89 trees to go | Fremantle Herald Interactive

What impact is increasing density is having our lives and health and where will it stop?

Source: 89 trees to go | Fremantle Herald Interactive

10258215_243835125820509_4951937900324180812_n

Here we go again with more of what Fremantle Council loves, increasing density. Just for the record I’m not blaming COF for this one. Just saying they love density at any cost.

More trees to be cut down to make way for more high density developments. Why is it not possible to subdivide the blocks if need be and keep the trees as a mandatory condition of the subdivision. 

We have just see what happened to the Kim Beazley site which lost over 100 mature trees thanks to Fremantle council approval. Burt St is getting R100, parts of WGV are heading for R160, McCabe St, is heading the same way. Only last month parts of South St are being looked at for R100 as well.

Right now there is a community backlash against the PFL, quite rightly if they are going to be flattening people’s homes if it’s not needed. Why is the PFL is constantly being branded a truck sewer, it’s the car and other vehicles that make up the bulk of the traffic. The higher councils drive density, the worse that congestion is going to get. It’s fanciful to think the state government is bringing light rail to Freo in the next couple of decades. The higher the density the worse congestion will get. So everytime Freo council infills, increases density they add cars to the roads, then protest when the state government plans to build roads to accommodate the increase in traffic being partly driven by councils increases in density.

So we are set to get higher density, more congestion, less green space and eroded green canopy, more anti-social issues and in general a lower standard of living just to suit the ideology of a few on council so they can obtain their next step up the political ladder. Blindly adding density without the services needed to make it function is folly indeed, one that we the community will pay for.

I know some will say claim building roads build congestion, well its the increase in population that adds cars to roads.

Just like the PFL will add more trucks to our roads, really, only more containers being off loaded will increase trucks on our roads. If you want less trucks driving out of the port buy less stuff u don’t really need, or buy more local products, means less importation, better trade balance and more jobs for Australians. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Check out these links so you can an idea what other parts of the world are up to.

Fremantle Councils Ideology Over World Reality

Fremantle Bias Where We Need Balance

Leave a Reply

17 comments

  1. There is a state government mandate to increase density over the next 30 years and each council has to play it’s part.

    There is an interesting article in the paper this morning in which the State government is reeling back some of the originally slated planning changes because of WGV situations. However, that won’t stop developments like the WGV development as this was rezoned by council to a much higher density.

    I think the council has done what it has been asked by the State Govt. It’s maybe gone a little too far for some in some developments, but that’s been because the developments have asked for greater density and have been pushing for it.

    The density and planning changes have been called for because of population growth predictions whilst limiting urban sprawl.

    I totally agree with you in relation to the need for roads and transport infrastructure. Opposing the PFL without putting forward any credible and fully costed alternative is fanciful and, as you have rightfully stated, shifting the traffic to Rockingham/Kwinana.

    • Mark says:

      Yes i know its Barnett gov that’s driving the issue, i imagine the ALP would have a similar thought process.
      There are plenty of areas to do in fill without screwing functioning suburbs as I noted from the paper with my blog http://fremantlereform.com/parking-roads-transport/perth-low-density-stuns-planner-the-west-australian/
      The real issue is that COF lives in the delusion that these pockets of high density are suddenly going to make light rail viable.
      All its going to do is add more stress/congestion to our already full road network.
      Go to a planning meeting its just full of pissed off people complaining about neighbours inappropriate developments, or blocks of apartments going in with inadequate parking, for the numbers of residents. shadows on the homes, loss of light etc, etc.
      So take a nice peaceful happy suburb and turn it into a battle field with neighbors turning on each other due to the council drive for higher density.
      It is slowly damaging what makes fremantle fremantle, ie great friendly neighbours living in harmony.

  2. freoishome says:

    Who owns the land where these 89 trees are to be logged?
    Paul

    • Mark says:

      Hi Paul dont know, I had asked, just waiting for the answers, I thought it may be government, as its sat for so long it does not even have a lot number but does R40 zoning

  3. Diana Ryan says:

    I am part of the problem (re larger and larger freight task).

