is one item that PerthAlive considers will be of central importance in ensuring Subi-East as an effective MAP, and that is referenced in the MasterPlan – the proposed new Community Hub to be developed by the Subiaco Council. Whilst the proposed works are consistent with such a community hub, the development of the community hub is outside the direct scope of the landscaping works. PerthAlive considers such a community facility to be essential to maximising opportunities for community engagement. It needs to be located in close proximity to the public open spaces and should comprise a covered lockable multi-purpose space with provision for furniture, storage, sound proofing, ventilation, lighting, power, water, kitchens etc. where residents and neighbours of all ages can come together for more structured activities (e.g. meetings, classes, clubs, creches, clinic s, guest speakers and special functions.) In view of the importance of the Community Hub to activating the community spaces, it would be helpful if the Community Hub could be developed in parallel with the current works. Recommendation: PerthAlive therefore recommends that the development of the new City of Subiaco Community Hub (precise location, design, business case, approvals etc.) be aligned with the development of the public realm and landscaping stage of the Subi-East development project, and that effective linkages are established between the two projects.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb 5. White Place, Support Subiaco 1. Re 2.6 Landscape Design shows "expected key route for school children from psp". Suggest inclusion of "expected key route for school children to PERTH MODERN SCHOOL. Improved lighting and access from the Southern access of West Leederville Station to this school also. Page 56 - Multi use Plaza shown at 6m is too low. Suggest as the Hi Rise Building is so tall that will overlook the landscape structures, taller structures similar to those in the Singapore Gardens by The Bay structures which are green structures be incorporated. These will give a green outlook to those in the High Rise over time and be a significant draw card to the area. Incorporate Lighting into the area as a draw card at night. 2. 3.2 pg 76 shows winding concrete seat. Suggest wooden top similar to those incorporated at Busselton foreshore. Also 2 Bike Structures shown on map but on image of bike park structure. Again suggest similar to those of Busselton Foreshore - Stainless Steel Circular very attractive design. 3. Final Suggestion - Incorporate a LABYRINTH. Many mental health benefits demonstrated by walking these and there are many mentally affected homeless in the area that would benefit and another drawcard/attraction to the area 6. Rawson Street, Object Subiaco In a previous submission I pointed out the amount of land in this location that was the Princess Margaret Hospital site presented the government with a unique opportunity to create a world class sustainable urban village with cutting edge technology and design. Instead we have Subieast where developers and government coffers will be enriched with high rise density at the expense of open space and urban design at its cutting edge best. With this pressure of population density the Subiaco oval site should be retained as public open space. It should never be used for high rise residential structures. Because Bob Hawle College has been established there the Subiaco oval site should be retained as an education campus. The only further development should complement this with urgently needed primary and pre-school facilities in Subiaco. Students would move through pre-school to high school graduation on the one site. Resources and facilities would be cetralised for efficiencey and economy. It would also avoid the inevitable serious issues that will arise regarding privacy currently of concern in any proposed high rise apartments that overlook Bob Hawke College campus. *The Subiaco Oval site should be remain as public open space. *Existing vegetation should be retained and integrated in landscaping.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb *No high rise apartment buildings should be considered. *Any construction should reinforce it as an education campus only. 7. Churchill Avenue, Object Subiaco The Development application cannot be properly accessed and SHOULD BE NOT APPROVED. It is fatally flawed as it is based on assumptions that are not correct. It does not significantly enhance the public realm for current and future residents of Subiaco and Subi East and fails to meet requirements of Clause 6.16 (2) of the SRS2.

The DA does not reflect feedback including 92% of over 700 respondents who responded to the state government survey and rejected the Minister’s vision outright. The DA does not reflect the community and council position and it fails to address government departments’ recommendations and/or guidelines, the adopted position of at least one Parents and Citizen’s Association (P & Cs) and the concerns of the West Australian Council of State Councils (WACSSO) which represent 800 or so P & Cs across our state. In my opinion the graphics contained in the DA are unworkable, dangerous, unsustainable and unhealthy especially given the close proximity of high rise flats on the edge of a school oval for the first time in WA. For a state developer and state government to plan and expect a 2ha school oval that already has another dominant users identified, the West Australia Football Commission (WAFC), to also provide for a minimum 2,900 or 2,720 new dwellings or the likely 6,000 plus resident on this side of the railway line is foolhardy.

