As
a hills resident I appreciate the opportunity to walk daily through the forest
surrounded by the beauty of local flora and fauna. However, I do not believe that
campaigning against intensive development in the hills is simply about protecting
a certain lifestyle. As highlighted in previous comments, the region is a water
catchment area and an important habitat for species such as the black cockatoo
(which I occasionally see on my walks). In addition, cities need green belts to
maintain water and air quality and they should be preserved now and into the future
for both local and international visitors. I agree that Perth's urban sprawl is
not sustainable but believe that development should be concentrated in regions
that are closer to the city that already have the infrastructure (including public
transport) to handle the demands caused by an increase in population. I can understand
that the hills would be seen as a lucrative area to open up for development (as
a university student looking for some quick money I could even benefit by getting
paid to camp out if the land is released!). I know the following message has become
a cliche but decision makers still do not seem to be listening: "Please put
people and the environment before profit and "progress"!" Posted
by: Vanessa Kewan of Lesmurdie 11:26am today Comment 19 of 19
My
decision to live in the hills was purely a lifestyle choice. I love that the bush
is so accessible, the beautiful wildlife, the quiet the space and the lifestyle
that these things bring. If I wanted to live where I could reach out and touch
my neighbour or listen to his toilet flushing have cafes, restaurants, shopping
centres and supermarkets all close at hand I would have bought in a built up urbanised
area. But I didn?t, I made a conscious decision to live in the hills for the above
mentioned reasons. Why is it so bad to want to protect and manage this area properly
for now and the future? Because once it is gone it is gone forever. Let?s get
smart and learn from other examples the good and the bad, instead of looking back
and realising what we have lost for good. Posted by: Donna Tasker of Boya 6:28pm
July 05, 2006 Comment 18 of 19
What
a pity you chose to present the article as a case of NIMBYism. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The real MAIN ISSUE as I see it, is ENVIRONMENTAL, protecting
what we have left of the forest environment which is so essential for our future
and the future of our grandchildren and their grandchildren. The Hills are the
LUNGS OF PERTH and the Water Catchment for Perth. In an ideal world none of us
should be living in the hills. Over the years, Developers, Main Roads and Water
Corporation have been systematically reducing the forest and if it continues,
there will only be one or two small National Parks left. Unfortunately, whenever
there are plans for a new development, the chosen site is normally forested areas
and not previously cleared farming areas. Newcomers to the hills are knocking
down the native trees and putting in palms. Our tree dwelling native fauna, cockatoos,
and other birds are being rendered homeless and their food supply is drying up.
People keep dogs and cats that are further reducing the ground dwelling fauna
and small birds. Some people even shoot the kangaroos and deliberatly run down
the blue tongued lizards (who mate for life) Some people even complain about the
honkey nuts and the black cockatoos, and cut the trees down so as not to have
honkey nuts falling around. Honkey nuts are food for the black cockatoos which
are now endangered. For the sake of the future generations it is imperative that
there remains a decent greenbelt to the east of the coastline. Of course, Real
Estate agents need developments to ensure their future incomes. None of these
people care two hoots about the future environmental consequences of dense development
in the hills. All they see are the dollar signs. A couple of years ago, during
a discussion regarding future development in the hills, I was told by a decision
making official " Look Linda, lets face it, The planet is dying anyway. What we
are doing now is just speeding the process up by two or three hundred years" [verbatim]
On another occasion, during a Council meeting ,a member of the public requested
that Council defer a decision allowing Water Corp to clear a large area of forest
until all Councillors had been given all of the facts. She addressed a previous
Shire President of that time, and said "If not for your sake Mr President but
for your grandchildrens sake" His answer to her was, " Doesn't worry me, I havn't
got any" (grandchildren) [verbatim] What is strange though, is that Council
will not allow some people to subdivide already cleared blocks, but give the go
ahead for developers to clear large tracts of bush for new developments. So you
see, these are the attitudes of the people in power, who don't give a care to
the legacy we are leaving for future generations. It would be nice if the people
of Perth were made aware of the environmental consequences of continued clearing
in the hills. Posted by: Linda Epton of Mundaring 4:04pm July 04, 2006
Comment 17 of 19
But living in the hills can be an up and down experience.