    I used to exercise a lot more conscience bias about what I bought and from who, as part of supporting local producers, etc. I wouldn’t buy a Coles brand food product out of principle, for example. I hated the whole “Walmart-izing” of our system and what is was doing to suppliers in our own country.

    Two years ago, however, I finally began ordering in products from eastern states, general products I use regularly and can save on if I buy in bulk, rather than buy locally. I did it for two reasons – as my living costs went up I needed to make wider savings to cope, and since giving away cars 12 years ago I need the home delivery option that online buying ensures.

    The timeframes and costs I encounter indicate my goods are being trucked in rather than shipped or flown, but in addition to how everything else I buy or need is most likely being trucked, shipped or flown in anyway these days, I add to the freight task with the choices my budget and market forces shape now, so I can stretch my dollar further.

    I am one of the causes of more and more trucks on our road (particularly couriers) as a result.

    My friends purchase fridges or shoes from overseas, as its cheaper to do so. Online buying saved Australia Post’s bacon, but, yeah, as individuals make more and more individual purchase arrangements online, separate to that which is brought in for mass public consumption, it all adds to the freight task, the fuel used, the pollution caused.

    I read a while back that Coles has been transferring its freight task from the eastern states from rail to trucks. I don’t know why that was, but presumably it comes back to cost and logistical preferences, just as with me.

    Yes, Scott Ludlam is right we buy a lot of crap that isn’t necessary, but the choices I make today made my life more affordable. I doubt I would go back to the biases I once exercised, after 30yrs plus years of trying to be more considerate and conscientious in my purchasing habits. I’d rather put the savings I can make now in to rising health insurance premiums.

    • Mark says:

      Diana I think that possibly makes you part of the solution, as buy what you need and your purchasing is not full of wasteful stuff you don’t need, just see what is thrown away, on road side collection on a regular basis.
      If one of chairs has a lose leg I fix it I’m not throwing it out to buy new ones.

    • Mark says:

      Diana that would make you part of the solution not the problem, as you are buying what u need. I doubt you are one of the ones who is constantly piling up road side collection of a never ending stream of stuff you don’t need, or needless replaced on a regular basis.

      • Diana Ryan says:

        Actually, I don’t! Now I think about it I don’t tip-pass (no car) and only once have I used the option of my council’s annual hard rubbish pick up from verge.

        I recycle via bin, worm farm and compost heap, which I make work in a tiny courtyard where I now grow beets, tomatoes, capsicums and baby spinach all year round (trick is to lift produce up to the sun).

        Sometimes I don’t put out my putrescibles bin for three weeks. No need. Great fitting bin lid. (In addition to vacuum removal of rubbish, I think councils are investigating using a sensor emanating from pick up trucks, as each knocked down house gets replaced with two more, to determine whose bin really needs removing that week, such is the logistics of population growth).

        I buy a lot of second hand stuff, wrestle furiously with crap generic gaslift replacements for office chairs. I’d love to splash out, but then I’d blow all that I’d gained from doing it the hard way.

        BTW, Mark, Obama and the EPA have begun the task of cleaning up US trucking emissions, a change we need to make here and soon:

        VIDEO: http://finance.yahoo.com/video/truck-emission-proposals-issued-150100192.html

        ARTICLE: http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-administration-fuel-efficiency-standards-epa-truck-rules-will-boost-us-clean-1975695

        • Mark says:

          Great articles i have also been reading about the hydrogen power truck market that california and parts of europe is trialing.
          Just have a diesel blend here as Europe uses, the 80/20 would be a great start on emissions from trucks.
          The whole issue that the political wing of freo council is running is not trucks or containers its all part of their anti-car campaign.
          Ban the roads, ban the cars, its just the next step in the social engineering experiment which residents of Freo are part of like it or not.
          The report from CUSP does not stop/reduce a truck mile it appears to actually increase them, with Lat 32. Not to mentions costs about 8-9 billion.
          New Port
          New train Tunnel
          New transit network area/hubs for containers
          A new massive new road to Tonkin Hwy
          The classic is if you read lat 32, that anti PFL crowd says should be built, it actually requires Roe 8 to be built anyway.
          http://latitude32.com.au/project-overview/location/

          Does it have a cost analysis ratio return benefit, a business plan all costed out.
          If so I would love to have a look.

