An affordable housing development in Manning was last night refused by South Perth Councillors. The property at 4 Downey Drive is owned by Homes West and has a dilapidated house on it. In partnership with an architect, Homes West submitted plans to construct a block of six affordable apartments with a street-facing office. They planned to sell four units on the open market, use the cash for more building, and to sell the other two units on a Shared Equity arrangement to approved buyers. The City’s planning officers recommended the application for approval by Council.
Manning has for many years comprised welfare housing, including houses for returned soldiers from the 1940s. At times as much as 50% of dwellings were social housing. That figure is now down to 17%. In recent years people have been buying land in Manning cheaply and building grand houses on their blocks. Three such new houses can be seen adjacent to 4 Downey Drive, above. The rest of the street remains mostly in its old form.
In September Councillor Sharon Hawkins-Zeeb, who lives next door, raised a petition of more than a hundred local residents to protest about this proposed building next to her property. At the consequent public meeting speaker after speaker rose to express their feelings against the amount of social housing in Manning. As each finished the crowd clapped and cheered. A representative of the Department of Housing pointed out that the development was not for social housing but that the units would be sold. His words appeared to be not understood by members of the crowd, as they continued to demand less Homes West tenants in their suburb.
At last night’s meeting Councillor Hawkins-Zeeb declared a “Proximity Interest” and left the room during debate. There was no debate. When the Mayor introduced the item not one Councillor even twitched to move or second the motion. Not a word was said. The motion therefore lapsed. Councillor Colin Cala then moved that the application be refused. He spoke of the size of the building being out of character with the streetscape, noting that as more good quality homes are being built their amenity should be protected. He said the proposed building would have far-reaching effects on adjoining property. Cr Peter Howat spoke to say that the building would affect the neighbours and was not in keeping with the neighbourhood. Not one person spoke up for affordable housing, for the needs of people who can’t afford big houses, for people such as nurses and police, whom Homes West sees as likely buyers of the proposed units.
The motion to refuse the application was supported by all except Councillors Lawrance and Hasleby. Of course I do respect that many in our City have homes that they worked hard for and can be proud of. I do ask: should not our Council represent all residents, not just the wealthy? What of young people who can’t afford a big house, the elderly with no family living at home, others who just don’t need all those rooms?
Click on Comments, below, to have your say, or just email me, to have your thoughts added to the blog.
11 comments:
Once again the noisy minority disrupt proceedings to get their way. If the building was approved by council, then why, on the whining of a few interested parties who turn up to a council meeting, was the ruling overturned?
If this was a multi-tenant Homeswest dwelling, I would empathise with the residents. However, they bought their properties knowing they were alongside Homeswest. Perhaps they should give the house there a bit of a spruce up and put a family in that was evicted by Homeswest elsewhere. They might then realise how stupid and small minded they were about this great development.
This is exactly why you are no longer a councillor - you are so intent on listening to your own tune that you don't hear what's said..
Great blog Pete
I would be interested to know what you consider to be an appropriate % of affordable housing in the City and what style you think that housing should take.
I for one am pleased that Council is starting to listen to ratepayers as it rightly should!
Sounds like a good candidate for a S.A.T. appeal. There has to be proper planning reasons for refusal, not just bigotry. If it went through S.A.T. successfully at least the Councillors would not be seen as making an approval. Win for everybody!
Well said Pete
Interesting philosophical situation perhaps, but looking at what they wanted to build I would be against it myself. terrible design and did not complement any of the new homes shown at all, so I can hardly blame them for being against it, whatever the social reasons.I don't think anyone should feel guilt for the poor at all. Start with the right design and they may have got a different result.
Hey I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your blog. You have good views, Keep up the good informative info.Good Quality and very informative Blog!!Find local architects and get prices for architect plans – residential & commercial designs. For more information you can visit ou website Builders Perth
The City of Belmont had a similar issue with an affordable housing complex in Ascot Waters.
Several of the residents there protested.
Fortunately, Council approved the development.
A mix of affordable housing in a local community also helps reduce congestion on our roads (as it means the lower paid workers don’t have to travel from the fringe of the metro to get to their work – congestion which apparently costs our economy quite a bit of money, not to mention frustrating many), it also reduces C-emissions (for the same reasons), etc, etc. There are many benefits.
Cheers,
Steve Wolff
Deputy Mayor, Belmont
Pete
Your blog on this issue is a perfect example of lack of objectivity and positive bias.
Unfortunately you seem confused by the difference between Homewest and the War Service Homes Scheme (“Scheme”). Ex-servicemen PURCHASED houses under the Scheme via a rent-purchase scheme which required a deposit of 5% for a land and house package or by obtaining a loan from the Scheme to buy or build a house. This is entirely different to Homewest which leases its properties to eligible individuals – there is no pride of place nor community investment in the same way that home ownership promotes.
It is disappointing that someone who purports to express intelligent opinion (intentionally) obscured such a fundamental distinction. Luckily the majority of City of South Perth residents actually have some intelligence and see your nonsense for what it is...
Gavan Sproule
By the way – I’m not sure what ‘cheap land’ means these days but $500,000 for a 500 square metres in Manning doesn’t seem like a bargain to me...
To Peter Best
I thought that it was worthwhile responding to your blog regarding affordable housing in Manning titled “What about the small voices”. I am one of those small voices who has recently bought in the area and who was also present at the meeting at where you argued that people rose to speak against affordable housing in the area. Firstly let me tell you that I have extreme empathy for those less fortunate who require government assistance in the form of state housing or any other assistance providing a higher standard of living. I believe that generosity towards the poor and needy should always be provided and feel proud that our country is in a position to do so. However the point that you have completely missed is that residents in Manning over the past few years have grown frustrated with the Department of Housing and their management of undesirable tenants. Being in need of assistance should not give you a free ticket to terrorise your neighbours with unruly and abusive behaviour, filthy living conditions and destruction of properties/ gardens. I am happy to send you photographs of properties fitting this description. This brings us back to the point of the Department of Housing and their proposal of 4 Downey Drive and the adjacent property. How can they ask us to trust them with this new development when the proof is all around us which gives us a good indication, and would lead a reasonable person to conclude, that in a few years time this new building may end up in the same stage of dilapidation as most of the properties they manage in the area. I suggest that you just take a drive in our area to see what we mean. Broken windows, rubbish dumped all over the front yard etc. You are out of touch and show a lack of listening skills for the concerns of an entire community who are pleading for basic human needs - a safe and caring society.
P.S I wonder what someone like yourself would do to make your street and the house your family lives in a safer place. After all, it is one of your election promises, isn't it?
Regards,
Maurice & Lis.
Post a Comment