Those kangaroos are artful buggers - they gobble up my wife's pot plants and bounce
up and down on my vegie patch faster than Rolf Harris's wobble -board! Posted
by: Collywobbles of 11:56am July 04, 2006 Comment 16 of 19
Hold on to your hills....fight for them.
I've lived in Mandurah for 15 years and it breaks my heart to see what is happening
here. We used to have kangaroos in our yard....not anymore. Now it's money, money
and more money, and mansions....no more room for animals or working class people.
It's heartbreaking and a disgrace. Oh and just one small point to the first letter
of Marilyn Reader of Victoria Park. Koalas are not bears :-) they are marsupials....quite
different ! But your letter was good. Posted by: Katie Green of Mandurah.West.Australia.
4:40pm July 03, 2006 Comment 15 of 19
Thank God someone is taking a stand to protect
an area that is so important to all of us who live and work in Perth. Just because
we have a minerals boom here in WA and this is putting pressure on housing, does
this mean that we annihilate everything to accommodate it? The hills region is
not only beautiful and an attraction to both locals and visitors, it is a vital
part of our daily lives. If they are degraded then so will our water and air quality
- do we really want to end up like Los Angeles? And what about the delicate balance
for the flora and fauna? Queensland has been hell bent on destroying the Koala
Bear's habitat, much to the amazement of the rest of the world, in the name of
progress do we want to follow that example? I, like so many other West Australians,
believe there can and should be some balance to future development and this wholesale
destruction of the environment has to stop. Come on Alana, make a name for yourself
in the history books, take a stand with the people and preserve these precious
areas for future generations. Posted by: Marilyn Reader of Victoria Park
12:49pm July 03, 2006 Comment 14 of 19
This started as a local issue but research
uncovered the fact that many such high density townsites are planned throughout
the Hills. These will involve the clearing of large areas of land, home to flora
and fauna whose existence is threatened. If you visit the website www.saveperthhills.org
and download the ?Google Earth? link the plans for the first 2 developments have
been overlaid on the landscape. The level of clearing required is easy to see
? small blocks where the trees are and big blocks on already cleared areas. The
Hills are an icon like Rottnest to the people of Perth and the thousands of visitors
who enjoy them each year. They are a main water catchment for Perth. The idea
of discharging treated sewage into the many waterways and sending it down the
hill is going to have an impact on all of Perth. The push for legal protection
is intended to save something of great value for the generations to come who will
be living in a very overcrowded world. Posted by: Mike Davies of Stoneville
12:25pm July 03, 2006 Comment 13 of 19
There'll be those from 'the suburbs' or people
looking to buy land that will consider those that reject high density townsite
develoments, as selfish. Why should 'they' get all this land when people in the
suburbs have such limited space? The reason is clear. Those that have bought in
a hills/bush environment have made that decision to suit their ideals and lifestyle
(in the same way someone that choses to live in a suburb near the beach or near
public transport etc makes a lifestyle decision) Protecting that investment in
lifestyle and property value etc is only to be expected (IE it is not greed).Developments
that focus on larger bush lots are not only in keeping with the 'Hills lifestyle'
but are also more environmentally sustainable and leave large areas of our bushland
opne for Native animals etc. Our family has worked very hard (and continues to)
to be able to afford to have our ideal home in our ideal environment. We are active
in the local community, we volunteer for the local bush fire brigade, and we have
many many friends and neighbours that feel the same way. We will fight high density
development in this area. Posted by: Alan Jennings of Gidgegannup
12:16pm July 03, 2006 Comment 12 of 19
After backpacking to over 25 countries (on
a shoestring), we decided that Perth is the best place in the world to live. We
think the Hills are especially unique. We have a vision to open a small eco-friendly
guesthouse so that travellers from around the globe can enjoy what the Hills have
to offer i.e. bush walks, Kangaroos in the wild and beautiful waterfalls etc.
I have not lived in the hills, I grew up in Nedlands - not by money but in the
Church Manse. After spending whatever spare time I have up in the hills we know
this is the place for us. We recently bought a hills property but unfortunately
we found out about the new developments after purchase. Now our vision to live
in the peace of the Hills is threatened by the proposed developments bringing
over 6000 cars next to our property. Believe me, I am not opposed to development
- being an interior designer I rely on development for my work. We should be putting
high density housing near to existing hubs close to train lines. All the well-designed
cities around the world have a great deal of development on train lines, why not
increase the density of the inner city and leave the hills area for visitors to
enjoy on weekends. Posted by: Julianne Hurst of Maylands 10:15pm
July 02, 2006 Comment 11 of 19
as a former resident of wa, i am surprised that
a state that has so tragically succumbed to urban sprawl isn't getting behind
efforts to prevent the situation worsening. any forward thinking city can see
that poorly planned, profit driven high density housing is creating problems for
the community not solving them. the only individuals to benefit are the developers.
Posted by: sian Davies of melbourne 9:53pm July 02, 2006 Comment
10 of 19
This is an interesting topic as the growth
of our city is reaching/has reached its limits of reasonable growth... Perth is
a sprawled city and it seems to me that we need to draw a line and confine this
sprawl by encouraging high density housing closer to the city along existing arterial
routes - especially train lines. Putting high density housing in the hills along
the boundary of John Forrest National Park is madness. Perth is a beautiful city
and the treed hills are the filters for the air we breathe. Many of us bushwalk
or cycle in the hills and we must preserve what we have before it's too late...
otherwise Perth will be a boring city of suburbia like everywhere else. With Perth
growing at the rate of around 500 people a week, we need to accept that people
are going to need to live somewhere but it's not right to turn the hills into
suburbia. I congratulate the Sunday Times for raising this issue and hope that
the hills do get preserved for our the future generations of Perth. Posted by:
Jeremy Hurst of Maylands 8:53pm July 02, 2006 Comment 9 of
19
Backyard-ism, my foot. I live on an 800sqm block
in the hills and feel that the comment from Forrestfield is not in fair spirits,
but rooted in misguided impressions. That suburb has, in the past, also had compelling
reasons to protect their area by resident groups bringing issues of degradation
by over development to the notice of others (refer to the Bush Forever Sites)
? with much success I might add. Enough said. I feel the issue of primacy is the
water catchment that the hills area represents. The high density development that
is proposed will cause degrading of the water catchment capacity of Perth. We
are spending enormous amounts of money on desalinisation efforts, while these
developments will subtract from that effort greatly. Development is not a bad
thing, in fact it is essential, but the hills are more important to us all in
a need for a sustainable city than to simply allow them to become another closely
housed suburb. What is needed is sensible, well-thought through development that
will work for all the people of Perth. Consider the long term effect of high density
- use the hills but don't abuse them. They don?t just belong to the people who
live in them. Come up and have a picnic one day and see how it is not a sea of
rooves but your backyard. The hills with their somewhat rural aspects are still
ok, but they are under great pressure. The hills are only a tiny mediating fringe
surrounding a desert locked city. The hills of Perth are important to us all.
Posted by: J of Perth of 7:15pm July 02, 2006 Comment 8 of
19
The concern about high density in the housing
in not just a concern for those who live or visit the hills. If I lived in Fremantle,
Joondalup or elsewhere in Perth, I would still be concerned. Keeping the hills
green is important for all of Perth - especially in terms of water catchment.
Bricked up streets with wall-to-wall houses is not that conducive to water catchment
for our dams. There is also the issue about the lack of services (doctors, roads,
schools, sewerage, water treatment plants, etc.) that is also of great concern.
Maintaining the "character" of the hills is one thing but preserving a natural
environment for Western Australians is quite another - and the more important.
I hope others who enter this debate will also consider the broader issues, not
just the obvious ones. Posted by: M.Northcote of Hills 5:59pm July
02, 2006 Comment 7 of 19
I agree. 2000sqm sounds reasonable. Posted by:
Deborah Lister of 5:33pm July 02, 2006 Comment 6 of 19
Infrastructure in the hills is stretched
as of right now. The addition of several thousand more people would have major
repercussions on already poorly maintained facilities (such as roads), let alone
the damage to the environment. I don't believe that most city dwellers are equipped
to live in an area where all drinking/washing/gardening water is collected from
your roof, power outages can last over 24 hours, doctor appointments need to be
made a week in advance, and fires can be extremely large and are put out (in the
main) by community-minded volunteers. Certainly the recent increases in population
of "outer" hills towns haven't resulted in similar increased membership of the
volunteer fire brigades. Posted by: Niland Stewart of Perth hills area
4:55pm July 02, 2006 Comment 5 of 19
What people don?t understand is that the hills
is both the water catchment for the city, and the air-cleaner. The ground up there
is rock and clay, water doesn?t soak in, so neither will treated sewage water,
which will end up in the Swan River. Developers of blocks smaller than ? acre
are allowed to clear the land of all vegetation, which means there will be no
trees left standing. They will replace them with lawns and flower beds, which
require herbicides and pesticides, which will end up in the Swan River. There
are no decent roads out to the development sites, no sewage plant and no scheme
water. Main Roads has built freeways north and south, not out to the east. The
trainline ends in Midland. The cost of providing services to the developments
will be triple the costs of connecting to developments down on the ?flats?. There
are no jobs in the hills, little public transport, and by the time the blocks
are built upon, petrol will be $2 per litre, making commuting expensive. This
is called unsustainable development. It is driven by developers with no interest
in the good of the community, only in making money. Do the math, 2600 blocks,
@ $150,000 per block = $300 million. There is lots of room still available in
Perth. Government red tape is what?s preventing it from being developed. Developers
are happy to sit on their land and watch the prices go up. Don?t be fooled. Posted
by: Norton Stevens of 4:40pm July 02, 2006 Comment 4 of 19
I live on a quarter of an acre in the Hills,
and believe that there is indeed a place for residential blocks of this size and
even smaller in the case of retirement units and housing for singles, for example.
But it is certainly *not* appropriate to build entire new "villages" remote from
existing centres as is the case with the current proposals. The topography here
discourages walking and cycling, and distances to centres are greater, but nowhere
in the plans is any mention made of new and expanded public transport services
that would be essential to service the proposed communities. To the contrary,
the emphasis is on widening existing roads and building new ones - which can only
be be to cater for anticipated massively increased traffic volumes. It is widely
accepted that fuel costs will continue to rise significantly, and car use is destined
to become increasingly unviable, especially for low income first home buyers who
form the majority of those drawn to relatively inexpensive new developments on
the urban fringes. These people will be faced with long and increasingly expensive
commuter journeys to their workplaces and difficulty accessing all but the very
few facilities established within their new suburbs. Traffic volumes on the Great
Eastern Highway have already grown noticeably in recent years. The planners envisage
car movements along Bunning Road (the main feeder from the Highway to the developments)
increasing to 9300 per day. Every one of these will end up on the GE Hwy. The
current traffic density on the Highway is around 10,000 vehicles per day, so the
new developments may almost double the amount of Highway traffic (but more so
during peak times). To call such developments "villages" is another part of the
con trick being perpetrated, suggesting historical and social elements that cannot
be "created" with the stroke of a pen, or the flattening of hundreds of hectares
of bushland. They will be new suburbs, but with fewer of the amenties and conveniences
of suburbs closer to Perth, in an area that is already under-serviced with its
present population. The land earmarked for the new developments is currently largely
bushland. This can be seen by visiting www.saveperthhills.org and viewing the
Google Earth display they have prepared. The bush in the hills is a recreational
resource for the whole of Perth and a 'lung' for the city. As mentioned in the
article, Adelaide and Melbourne have both recognised the importance of their own
ajoining hills to the nearby urban areas. It is important, and entirely appropriate,
that Perth does likewise. Posted by: Tony Troughton-Smith of Glen Forrest
4:12pm July 02, 2006 Comment 3 of 19
First of all, thank you for running this story.
The comments from the Real Estate President show an interesting reverse psychology.
In whose interests would it be to have lots and lots of lovely land to sell at
over-inflated prices? Protecting the Hills lifestyle is not just about the community
and a way of life, but about our beautiful trees and the natural habitat of our
ever decreasing wildlife. As usual this is way down on the list of any potential
development. When will enough be enough? Posted by: Sherry Bradshaw of Stoneville
3:42pm July 02, 2006 Comment 2 of 19
this is not a untypical comment from those"hill"
people ,they have a block of land to hell with every one else.if they were so
concerned about the geening of the hills let them give up there block of land
and no one will live in the hill. it is a sea of roof's now if one cares to look
at the so called green belt. Posted by: lawrence edward aylmore of forrestfield
8:15am July 02, 2006 Comment 1 of 19