          Sadly its all politics 101, but who’s actually addressing the issues freo has right now?

          Can you imagine the up roar from some of the anti-PFL crowd when the gov plans massive dredging of cockburn sound?

  4. freoishome says:

    I don’t think it reasonable to blame CoF or its councillors for trying to meet the demand for higher density. It is a cheap shot!

    For more than a decade I have suggested, but feel very much a lone voice, that we need a State Planning Dept that plans for the whole State not as it has done for at least 3 decades been Perth centric. It isn’t just the State Gov’t, the academics, Town Planning experts, Building reference groups, architects, media, all are Perth centric.

    At the federal level our pollies are saying that Australian population is likely to be 35million. WA is 1/3rd of Australia with nearly 50% of its coastline, and much of its resources covering about 2,600,000 kms2. Even with Perth’s urban sprawl it is currently using about 1000kms2. Not like we have a shortage of land in WA!

    There is currently a State proposal for public comment Perth at 3.5million. Our visionary leaders see WA remaining as just a puny 10% of the population, and with that of course is the relative puny power and influence, that 10% provides.

    Why isn’t that plan about WA at 10million? Why does WA only have a single Metro trying to be
    All things, to All, in perpetuity?

    Why aren’t we talking about the location of WA’s next two metros, say Greater Southern and Pilbara City. That is cities of 250,000 by 2050, and 500,000 by 2100? Independent cities of consequence, designed to meet the needs of 21st century and beyond, instead of 19th century Perth trying to change at a revolutionary pace.

    Paul

    • Mark says:

      Paul they haven’t just done what Barnett told them to do they have gone further.
      I didn’t realise that the council was there to represent Barnetts whims?
      I thought they where elected to represent the residents and rate payers, its not many meeting when you don’t have people there complaining about density issues and its impacts.
      You say wa planning is perth centric, your right, well thats exactly what freo is, its all about the CBD. Same mentality.

      Couldn’t agree with you more about the state developing new centres for greater metro development.
      Though if you want to talk about the environment, at point do we say the planet can’t handle any addition to its population. I don’t hear any discussion on that .

    • Diana Ryan says:

      Paul, you know that massive efforts have gone in to developing Pilbara Cities, Super Towns (also up north), the Barnett Govt intend to extend the gas pipeline down south at own cost, as I understand, to aid development. A lot of work did go towards trying to decentralise our clustering, but it encountered, and continues to, many setbacks that can be beyond govt control – such as banks withdrawing lending for homes up north as iron ore prices fluctuate.

      Have you researched how Queensland came to have six cities outside of each other? I don’t recall anyone has, and I know Barnett made reference to how he’d like to see that for WA. Its not as though the Lib/Nats in particular haven’t put a lot of effort in to it (much to the chagrin of those who were angered by so much money going in to the regions, and the criticisms there got pretty petty too, re Royalties for Regions, ie, money spent on singing toilets, painted cows for a festival – we have flash loos in Perth and a whole bunch of funky “wants” rather than “needs” too….).

      It appears to have been very difficult to do, extending intense development out beyond Perth. I know you have the right thought process, and I’m from the Pilbara and we know how much city dwellers demand (ie, Brendan Grylls annoyance that all Perth ever seems to want is light rail, when the regions need help with basic infrastructure). But what do you suggest against what was earnestly tried for years and at a cost of hundreds of millions?