It also does not take into account and holistically plan for the 1,500 plus new dwellings foreshowed on the other side of the railway line or plan for all infrastructure needs of a 10,000 plus increase in population likely with height bonuses often granted to developers for both localities. Where are the primary schools, roads, overpasses and so on which will increase connectivity and vibrancy between the two areas using the metro net philosophy? Based on the government guidelines it severely under delivers if residents had full access to the playing fields, less than 50% of recommended levels using 6,000 residents. Given this will not be the case and residents will have limited access and are unlikely to be able to access the shared school oval to after 9pm on most school nights it is unworkable, unsustainable and unhealthy.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb Henry Daglish and the community successfully advocated for this area to be set aside as an “A” class reserve. For this government and their developer to ignore people like Henry Daglish and the council and people of Subiaco today is unbelievable. To bulldoze ahead with these unhealthy plans in support of a blatant reserve land grab for short term profit and the benefit of their developer mates of what should be a forever people’s priceless reserve (descriptive words taken from the 1903 petition to parliament) is intolerable.

How can the state developer be the submitter and approval of the DA? The engagement of Element, a regular state government partner, as a firm to represent the state developer does little to distance or support what appears to be a process that is farcical with a likely outcome already pre-determined regardless of feedback. 8. Onslow Road, Object Shenton Park I am opposed to the DA. The landscaping should provide for more active open green playing fields, consistent with the Kitchener Common Master Plan. The use of the land to the west and north of the oval for high rise residential developments is not supported by the local community. The landscaping plan should serve the needs of the broader Subiaco populace more so than the needs of property developers.

9. Bagot Road, Comment Subiaco 1. Use of natural shade The design relies very heavily on the use of natural tree canopies for shade. It is recommended that tree selection consider canopy density, with heavy density preferred. It is unclear from the provided documentation if these plantings will be with mature trees. Most trees will require a minimum of 5-10 years growth to produce useful shade cover. The images in the landscape report show mature trees, depicting the area in approximately 15 years’ time. Therefore, the area would have insufficient and inadequate shade for at least a decade.

2. Use of permanent shade The only permanent shade depicted is in the northern public open space. This shade appears to include coverage of buildings such as toilets and change rooms. The shade structure depicted in the images is too high and too narrow to protect people from both direct and indirect UVR when the UV Index is 3 or above (in the summer months, this is between approximately 8am and 4.30pm). Shade structures should extend at least one meter beyond the actual areas of use. It is indicated that the shade structure will be constructed with PV panels and a planting system. To be effective, this structure needs to be solid from the outset, not reliant on using plants as the sole or main source of shade, as shown by this Darwin development.

3. Position of shade The images depict many commonly used areas that have little or no shade. These include seating, BBQs, the playground and areas around the oval that will be used for sporting and leisure activities. Until the trees mature, these areas (such as the ones shown below) will have inadequate shade, and will receive additional indirect UVR through reflection from the paving/ground. As Bob Hawke College students and staff will also be using the oval and surrounds, consideration needs to extend to their needs. As the development is currently depicted, the school will have to provide large numbers of portable shade (i.e. marquees) for any event that takes place on the oval, both for spectators and participants. No shade is provided for school events or for day-to-day activities such as PE lessons.

Summary of recommendations 1. Ensure tree selection consists mainly of dense canopies 2. Provide adequate shade (either temporary or permanent) while trees mature 3. Increase construction of permanent shade especially in areas used heavily by the public and by Bob Hawke College students and staff 4. Consider the size of permanent shade (height and width) to ensure adequate protection from direct and indirect UVR 5. Ensure permanent shade structures utilise UVR protective materials

