Perth Voice Interactive

PAUL GAMBLIN is a spokesperson for the Leighton Action Coalition. In this week’s Thinking Allowed he responds to the Cook government’s grand scheme for the Future of Fremantle.

WE’RE pleased this important document is out and we look forward to further discussions with the next government about it. 

There was much to commend the overall Future of Fremantle process, however, by the time it considered the Port Beach and south Leighton sections, it felt rushed, constrained, unimaginative and under-baked. 

The resultant FoF indicative scenarios for this section were underwhelming, to be diplomatic, all showing versions of heavy engineering, like groynes and seawalls, across this much-loved natural beach, and a narrow coastal setback, with very little public space and parking areas. 

Unsurprisingly, this caused widespread and growing concern across the community. 

We need a much wider coastal foreshore reserve than the images showed, for public recreation and parking, given it’s already very hard for families to access the beach now, let alone in future. 

The best way to respond to erosion is restoring the dunes which will then do the heavy lifting, naturally. 

While the latest report lacks detail, it is notable that the images do not show any groynes or seawalls. 

This is somewhat reassuring and probably indicates the government’s accurate reading of community sentiment on this retrograde and counterproductive approach to coastal management in a setting like this. 

However, the reality is that avoiding seawalls and groynes will require the restoration of coastal dunes, and that means Port and Leighton needs a much wider foreshore reserve than the report shows, also because car parking and public facilities need to be provided behind the dunes. 

Bottom line

If we want to protect and retain natural, beautiful beaches and provide public open space – to serve beachgoers from 100 suburbs – the area needs a much wider foreshore reserve than the current proposal shows. 

However, we know this proposal is indicative and so we are optimistic that the government will engage with the community in good faith to get this right. 

The rubber will hit the road when the government undertakes an analysis to determine the setback distance that is required to establish the foreshore reserve requirements, that is, where the boundary should be between parks and recreation and urban zoning in the area where the old oil tanks stood, now owned by developers. 

That, along with the resolution of the Future of Fremantle project, confirmation of transport and road requirements, needs to be done before the developers can start planning for the remaining urban zone. 

That’s the formal stipulation of the WA Planning Commission. 

So there’s a long way to go but we’re hopeful the government planners are going to engage broadly and focus on the greater good. 

After all, Port Beach and south Leighton will be the only wide, natural beach and coastal environments for the tens of thousands of people who would live in the renovated port, and the hundreds of thousands of people who rightfully consider this coast to be their local beach. 

The Port-Leighton precinct will only become more precious over time, particularly as beaches elsewhere on our coast are sadly lost or severely damaged by erosion and armouring. 

A wider foreshore reserve will also enhance the amenity of the still vast urban development area that would lie between the current Bracks Street and the railway line. 

We don’t get second chances here.