      • freoishome says:

        Diana, These are not Super Towns. All that is being done is pork barrelling for the Nationals. They have no vision for Metro sizes cities apart from Perth getter ever bigger, ever more conflict, ever more congested, etc. The scale of the development in places like the Pilbara is so small they are not sustainable, never were planned to be.

        My suggestion is totally different. If outline plans for two land areas each of a 1000kms2, ie, comparable with Perth, were ear marked for development, then released at rates designed to create demand and interest. Then a whole raft of things would occur. Firstly land prices in these two places would be markedly lower than Perth. Secondly, as this would be a developers dream, the first things to change would be the industrial infrastructure for large scale permanent building would begin, eg, brickworks, prefabrication, roofing, and then a growing permanent labour force.

        None of the latter exist in these so called super towns, hence building is slow, expensive, etc.

        These Metros would have their own deep water harbours state of the art transport and utility corridors to Perth, their own AFL clubs etc. All designed with modern ideas about sustainability, including the many things you raise so often on behalf minority groups, people in greater need.

        For developers, they wouldn’t have the now standard local groups who quite rightfully are standing up for retaining the amenity in their locale that is often their reason for living where they do. None of this constant conflict. Perth could then change at a generational rather than revolutionary pace.

        Please Diana, Mark, Matthew, I would love to hear your thoughts. Isn’t this type of imagination the only way forward, for a solution to meet our 21st and 22nd century aspirations.

        Matthew, imagine the Power and Influence of WA, being the only State with 3 metro cities, all places of significance in their own right, then debating and bargaining at the national table. The alternative seems to be everyone continuing to treat us in WA as the galahs!

        Paul

        • Diana Ryan says:

          Its not a bad idea, Paul, not at all. My thought is a suggestion: Why don’t you ask for a sit down with Nigel Satterley on this? Or the new, younger power structure at BGC? Is it a developers’ dream? It could be.

          I suggest these two developers for a number of reasons. A few years ago I was suddenly contacted by a Principal at one of the state govt development depts – because of my years in the Pilbara. Did I know of any developers who were developing housing that didn’t need big infrastructure in place, so housing could be rolled out in remote/regional areas quickly? He was looking at water, power, sewerage options.

          I did, in that I knew Satterley Group’s eastern states operations had been developing use of hydrogen fuel cells for housing – each cell would power one and a half houses and was attached to the housing itself. Cost had come down to about $6000 per house, and I did suggest it to the Dept of Housing’s Strategic Projects division, as it moves to develop a whole precinct in Bentley (Regen project). This hasn’t gone anywhere here, that I know of, but I believe Satterley did deploy it in estates over east.

          I’m not flogging the fuel cell, but I applaud Satterley’s fresh ideas and flexibility.

          Yet Nigel Satterley is not a fan of infill, and would prefer to develop whole new areas, which he is along the eventual Yanchep rail line. He was also in the plane load of developers Barnett first took up to the Pilbara, when he worked to develop Pilbara Cities.

          Satterley, according to Prof Newman in a local northern suburbs paper a few years ago, was even interested in doing what Delphin Lend Lease did in the eastern states: incorporate a public transport system in to the new estate, in to its costs. I’m not sure that went anywhere either, but who knows the extent of what such an influential developer is prepared to go, or would like to, if he could?

          BGC are different again – they pop out those rapid build houses, don’t they? I don’t know what market they are for, but there has been a generation change at BGC, with Len Buckeridge’s passing, and one of Colin Barnett’s former top advisors is now in a development role there – and he is a huge James Kunstler fan, for instance – the end of cheap and affordable oil (the Long Emergency book). He would have been across Pilbara Cities as he was Barnett’s advisor during that time.

          From little linkages big things grow – we are not that inventive here, Paul, you know that. Is it possible to get, say, CUSP behind you to approach these developers, perhaps? For a series of interviews even, perhaps? And maybe speak to Labor, who’ve just had a shadow portfolio change, but Peter Tinley is across regional areas too. What are WA Labor going to do for our future, beyond the city-centric?