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb

Overall, the Subi East Development shows very poor shade provision in the short term for the West Australian public until the natural shade canopies are developed. This poses a concern for the health and skin cancer risk of users and visitors to the site. 10. Stubbs Terrace, Comment Daglish I have concerns about: The extent of private development around the site - multiple high-rise buildings rather than more open space, and therefore The limited extent of open space, and lack of opportunity for a new Subiaco Market setting Lack of oppportunity for local clubs to use Subiaco Oval - Bob Hawke College will be the major user because the site for the college is so small 11. Larundel Road, City Object Beach The Development application cannot be properly accessed and SHOULD BE NOT APPROVED. It is fatally flawed as it is based on assumptions that are not correct. It does not significantly enhance the public realm for current and future residents of Subiaco and Subi East and fails to meet requirements of Clause 6.16 (2) of the SRS2. The DA does not reflect feedback including; • 92% of over 700 respondents who responded to the state government survey and rejected the Minister’s vision outright. • The high % of 500 plus submissions who called for the inclusion of 1.73 of active green playing fields in addition to the shared oval which provides very limited community use. • The community and council decisions and plan illustrated by the North Subiaco Structure Plan and the Kitchener Common Masterplan • The failure to address government departments’ recommendations and/or guidelines. • The failure to address the adopted position of at least one Parents and Citizen’s Association (P & Cs) and the concerns expressed by the West Australian Council of State Organisations (WACSSO) which represent 800 or so P & Cs across our state. • Ignoring the community and council who are against the unnecessary land grab of their reserve by a state government.

In my opinion the pretty graphics contained in the DA are unworkable, dangerous, unsustainable and unhealthy, especially given the close proximity of high rise flats on the edge of a school oval for the first time in WA. For a state developer and state government to plan and expect a 2ha school oval that already

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb has another dominant user identified, the West Australia Football Commission (WAFC), to also provide for the recreation needs of a minimum 2,900 or 2,720 new dwellings or the likely 6,000 plus resident, on this side of the railway line, is foolhardy and morally and ethically irresponsible.

It also does not take into account and holistically plan for the 1,500 plus new dwellings foreshowed on the other side of the railway line (Town of Cambridge) or plan for all infrastructure needs of a 10,000 plus increase in population likely with height bonuses often granted to developers for both localities. Where are the primary schools, roads, overpasses and future links which will increase connectivity and vibrancy between the two areas using the Metronet philosophy?

Based on government guidelines it severely under delivers playing fields. If residents had full access to the playing fields (the oval), less than 50% of recommended levels of the 6,000 or more residents would be met according to DLGSCI guidelines. Given full access is not an option, Subiaco residents will have very limited oval access making the shortfall of playing fields much greater. The Draft Shared User agreement indicated that residents are unlikely to be able to access the oval until after 9pm, on most school nights. That is unworkable, unsustainable and unhealthy.

At least three former WA Premiers including Lord Forrest, Henry Daglish and Sir Walter James must be looking down and shaking their heads in disbelief at what appears to be a planning disaster where government guidelines, community and other feedback and council and community plans and decisions are being ignored. These three former WA premiers were all involved in setting aside this area as a reserve for the health and recreation of the people from at least 1883. In 1903, the Mayor and first Labor Premier, Henry Daglish and the community successfully advocated for this area to be set aside as an “A” class reserve for the ‘for the health and recreation of the people for ever.’ It is unbelievable the state government and their developer would ignore people like Henry Daglish, the present council and people of Subiaco today. To bulldoze ahead with these unhealthy and dangerous plans in support of a blatant reserve land grab for short term profit and for the benefit of government developer mates using a forever people’s priceless reserve (descriptive words taken from the 1903 petition to parliament) is intolerable. 12. Toodyay Road, Object Gidgegannup As your Agency is continuing with your disingenuous ways I now submit an updated my ‘ Have your Say ‘ contribution to back my previous contact in my email dd. the 5th of December 2020 [ attached ] which was ostensibly pointing out to your Agency the following; THE PUBLIC REALM.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb A lack of sincerity being applied to a sense of place to the Public Realm of Subiaco, as an important Inner City Suburb, by your defiant threat in your ‘ WEST ‘ press statement [ attached ] dd. the 2nd of December 2020 of your intent to sell off part of the iconic since 1904 Subiaco’s Municipal Reserve , Subiaco’s PUBLIC REALM / TERRITORY / PLACE , to private developers for apartment plans proposed to be set around the Oval itself commencing in mid 2021, is a disgrace. . • This loss of Open Public Recreational Space, the ‘ very sense of place ’ , to private residential apartments, is nothing but disrespectful maledictive behaviour by your Agency towards the Subiaco residents, who already live here, in a biased favour towards your developers. • I have waxed lyrical prior, in my original submission, noting the intransigent behaviour of both your Agency, the State Government , the Premier and his Ministers named, and, how with clever innovative Design and Planning, the whole of the Subiaco Municipal Reserve that’s left can be retained for its original purpose as a recreational Reserve. • As previously flagged , it can be achieved by the strategic expansion of both the Railway and P.M.H. neighbourhoods , in particular by, • the capping of the Railway line from the Axon to the Thomas Street bridges, and, • The expansion of the P.M.H. site along the North side Hay Street of a very run down precinct to give opportune economic business and residential potential in regard to this precinct. • I note, the PLC meeting minutes deliberations clearly show this development idea, alongside and over the Rail issue, had been debated as a cost efficient METRONET Transport Orientated Development [ TOD ] initiative, the Committee agreeing it would be advisable and opting to obtain costing’s for such a Construction. These costing figures have never been officially publicly disclosed, and should be. • As the Railway Reserve is already State Government owned land it remains hard to believe that such a Capping [ not sinking ] of the Railway line would ever be a costly exercise ? ADDRESSING the HISTORICAL, HERITAGE and CULTURAL ASPECTS of the SUBIACO OVAL NEIGHBOUR HOOD. • Your John Hackett advised me in an email dd. the 29th of January 2020 [ copy attached ] that DWA could assure me that these attributes would be correctly addressed in the MASTERPLAN stating; “ recognising the significant heritage and cultural aspects of Subiaco Oval to its context and will celebrate these aspects in the Subi East project . “ Nothing could be further from the truth. The following is missing from the MASTERPLAN , and has yet to be properly addressed ; 1. The Circa 1934 Heritage listed Main Entrance Gates. As mentioned prior the Colgan Industries preservation work on the gates building has been 1st class , however the replacement of only 4 x replica turnstiles is a scurrilous interpretation of the Historical,

