Council must explain its thinking

Walter Markham’s criticisms of PKC planning (PA, September 23) will resonate with many people.

The council has a raft of stated aims and policies, but it is unclear just how it applies those in development management.

It seems that staff are left to decide what to use and how, while adding “policies” of their own.

Differences of opinion between staff and members and among the latter are also often evident at committee meetings.

Since providing some level of certainty as to what will happen is a key role of the planning system this is grossly unsatisfactory.

A plan should not be a kind of “menu” from which members, officers, applicants or objectors can select whichever aims or policies support their opinions, while ignoring those which do not.

Even individual policies can be interpreted in many ways, since no criteria for their use are indicated.

An example is Policy 41 of the Perth Area Plan, the gist of which is that “infill” in housing areas should not “significantly” increase area densities. Since it is not said whether the area is the immediate environs, the street, or a larger unit and just what percentage eg. 5, 15, 25, or more is deemed “significant” this policy can mean anything the council chooses.

In some areas densities have increased by well over 100% through “infill” suggesting the council has not applied the policy at all. It seems to be left to staff to choose whether or not to use it, and if so, how. Yet in the 15 years since the plan was adopted there has been no seemingly no clarification of the matter. Officials should have sought such.

Mr Markham noted that no reference was made to pedestrian and bus accessibility in the report on the monastery land, although providing such is one of the government’s, and the council’s, priorities.

SPPs 3 and 17 and the new “Tactran” transport strategy as well as the development plans state this.

However, a reason offered for refusal was that views of “listed” buildings would be obscured by the proposed development. Yet the Council has no official policy for this matter. Perhaps it is an officers’ (“under the counter”) policy.

Moreover, it is a long established principle that planning consent cannot be refused to maintain views, nor to keep land in its existing condition. One would expect members and staff to know this.

Views of the monastery, and the open field, anyway, could easily be blocked by planting an evergreen hedge on its land close to the road. The council has no power to prevent this. Those who objected because they liked the existing landscape obviously did not realise this.

If councillors, officials and others had a proper understanding of these matters then a great deal of their time and public money would be saved.

The problems are exacerbated by the council’s failure to make clear, what its priorities are.

As with education, housing, recreation, etc planning decisions are “political” as well as “technical” and councils must explain how they interpret national and local policies and what their priorities are.

All proposals for public projects are subject to benefit/cost analyses, to indicate who will pay and who will gain. Development applications should be similarly assessed.

In Brighton, where I am temporarily based, the local council’s stated priorities are to provide much more housing and greatly reduce car use.

Its planning policies reflect this.

Although there are many “conservation areas” and “listed” buildings protection of these comes second to housing provision. Councillors and staff must follow this dictum in making development decisions. It requires them to be creative and imaginative in making recommendations/decisions.

In regard to car use, parking is not required on housing sites, since it is believed such encourages car ownership. A maximum of one stall per home is permitted. There is no parking for most staff at Council HQ.

Most then travel to work by bus, bike, or on foot.

PKC is, according to its website, preparing “supplementary guidance” on reduction of carbon emissions in development. These will focus on reducing energy use by locating, siting and designing buildings in particular ways.

Yet this key concern seems not to be addressed in development management, or by those making comments thereon.

I agree that the council should indicate to intending applicants what matters will be considered in assessing their proposals and ask them to provide statements showing how these will be addressed.

Those offering opinions, whether for or against, should also refer to these.

Many public comments ignore policies, except where these relate to their own interests, and offer no hard evidence to support their views. These are not then useful in making decisions.

Applicants must pay highly to have their proposals decided upon.

A new era in police vehicles begins at Ford

Ford's Crown Victoria has dominated the landscape of law enforcement in North America, but its run is about to end. The Crown Vic will cease production sometime in late 2011 and be replaced with the new Ford Police Interceptor. Thankfully, the new Police Interceptor will be immediately offered without any interruptions and is expected to exceed the durability, safety, performance, and fuel economy of the vehicle it's replacing. In addition, Ford is introducing a Police Interceptor utility vehicle to provide fleets with a choice of vehicles to meet their needs.

