Amendment No. 1082/33 - Parliament of Western Australia

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER Et RELATED LANDS

Cities of Armada le, Bayswater, Belmont, Canning, Cockburn, Fremantle,Gosnells, Joondalup, Melville, Ned lands, Perth, Rockingham, South Perth,Stirling, Subiaco, Swan and Wanneroo, the Towns of Bassendean, Cambridge,Claremont, Kwinana, Mosman Park, Victoria Park and Vincent, the Shires ofKalamunda, Mundaring, Peppermint Grove and Serpentine-Jarrandale

SUBMISSIONS 140 - 165

VOLUME 5 OF 6

November 2005

PERTHWESTERN AUSTRALIA

Government ofWesternAustralia

Western, Australian

Al II Planning,Commission50,try

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER Et RELATED LANDS

SUBMISSIONS 140 165

Cities of Armada le, Bayswater, Belmont, Canning, Cockburn, Fremantle, Gosnells,Joondatup, Melville, Ned lands, Perth, Rockingham, South Perth, Stirling, Subiaco,Swan and Wanneroo, the Towns of Bassendean, Cambridge, Claremont, Kwinana,Mosman Park, Victoria Park and Vincent, the Shires of Kalamunda, Mundaring,Peppermint Grove and Serpentine-Jarrandale

WesternAustraliant\li,,

PlanningCommission500e-1^'

VOLUME 5 OF 6

November 2005

© State of Western Australia

Published by theWestern Australian Planning Commission,Albert Facey House,469 Wellington Street,Perth Western Australia 6000

MRS Amendment No. 1082/33. Submissions 140-165 Volume 5 of 6File 809-2-1-77 Pt. 2Published November 2005

ISBN 0 7309 9551 9

Internet: http://www.wapc.wa.gov.aue-mail: [email protected]: (08) 9264 7777Fax: (08) 9264 7566TTY: (08) 9264 7535

Copies of this document are available inalternative formats on application to thedisability services co-ordinator.

FOREWORD

The Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) sets out the broad pattern of land use for thewhole Perth Metropolitan Region. This Scheme is constantly under review to best reflectregional planning and development needs.

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the agency responsible for thisprocess.

Amendment proposals are made to change land-use 'reservations' and 'zones' in the MRSwhen considered necessary. The amendment process is regulated by the MetropolitanRegion Town Planning Scheme Act. That legislation provides for public submissions to be

made on proposed amendments.

For a substantial amendment (made under Section 33 of the Act), the WAPC considers allthe submissions lodged, and publishes its findings in a Report on Submissions. This report is

presented to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and to the Governor. TheAmendment is then scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament before it becomes effective.

PUBLICATIONSIn the course of each substantial amendment to the MRS, information is published under thefollowing titles:

Amendment ReportThis document is available from the start of the public advertising period of the proposedamendment. It sets out the purpose and scope of the amendment, explains why theproposal is considered necessary, and informs people how they can comment on theproposal.

Environmental Review ReportThe Environmental Protection Authority considers the environmental impact of anamendment to the MRS before it is advertised. Should it require assessment anEnvironmental Review is undertaken, and that information is available at the same time asthe Amendment Report.

Report on SubmissionsDocuments the planning rationale, determination of submissions and the WAPC'srecommendations for final approval of the Amendment.

SubmissionsComprises a reproduction of all the written submissions received on the proposedamendment.

Transcript of Public HearingsA person who has made a written submission may also choose to appear before a HearingsCommittee to express their views. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The submittermay chose whether this hearing is conducted in 'private' or in 'public'. Where the person haschosen a private hearing, materials presented remain confidential. The transcripts of publichearings are published in this volume.

Alphabetical Listing of Submissions

MRS Amendment 1082/33

Bush Forever & Related Lands

Submission Name Submission NameNumber Number

132 Activ Foundation Inc,Urban Focus for

162 D'Orazio, S N, A & M,Gray & Lewis for

8 Armada le, City of 37 Danzi, Fortunato &155 Australian Limestone Tindara

Resources 1 Danzi, Tullio110 Automotive Holdings 127 Dawson, Maxine

Group 128 De Piazza, Guido & Ugo88 Baffle, Zelinda + Borgogno, Mary54 Ball, Diane 139 Di Giuseppe, Antonio29 Barrett, Paul 66 Drummond, Regina36 Baysvvater, City of 142 Eglinton Estates &

116 Blackburn, Robert & Landcorp, ATABowen, Jacqueline Environmental for

41 Blackmore, Mrs E 137 Elvi Pty Ltd174 Borrello, Frank 75 Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd,85 Boyle, John MGA Town Planners for

105 Bradshaw, Felicity & Don 114 Feegate Pty Ltd, Greg100 Brickwood, Joan Rowe & Associates for65 Brookes, Denis & Gwen 176 Flinders, Howard61 Brusa, Carl 131 Foster, K 0 & D G55 Buktenica, Ante & Thelma 31 Franzinelli, Flora19 Bunarak Pty Ltd 17 Fremantle Ports35 Cambridge, Town of 56 Fremantle, City of

103 Campbell, Christine 135 Friends of Forrestdale111 Capricorn Coastal Village 138 Friends of Perth Airport

Joint Venture Bushland23 Carbone, Mario 151 Friends of Piney Lakes &

148 Carter, Kent & Katherine Winthrop Murdoch22 Catellani, Stephen Community Group,45 Chilvers, William Stevens, John for

182 Clark, Paul 3 Frost, Leslie & Linley161 Cockburn Cement 125 Garbin, Robert & Maria

Limited, Minter Ellison 40 Gardner, MaureenLawyers for 149 Garreffa, Carmelo,

177 Cockburn, City of Valerie & Stella47 Colwyn Park, Bailey,

Kevin & Vicki for46 Gates, Leanne &

Cicholas, Thomas112 Conservation and Land 95 Gersch, Patrick

Management, Department 164 Gosnells, City ofof 173 Gouges Y, Greg Rowe &

38 Cranley, Christopher Associates for186 Creasey-Chapman, P & E 2 Green, Alan & Joanne69 Crofts, Alison 15 Grimaldi, Nicia

Submission Name Submission NameNumber Number

52 Hall E P 44 McElroy, Robyn7 Harry, William 98 McKay, J.S

77 Heggart, Janet 157 McLeods86 Heim, Marie 68 McQueen, Sandy25 Henderson, John & 134 McWhinney, Nora

Heather 101 Melville, City of130 Herlihy, Astrid 79 Metropolitan Cemeteries175 Higginson, William & Board

Jean 121 Moore, Judy & Barry147 Higham, Chris 97 Morald, Tim27 Hilton, Roger 81 Mod, Luciano24 Hipkins, Max 170 Multiplex Developments87 Hoareau, Joanne (WA) Pty Ltd, Minter89 Hoskin, Roslyn Ellison

156 Jacksonville Holdings Pty 172 Mundaring, Shire ofLtd, McLeods for 59 Musca, Antonino &

78 James, Allan & Beryl Michael48 Jennings, Helga 96 Nature Reserves49 Jennings, Isabella Preservation Group (Inc)82 Johnson, Beverley 183 Newland, Dennis99 Johnson, Gary & Lee 171 Nield, Christine57 Johnson, Shane 180 Nield, Paul20 Joondalup, City of 179 Oates, Ken

184 Jordan, Paul 72 O'Toole, Thomas108 Justice, Department of, 14 Panetta, Giuseppe

CCD Australian 53 Passarelli, GuglielmoConsulting Engineers for 143 Pearson, P & K, McLeods

119 Kalamunda, Shire of for150 Kearney, Gerald & Sue 166 Peet & Company Limited104 Keelan-Wake, Jacqueline as Trustee for the Burns

93 Kwinana, Town of Beach Property Trust,163 Land Information, Hardy Bowen Layers for

Department of 70 Petrovski, Dimce115 Landcorp 58 Phoenix Forest Products

16 Lander, G 91 Pirozzi, Domenic & Julia42 Langford, G 152 Planning & Infrastructure,71 Lapham, Huw & Peter Department of

122 Lark Hill Landcare Group 124 Port Kennedy LCDC Inc.Inc, 185 Prestage, Ralph & Lois

80 Lea, Pamela 67 Pries, Marion83 Liddiard, Todd 4 Public Transport Authority63 Lima, Les 113 Quinns Rocks60 Lindsay, David Environmental84 Lloyd, Alan Group

158 Logan, Philip 181 Rainbow Park33 MacGregor, Stuart & 18 Rechichi, Don & Elisabeth

Patricia 102 Roberts, T, The Planning43 MacKay, John Group for26 Macri, Antonio & Concetta 169 Robertson, Phylis

165 Main Roads WA 10 Robeson, KA & PM94 Maze, The 64 Rockingham, City of

159 McCann, John 62 Rose, Valda

Submission Name Submission Name

Number Number168 Rosher Family, Taylor 109 Urban Development

Burrell Barnett Institute of Australia90 Saggers, Stuart & 118 Van Doornum, Maximilian

Marriott, Summer & Jennifer178 Satter ley Property Group/ 51 Vicini, Mary

Ocean Springs Joint 11 Victoria Park, Town ofVenture 117 Vincent Nominees Pty Ltd

106 Schultz, Beth 9 Vincent, Town of

141 Shannon, Beverley 140 W R Carpenter136 Skeels, J R & Harrison, P

W, Dykstra & Associatesfor

Landholdings Pty Ltd,Masterplan ConsultantsWA for

32 Skroza, Karmela 154 WA Building Block

144 Sorgiovanni, C,Landvision for 39

CompanyWakefield, Ashley

21 South Perth, City of 92 Wanneroo, City of5 St Mary's Anglican Girls' 123 Water Corporation

School 126 Western Australian Local28 Sterndale, John Government Association

160 Stirling, City of 153 Wetlands Conservation76 Stockland Trust Group,

MGA Town Planners for 145Society IncWilbraham, Paul

73 Stone, Garry 129 Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd

133 Stubber, Alice 146 Yelland, Lynn13 Subiaco, City of 12 Yozzi, A50 Swan River Trust 34 Zencich, Christopher &74 Swan, City of Sandra30 Symons, AT&ME 183 Newland, Dennis

6 Ten Vaanholt, Mr & Mrs D 184 Jordan, Paul

120 Tigerhawk Pty Ltd, Corrs 185 Prestage, Ralph & LoisChambers Westgarth for 186 Creasey-Chapman

167 University of Western LATEAustralia, Minter Ellisonfor

Waterbird ConservationGroup

107 Urban Bushland Council Bassendean, Town ofWA Inc. Hine, Terry

109 Urban Development Benjamin, RowlandInstitute of Australia Kaspy, Michael

Price, MarieMandurah, City of

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959Section 33 Amendment (Substantial)

FORM 6A

SUBMISSIONMETROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 6000

OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER I

Submission 140

Name SC0-11 Leg<

Address PO 13Q/C

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

suat4c0 voA

Contact phone number. q SK-C-17

Postcode.. 69 04-

Email address . SC-C14@tkaiSCretenlikiia COA1

Submission (Please attach additional pages If required, It is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound)

fefErz kinktheo sumisSiorJ

1 2 NOV 2004

Pp

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

Hearing of Submissions

The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959also provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings, along with all written submissions,are published as public records. The Commission's recommendations are also published in a Report onSubmissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be taken intoaccount In determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

Please complete the following:

NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)

YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details, You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by:

Ell MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): q 1St SCIIor

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's name:Group name:Agent's telephone number (business hours):Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:

PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)

PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only personsnominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

Signature

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

1C-2Aly- Date 1211(1 01+

ihtfveit 600161psl6gif#'"?`()RIP-9'91410)'QTEt, utki4iptis.sirie441dopidpiiikii DAY 1,4# bet,fielptrerel;

Se lf ,

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Intornot - htlp//www.wapc.wa.gov.au

DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGIONSTATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY 2.8

This submission is forwarded by Masterplan Consultants WA Pty Ltd on behalf of W R Carpenter

Landholdings Pty Ltd (WRCL), the owners of Lot M1482 at Alkimos.

On behalf of our clients, WRCL, we have reviewed the proposed MRS Scheme Amendment and

Statement of Planning Policy documentation and forward the following comment.

This comprises specific comment relative to Lot M1482 at Alkimos, followed by more general

comment upon the proposed Amendment and SPP.

Lot M1482 Specific Comment

Lot M1482 is affected by Bush Forever site 397. Site 397 was included within the Bush Forever

documentation not because of any specific conservation value identified within Lot 1482, but

because of the existing Parks and Recreation Reservation in place under the Metropolitan Region

Scheme. Bush Forever Site 397, therefore, reflects an existing MRS reserve.

Within this context, three items should be noted as follows.

1. No specific item of conservation value within the Parks and Recreation Coastal Foreshore

Reserve (portion of Site 397) has been identified to date. A detailed Flora and Fauna

assessment currently being completed is anticipated to confirm this.

Statement of Planning Policy No.2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy provides the process

whereby based upon appropriate scientific investigation, the width of coastal foreshore

reserves may be more accurately determined.

Proposed SPP 2.8 must not override or prevent the opportunity for adjustment of a

coastal foreshore Parks and Recreation reservation under SPP 2.6 and should be

worded to ensure this is clear.

2. Lot 1482 is part of the Alkimos/Eglinton district. This area is currently subject to MRS

Amendment 1029/33 and preparation of a District Concept Plan in association with the

progressing of that Amendment. The current draft of the Amendment proposes adjustments

to the existing Parks and Recreation reservations within the Alkimos/Eglinton area including

reserved areas affecting Lot 1482. This Amendment process is yet to be completed and

may be subject to further adjustment. However, it is imperative that SPP 2.8 does not

affect or prevent the finalisation and progressing of proposals in MRS Amendment

1029/33.

Page 1

3. Proposed SPP 2.8 promotes the preparation of a Local Bush land Protection Strategy for all

areas of native vegetation outside Bush Forever protection areas within the Perth

Metropolitan Region.

While zoned Urban under the MRS and Residential Development under the City of

Wanneroo DPS for some time, Lot 1482 retains a covering of native vegetation and,

therefore, would presumably be subject to this proposition. As stated, a detailed Flora and

Fauna assessment is currently being completed for the whole property which, it is

anticipated, will demonstrate limited, if any, local conservation value vegetation within the

property.

WRCL are concerned that despite this, by inclusion of the local bushland category within the

SPP, the potential will exist for the progressing of development planning and approvals to be

substantially delayed on the basis that native vegetation remains on the property irrelevant

of its genuine conservation quality or value. In this regard, if such a local component is to be

included within SPP 2.8, it is imperative that this be written to require retention of native

vegetation only where it clearly meets a classified conservation standard and not just

because there happens to be native vegetation remaining on the site. That is, the only

imperative for retention or protection of native vegetation at this local level, should be

the presence of rare or endangered flora or confirmed conservation categorised

vegetation. Where this does not exist, there should be no impediment or onus placed

upon the landowner to retain vegetation to the detriment of development potential.

It is also unclear as to whether this vegetation retention agenda as defined in the Local

Bush land Protection Strategy is intended to be an addition to the usual 10% provision of

Public Open Space, or if such retained areas are expected to be included within the POS

requirement. If in addition, this is a significant imposte upon the landowner and if included

will result in a reduction in the provision of usable open space for future residents. This

needs to be clarified prior to finalisation of the Amendment/SPP.

General Comment

In addition to the above specific comments related to Lot M1482, WRCL forward the following

general comment.

1. As a general principle, we are concerned that the SPP/MRS Amendment will result in the

introduction of additional impostes upon private landholdings by designating them for

conservation uses only, but by avoiding reservation for those purposes, will deny appropriate

and rightful compensation to those private landowners.

Page 2

While the objectives promoted for preserving native bushland are promoted as noble and of

benefit to the whole community, it is not appropriate for individual landholders to be

personally penalised with no opportunity for compensation for the benefit of the whole

community. As a general principle, the imposition either by reservation or some other

form of delineation over a private landholding, restricting that private landowner to

use of the land for conservation purposes only and therefore denying other potential

more valuable use, must be appropriately compensated.

2. The proposal to apply a Bush Forever Protection Area over private landholdings will also

result in additional costs to those private landholders in complying with the management

requirements for conservation of bushland within that area. This will be in addition to the

loss of opportunity for use of that land and the lack of compensation under point 1 above,

therefore, private landowners so affected are doubly impacted upon which is

unacceptable.

3. WRCL is also concerned that this issue is becoming over regulated with extensive

environmental legislation addressing the protection of remnant and native bush. The

proposed SPP simply adds a further level of bureaucratic control and results in an over focus

upon environmental elements at the potential expense of social, economic and urban design

elements.

4. Major strategic urban design and planning initiatives are currently being advertised and

promoted by the State Government. These focus upon maximising existing urban

infrastructure and seeking to minimise continued expansion of the urban fringe.

Sterilisation of significant parts of the urban area through the bush preservation

agenda would directly contradict the urban sustainability agenda being promoted and

calls into question the validity of approaches such as the currently being promoted

Network City Strategy.

5. The bushland preservation agenda is based upon the premise that setting aside these

bushland areas will procure conservation of various types of vegetation groups and assist in

maintenance of examples of biodiversity within the Swan Coastal Plain. However, the types

of reserves or bush preservation areas being promoted under the policy, with their

associated high maintenance costs, must ensure the long term preservation of the bush that

has been identified is achieved. There is evidence to suggest that such preservation cannot

be guaranteed by the approach being taken and therefore the basic premise for

proceeding along this strategy is questionable.

In summary, the proposed approach contains a number of areas of major concern which require

further detailed consideration prior to any commitment to this approach as currently drafted in

SPP 2.8 and the MRS being adopted for final approval. These include:

Page 3

1. The need to ensure the proposed SPP/MRS Amendment will not override opportunities to

vary Parks and Recreation reserves that exist under other policies such as SPP 2.6.

2. The need to ensure that the proposed SPP/MRS Amendment will not adversely affect the

progressing and finalisation of other Amendment processes such as MRS Amendment

1029/33 currently underway.

3. The need to ensure that the proposed SPP/MRS Amendment makes it explicit that retention

of native vegetation at the local level under a Local Bush land Protection Strategy should be

based on confirmed conservation categorised vegetation and not merely the fact that

remnant vegetation exists.

4. The need to ensure that where the use of a private landholding is restricted or impacted

upon by any proposal contained within the proposed SPP/MRS Amendment, an appropriate

process to compensate that landowner is in place.

5. The need to address the conflict between increased vegetation preservation promoted under

the proposed SPP/MRS Amendment and other urban consolidation strategies such as

Network City currently being promoted by Government.

W R Carpenter Landholdings would welcome the opportunity to expand on these concerns as

part of any formal hearing or review process.

Page 4


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 141

Name gY5-AA:try Sirniv goAi(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address F C) isoK I+ sic AP "Ce--9kir7 cr Postcode

Contact phone number.O1R7 / 711Email address b 5 A 4 pi /) h r-) Sia c, t-'-e-M.1 a C1

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It Is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

C

c:t

Al 'ea n-C Tv<r4*


2004


The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is Intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.


You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be taken intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.


Int NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)Or

YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)


MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):Or


I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)

or



Signature 4k..ria----A ft Date /712-00c

NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close ofbusiness (5.00pm) on FRIDAY 12 November 2004. Late submissions will NOT be considered

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Ematl - mrsawapc.wa.gov.au; Internet htlp //wvmmvapc.wa.gov.au

FB & BF ShannonPO Box 45SERPENTINE WA 6125AUSTRALIAFax 9525 3481Mobile 0417177486

November 11, 2004

Mr Ian PattersonSecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir

Re: Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33Bush Forever and Related LandsDraft Bush land Policy for Perth Metropolitan RegionStatement of Planning Policy No. 2.8

It is a good idea to set aside bushland areas for everyone to enjoy. Has anyone inyour Planning Department inspected this section of the Serpentine River? It is anabsolute disgrace. Some of the weeds on a very small section are arum lily, wildoats brome grass watsonia cape tulip, thistle doublegee dock, castor oil plant,barley grass, white fumitory and, worst of all, kikuyu. The kikuyu is chokingeverything.

It is a Shire Policy that, we as Landowners, keep everywhere around buildings clearto 20 metres so that there is no firehazard, and also, 3 metre firebreaks on the roadand river boundaries. In addition, we are expected to keep our verges clear of weeds.

Why isn't a Government Department responsible for keeping all open bushland areassafe from any fire hazard. No-one has been near the River since we have lived here.It is more than 2 years since fire ravaged this area and nothing has been kept clear inthese local open bushland areas since. There is plenty of fuel ready for the next fireis in the area (hopefully this won't happen).

Your Department wants to GRAB some of our property for your bush foreverscheme. If you want it, we should be compensated ON JUST TERMS . We shouldnot be expected to fence it, keep the area clear of weeds and not use it.

Government Departments should set an example of how it expects we, aslandowners, look after its bushland areas. Examples of how our bushland areas aremanaged are shown in some photos enclosed. Everything is overgrown.

Yours sincerely

A I/Beverley Shannon

Environmental _

environmental scientists

Ddhorn House-

2 Bulwer Street

Perth 514i. 6000-

Tel (08) 9328 3488

Fax (08) 9328 3588

Email infoaataerwironmental com au

Website- www ataenvironmental corn au

Printed on Recycled Punier

12 November 2004

SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetReply Paid 80014PERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir/Madam

Submission 142

LAN-2003-001_011_pvdm

RE: PUBLIC SUBMISSION - METROPOLITAN REGIONSCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER &RELATED LANDS

Please accept this submission from ATA Environmental on behalf of EglintonEstates and LandCorp that includes comments on the Western AustralianPlanning Commission's Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No.1082/33 Bush Forever & Related Lands which was released for comment inAugust 2004. The submission also includes comments on the draft Statementof Planning Policy 2.8 released for comment in July 2004.

The submission primarily relates to land owned by Eglinton Estates andLandCorp in the Alkimos-Eglinton area that is currently undergoing an MRSAmendment and Environmental Review.

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment No. 1082/33

ATA Environmental does not agree to the designation of a Special ControlArea over Bush Forever sites 289 and 397 as these areas are currently thesubject of an MRS Amendment. The Amendment proposes significantchanges to parts of the Bush Forever sites. These changes are being assessedby the EPA through a formal Environmental Review process.

The Bush Forever & Related Lands MRS Amendment refers to a similarsituation for Bush Forever site 275 (Stakehill Swamp) in which Site 275 hasbeen excluded from the Special Control Area due to the site being subject toits own MRS amendment currently underway. The same rationale should begiven to the Bush Forever sites in the Alkimos-Eglinton area.

Draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) No. 2.8

The Alkimos-Eglinton area contains two Bush Forever sites (sites 397 and289) that are currently reserved as Parks & Recreation . The boundaries ofthese sites is under review in the Alkimos-Eglinton MRS Amendment. BushForever Site 397 is predominantly the coastal foreshore area while site 289

i i. L.-ME:-4f

1 2 NOV 2004

FILE Soo

includes some foreshore and an extension eastwards through to Yanchep National Park.

The category of Bush Forever Protection Area that is most relevant to the Alkimos-Eglintonarea is that of Bush Forever Reserve (Proposed and Existing). ATA Environmental supportsthe proposed process of decision making for Bush Forever Protection Areas within thiscategory. We agree with the concept that proposals for development within these reserves willneed to consider the overall purpose and intent of the existing reserve and will also need toconsider the wider environmental, social, economic or recreational needs, ie. sustainabilityprinciples. This is particularly applicable to coastal foreshore reserves where beach nodesadjacent to urban areas are often required to cater for carparks, beach access tracks, grassedareas, kiosks, surfclubs etc. which usually requires the clearing of some native vegetation.

We not believe that mitigation and offset strategies for the loss of regionally significantbushland is appropriate for developments, such as regional beach areas. As stated above, thedecision-making process for such developments will be required to consider the principles ofsustainability (ie. environmental, social and economic). A proposal that truly meetssustainability criteria should not have to off-set against one particular aspect of sustainability(eg. native vegetation).

ATA Environmental supports the concept that existing cleared areas within Bush ForeverProtection Areas are not intended to be protected and may be suitable for some kind ofdevelopment. In the Alkimos-Eglinton area, the current Bush Forever sites and the proposedrevised Bush Forever sites contain some areas of cleared land. The SPP should clearly statethat cleared areas could be used for other purposes such as recreational facilities includingplaying fields.

We support the proposition in the SPP in section 5.2.2 (vii) that Bush Forever sites may be usedas a component of the public open space contribution subject to those requirements listed underthis section.

ATA does not support the inclusion of Local Bushland in the SPP for the following reason.The identification of locally significant bushland will be undertaken by local authoritiesthrough the preparation of a local Imshland protection strategy. The document that providesguidance to local authorities for the preparation of the local bushland protection strategy is theLocal Government Biodiversity Planning Guidelines for the Perth Metropolitan Regionpublished in June 2004 by the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA).The WALGA report was not advertised for public or industry comment and therefore has nogeneral acceptance in the industry. It should not be used as a guide to prepare local bushlandprotection strategies until it has been peer reviewed and advertised by comment to the publicand industry. Local bushland areas should not be included in the SPP 2.8 until such time as theprocess for identifying locally significant bushland has been endorsed by the industry.

A further comment on the local bushland section in the SPP refers to paragraph 5.3 (iv). Thewording for the proposed interim measure is unclear and should be reworded and sent out forfurther comment. The issue of locally significant bushland has already held up planningapprovals in some government authorities. The process needs to be clear and withoutambiguity so that decision-making authorities can progress with structure plans andsubdivisions in a timely manner

Please do not hesitate to contact Dr Paul van der Moezel on 9328 3488 to discuss commentsmade in this submission.

Yours sincere

IDR PAUL VAN DER MOEZELPartner

cc. Tasio Colds Woodsome ManagementDamien Molony Eglinton EstatesBarbara Gdowski Land Corp


FORM 6A

SUBMISSIONMETROPOLITAN REGIONAL SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33


To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 600 0

Name: Peter and Kaye Pearson

Address: PO Box 214, Bassendean Postcode: 6934

In respect of any contact please contact:McLeods222 Stirling HighwayClaremont 6010:Tel 9383 3133Fax 9383 4935Email [email protected]

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 143

SUBMISSION:

Background

1 We are the registered proprietors of 14 River Street, Bassendean, WA 6934 ("the Land")

2 The Land comprises approximately 2,000 square metres. On its westerly boundary it frontsRiver Street and on its easterly boundary it forms part of the foreshore of the Swan River.

3 We make these submissions in relation to Metropolitan Regional Scheme AmendmentNo 1082/33 and specifically with regard to the proposed Bush Forever Special ProtectionArea BFS305.

4 From plans we have viewed, it would appear that the boundary line of the Special ControlArea encapsulates something between a half to one third of our land on its easterly riveraspect.

Grounds of Objection

1 There is a clear and significant lack of transparency with regard to the process. In particular:

(a) who has carried out a vegetation survey in relation to this area?;

(b) if it has been carried out why has it not been disclosed ?;

(c) if it has not been carried out what is the scientific basis for the identification of thisSpecial Control Area?;

(d) what significant vegetation exists on our land?;

(e) who decides what is significant vegetation?;

(f) what are the criteria for that decision?;

(g) where are they published?;

(h) are they adhered to?;

(i) where is the clear and readily understood explanation with regard to suchimplications?

2 The delineated boundary of the Special Control Area would not appear to follow any logicalor indeed scientifically defensible boundary. If it is intended to represent land dropping fromlevel ground to river zone then it fails to encapsulate such land in the lots immediately to thesouth of our next door neighbour ie Lots 1-7. If it intends to follow a pattern of vegetationthen again that would not appear to be the case.

3 We are informed that in relation to the forthcoming new town planning scheme of the Townof Bassendean, our land is to be rezoned R-15/R-20. The size of our land holding wouldindicate that this would provide a potential to subdivide and develop our land into four lots.With the presumption against clearing which would apply if these proposals areimplemented to approximately half of our land, this sterilises from subdivision/developmenthalf of our land without compensation.

4 The information provided indicates the Special Control Areas are dealt with within townplanning scheme Model Scheme Text. The average citizen is simply not sophisticatedenough to be able to read and ascertain the implications with regard to that text. No furtherexplanation is provided.

5 The Land and that of our neighbours is significantly cleared and there is a high degree ofexotic plants and weed infestation. These proposals will provide no protection for anysignificant native vegetation even if it existed which it does not.

6 There are no remnant native plant communities whatsoever in the Special Control Area onour land other than perhaps one or two sheoaks. There are some lemon gums which havebeen deliberately planted by previous owners which are not indigenous to the area. Thereis a considerable amount of exotica and weed infestation. What is the justification for theinclusion of this land within the Special Control Area?

7 There is a potential for conflict between the current regime of the Swan River Trust and theauthority of the Western Australian Planning Commission to determine applications relatingto Special Control Areas. Such tension between crown agencies is undesirable and createsanother layer of bureaucracy and difficulty for landowners.

8 We are given to understand that we and our neighbours on the other sides of us are the onlythree properties which are occupied residential properties affected by this Special ControlArea. The map would seem to indicate that others have been excluded. This would appearto reflect selective and unjust treatment of these three properties.

2

9 A significant number of owners have not been properly notified. Our neighbours at 14 RiverStreet next door are not on the DPI mailing list and were not notified. Our notification wasthrown on the lawn and by the time it was recovered it was substantially illegible. This is adenial of natural justice.

10 Our 2,000 square metre property would appear to be included within the Bush Forever Site305 which encompasses a staggering diversity of land form and vegetation comprising119.9 hectares including wetlands. The text within Bush Forever 2000 indcates that:

(a) it has not been determined whether there are any threatened ecological communities;

(b) only a limited survey has been carried out of the vegetation and flora;

(c) there are areas of severe localised disturbance (we might add that ours is one ofthem).

This would appear to be slim justification for the inclusion of the Land within the SpecialControl Area.

11 The inclusion of the Land within the Bush Forever Site which is mirrored by the SpecialProtection Area is an oddity. Given that there have been no ground studies carried out onthe properties of ourselves and our two neighbours, we consider that it is highly likely thatwe have been included as a consequence of our close proximity to other reserved areaswithin public ownership ie as a matter of management, it is convenient that we should be soincluded. That is neither fair nor scientifically defensible given that we own private land andthere is no intention of compulsorily acquiring the Land.

12 The entry in Bush Forever does not disclose anything other than the application of generalselection criteria and recommendations.

13 In 1955 when Professors Stephenson and Hepburn prepared their plan for the metropolitanregion, they made it quite clear that it was a desirable public objective to reserve andacquire all of the foreshore of the Swan River. That report and subsequent debates inParliament canvassed the possibility of acquisition and the need for conservation andpreservation. Ultimately it was acknowledged that if such areas were immediately acquired,the cost to any Western Australian government would be enormous and unbearable.Consequently a method of staggering the payment was found by the provisions set out ins.36 of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme 1959. At all times it wascontemplated that compensation would be paid whether under that Act or as a consequenceof compulsory acquisition under (what is now) the Land Administration Act 1997. Thesemeasures seek to circumvent the payment of just compensaticn or indeed anycompensation at all. That is a significant interference in private propietal rights contrary tolong established policy.

14 Planning Policy 2.8 makes it clear that there is a presumption that any proposeddevelopment which involves clearance of vegetation in a Special Protection Area will berefused. The burden is on the landowner to provide a report justifying such clearance.Consequently instead of this being a conservation policy, it is in fact an anti-clearance policywith the financial burden falling on the landowner once again. That burden ought to bereversed. If a government entity, whether the DPI or the EPA, considers that there isvegetation on land which ought to be conserved, the onus ought to be on that agency toprovide a rigorous and scientifically argued report justifying the retention of that vegetation.That redresses, to a small extent, the potential abuse of government's dominant positionwhich is currently occurring.

3

15 If it is the case that the Land has been included within the Special Control Area formanagement or cadastral reasons and it is not intended that it should be protected, then weseek a clear declaration to that effect so as not to impede any future plans we may have forthe land or so that it is not devalued as a consequence of the imposition of this SpecialControl Area. On the other hand if the Land is protected then we seek a clear statement ofthe reasons why it is so protected on a scientifically defensible basis.

16 Section 2.5.3 of Bush Forever indicates that Special Control Areas may be "interimprotection". If that is so, there is no clear statement as to what is likely to follow theimposition of the Special Control Areas and that should be rectified. There is also no clearstatement in the supporting papers on the amendment whether these areas are interim. Ifthey are not, government's changing position on these issues is both unfair and creatinguncertainty which is undesirable.

17 Finally and although not specifically applicable to us, there is a philosophical butnevertheless valid issue in relation to conservation generally. Those landowners who haveexercised restraint and a responsible attitude in preserving and not clearing vegetation arenow being made to suffer economically whilst less responsible citizens who have taken earlysteps to clear and develop have reaped the rewards of their actions. The actions ofgovernment in condoning the latter group and discouraging and punishing the former groupis not conducive to responsible and fair minded government but, more importantly, is notconducive to the encouragement of a sense of responsibility in its citizens.

McLeods on behalf ofPeter and Kaye Pearson

12 November 2004

4


The Metropolitan Region Town P!anning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to represent

'the group must be appointed.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings, along with all written submissions,

are published as public records. The Commission's recommendations are also published in a Report onSubmissions.



NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)or

YES, 1 do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by: Kaye Pearson on behalf of Peter & KayeMYSELF My telephone number (budigHEurs): (W) 9473 4049 (AM) 9377 0710

orMY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's name:Group name:Agent's telephone number (business hours):Mailing address:


orPRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind dosed doors and only persons

nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

Signature


arida Rowley, McLeodson behalf of Peter and Kaye Pearson

Date ?

2 o 61-NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of

business (5.00pm) on FRIDAY 12 November 2004. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - http://vmwmapcma.gov.au

Our Ret

Your Ref

McLEODS

.1McL/B12/PEAR-17728

12 November 2004

SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir

BARRISTERS &SOLICITORSLocal Government LawEneronmental Planning Law

Stirling Law Chambers220-222 Stirling HighwayClaremont WA 6010Tel (08) 9383 3133Fax (08) 9383 4935Email:[email protected]

Denis McLeod (Counsel)Linda RowleyDavid NadebaumGeoffrey OwenPeter WillkuhnJulius SkinnerCraig StarkeMona GrgichElisabeth Stevenson (Associate)

BY HAND

METROPOLITAN REGIONAL SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER ANDRELATED LANDS: P & K PEARSON

On behalf of our clients, Kaye and Peter Pearson we enclose herewith submission in respect ofMetropolitan Regional Scheme Amendment No 1082/33. We would appreciate it if futurecontact could be with ourselves as our clients are travelling at the moment.

You is f ith Illy

encl

i'OR PLANNING,Nr2PA,21PUCTUPE

1 2 NOV 2004

Ft PI_

MIDLAND OFFICE: 35 SPRING PARK ROAD. MIDLANDALL CORRESPONDENCE TO CLARELAOLIT OFFICE

(17728-04.I 1.12.LR-DPI)


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 144

Name

Address

1412 c, sof,c;to u lbw I(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

KIVeR Y\--VeN \-26. t M t\-00`41P.IS7.).. Postcode..0b

Contact phone number.l Email address

Submission (Please attac additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

llrls SueAssom Mit00 ON 1/22-11-itz-F 01P--

gOR6-(0veryvoi 1-12-em/OR rfrokiii-tv OFISN90$10iu

(014.6 PIAD-vti? NO: :3B

E vvIgLe -thevor gi a) -1) avyAors(bvt .corn. av

FQP S 06144.SS(VC

ca 6--Tvrateo

ARLIArlrilaYstp.


1 2 NOV 2004

r\-


The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity for people who have made a

written submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should they

wish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view and

planning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to represent

the group must be appointed.


are published as public records. The Commission's recommendations are also published in a Report on

Submissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be taken into

account in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.



orYES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You will

be contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):

Or

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an an mylljelfir a local greup).Agent's name: TREVOR M.06-ffic) _CO gist° U111-A/01

Group name:Agent's telephone number (business hours): a JOMailing address: X171 1-E sr G p49 Si/AI Ato

oweI would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:



Signature


Date /2 (1/r°1-1

NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close ofbusiness (5.00pm) on FRIDAY 12 November 2004. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - http://www.wapo.wa.gov.au

tiitrittttlqta llsatrft,ccidcifl4

ATTACHMENT TO SORGIOVANNI SUBMISSION

This submission is made by Landvision on behalf of Mr C. Sorgiovanni the owner of Lot 40River Avenue.

Mr Sorgiovanni objects to the imposition of a special control area on his property which inthis instance aligns with the MRS boundary.

Volume 1 of Bush Forever Part B indicates that the boundaries of some areas to be protectedmay require further on-site identification and confirmation and may also require adjustments(P 9).

For Bush Forever sites in MRS reserves, some adjustments may be required to give fullprotection and long term security possibly including adjustments to the control, managementand purpose of the reserve (p 12).

In respect to Lot 40, the fringing vegetation on Lot 40 occupies only a small proportion of thesite, whereas the MRS reserve appears to be an arbitrary 50 metre setback line.

We believe it unreasonable to use the MRS reserve boundary as the basis for a special controlarea where clearly the significant bushland has not been mapped nor an appropriate bufferdetermined.

In particular the MRS reserve does not follow the flood plain in this area and includes highland which has no relationship to either the remnant riparian vegetation nor the flood plain.

There is no logical reason why this land should be included in the special control areaparticularly as it contains an inhabited residence as well as Mr Sorgiovanni's orchards.

We submit that if the WAPC wishes to match the special control area with the MRS reservethen both should be modified in this area to coincide with the physical topography of the land.

Consistent with the above Mr Sorgiovanni is prepared to waive his rights to a payment for theacquisition of the modified reserved land provided he can retain the house as indicated in theattached sketch. The reason for this is that Mr Sorgiovanni has a very long family attachmentto the house and wishes it to remain in the family.

In summary we seek to modify both the special control area boundary and MRS boundary tomatch the distinctive flood plain in this area, and remove from consideration the area outsidethe flood plain which contains Mr Sorgiovanni's residence and orchards and which has nophysical link with the natural riverine and bush environment.

Trevor C. MoranLandvision

0:10perationslJOBS \1489 \Submssion.doc12-Nov-04

Map Sheet No.55 Bush Forever 163

\/.Le

gend

100

Yea

r r

flood

bou

ndar

y

1mni

ls1,

7;17

,17.

r.ra

:rir7

Fge

reds

Bet

htro

uvne

drar

y

Ess

Rog

lona

y S

igni

fican

t Bus

hlan

d

///

150

\N"/

/`5

--

to2

7\\

II/

/ /ir

151

,411

8ir

4\,.

..,

_,/.

//

,//'

\

_....

/

7

/N.'.

a40

1

45

N.,.

8 \9

---

----

----

-

0,,,,

P41

°54.

\E

xist

ing

MR

S b

ound

ary

...,N

.

28

,/ \

4\97

/...

.75s

tre

is69

2m2

°01-

/-.

8

17

16

''''\

--it

15

\ \---

.../

,/ '

.

-..-

--_

/-

/

zI

1

7I"

8944

///

/ ...-...

/7-

152

,

....*

**-'.

....

1/./

I

L //

i'//

..--

,

./

,,,,

.-' 2/

,,)

ts /40

6' 1

0.i

6

----

I,i

',

ii

t 7zr

CA

NN

IIV

G ,

"

N04

5°cp

.,

1ii,

,

II

)_E

°1/7

7"r

,no

/alm

aP

mla

nalu

a004

-lora

yn

6i

1..C

LL

\4,

...L

.J

Lana

vl.to

PH

. W.