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb Heritage and Cultural values established by our forefathers in 1935. At least 8 x replicas should be replaced to give this restoration some respect for our Football History @ Subiaco Oval. In its present state of restoration it is incorrect and disrespectful to the Subiaco community for your Agency to say the restoration is complete. I have been waxing lyrical for urgent bollards placement along Hadyn Bunton Drive to prevent another vehicular accident hitting this Heritage building and I cannot see where this will be implemented in the Plans. 2. The ‘ redefinition ‘ of Subiaco Oval’s 1938 boundary size and orientation. When all parts of the Subiaco Community have been crying out for more recreation playing space for their sporting bodies the reference by your Agency, Minister Saffioti and the City’s Mayor of a return of the Oval to the local Community is nothing more than false promises and bald faced lies, IMO. The fence to fence dimensions of the Oval length is 200 m and should be reinterpreted as the new Oval width. The width should be ‘ reinterpreted ‘ to approx. 142 m as the new length to accommodate your AFL sized Oval on a North South facing axis .. . The ‘ redefinition ‘ should extend to an innovative change of Design within the LANDSCAPING PLAN to reorientate the Oval, to the 1930’s historical decision by the football’s hierarchy at that time, to now set the Oval playing surface on a North South facing axis. Such a decision would not counter any Heritage Council wishes as this 1930’s decision of Football’s Hierarchy is well recorded in the Ovals History and would also have a two- fold compliance with current O H & S regulations regarding North to South orientation of sporting playing surfaces to combat sun in the eyes and in Subiaco Oval’s case nullify the Sea breeze issues. Logical argument states this must be affected now before the questionable Landscaping Plan destroys this Subiaco icon any further. This would enable a logical efficient use of the playing surface by an increase of the present proposed 2 x Auskick Ovals to 3 x Auskick Ovals with 60 m widths and allow 4 x 5 m boundaries between them to fit within an altered Oval length to its new width by the axis reorientation. It would also require the repositioning of the out of place North side seating, the AFL size goal posts all prematurely installed by the ‘ interim ‘ landscape plan and include the repositioning of the Floodlights. By referencing to the 1938 Oval dimensions and then not adhering to it flies in the face of your John Hackett’s statement, as mentioned above, in his email to me dd. the 29th of January 2020. 3. The Oval’s use agreement. For over two years now the State Government Agencies and the City of Subiaco have been in long winded negotiations with interested parties to negotiate an “ Oval playing surface use agreement “ and all we have heard is that the B.H.C . have agreed to reduce their original exorbitant ‘ use ‘ claims down to an only slightly reduced exclusive use of the Oval between 8 : 00 a.m. and 4 : 00m p.m. weekdays apparently, but no word about use on College school holidays.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb Logically when the State Government recompensed the WAFC, the Eagles, the Dockers and probably the Subiaco Football Club in excess of $ 160 mil to relinquish their holdings on Subiaco Oval to relocate elsewhere, and, for the unacceptable move for the WAFC to also accept funds to repay their commercial loan, there should be no reason whatsoever for the Commission and these AFL clubs to be offered any further lease or holdings anywhere on Subiaco Oval precinct to build their H/Q nor to reuse the Oval playing surface. There is plainly just no room for them anymore on the community’s Subiaco Municipal Oval. 4. The since 1921 - 100 y.o. SANDOVER MEDALLIST’S WALK traditionally along Roberts Road’s footpath. The announcement that the iconic Walk will be ‘ reimaged ‘ or ‘ reinterpreted ‘ as displaying only the recent medal winners in the proposed underwhelming cheap and nasty Cultural Space will be a complete travesty showing no regard for this icons’ football history @ Subiaco Oval in its’ centenary year . To add to what I have said on this issue prior I advise you of the following : - The Sandover Medallists’ Walk remains to this day and into the future as the best way to honour these football champions in a ‘ walk ‘ and should not be tampered with only embellished with such improvements as a Gazebo at the start and incorporation into an expanded Bidi Trail Concept, IMO. . • It is said that this medal was established as a result of the urging of past champion Subiaco player and Sandover Hardware Store employee Tom Outridge who in discussion with Sir Eric Sandover convinced him that a medal award should be coined to honour/be adjudged by the umpires as the fairest and best WAFL player each season. It was established with a prestigious medal count ceremony and presentation and each recipient would be further honoured for perpetuity by laying a tablet commemorating this feat along the Roberts Road pathway on the South side of the Oval. • Of note when you take into account that the indigenous population of Australia is only 3 % then particular notice should be recorded that 13 % of the current medal winners are of Aboriginal descent, hence my suggestion the ‘ walk ‘ should be incorporated into the Bidi Trail Concept. • I note that the 2019 and 2020 medal recipients have not had their day in the sun laying their tablets yet and the Plan discloses that this issue will not be resolved until 2023. A very disrespectful slight on these champions achievements when the ‘ walk ‘ is in its centenary year. This plan must be scrapped immediately and revert back to the logical relaying of these 112/113 tablets back traditionally on the Roberts Road Footpath , albeit as we suggest, to the West starting from the Subiaco Station / Rokeby Road end heading East towards the Heritage listed gates. I have just received advice from the WAFC that the future of the SMW is still a work in progress which their WAFC Heritage Committee has not yet delivered any recommendation to the WAFC Board about the ‘ reimaging or otherwise ‘ of these tablets.