          Written quickly.

        • That last sentence did have a megalomania type of ring to it, however, I do see your point. But, and I answered this in another follow up to the same point. You NEED JOBS.

          There isn’t a State Government that would reject any company that come to town with an idea to set up an industry that would provide 10000’s of permanent jobs. If a new oil or gold despoit was found just outside of Geraldton, I’d be buying land in Geraldton tomorrow. If it turned out this hypothetical mine could support 2000 permanent staff for 50 years, you would see a huge growth to the town and the people working there would live in the place. This would then trigger off land developments, etc.

          Its all supply and demand driven economics. Which is the way of the world.

          Its actually a lot easier to utilise an existing town, such as Geraldton and Albany and grow these towns more. But, I get back to the need for jobs for people. Reading this article and its comments again made me think of the “MYER Principle”, ala Fremantle’s own situation. If you remove a large, the largest, retailer in Fremantle, you will lose a lot of other jobs and money that was greater that the sum of the trade purely with that retailer. Why? Because it has staff, it draws people in from far around who spend money at other shops, etc.

          Its generally why you have a main retailer in a shopping centre and lots of smaller specialty shops. The specialty shops don’t nearly do as well, without the main draw retailer. Unfortunately, the current council doesn’t believe this is the case and thinks Fremantle’s retail will be ok with only specialty shops. Wrong.

          The same basic principle can be applied to any number of towns, but in reverse. You add a MYER to Geraldton and you will draw people into the town. You will draw people who live further out, into the town and the overall economy of the town will grow, because there are more people in there spending money, more often. The people who work there, live there.

          To get from 50,000 to 500,000 is a 10x increase and to achieve that in 50 years will take a lot of forward planning. A lot of it, as Diana as stated, is based on market forces. The Federal government has been trying to pitch the Ord, and the Food economy in the north as the next big move. However, you need to convince the people to ‘go there’ and to ‘have a go’ and ‘stay’. The North, is hot, dry and there’s not a lot to do. The schools aren’t great, etc, etc.

          You cannot force people to locate. You have to provide incentive. Free land. Free schools. Free healthcare. All cost money. People aren’t willing to relocate to the back-of-beyond for less than $100,000++ in wages these days and a lot don’t see it as a life-move. WA is arid and people want to live near the coast. I don’t doubt that more money should be funneled into these regional cities, but these cities need to do a lot of the heavy lifting themselves.

          • Diana Ryan says:

            Hey Matthew, Paul, I seem to recall Tony Galati is now lamenting being an early mover in to Ord River area, because he’s being killed by the cost of water for his big plan of 2014:

            “The Galati Group is on the hunt for more land on the Ord River irrigation scheme after revealing it wants to make WA self-sufficient in bananas within five years. Family group boss Tony Galati said the ambitious plan would create a $50 million a year industry based out of Kununurra and employ about 500 people…It will also send Queensland growers around the bend because they now supply more than 90 per cent of the WA market.”

            Market forces, logistics, and horrible (unexpected? tons of water up there) realities.

          • Yep. I remember reading that article. If he can’t get the concessions, of they cannot renegotiate the cost of irrigation, he will pull up stumps. He’s put millions and millions already into it. I think he picked up a farm from another company that went into receivership, possibly helped by the same reasons.

            Federally, I’m not sure what concessions they are making available. There is definitely going to be growth in cattle, but that realistically doesn’t need a lot of workers and a lot of those are already up north.

            Canarvon is another possible regional town that was looked at. Part of the problems with northern coastal towns is cyclones. Although, there has been a lot of talk of setting up a major military base in the north. If something similar to Townsville was planned, then that would help things along. The vast majority of jobs and job creation needs to come from the private sector for any scheme to work.

            You need something like a Silicon Valley to create the type of growth they are talking about.

%d bloggers like this: