Sign In
or Create a new account
Do you have any other comments, ideas or suggestions
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 5 Nov 2009, 8:10 AM
The overall concept of the playground has merit however, it is evident that there has been no consideration given to the needs of residents of the area, both existing and future. Placement of the park immediately adjacent to housing will generate noise pollution. Expedient placement of a large carpark, toilet block, kiosk and maintenance shed in front people's homes shows a callous disregard for rate payer's lifestyle. Please reconsider the orientation and placement of this park and create a buffer between the new park and land owners in what has been one of the most pleasant places to live in the City of Swan.
Comment 1.1 15 Nov 2009, 11:54 PM
I posted similar information in reply to you in the the other topic but its better in here. Placement of the park as an oval and bbq spot with vehicle traffic and attractions took place before the placement of the new close houses, and the other houses around have very long back yards with houses far from the play areas.
I think you are exaggerating things or maybe posted before you got all the information because there is no maintenance shed proposed from the info sheet and plans we received. There's no toilet "block" that you make sound like old traditional more…
Comment 1.2 17 Nov 2009, 5:23 PM
I think the new playground is a fantastic idea, there is no where else to go besides whitemans park, and theres always events held there, so sometimes is impossible to go and get a parking spot let alone a picnic spot.
Midland is finally moving up in the world, and this would be a huge face lift for the surrounding suburbs.
I was told by the shire that this land was designated years ago as a play area, and when i went to school at govo, half of those new enormous homes didnt even exist.
Maybe you should have researched within the shire about what the land will or could be used for before purchasing your property and building your $500k home on stilts over looking the river. Dont you think this would add value to your home?
We purchased our home next to a park, specifically for the kids and they love it. Then 2 years later the shire pulled it out and never replaced it, so now im on their case about this aswell.
Get off your almighty rich bottom and support the community and midland developments
Comment 1.2.1 17 Nov 2009, 7:05 PM
I think the playground is a fantastic idea too. It just needs to be placed a little more sensitively. I did do my research before purchasing 13 years ago and I kept up to date with the proposals for the area in the interim years - maybe you should look it up. My home has been here since 1920 and Govo wasn't built until the 1950's so you must surely have walked past it on your way to school as did my husband? Oh -btw - I am still trying to win that Lotto pot, so at present, I don't have a rich bottom. I am just an ordinary working Joe. One can always hope though.
Comment 2 5 Nov 2009, 2:43 PM
The scale of this proposed project appears enormous. I have to query whether so many separate play spaces, an amphitheatre, picnic lawn, BBQs, kiosk etc etc would actually fit in the area outlined on the map we were provided with by the City at the meeting of November 4. And… why has this large adventure playground been placed immediately adjacent to resident’s homes? Simply moving it north, opposite the canoe shed and reorienting it so that buildings and amenities are placed away from housing would quickly resolve all issues. Please consider the needs of City residents when planning for the future.
Comment 2.1 16 Nov 2009, 12:00 AM
A "large adventure playground" hasnt "been placed adjacent to neighbours homes". A large green park with a few small playground areas a long way away has. Have you even looked closely at the concept pictures on here and read what is proposed in each of the different areas?? There is mostly green lawn and nice quiet garden or walkway areas, with some medium sized play ground parts to the very west behind a noise bund furthest away from houses. As said above they cant "simply move it north".
Comment 3 6 Nov 2009, 10:44 AM
The final decision needs to be very understanding towards the existing residents, the proposed area is far to close to the residents that live there. I would like to know what security will be in place to prevent this area from being destroyed?
Comment 3.1 16 Nov 2009, 12:04 AM
Hopefully the shire themselves start coming on here to answer this stuff. I can only tell you what is in the information sheet I received yesterday, and there will be high tech security cameras installed apparently, plus the increased use of the park will make it safer. Its not far too close to residents at all. We arent living in Bullsbrook with kilometre wide setbacks from everything.
Comment 4 6 Nov 2009, 12:37 PM
Agreeing with Sam1. Have any costigs been done on maintaining such a grandoise plan? It will be hugely expensive to maintain and to ensure it has security or it will be destroyed at night time.
Comment 5 6 Nov 2009, 1:28 PM
This plan is quite ambitious and basically very good. The only thing that concerns us is the proposed position of a car park, maintenance shed, kiosk and toilets, practically in residents' back yards. Our quiet lifestyle, as we know it, would be gone forever. Pushing the whole project north would eliminate these problems for the residents. A point worth remembering is that the site used to be a tip not that long ago. What has been overlooked in all of these grand plans is the historical nature of the area with its connection to Governor Stirling. Some sort of commemorative statue or replica of the cottage would be most appropriate. Also overlooked is Blackadder Creek which should be brought back to life. The old jetty should also be rebuilt.
Comment 6 15 Nov 2009, 8:49 AM
We love the concept of having this type of park in our local area. As parents to 5 kids, with 3 under the age of 6, something like this would be of value to us, and the area. However we do have a couple of concerns, mainly for security against vandals and general riff raff. The area is quite secluded, and hidden well. Also what about the cleaning of the park. It is very unfortunate that this area is well known for it's drug problems, as well as aboriginal issues. How are you going to police the park from needles, fires, broken glass, and other stuff that could end up harming the children. We also feel that the local residents are right, and maybe moving the park up abit more, so that the carpark etc is not right on top of them. As for the noise of traffic, and kids, well I am sorry, but that is life, this is suburbia, and well lets be honest, what would you prefer, the laughter and happiness of kids, and a few cars, or the whole area to be demolished and transformed into more housing. I personally know what I would want.
Comment 6.1 16 Nov 2009, 12:14 AM
Good comment about life in suburbia, also seeings its currently a recreation reserve also. As I wrote above to the other person, the shire info sheet says they are putting in high tech CCTV to monitor it for people who shouldnt be there, which was also one of my biggest concerns because it looks so amazing Id hate to see it ruined by a few idiots. Its definitely something the shire should get right and hopefully we get more information on security plans. As for the carpark, did you know the proposed carpark uses the existing carpark and driveway bitumen?
Comment 7 15 Nov 2009, 9:13 AM
Some form of redevelopment of this area including the addition of a children’s play area would be welcomed. However, plans to convert this area into a major tourist attraction appear to have been developed with a total disregard for the local residents. Having bas/car parks and toilet blocks built adjacent to the backyards of a large number of residents is completely inappropriate. I would also question to wisdom of building something of this scale on a floodplain.
Comment 8 15 Nov 2009, 10:16 PM
Oh my goodness I cant believe most of the above comments... the negative NIMBYs are alive and well it seems! Shame on all of you I say. I was feeling so happy reading the other discussion with all the kids hopes and dreams, and then come here to see all the uninformed paranoia and preciousness - what a contrast!
Sorry but this has really got my wife and I worked up reading this. We live in Woodbridge nearby the park and think this is a near perfect use of the area with a good arrangment of green space and kids areas more…
Comment 8.1 16 Nov 2009, 5:42 PM
Chester, what a rant. We are not saying not in our back yard we are saying that if the park was moved literally a couple of hundred metres north we, the residents will not be so heavily impacted. As it is we will experience a huge growth in traffic past our house...But I havent whinged about that. You rant and rave about us Nimbys and then suggest at the end of it that perhaps the coffee shop should be moved! That is simply the sort of thing WE are asking for. I wonder if you were going to be so affected if your "holier than thou" attitude would prevail?
Take the log of your own eye and try and see it from our perspective..would supporting us with our request to move it north hurt you? No it wouldnt. How about being neighbourly and putting yourself in our shoes. We are NOT asking for anything over the top..simply some consideration.
Comment 8.1.1 16 Nov 2009, 7:17 PM
I am guessing you missed the clear reasons given for not being able to move the park "200m to the north"? Would supporting you moving the park north hurt me you ask? Yes, it would hurt my intelligence seeing as it clearly cant be done. So whats to support? Sounds like lemmings off a cliff to me.
And do you even know what NIMBYS are. My requests are nothing like yours. You just dont want it near you full stop. That is nothing like wanting the cafe moved towards the entry to improve income for the shire and in order to create a nicer looking arrival point to the park... they are constructive suggestions that work within the existing plans. If you have got suggestions for improving the design on the existing site, then thats what the shire is asking for, not people saying "move the park" five years after the shire already looked at the useable land, consulted residents who asked for exactly what they are providing, and decided to pick that spot.
Comment 8.1.1.1 17 Nov 2009, 10:48 AM
Oh Chester...Please don't tell me what I do and don't want...when you simply havent a clue. What we want is simply some consideration.
"it would hurt your intelligence as it clearly can't be done.."?
An important part of intelligence is getting the facts BEFORE you start commenting..and you simply do NOT have them. This plan has NOT been around as it is for 5 years..this plan is totally different. For starters it was planned for Ray Marshall Park. So please if you don't know the facts keep out of it as you are painting a picture of residents who have sat on their backsides for 5 years and are now complaining..and nothing could be further from the truth. Informed discussion is always helpful but if you don't know (or don't want to know) the facts please don't confuse the issue even more.
Comment 8.1.1.1.1 17 Nov 2009, 4:05 PM
See this is where debating an issue gets hard when people just spout misinformation... and you accuse me of not getting the facts before commenting - just about everything you guys are saying as directly in opposition to the facts!
I nowhere said this plan is around for five years, just clearly stated that the plan of 5 years ago endorsed by the shire showed toilets and major parking facilities and playgrounds etc on the site - the plan is right here on this forum to see and read off the legend, and it was the one shown down at the park five years ago also. So I dont see how you can try and come on here and claim differently - it just comes off as you not even being able to read and comprehend. That same drawing also clearly shows nothing like playgrounds etc for Ray Marshall Park, which instead refers to a large passive space for concerts etc. Its all there on the drawing! And you hope for the shire to take your comments seriously??
Comment 8.1.1.2 17 Nov 2009, 1:21 PM
The City claims that it cannot move the proposed park north because they cannot put toilets in that location. This is rather odd, since there is an existing toilet block and clubroom at Ray Marshall Park. Doesn't it make you wonder?? The plan that the residents have been fully consulted on is on the City's website under place planning. It clearly shows Woodbridge park as passive recreation and a casual kick about area. Reg Bond Reserve, on the other hand, was designated adventure playground. This is why the residents are so utterly taken aback by the proposed location of the park. They have no objections to the park concopt overall.
Comment 8.1.1.2.1 17 Nov 2009, 4:28 PM
Again people showing an inability to read and comprehend. The shire has written in the FAQs, now loaded on this site thankfully, several different reasons why the plan cant be moved north or east. Obviousy not each reason relates to all of the surrounding areas, nor can each reason be referred to in isolation. Clearly you cant even work out where north is, as the suggestions to move it a "couple of hundred metres north" would mean near the GSSH soccer field and canoe shed, which is where the flood plain issues would be and the toilet comment is relevant. more…
Comment 8.2 16 Nov 2009, 8:53 PM
You really should get your facts straight! We do not own one of the new houses at the bottom of Bailey Str, as you imply. And if you were really there in the park 5 years ago,you would know what residents wanted and what they didn't. Certainly not more traffic nor toilets. You must realise the difference between the plans presented 5 years ago to those presented 2 weeks ago.
You went from paragraph after paragraph of showing your resentment of those houses, to being constructive at the end. If the City is so good at planning, why would they approve those houses that you so dislike?
What about the kids from Gov Stirling? They've been turfed out and now have nowhere for their PE classes. They've been doing laps round the blocks!
Had you done your research right, you'd know that this is not 'exactly' what we asked for. Far from it.
Comment 8.2.1 17 Nov 2009, 4:56 PM
"Certainly not more traffic and toilets"? The plans down at the park 5 years ago SHOWED toilets and a "major parking facility", and referred to playgrounds and a building. You got your chance to have a say back then in the formal public comment period, and then this was all endorsed by the shire with the toilets and parking still on the plan. They used their common sense and didnt listen to those couple of nonsense requests back then, so I am confident they will use the same common sense now. As I said before, the drawing is on this more…
Comment 8.2.1.1 17 Nov 2009, 5:46 PM
Im with Chester all the way, you high & might who brought your piddly 500sqm subdivided blocks down on the bottom with your ugly stilt homes that are an eyesore when we go to the river to walk our dogs.
Didnt you look into the area before purchasing your land and check out what the ovals are proposed for as development? well i have every time ive purchased land or house, its just the smart thing to do, even i know that who doesnt have a uni degree, and live in a average home in swan view.
Midland is finally moving up more…
Comment 8.2.1.1.1 17 Nov 2009, 6:41 PM
A couple of things. I have been here for over 13 years. I do not reside in a "piddly 500sqm block, though what that has got to do with anything is beyond me.
Did we check out the plans before purchasing? Do I really have to answer that? Of course we checked it out and that's the POINT..it is NOT as it was shown ..and the people who you are claiming are "high and mighty" have been actively involved in this suburb for many years. The gazetting of this area as a Conservation Precinct, the changing of the name to Woodbridge more…
Comment 8.2.1.1.1.1 18 Nov 2009, 12:37 AM
Being "high and mighty" and being "actively involved in the suburb" arent mutually exclusive, it may just be a "high and mighty" group. In fact the example you gave of helping change the name to 'Woodbridge' could be seen by some to only reinforce notions of elitism. It had been Midland for 100+ years, and while I support it for the name's equally strong groundings in local heritage, at the time a lot of the talk flying around was also about distinguishing contemporary difference to Midland. A lot of elitist notions were bandied about at the time, and my parents more…
Comment 8.2.1.1.2 18 Nov 2009, 7:20 AM
How rude! I hope those nice people are not too hurt by your insensitive and uncalled for comments about their homes.
Comment 8.2.1.2 17 Nov 2009, 6:22 PM
Chester you are not debating with people; you are simply insulting people.
Comment 8.2.1.2.1 17 Nov 2009, 8:24 PM
Look I am sorry for the insults, but its really difficult when its just redundant arguments being put out there. All of your statements are answered for you in black and white common sense in the FAQ information
"Move it to the north!" - the shire already stated it doesnt own the land
"Move it to the east!" - the shire already stated the area is contaminated from the old tip
"We dont want toilets or a carpark" - the shire already consulted on it in 2004-2005 and determined them required and included them on the Masterplan, and went out of their way more…
Comment 8.2.1.2.1.1 17 Nov 2009, 9:52 PM
LOL - redundant arguments... you really can't help yourself. And Chester, are you in the habit of taking what the City tells you at face value or is this just convenient for the moment.
Comment 8.2.1.2.1.1.1 17 Nov 2009, 10:57 PM
No and I have challenged them on many other issues before, including the subdivisions. I have taken nothing on face value, and just see information that looks accurate and reflects my recollection of the 2005 consultation outcomes and resolution. The same people whinged the same arguments back then and the shire went with the majority interest thank goodness, and I am confident they will not change that decision now.
Comment 8.2.1.2.1.1.2 18 Nov 2009, 12:48 AM
Oh and redundant wasnt an insult, it was just a literal reference to these arguments, by both you and me. Redundant means superfluous, unnecessary. So it was just a matter of fact reference that we are arguing things that dont need to be argued. Hence the examples where you have asked for it to be moved to sites where there are absolute rock solid reasons already provided as to why it cant go there, or the whole push to move it at all when the shire went through that consultation 5 years ago. I just get frustrated having to argue against ideas which are clearly not possible. Thereby, what WE are arguing is redundant.
Comment 8.2.1.2.2 7 Jan 2010, 9:57 AM
What a shame I have not seen this forum earlier.
I think Chester has been unfairly painted into a corner in this debate. Perhaps if this issue was taken up with a more constructive attitude by those agaist the development there would be less bitnerness in everyones responses. I have found the whole conversation quite shocking. Chesters comments least of all.
By all means debate the position of cafes and carparks. It is important that any development contribute to the community in the best possible way. But please keep in mind what this development is about. People with dissabilities continually get shunted from one back yard to another. This development has the potential to make a real, tangible positive difference in the lives of families who are struggling with serious difficulties as well as mainstream local families. You all have had the opportunity to participate in making this a valuble community project. So few of you have risen to the challenge.
Unfortunatley NIMBY seems entirely appropriate to describe the majority of postings here.
Comment 8.2.1.3 17 Nov 2009, 8:17 PM
We have no intention of giving up on what is basically our way of life. As for the facts, why don't you do the research that we did and know what you are talking about. I suggest you look up the Masterplan Summary Report and Implimentation Schedule endorsed by Council in May 2005. You must be looking at the wrong plan. The adventure playground was planned for Reg Bond Reserve now it's been greatly altered and moved to Woodbridge Riverside Park with no consultation.
You are nothing but a mouthpiece for the city.
Comment 8.2.1.3.1 17 Nov 2009, 10:55 PM
I know full well what the report says and what I am talkign about, clearly you dont. The plan drawing and masterplan report still has a playground at Reg Bond as far as I can see. The Masterplan Report refers to more active areas at each place, one an environment theme based playground, this one a heritage theme, which has thoughtfully also added an all abilities theme. So if both are still on the plan, how has it been MOVED from Reg Bond to Woodbridge? More misinformation on your part I suggest. Please make a reference from the plan or report that is correct.
I am a rather a mouthpiece for families in the area that have been waiting for this promised development for 5 years, and annoyed that a few people are trying to delay it more by revisiting all the consultation previously done and decided on by the shire because you see another opportunity. I just pray the shire doesnt kowtow to a few NIMBYS who are clutching at straws and misreading anything they think can be twisted in their favour.
Comment 9 17 Nov 2009, 7:25 PM
I think the playground is looking like it will be a fantastic area for a huge range of ages. My 6 year old son thought it looked really exciting and my 16 year old daughter who is studying child care was amazed by the vast range of activities proposed. We also thought a cafe would be a great idea and generate a lot of visitors.
Comment 9.1 17 Nov 2009, 9:30 PM
We do too. It just needs to be sited in the right place.
Comment 9.1.1 17 Nov 2009, 11:05 PM
And the "right places" you have suggested so far are on land the shire doesnt own, and land contaminated by the old tip. Found out for being off the mark there, your counterpart above is now trying to deflect attention to Reg Bond. To bad a playground was already included there on the masterplan along with Woodbridge. How about in the wetlands, will that be your next suggestion?
Comment 9.1.1.1 18 Nov 2009, 6:36 AM
Off what mark? Clarity is needed even when you are being sarcastic.
Comment 9.1.1.1.1 18 Nov 2009, 8:10 AM
"Off the mark" - its an idiom, meaning wrong or innaccurate, as in you set your 'mark', fire, but miss. You could have googled it as I dont wish to have to give english classes here also. So "the marks" in this instance would obviously refer to the two inaccuracies I referred to in the preceding sentence that you were wrong about, thinking the sites to north and east were viable options. Hence "off the mark". Can you see enough clarity there in retrospect?
Comment 9.1.1.1.1.1 18 Nov 2009, 8:49 AM
Chester Woodbridge Riverside Park is also part of the old West Midland Tipsite, which I am sure you are aware of given you are a long standing resident of Midland. Based on this, suggesting a move north and east can't be "off the mark". English lesson number 2 - "To bad a playground etc" as per your previous comment should have been "Too bad..."
Comment 9.2 18 Nov 2009, 8:01 AM
We thought the cafe would generate a lot of visitors too. That's why we would like it moved just a wee bit further away from our outdoor living area.
Comment 10 18 Nov 2009, 6:03 AM
I wonder if the City has considered the idea of doing a deal to exchange the land they own at Woodbridge Riverside Park with the parcel owned by the Education Department. That way, the playground could be moved a short distance due North, Govo could have their oval back and everyone would be happy. Wouldn't that be nice!
Comment 11 18 Nov 2009, 9:29 AM
I think the concept of the park is a fantastic idea. Midland has needed more recreational park facilities as really the only large park facility is Whiteman Park and space here is not always available or vying for shady spots etc. I also think that this park is in a good location as it can utilised by train for people who do not have vehicular access.
admin Comment 12 Site Administration & Moderation 18 Nov 2009, 11:07 AM
NOTE FROM SITE MODERATOR
Dear All,
This is a gentle reminder about the moderation rules under which this site operates.
#1 Defamatory material against any business or individual.
#2 Comments that name or could potentially identify any individual.
#3 Name calling, and unsupported derogatory remarks about individuals or organisations.
#4 Comments that disrespect other users.
#5 Comments that are posted multiple times will be removed leaving just one on the site.
#5 Abusive or offensive language.
#6 Heated arguments that become personal or off topic.
#7 Issues that are not relevant to the consultation will be removed - for example, on a site hosted for a council to talk about child care we would not allow people to discuss council roads.
#8 Links to other websites that are not relevant to the discussion or breach the above site rules.
#9 Comments regarding the site moderation should be forwarded directly to admin@bangthetable.com rather than made on the site.
Please note inparticular #3, 4, 5 and 6. It important that the conversation stay focussed on the subject matter rather than each other.
Any further comments that breach these rules will be removed.
Thank you
Moderator
Comment 13 20 Jan 2010, 11:20 AM
Not sure if its too late, but you cannot forget the larger planning involved in maintaining connections along the length of our rivers here in perth - i'm talking using public land and creating walktrails, cycle links and opportunities for exercise, i would rather this be done sooner than later, there is a great potential to link across the river (seen on other plans) and longways-towards upper swan, downstream to guildford and beyond. a lot of people don't know this but it is already public land, lets use it rather than leaving it for a prrecious few as private backyards.