"Police nationwide asked for a new kind of weapon in the battle for public safety, and Ford is answering the call with a purpose-built vehicle – engineered and built in America – that's as dynamic as it is durable," said Mark Fields, Executive Vice President, Ford Motor Company, and President of The Americas. Fields was one of three Keynote Speakers at NAFA's 2010 Institute & Expo in Detroit where attendees were able to get a sneak peek at the new Police Interceptor.

To develop the new Police Interceptor, Ford engineers worked hand-in-hand with law enforcement professionals on Ford's Police Advisory Board who provided valuable input on key vehicle attributes such as safety, performance, durability, driver comfort, and functionality.

"This vehicle is pursuit ready," said Carl Widmann, Vehicle Engineering Manager for Ford. "It's no nonsense, through and through."

Some of the key changes include:

Safety — The Police Interceptor was engineered to pass 75-mph rear-end crash testing and features Ford's Safety Canopy side-curtain air bag rollover protection system to help protect front and rear outboard passengers in both rollover and side-impact crashes. The multiple side-curtain air bags use Ford's unique Roll Fold technology to help them slip between the occupant and the side window.

A Move To V-6 Without A Loss Of Power — The new Police Interceptor is part of a V-6 lineup that Ford says will perform equal to or better than V-8 engines. The lineup comes with two powertrain options which allow police departments to choose whichever best meets their patrol requirements. One option is a 3.5-liter V-6 engine that delivers at least 263 horsepower and E85 compatibility that is 25 percent more efficient than the 4.6 Single Overhead Cam (SOHC) V-8 offered in the current Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. The other option is an all-new 3.5-liter EcoBoost ™ V-6 twin-turbocharged, direct-injection engine that will deliver at least 365 horsepower and 350 foot-pounds of torque across a broad rpm range.

EcoBoost brings municipalities and police fleet administrators an ultra high-performance, yet environmentally friendly, police pursuit vehicle. It offers performance that bests V-8 powered police cruisers with fuel economy and CO2 emissions comparable to that of the standard V-6.

Redesigned Inside And Out — Some of the changes to the Police Interceptor include brakes that have been increased in size and performance; a purpose-built cooling package featuring a heavy-duty alternator and larger radiator; a honeycomb grill designed to work in harmony with the interior components to provide more air flow throughout the vehicle; and standard 18-inch steel wheels that are vented and designed to work in concert with the enhanced brake system.

Roughly 90 percent of the interior has been redesigned to meet the needs of the police. Front seats have been specially designed with a lower bolster removed to better accommodate officers' utility belts. Inserted into the seatback are anti-stab plates designed to protect front-seat occupants. The vehicle's second row features vinyl seats which are specially sculpted and set back to improve second-row space and maximize legroom. Meanwhile, the back door hinges have been modified to open up an additional 10 degrees versus traditional rear doors.

In addition, the vehicle is equipped with a column shift specifically designed so the console area is free for the ever-increasing amount of aftermarket police equipment necessary for officers to do their jobs.

Additional features of the Police Interceptor include:

BLIS (Blind Spot Information System) — The system uses two radar sensors located in the rear quarter panels to detect vehicles in the surrounding lanes. If a vehicle enters the driver's blind-spot zones, the system alerts the driver with a warning light in the side-view mirror.

Cross Traffic Alert— This system uses the existing BLIS radar modules to sense oncoming traffic when slowly backing out of a parking spot. The system only functions while the vehicle is in reverse and warns when cross-traffic appears within three car-widths.

Rear View Camera System — When the vehicle is in rear camera mode, a color image with guidance markers on the rear view mirror assists the driver in backing up.

Reverse Sensing System — An audible tone alerts the driver to certain objects up to 6-feet behind the vehicle.