Opinion: Dissent on the rise over high rise

People living in luxury apartments not likely to use public transport.
People living in luxury apartments not likely to use public transport.

I AGREE with Michael Bond (Southern Gazette, August 29) about mid-rise housing and CAT-type bus services for South Perth rather than a vertical city.

Luxury high-rise apartment dwellers are not the type to use public transport because privacy and convenience are what they treasure.

Their vehicles add to nearby traffic and air pollution along busy roads.

Modest height limits in activity centres and 4-5 storeys along transit lines are easily enough to accommodate the projected population growth within the existing built-up area.

Justification for bonus height is further weakened with no train station at South Perth on the horizon unless privately funded and now bonus height approval is no longer dependent on buildings having a predominantly commercial element to provide work destinations.

The market for high-rise apartments is said to be over-supplied and some development approvals have been ‘parked’, perhaps to be on-sold before construction begins.

When devising a town planning scheme, it is not possible to visualise the scale or the impact of every conceivable type of development which may conform to the technical requirements of the scheme.

Discretion to refuse a development application provides a practical way of avoiding developments which may have an adverse impact on amenity, even though they otherwise comply with the provisions of the relevant scheme.

So residents ought to inform themselves via the City of South Perth’s website about scheme amendment 56 – directed solely at the civic triangle site (near the zoo) where the developer has proposed two towers of 96 and 83m (30 and 25 storeys or so).

CAROL ROE,

Manning