Lone

Pon

t* &

bla

pplro

Dan

ouLt

ents

PO

SS

IBLE

SU

BD

IVIS

ION

UIle

.5,1

0NIth

aran

Pad

,na

mio

wyn

ooe

'17

,47.

nm'

LOT

40

RIV

ER

AV

EN

UE

, MA

DD

ING

TO

ND

AT

E 1

0-N

ov-0

4 15

.40

FID

,pap

ms

Dro

win

p N

o.:0

0059

C I

oneu

lmae

lone

vare

n.co

ntou

City

of G

osne

llsJO

NG

,: 14

H

FIL

E d

ad"1

,9 1

1482

mad

dlno

ton2

004-

1011

480-

sub-

0014

9.


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY


Submission 145

Name Wit a_a_AiLtA(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address C"-f' tf--" Postcode 69 C

Contact phone number.q1-1V1 C(6 Email address V-AA \--GLAC L-^3-`" t- "A cx---"

Submission (Please attach additional pages If required. It Is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound)

/^4 ict^1-31- 1CA'g-k ALL-1444-LCLIv 1/41-L cchicte-AQ-ei C..3.k:3)

CQatfira..?:12- CA"

G2) ba,a

c_61).

c.)3) wo.um,w4).4c,L

cStetn,et-01-2- CF:c>- cke c*,-

otcan AwtOsui1/40k cleAsp

cRa-,:tk.ate.k-Lc. .e.i4e29 c\akittal:ilaw

revictS

kt-64-1e-

taQA

CC) /-c--mon.T.Qt.) Alwa.),_

C.3)

tiso-¢

OA

Ca)

deo 2.1-0,Q-cA

"` kfrumsteLa-Q

e_r

....... 0-N-c Rartah e.9)-i,v942 coy/4.4uo4.1 E.-

KCA .... ..61i..c./440-1-Q0)"

Narif[oR PLANMiN"RA:jY.iCRIc:".. I TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

1 2 NO 2004










Submissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission wilt be taken into





I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): (DucC)V7 C4 t Ccil

or



PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)or



Date


Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - nits @wapc,wa.gov.au; Internet - htlp://wvicv.wapc.wa.gov.au

SUBMISSION TO THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMMENDMENTNO.1082/33-CONTINUED

FROM PAUL WILBRAHAM 35 SWANVIEW TERRACE MAYLANDS.

(d) Lakes in the area- There are none

(e) Wetlands in the area There are none

(f) The area is to be regionally significant bushland- No bushland therefore cannot beregionally significant.

4. Prior to the being subjected to analysis by the landowners we must be provided withexact details in respect of their respective properties.

(a) Surveyed details of their properties(b) Precise details of the existing land use restrictions and the boundaries and land area

relating to each land use restriction.(c) Precise details of the current land rights and any alteration to those rights should

this proposal proceed.

5. Compensation. What compensation will be paid for any loss of land and for loss of theuse of that land that they currently enjoy and also for compensation resulting from theconsequent devaluation in the value of the relevant properties.

6. In light of the above I respectfully submit that area 313 be removed from the schemedue to its total lack of ecological relevance and the existence of far more deserving areasof protection.

7. That the existing partitioning of the land for future Public Open Space on theproperties in area 313 be removed to allow the landowners to have certainty of tenure andto ensure that the lands enduring use is restricted to riverine urban living.

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959

Section 33 Amendment (Substantial)FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER I

Submission 146

Name i_wv/v LRN,0(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address 13 Sciabi vl EtJ Postcode 6c, 5:7/

1:%.1.-elkoaet 01/4.(004.tleb 414Contact phone number. ...93703.?.-.LtP.... Email address 4.

Submission (Please attach additional pages If required. It Is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound)

S2..4 CYst



The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959a1so provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.






1:1 NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)

Lirt YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

or

I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): os: 9.37.034.,62



vi" PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)Or


Signature


Date . HO


Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

I write to express my concerns on the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan RegionalScheme Amendment No 1082/33 Bush Forever and Related Lands.

Reclamation.My home at 13 Swanview Terrace has already had approximately 33 metres of land fromthe eastern boundary to the river sub-divided prior to my building my home. This landwas turned into public open space. I therefore do not have access directly to the river, thisproposal will mean a further loss of both my land and privacy

Preservation.Due to the previous reclamation. I have spent thousands of dollars on retaining walls,plants and reticulation on the bottom of my property and my own area is well cared for

and preserved.I have however, had to ask the Council to clear up wild oats and other weeds from the

area of reclaimed land. This area still looks very rough and rocky and cannot be mowed.As it is not well maintained now, I do not see how it will be maintained and the riveredge preserved in the future if this whole area becomes more readily accessible to the

public.The Council is already having difficulty maintaining the existing pathways and parks inthe area, this proposed plan will just add another area of care required to an already taxed

group.

Erosion.I am also very aware of the erosion of the river bed of at least 2 metres in the 10 yearperiod I have been a resident, due to increased recreational river traffic. This erosion willcertainly increase if public access is allowed on the river edge. Other areas around Perthhave suffered a similar fate and one could point out the erosion and problems apparent inthe Murray and Serpentine Rivers and in other areas of the Swan.

Crime.I am also most concerned about increase in crime, litter and noise. Maylands has a highcrime rate and the nearby park is already a site for youth groups to congregate and party.This increased access will make it easier for breaking and entry and property damage tooccur and will certainly increase both the litter problem and noise.

Resource.As a previous owner of a farm and a keen lover of the land I am very aware of thepreservation requirements of the environment and the need to maintain our importantnatural resources for figure generations. I do not believe that this planned developmentwill allow this to occur; rather it will further erode and spoil a natural resource.

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission

469 Wellington StreetPERTHWA 6000

This is an attachment to the appended submission Form 6A under the

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959.

OVERVIEWThis submission represents the interests of the community interest group made up of the

private residents of Swanview Terrace May lands with properties adjoining the Swan River

and specifically represents the views of the residents of 7,13, 15, 17A, 19, 25, 29,7/31, 8/31,

35, 36, 39, 43, 47, 49, and 51 Swan view Terrace, being the residents who were able to

respond within the timeframes of the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33 of

August 2004.

The residents consenting to this submission believe they are also entitled to represent the

remaining residents of Swanview Terrace adjoining the Swan River on the basis that several

residents have been unable to respond to this Scheme proposal due to circumstances

beyond their reasonable control.

This submission has resulted from community meetings held by the residents noted above

during October 2004.

The current residents of Swanview Terrace have occupied their current private residences for

a variety of timeframes from as early as the 1950's to recent members of the community

arriving since 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND PERSONAL RIGHTS

This submission supports the broad premise that:-

The Swan River and its adjoining environs require long-term protection from

environmental damage;

The private property owners are ultimately the best custodians of their property and

surrounding environs;

Preservation by government whilst also allowing development by government is an abuse

of process; and

The personal and financial security of the private residents as property owners must be

balanced with their custodial duty to the maintenance of their property and the broader

objectives of the community at large to enjoy the public open spaces of the Swan River.

OBJECTThe object of this submission is to highlight aspects of the Bush Forever and Related Lands

Report and associated processes that are deficient and require urgent redress prior to the

adoption of any of its proposals as they may relate to the parties to this submission.

FORM OF PROPOSALThis submission is presented as a list of issues and concerns that must be addressed prior to

the adoption of any recommendations proposed by the Scheme.

Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no 1082/33

Bushlands Forever and Related Lands

A submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 3 of 9

This submission also makes a number of recommendations to be considered prior to the

further analysis of this scheme.

QUESTIONS AND ISSUES

1. Land Based Access Issues

Without doubt the principal concern of the residents is that this proposal is ultimately likely to

result in future development of the foreshore in such a manner as to provide permanent land

based access to the foreshore by the public through the use of paths and cycle ways. This

style of access presents the following community and environmental issues:

a) Increase in CrimeThe provision of public access to the unguarded front yards of Swanview Terrace will

invariably result in an increase in crime in the areas of theft, vandalism, graffiti, burglary,

assault, and home invasion and has been the case in this neighbourhood extreme

violent crimes such as sexual assault, paedophilia and even murder, The experience of

the residents of Stone Street Mayfands following the creation of a riverside pathway by

the Water Authority must be taken into account, where the residents of that street face

constant property and personal crime fuelled by riverside access to property.

b) Incidence of RubbishThe inevitable result of increased public access to the river will result in the increase the

disposal of refuse and rubbish. As residents of the foreshore we are well aware of the

volume of rubbish that we collect daily from the river foreshore. This rubbish to date has

been generated from flotsam disposed by shore and water based river users and

represents a small proportion of the rubbish that will be injected into the river systems in

the future by public access.

c) Antisocial Behaviour and Drug AbuseShore based public access to the foreshore will inevitably lead to a rise in public

antisocial behaviour and the incidence of drug related vandalism, crime and abuse. The

attraction of quiet, unlit, private foreshore locations will prove irresistible to vandals and

drug addicts, who would otherwise frequent areas capable of being controlled and

monitored by the authorities.

