HIGH RISE ‘DISASTER’ THREATENS FREO HERITAGE
HERITAGE expert John Dowson says Fremantle faced a high rise disaster if the City allowed buildings of up to 15-storeys “on every street corner” so it can accommodate 10,000 extra people by 2046.
The Fremantle Society president who has lived in the West End for more than 35 years warned the process to attract a ’thought bubble target’ of 10,000 people was flawed and should be deferred until next year.
Council voted after a two-hour debate to send the draft planning scheme to the planning minister.
“The scheme map before you in our view is a high rise disaster and it will do great damage to the world famous human scale of Fremantle. I’ve never seen a place more dirty, depressing and off-putting. You have a lot of work to do in the city besides sticking 15 storeys on every street corner.”
He said a planning expert should be appointed to ensure significant places such as the West End are better protected. The community must be kept informed and involved, he said.
Cr Andrew Sullivan spoke about government targets, shopping, squeezing balloons and reactivating spaces under a new planning scheme to drive out the homeless and anti-social behaviour referred to by Mr Dowson.
“If you want those spaces not to be like that, you need to actively fill those spaces,” he said. “The more people you have in your spaces, the safer those spaces become.”
Cr Sullivan said in 2011 there were 28,500 people living in Fremantle: “Our own target, far from being a thought bubble … is 50,000 people by 2046. It is a more ambitious target than the one the State Government has set for us (44,000 by 2050).”
He said since 2011 the City had added about 7000 additional residences in Fremantle: “We’re on the way. That’s about 3000 new dwellings. Have you genuinely noticed a negative impact by adding those 7000 people? I don’t think most people would even know that 7000 people have suddenly arrived in Fremantle.”
‘Suddenly’ is misleading as 7000 people did not just roll up one year but over 15 years.
What is clear is Cr Sullivan is heavily invested in the proposed new scheme and welcomed the community to become involved in shaping the future of the city.
Cr Jemima Williamson-Wong said the process was not flawed: “At this stage, we’re asking the minister to allow us to advertise it for public comment.”
This could take up to two years.
She said staff put in a lot of work over the past year into having conversations and public meetings about how to draft a new scheme, noting high rise is not envisaged for the West End.
“But we do need increased density elsewhere. The heights that are identified through the scheme doesn’t mean we are going to have blanket wall-to-wall 15, 12 or nine storeys. We can’t put 15 storeys in the West End, but we also can’t put 15 storeys where there is no availability for us to create public realm.”
Cr Melanie Clark took a similar parochial line to Cr Sullivan: “Being able to determine what’s for us, I feel it is really important we as a community determine what’s right for us. People from outside are not the custodians of this place today and not passing it on to the people of tomorrow who will be here.”
Cr Frank Mofflin raised concerns over the level of community consultation and also called for deferral of the item because of ‘too many unknowns’.
Cr Clark said there was still work to be done: “We have spent an inordinate amount of hours reading, asking questions, really testing things. This has been something that has been thoroughly developed to date.”
Not so, according to Cr Pip Slaughter who said a few nights earlier members of the planning framework committee formed at the start of the year, “came away thinking that’s a lot of 15s, let’s have another look even though we have been through so many workshops”.
Cr Geoff Graham said he had been out of the loop in the development of the draft plan: “My biggest beef with these amendments … they were not supported by officers’ comments, they were done at a meeting. I’m not happy at the way this process has been done.”
He said he would not support any amendments presented to council, only to backflip and support them as debate continued: “I’m not afraid of heights in Fremantle, in certain areas.”
Cr Sullivan also raised the idea of council wanting to resume land under the new scheme for public purposes.
Cr Ingrid van Dorssen opposed the idea: “Land ceding is a very heavy handed approach and shouldn’t be done lightly. Setbacks are a much more appropriate tool to use if you want road widening for trees.”
Cr Williamson-Wong agreed and said there were legal risks when land is reserved for public purposes such as road reserves. Future councils could face substantial compensation claims by landowners, she said.
Cr Slaughter added there was not enough information about the impacts of resuming land under a new scheme.
Cr Sullivan acknowledged councillors’ concerns but he said no one had come forward with a solution: “Fifteen years later it is a bit friggin’ frustrating to not have any of those things resolved and leaving it to the whim. Setbacks will not work. You can ask them (developers) to set back the building but that doesn’t mean you get to use the land. It doesn’t get you the street planting. It doesn’t fix the things that are already broken.”
Cr Sullivan’s amendment was lost.
