Perth Voice Interactive

VINCENT and Cambridge councils may share a boundary, but they’re worlds apart when it comes to verges.

Vincent mayor John Carey was quick to highlight his council’s popular “adopt a verge” program when news hit about Cambridge council literally bulldozing a Wembley resident’s lush verge garden.

The reasons given for clearing the 250sqm verge of about 3000 plants were neighbour complaints and safety concerns.

Mr Carey says his council, “loves that residents green their verges and wants more of it”. Vincent even helps residents dig plots, and provides mulch and vouchers to buy native tree plants.

North Perth woman Laila Hinsman and two Norfolk Street neighbours are three of Vincent’s 168 residents who’ve personalised their verges since the program started more than two years ago.

The program is so popular 31 others have expressed interest.

“We’ve made a meandering pathway through our verges with a water feature and … swing,” Ms Hinsman says.

“Kids regularly stop and play.”

Vincent chief executive Len Kosova says the council has only received one complaint relating to the program and it was about vegetation being too high and blocking views.

“This was resolved by the adjacent property owner trimming the vegetation to a lower height.”

Bayswater’s green plan

Bayswater councillor Chris Cornish wants to take his council’s greening policies a few steps further.

First, he says, “let’s restrict the amount of hard surface, or anti-environment stuff like AstroTurf, to 30 per cent on verges”.

The council’s committee meeting this week discussed several development applications to rip out verge trees to make way for cement driveways.

Some driveways would take up more about 60 per cent of a verge.

He also wants to create a “significant tree register” so trees on private land are publicly recognised and better protected, and put a price on tree amenity.

The latter — if he’s pushing for a tree policy similar to that of Stirling council — would involve giving trees monetary values based on size and age, for example.

It would not be uncommon for developers to pay the council $12,000 to chop down a visually pleasing tree. Currently, if residents want to axe a verge tree, they only need to pay for the tree’s removal, plus $500 to the council to plant another elsewhere. Cr Cornish expects to table ideas in council meetings in a few months.

by EMMIE DOWLING

HUNDREDS are threatening to bring a “thing” to parliament house at noon next Tuesday, February 23, to urge the Barnett government to abandon its vague anti-protest laws.

Three-hundred people have pledged to attend and another 600 are following a Facebook group opposed to laws which make it an offence to carry a “thing” with the “presumed” intention of impeding lawful activity “if the contrary is not proved”.

That means if you’re carrying a thing it’s up to you to prove you’re carrying it for a lawful purpose, it’s not up to the police to prove otherwise: it’s a reversal of the burden of proof and presumption of innocence that have been cornerstones of our justice system since the sixth century AD (“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” — “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies” The Digest of Justinian).

Protestors plan to bring “things” en masse, with one activist suggesting a shoebox with a hole cut in it for your hand, an homage to the Addams’ Family’s pet.

The Government says it’s being deliberately vague, citing anti-logging activities where protestors use “things” to chain themselves to trees or bulldozers to prevent tree-felling. One method cited is thumb locks: a protestor uses ice water to shrink their thumbs, sticks them in the locks and then they swell up, making it extremely difficult (and time-consuming) to remove before the loggers get back to work.

Another device named by the Government is the “barrel lock”: “Protestors use a large steel barrel with a hole in each side. Protestors then place their arm inside the barrel and using various means lock their arms to something within the barrel. The barrel is often weighted with cement and lined with random pieces of steel to make moving or cutting through the barrel difficult and dangerous.

The bill would aim to make possessing such devices an offence if “the circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion” that it’s to hinder lawful activities and if “the contrary is not proved”.

The vagueness is causing wide concern: Mark McGowan has pledged that if Labor’s elected he’ll repeal the law, assuming it is passed, the Greens have been fighting it this week in parliament, various farmers groups, unions, Perth churches, environmental and Aboriginal rights groups also oppose it.

The United Nations Human Rights Office also came out against the bill, issuing a statement saying the law “would go against Australia’s international obligations under international human rights law including the freedom of opinion and expression as well as peaceful assembly and association”.

With a penalty of up to two years’ gaol or a $24,000 fine in aggravated cases, Mr McGowan says “these extreme laws could be used against farmers, church members, conservationists, local community groups, workers or anyone involved in a peaceful protest who are deemed to be an ‘obstruction’”.

by DAVID BELL

LOCALS are trying to raise $20,000 to save this jacaranda from being axed following last week’s approval of divisive plans for a seven-storey apartment complex on Bayswater’s main drag.

Keith Clements is spearheading a campaign to relocate the tree, which is at least 60 years old, from its 9-11 King William Street address to Bert Wright Park, just a few shops down the road.

He’s asked Perth’s Arbor Centre for advice and understands $20,000 will cover the costs: the developer would also need to agree to halt construction work for three months to allow movers to soak roots before the move.

“It’s a beautiful, deciduous tree which is worth saving,” Mr Clements says.

Developer Pete Adams, from Yolk property group, failed to respond to the Voice’s questions.

Five-storey cap

The campaign comes after the metropolitan central development assessment panel last week approved Yolk property group’s $7 million, seven-storey apartment complex at the site — despite the council’s five-storey cap for the area.

The DAP’s three appointed panelists, Charles Johnson, Ian Birch and Luigi D’Alessandro, gave the green light while the two council representatives, Chris Cornish and Terry Kenyon, argued against it.

Cr Cornish warned the DAP against ignoring 600 petitioners and setting a precedent for future development.

Cr Dan Bull, a lawyer, observed the debate and is frustrated by the system.

“It’s a really sad state of affairs,” he says. “We’ve got a panel who’ve used the council’s planning discretions, which are in place for heritage considerations, and applied them erroneously to get this development across the line.”

Mr D’Alessandro also sought but failed to slash the council’s $80,000 parking-in-lieu fee.

Mayor Barry McKenna says the council has not yet discussed what options the council has to stop the development.

In October, the panel rejected Yolk’s initial seven-storey proposal because it was “bulky”, saying five storeys would be better. A tweaked version, with larger setbacks for upper levels and more brick, was tabled following mediation with the state administrative tribunal.

by EMMIE DOWLING