No. Submitter Public Comment Street/Suburb So, your advice to the public gives the impression that you have received permission from the Sandover family and the WAFC to go ahead with your now proven ‘ spurious ‘ plan is not correct and must be removed immediately from these plans , without fail. The public and the WAFC must have unequivocal apologies. 5. The BHC HARD-COURTS placement on the SUBIACO MUNICIPAL RESERVE LAND. • I have received copies of the original Development application papers from EDWA, and, • from their information I received they have put the onus for this issue in regard to DWA’s approval dd. the 26th of November 2020 squarely on your Agency’s shoulders to produce it together with any advice about the advertising process and any objections / feedback on this issue. • The ‘ temporary ‘ Hard-courts should not be built on the Subiaco Municipal Oval. As you have curiously ‘ blackballed ‘ myself from receiving such written answers to my questions I will now make an FOI application in this regard to your Agency.

For you to say in the PUBLIC REALM and LANDSCAPING PLANS in item 5.2.1 Scheme Objectives – Table 3 “ The quality open space will provide a place for future residents to recreate ensuring the ability to live, work and play is Subi East “ is nothing more than destructive ‘ spin ‘ as by the further erosion in taking away more 100 y.o. public open space on the one hand when you are proposing 2000 Students @ the B.H.C. and up to 6000 additional new residents settling here over the next ten years , on the other, this statement is but another DWA lie , and cannot be sustained.

I will be lobbying amongst my peers and contacts as to how and where I can lodge a formal complaint about the untoward behaviour of your Agency with regard to how you have handled this project seeking either a formal enquiry into the process and the untoward resolutions you have reached , ignoring the Public’s protestations.