2. Lack Of Government Capacity

a) Government Initiated 'property improvements'Invariably government ,bodies will seek to impose their influence on the riverine

environment by 'development' with poorly inspired public interest ventures such as

cycle ways, pedestrian paths, environmental walk ways and the eventual foreshore

restoration works to correct the environmental damage caused by their own

intervention. You need only examine the disastrous examples of government work

supported by the Swan River Trust at Herrison Island on Causeway and works on the

upper Swan River.

b) Environmental OveruseThe existing authorities capacity to manage the ecological, environmental and

ethnical environment is insufficient to justify their appointment as custodians of

private land environs. Government agencies inability to understand and balance

between the interests of the public and private land interest in respect to

environmental issues invariably leads to a degradation of the environment through

overuse.

c) Lack of ResourcesThe government is not financially capable or personally equipped to deal adequately

with the intense land management requirements of the properties subject to this

report without the strong and committed support of the private landowner. The

government is ill equipped to replace the commitment to property protection and



A submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace May lands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 4 of 9

maintenance that can only be found in a private landowners interest in their

homestead.

d) Government Based InertiaMany property owners are facing increased losses through erosion that has been

inadequately dealt with by the responsible authorities to date. Instead of directing

resources to the resolution of joint property management issues the government

agencies have chosen instead to place responsibility for land management with the

private property landowner by the use of a regulatory stick being waved at them

without any corresponding rights and importantly without any acceptance of

government responsibility to accepting the cost of land management.

e) Existing Riverine ConcernsIt is totally unacceptable to assume that the Government should be given more power

and control over the riverine system when they are demonstrably incapable of

managing what they currently control. if the government wishes to demonstrate its

commitment to ecological sustainability of the River Systems then its priorities should

be directed to addressing the problems associated with the following issues;

i. The Water AuthorityThe continuous and disastrous sewerage spillages associated with poorly planned

and inadequately maintained infrastructure. The Government must place the

highest priority possible on the elimination of risks to the river systems by reviewing

and upgrading the infrastructure and policy associated with wastewater

management. While the Water Authority continues to kill off our marine ecology

and deny the residents of Perth the safe use of their river the Government cannot

seriously expect people to believe that partitioning more land into the governments

hands is a solution to the policy inertia in Government.

Are we to expect the deep sewage system put into Maylands in 2001 will fail in

2020 because of a lack of forward planning?

it Belmont Park ExamplesThe current focus of this scheme is totally imbalanced when compared to the

mismanagement of semi government organisations such as Belmont raceway. In

this case the government was happy to let a quasi government entity off with little

more than a slap on the wrist after producing one of the biggest environmental fish

kills in Perth history. There is no evidence readily available of the governments true

commitment to managing infrastructure associated with the river systems and it

appears we will just have to wait and see where the next poisonous spill occurs like

those at Claisebrook East Perth or Guildford pumping station, or the Canning River,

or Belmont, or the sub terrain leaching in Bassendean.

ill. Catchment Management Issuesit appears the Government would like us to believe that the problems associated

with algae blooms are all to do with the fact that some properties extend to the river

shore. It would be a fair bet that very few private river homesteads have used

fertilisers on their properties for many years, whilst the government pours tonnes of

phosphates onto its riverine parks, gardens and sports grounds only to watch it all

wash down storm water drains into the river and contribute to algae blooms.

The government has aggressively promoted the growth in vineyard activity in the

upper Swan for the last decade or so, blissfully ignorant of the fact that industrial

agriculture involves the use of industrial pesticides and fertilisers. How is the

government's ecological management policy for the industrial and agricultural use

of the river system balances to its urban use policy.

The Swan River is not unique in being a major river system under pressure through

agricultural use. The deteriorating state of the Blackwood, Warren and Murray

Rivers are testament to the government's inability to manage and balance riverine

systems.

The focus of this scheme should be on cleaning up the broader catchment area

land use and industrial and agricultural contributions to ecological degradation.

Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan RegionScheme Amendment no 1082133


A submission by affected residents ofSwanview Terrace Mayfands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 5 of 9

3. Clarity of PurposeThe scheme lacks specific clarity of purpose. The future use of the proposed land under the

scheme in respect to the Swan View Terrace properties has not been specified. In the

absence of a specific land use proposal it is totally unreasonable to expect the affected

property owners consent to their land holding being reclassified to a non-specific future use.

The landowners are entitled to specific and precise clarity in respect to the future use of their

property under the scheme before being expected to comment precisely on the schemes

proposals.

4. Justification for Classification of 'Regionally Significant Bush land'

StatusL The Scheme is based on the premise that 'Regionally Significant Bush land' requires

protection but has failed to specify the basis for the land precincts and specific tracts of

private property being included in the scheme. The proposal has failed to adequately

analyse the property of each landowner to identify ecological, environmental and

ethnological aspects unique to the property that justify its inclusion in the scheme. Just

as importantly the scheme has failed to attempt to identify regions that should fall

outside the scheme due to their lack of significance or due to lack of ethnological,

ecological or environmental significance.In many cases the historical use of the private lands have removed the presence of any

capacity to restore any semblance of pristine riverine environs and in most cases the

equivalent development of public lands is no longer compatible with such ideals.

IL The area disclosed on the 'map' of the Perth Metropolitan Area discloses the area as

region 313. There is no discussion or evaluation of the actual land or identification of its

significant bushland value.ill. There are six identified pockets of land in the "map" of the area between Maylands and

Midland, being area's 313, 314, 319, 214, 491 and 305. Of these sites the Swan View

Terrace site appears to be the only residential area selected. There is no discussion as

to why this area has been selected or why it is no regionally significant when the vast

majority of other tracts of the Swan River have not been identified as significant.

iv. Why have land areas such as Maylands Peninsular, Belmont park Lands, Burswood

wetlands, Maylands Golf Course, Ron Courtney Island and surrounding Garvey park,

Hinds Park, The Bayswater Riverside gardens and wetlands, Sandy each the Helena

River and literally thousands of other pockets of significant bushland been ignored in this

scheme. This is particularly illogical when it is considered that a 200-metre strip of

residential housing land that has been developed for between 50 and 100 years is

suddenly significant.v. Schedule 1 of the Statement of Planning Policy sets out in its description of 'Other

Criteria under subsection (viii) the following principals as a basis of determining the

relevance of environmentally sensitive areas to protect;

a. Threatened Ecological Communities and species. Area 313 has NO

threatened ecological communities or species (Other than perhaps the

riverine homestead communities of people)

b. Threatened or poorly conserved plant communities. Area 313 has NO

threatened or poorly conserved plant communities under the EPA 1994

maps. The predominant plant communities are back yard grasses such as

couch and buffalo. Imported fruit trees and flowering plants such a s roses

and other urban plants. The predominant free ranging plant species other

than grasses are wild blackberry that is a declared noxious weed and would

be forcibly eradicated if it were found on farmland. This weed is the single

most destructive plant invading our river systems and should be eradicated

by the local councils as a matter of urgency.

c. Declared Rare Flora or Specially Protected Fauna. There is NO rare or

declared flora or fauna in area 313. The only flora is common back garden

varieties found in most back gardens and the predominant fauna is cats, dogs

and rats, with the occasional snake living in the noxious blackberry.

d. Lakes. There are NO lakes in area 313


Bushiands Forever and Related Lands


Page 6 of 9

e. Vegetation complexes where less than 10% of the original extent currently

remains on the Swan Coastal Plain. There are NO rare vegetation

complexes. Indeed after 50 to 100 years of urban development the

predominant flora is imported flowering trees and plants as found in the

majority of Perth's back gardens.

f. Wetlands and creeks. The only wetlands in area 313 is the storm water drains

that deliver pollutants from the roads and sports grounds surrounding the

area De Lacy Reserve was once wetlands but it is now a fertilised and

manicured cricket and soccer ground,

5. Lack of Analysis of Regionally Significant 'Urban Use'

The scheme report has totally overlooked the ethnological and historical significance of the

urban use of the land under review. The May lands region of the Swan River in particular is of

significant historical urban importance. The report focuses on ecological values but fails to

address the social urban history of the region by addressing the need for the maintenance of

the link to urban history such as the May lands airfield, mounted police division, brickworks,

boatyards, Tranby House, market gardens, sailing and rowing affiliation, riverine homesteads

and other river use history. In this regard the scheme is unbalanced and ill conceived as a

statement on the future use and maintenance of the regions social, environmental, ecological

and ethnical links to history and the development of the region into the future.

6. Private Property Landowners Issues

a) Lack of Consumer RightsThe scheme effectively seeks to 'dump' landowners into a mass scheme without any

quantification or specific analysis by the proponents of the impact of the proposals on

the landowners. Nowhere else in Australian consumer law could a member of the public

expect to be treated so shabbily as to be informed of a substantial proposal to change

their consumer rights without any attempt to quantify, value or financially justify the cost

to the consumer. This proposal would be damned from beginning to end under Financial

Services Reform Act and any other consumer protection act for its total disregard for the

right for a consumer to be properly informed of the financial impact of a proposed

change to their rights.Whilst the government demands that a member of the public be properly informed as

the consequences of $10.00 per week being paid to their superannuation fund it

appears the government is happy to ignore its responsibility to quantify land use losses

that could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

b) Lack of PrecisionThis scheme invites landowners to submit their opinion on the proposed scheme without

providing any empirical details of the impact of the proposal on even the most basic

aspects such as the impact on existing boundaries. The land owners have not been

provided with any specific detail as to what actual quantity of land is being affected, let

alone what the financial impact of that loss of land use will be both in terms of the

immediate and future value of their property and the resultant limitations on their future

use of the land.Prior to this proposal being able to be subjected to reasonable analysis by the land

owners the land owners must be provided with the following minimum details in respect

to each of their properties;1. Surveyed details of their existing property, including details of the extent to which

existing title boundaries have been eroded and now are submersed.

it Precise details of the existing land use restrictions and the boundaries and and

area pertaining to each land use restriction.Independent assessments of the financial effect of the change in land rights

proposed for each landowner.iv. Precise details of the development and land use rights that each property enjoys

currently together with a contrast to the legal position should the scheme proceed.


Bush lands Forever and Related Lands


Page 7o(9

c) Right of Quiet EnjoymentThe scheme document do not adequately deal with the rights of existing property

owners in regard to the right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

d) Existing InfrastructureThe scheme does not adequately cover issues such as the current and future use and

maintenance of riverine infrastructure such as jetties, moorings and breakwaters.

e) Complexity of ProposalsThe documents presented to the landowners are ridiculously long and complex, whilst

at the same time lacking in meaningful detail.

f) Lack of Public ForumsConsidering the complexity of the scheme proposal it is unreasonable for landowners to

be expected to adequately consider the scheme and make meaningful submissions

without the provision of a series of community forums in which government regulators,

town planning experts and environmental scientists are made available to speak at

public forums directed to each area of the schemes application.

The relevant Government Minister and Shadow Minister together with the local

government Minister and the Shire representatives should also be made available to

discuss these issues with their constituents.

g) Degradation of Land Values without Compensation

The proposal devalues the financial value of the landowners property with no

appreciation of the need to determine that devaluation and provide for immediate

compensation based on the immediate diminution of value. The scheme proposes that

the landowner may retain title to the property or seek to sell the property to the authority

as an alternative. The scheme does not offer to pay compensation for loss of value of

the land whilst allowing the landowner to continue to own the land with its diminished

value.

h) Lack of Financial OptionsThe scheme should allow for the landowner to either sell the land to the Authority and

then have the right to reacquire the land with its diminished land rights for a lessor value

and with stamp duty concessions, or the landowner should be entitled to compensation

equal to the diminishment in value between the pre and post scheme implementation

phases.

i) Removal of Existing Development ConcessionsClause 5.2.2 (vii) of the Statement of Planning Policy 28 states that the gazetted land

will no longer qualify for public open space contribution value when considering

developments on the land. The removal of this planning value will severely devalue all

affected properties immediately as it reduces the potential density of development of

adjoining lands. There is no recognition in the scheme of this loss of financial value or

recognition of the government's obligation to provide financial compensation for that

immediate loss of value.


Bushlands Forever and RelatedLands


Page 8 of 9

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the public submission period for this scheme review be extended by at least 12

months to enable a proper analysis of the issues and concerns raised in this

submission to be addressed.

2. That all land owners be provided with an independent report that sets out dearly and

precisely the impact of this scheme proposal on their specific land holdings and the

impact of those changes on their future use of their land and the likely change in

value of their land should the scheme proceed.

3. That the government initiate a series of open public forums for each micro region in

which the community members can be addressed by state and local government

ministers and representatives together with town planners, regulators and

environmental scientists.

4. That the government embody in the scheme restrictions on future development of

homestead foreshore use to preserve the heritage value of riverine homestead

lifestyle. Specifically the scheme should recognise that there is a loss in ecological

preservation value by development of existing homestead properties to involve the

use of cycle ways, walkways and other infrastructure that degrades the ecological

value of the riverine environment and encourages over use and misuse of the river

environment.

5. That area 313 be removed from the scheme due to its total lack of ecological

relevance and the existence of far more deserving areas for protection.

6. That the existing partitioning of land for Future Public Open Space on the properties

in area 313 be removed to allow the landowners to have certainly of tenure and to

ensure the lands enduring use is restricted to riverine urban living.


Bush/ands Forever and Related Lands


Page 9 of 9

C.






OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 147

Name Cp/A g /1/6-/j/A-r)(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address 19 c-ciPp\) v LA.)Postcode 6c7S I

Contact phone number.q31/..1217 /... Email address .C64:2711/1Ca Ve.0771- iv("7".. frei

Submission

-Pant(Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound)

1

12 NOV 2004

EkE



The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959a1so provides the opportunity for people who have made a






All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings,along with all written submissions,


Submissions.





[§1- YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): (?3 Z. / 2 6 cc2

or






Signature

/*Pr aVas Date 16 '/ O 2 009

NOTE: Submissions UST be received by the advertised closing date, being close ofbusiness (5.00pm) on FRIDAY 12 November 2004. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - mrs @wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet - http://www.wapcava.gov.au



This is an attachment to the appended submission Form 6A under the

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959.


private residents of Swanview Terrace May lands with properties adjoining the Swan River


35, 36, 39, 43, 47, 49, and 51 Swan view Terrace, being the residents who were able to

respond within the timeframes of the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33 of

August 2004.








a variety of timeframes from as early as the 1950's to recent members of the community


ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND PERSONAL RIGHTS

This submission supports the broad premise that:-






of process; and










Bushlands Forever and RelatedLands

A submission by affected residents of Swanview TellaCe Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 3 of 9


further analysis of this scheme,


1. Land Based Access Issues

Without doubt the principal concern of the residents is that this proposal is ultimately likely to






assault, and home Invasion and has been the case in this neighbourhood extreme

violent crimes such as sexual assault, paedophilia and even murder. The experience of

the residents of Stone Street May lands following the creation of a riverside pathway by



13) Incidence of RubbishThe inevitable result of increased public access to the river will result in the increase the



been generated from flotsam disposed by shore and water based river users and

represents a small proportion of the rubbish that will be injected into the river systems in




attraction of quiet, unlit, private foreshore locations will prove irresistible to vandals and

drug addicts, who would otherwise frequent areas capable of being controlled and



a) Government Initiated 'property improvements'Invariably government bodies will seek to impose their influence on the riyerine


cycle ways, pedestrian paths, environmental walk ways and the eventual foreshore

restoration works to correct the environmental damage caused by their own



upper Swan River.

b) Environmental OveruseThe existing authorities capacity to manage the ecological, environmental and

ethnical environment is insufficient to justify their appointment as custodians of

private land environs. Government agencies inability to understand and balance

between the interests of the public and private land interest in respect to

environmental issues invariably leads to a degradation of the environment through

overuse.


with the intense land management requirements of the properties subject to this


government is ill equipped to replace the commitment to property protection and


flush lands Forever and Related Lands


Page 4 of 9

maintenance that can only be found in a private landowners interest in their

homestead.










managing what they currently control. If the government wishes to demonstrate its



I. The Water AuthorityThe continuous and disastrous sewerage spillages associated with poorly planned



and upgrading the infrastructure and policy associated with wastewater

management. While the Water Authority continues to kill off our marine ecology

and deny the residents of Perth the safe use of their river the Government cannot

seriously expect people to believe that partitioning more land into the governments

hands is a solution to the policy inertia in Government.

Are we to expect the deep sewage system put into Maylands in 2001 will fail in

2020 because of a lack of forwardplanning?

ii. Belmont Park ExamplesThe current focus of this scheme is totally im balanced when compared to the









lit Catchment Management IssuesIt appears the Government would like us to believe that the problems associated

with algae blooms are alt to do with the fact that some properties extend to the river







agriculture involves the use of industrial pesticides and fertilisers. How is the

government's ecological management policy for the industrial and agricultural use





systems.


land use and industrial and agricultural contributions to ecological degradation.



A submission by affected residents of Swanvlew Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 5 of 9







proposals.


Statusi. The Scheme is based on the premise that 'Regionally Significant Bush land' requires







ecological or environmental significance.

In many cases the historical use of the private lands have removed the presence of any



ii. The area disclosed on the 'map' of the Perth Metropolitan Area discloses the area as


significant bushland value.There are six identified pockets of land in the "map" of the area between May lands and





Iv. Why have land areas such as May lands Peninsular, Belmont park Lands, Burswood

wetlands, May lands Golf Course, Ron Courtney Island and surrounding Garvey park,

Hinds Park, The Bayswater Riverside gardens and wetlands, Sandy Beach the Helena


scheme. This is particularly illogical when it is considered that a 200-metre strip of













than grasses are wild blackberry that is a declared noxious weed and would

be forcibly eradicated if it were found on farmland, This weed is the single









Bush lands Forever and Related Lands

A submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace May lands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 6 of 9


remains on the Swan Coastal Plain. There are NO rare vegetation

complexes. Indeed after 50 to 100 years of urban development the

predominant flora is imported flowering trees and plants as found in the

majority of Perth's back gardens.

f. Wetlands and creeks. The only wetlands in area 313 is the storm water drains


area De Lacy Reserve was once wetlands but it is now a fertilised and

manicured cricket and soccer ground.



urban use of the land under review. The May lands region of the Swan River in particular is of



the link to urban history such as the May lands airfield, mounted police division, brickworks,
















appears the government is happy to ignore its responsibility to quantify land use losses


b) Lack of PrecisionThis scheme invites landowners to siibmittheir opinion on the.proposed scheme without


aspects such as the impact on existing boundaries, The land owners have not been






to each of their properties;i. Surveyed details of their existing property, including details of the extent to which


It Precise details of the existing land userestrictions and the boundaries and land

area pertaining to each land use restriction.

ill. Independent assessments of the financial effect of the change in land rights

proposed for each landowner.

iv. Precise details of the development and land use rights that each property enjoys




A submission by affected residents ofSwanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 7 of 9







Lack of Public ForumsConsidering the complexity of the scheme proposal it is unreasonable for landowners to




public forums directed to each area of the schemes application.

The relevant Government Minister and Shadow Minister together with the local



Degradation of Land Values without Compensation

The proposal devalues the financial value of the landowners property with no

appreciation of the need to determine that devaluation and provide for immediate

compensation based on the immediate diminution of value. The scheme proposes that

the landowner may retain title to the property or seek to sell the property to the authority



value,

h) Lack of Financial OptionsThe scheme should allow for the landowner to either sell the land to the Authority and

then have the right to reacquire the land with its diminished land rights for a lessor value



phases.

I) Removal of Existing Development ConcessionsClause 5.2.2 (vii) of the Statement of Planning Policy 28 states that the gazetted land

will no longer qualify for public open space contribution value when considering

developments on the land. The removal of this planning value will severely devalue all

affected properties immediately as it reduces the potential density of development of


recognition of the government's obligation to provide financialcompensation for that


g)


Sushlands Forever and Related Lands

A submission by affected residents ofSwanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 8 of 9

RECOMMENDATIONS




2. That all land owners be provided with an independent report that sets out clearly and





which the community members can be addressed by state and local government

ministers and representatives together with town planners, regulators and


4. That the government embody in the scheme restrictions on future development of

homestead foreshore use to preserve the heritage value of riverine homestead

lifestyle. Specifically the scheme should recognise that there is a loss in ecological




environment.

5. That area 313 be removed from the scheme due to its total lack of ecological

relevance and the existence of far more deserving areas for protection.





Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 9 of 9


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 148

\Ce kat t'ae01442-41C,11-, ea.Name

Address

6=C-roc-eel Nhe_ $2- CPC-(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

'S Sm 41s hew eyz., pk 0_52- kfr1/4A t(c Postcode 4oCt

Contact phone number. 6t 7rt "VS 2-- Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that anyadditional Information be loose rather than bound)

"Ter. c ti kin se.....VEAb.

ZrLs.

,---tp&o.ki A,55,2.5......e...%;1r.1 o /2-.0,c, a. -t o A. at' e 0.....4-. tu........ us L 4 it.. a 02., tt-II. Leo, c S la 3q.,..

I v.) c ( L...i *r...4 t..., IS La5.1.- ( pet ba J. , c,;,,g,,.,5 c.a.

-,-W` N a. e fN e. et...9k tc. _Lass As 't to ,, 0 c.ki

be tc^-14 r=. --1 k .-sc A ti.t?. iss 0 k s, ..., , ,..4.,..._._ ,... L...e 10 t3 6

Vet, k ..1 ch.4.-./..t A A licZA ert &-* kx-ei2. 45. jP) a 4 .4.

ltS ti `1, rE ).,

.1r td.c.. 1\ 00.1C 1:34c %.%

0.N Je ate 49,4# v-1% *

3c 1_, 9. ,.... 1 ttettl Q 64k iliti

tnre CA.S k-tk ter %SOO' 0. %(- irc3. R- CA,

u1.5 A A NJ /saga S to

% ark

k /CU/ e ec,It

([7° aSt! 3 14 'S .1. 14) ("cl 2 Zs-- i ti r9 9 (ft as 43 01/41,(44 $ c) Q c (I eke U a LA...-

"1. ho.. 1:)¢e t+ I3 0 te\k-ea ek co im v,d2 N. s. A-cc 0

C. U-se Ays. is- '1' (.1..\-r MN i s RaczAs b c.. 4. ..caks-c-c-t,-- 3( 3

A c.v.

1-6-bb-r(cc_ i ,.., .., ,..., 5. i 0 --s , T-- 'Cs-4-57re er tte C. et

0 Lb, 0 !Lc CI ka...(t.

13 Cad-C. e. $ it 44. _s th.c. 0. Q4...e-k i 2 CT. YZ et\rum A cvzis, b

}:.1-1 i o u cuz.k4 tt-cr t...51--,-T-gify::(iffiTA-rz;FT, TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

:,r

14441?-1- I *I tie a scc 1.-C A (2TIN

kaS rD ( it. Sc Isse

1,7( t slt I.3 CkS k.N1 rt r

-eel °El

G(.44. P Sera AttjLI (-4 ?

oea Ms_ arta- S esk I It Ls (A- t t-rc b L1/4.5A-1 -1/4

orkk,a4 "1::n CA 0 Ci Lc lit poct

1 2 NOV 2004

D__









911 YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): G ZZ G 1 r.f_

Or



L1' PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)Or



Signature Date 1HLOLf


Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax (08) 9264 7566; Email [email protected]; Internet -httplAwv.wapc.wa.gbv.au



This is an attachment to the appended submission Form 6A under theMetropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959.


private residents of Swanview Terrace Mayiands with properties adjoining the Swan River


35, 36, 39, 43, 47, 49, and 51 Swanview Terrace, being the residents who were able to

respond within the tim efram es of the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33 of

August 2004.








a variety of timefram es from as early as the 1950's to recent members of the community


ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND PERSONAL RIGHTSThis submission supports the broad premise that:-






of process; and










Bush/ands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents ofSwanview Terrace May lands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 3 of 9

/-9


further analysis of this scheme.


1. Land Based Access IssuesWithout doubt the principal concern of the residents is that this proposal is ultimately likely to






assault, and home invasion and has been the case in this neighbourhood extremeviolent crimes such as sexual assault, paedophilia and even murder. The experience of

the residents of Stone Street May lands following the creation of a riverside pathway by



b) Incidence of RubbishThe inevitable result of increased public access to the river will result in the increase the



been generated from flotsam disposed by shore and water based river users andrepresents a small proportion of the rubbish that will be injected into the river systems in




attraction of quiet, unlit, private foreshore locations will prove irresistible to vandals anddrug addicts, who would otherwise frequent areas capable of being controlled and



a) Government Initiated 'property improvements'Invariably government bodies will seek to impose their influence on the riverine


cycle ways, pedestrian paths, environmental walk ways and the eventual foreshorerestoration works to correct the environmental damage caused by their own



upper Swan River.

b) Environmental OveruseThe existing authorities capacity to manage the ecological, environmental andethnical environment is insufficient to justify their appointment as custodians of

private land environs. Government agencies inability to understand and balancebetween the interests of the public and private land interest in respect toenvironmental issues invariably leads to a degradation of the environment through

overuse.


with the intense (and management requirements of the properties subject to this


government is III equipped to replace the commitment to property protection andmaintenance that can only be found in a private landowners interest in their

homestead.


Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace May lands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 4 of 9










managing what they currently control. If the government wishes to demonstrate its



L The Water AuthorityThe continuous and disastrous sewerage spillages associated with poorly planned



and upgrading the infrastructure and policy associated with wastewatermanagement. While the Water Authority continues to kill off our marine ecologyand deny the residents of Perth the safe use of their river the Government cannotseriously expect people to believe that partitioning more land into the governmentshands is a solution to the policy inertia in Government.Are we to expect the deep sewage system put into May/ands in 2001 will fail in

2020 because of a lack of forwardplanning?

IL Belmont Park ExamplesThe current focus of this scheme is totally imbalanced when compared to the









ilk Catchment Management IssuesIt appears the Government would like us to believe that the problems associatedwith algae blooms are all to do with the fact that some properties extend to the river







agriculture involves the use of industrial pesticides and fertilisers. I-low is the

governments ecological management policy for the industrial and agricultural use





systems.


and use and industrial and agricultural contributions to ecological degradation.


Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents ofSwanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 5 of 9







proposals.


Statusi. The Scheme is based on the premise that 'Regionally Significant Bush land' requires







ecological or environmental significance.In many cases the historical use of the private lands have removed the presence of any



it The area disclosed on the 'map' of the Perth Metropolitan Area discloses the area as


significant bushland value.There are six identified pockets of land in the "map" of the area between May lands and





iv. Why have land areas such as Maylands Peninsular, Belmont park Lands, Burswood

wetlands, May lands Golf Course, Ron Courtney Island and surrounding garvey park,

Hinds Park , The Bayswater Riverside gardens and wetlands, Sandy Beach the Helena


scheme. This is particularly illogical when it is considered that a 200 meter strip of













than grasses are wild blackberry which is a declared noxious weed and would

be forcibly eradicated if it was found on farmland. This weed is the single









Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swan view Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 6 of 9


remains on the Swan Coastal Plain. There is NO rare vegetation complexes.

Indeed after 50 to 100 years of urban development the predominant flora is

imported flowering trees and plants as found in the majority of Perths back

gardens.f. Wetlands and creeks. The only wetlands in area 313 is the storm water drains


area.. DeLacy Reserve was once wetlands but it is now a fertilised and

manicured cricket and soccer ground.



urban use of the land under review. The Mayfands region of the Swan River in particular is of



the link to urban history such as the Maylands airfield, mounted police division, brickworks,
















appears the government is happy to Ignore its responsibility to quantify land use tosses


b) Lack of PrecisionThis scheme invites landowners to submit their opinion on the proposed scheme without


aspects such as the impact on existing boundaries. The land owners have not been






to each of their properties;i. Surveyed details of their existing property, including details of the extent to which


it Precise details of the existing land use restrictions and the boundaries and land

area pertaining to each land use restriction.

ill. Independent assessments of the financial effect of the change in land rights





Page 7 of 9







f) Lack of Public ForumsConsidering the complexity of the scheme proposal it is unreasonable for landowners to




public forums directed to each area of the schemes application.The relevant Government Minister and Shadow Minister together with the local



Degradation of Land Values without CompensationThe proposal devalues the financial value of the landowners property with noappreciation of the need to determine that devaluation and provide for immediatecompensation based on the immediate diminution of value. The scheme proposes thatthe landowner may retain title to the property or seek to sell the property to the authority



value.

h) Lack of Financial OptionsThe scheme should allow for the landowner to either sell the land to the Authority andthen have the right to reacquire the land with its diminished land rights for a lessor value



phases.

I) Removal of Existing Development ConcessionsClause 5.2.2 (vii) of the Statement of Planning Policy 28 states that the gazetted land

will no longer qualify for public open space contribution value when consideringdevelopments on the land. The removal of this planning value will severely devalue allaffected properties immediately as it reduces the potential density of development of


recognition of the governments obligation to provide financial compensation for that


g)


Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace Mayfands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 8 of 9

RECOMMENDATIONS




2. That all land owners be provided with an independent report that sets out clearly and





which the community members can be addressed by state and local governmentministers and representatives together with town planners, regulators and


4. That the government embody in the scheme restrictions on future development ofhomestead foreshore use to preserve the heritage value of riverine homesteadlifestyle. Specifically the scheme should recognise that there is a loss in ecological




environment.

5. That area 313 be removed from the scheme due to its total lack of ecologicalrelevance and the existence of far more deserving areas for protection.






Page 9 of 9

Rec

ord

ofA

ttend

ance

Str

eet M

eetin

g 25

Th

Oct

ober

200

4-N

ame

Add

ress

Con

tact

Tel

epho

ne N

o.

4777

eioN

y-r

e.)

/AT

73

wA

ivw

cwfic4/4Ac cr.

,eif

ricAlyv

s0

/ a?,

p 9

s7k

937o

3n

de6,

Acd

-ot-

rvLi

-t

l -6;

s0A

lir(;

:" id

're

e?i2

ict -

cc/1

/74

42A

cq

2-7/

564

4g O

cgr

)-fr

XA

)441

.5"k

1 A

N)

VI-

el-i

7 6

)<A

AL

MA

tio

4,0

S9

17/ 6

7 c

o

a II

rE

-_-:

.-_

-_1

i \ -

-A

s Z

4)d

be)

ic

-570

11

-b A

-N -

.1)4

44C

ces-

S-'C

T*

(--t

-i,q

-A/V

/e)

7-C

-C. 4

4g

yc.4

-7.4

5cl

41-j

c114

5c4t

2;),

,40-

.e91

. 2-

-16

..---

f5-

7,6-

-d-e

y im

z-c.

_."

-- 5

Vf/

A-7

1,ne

"1-C

E ,-

-`

/-..D

.v.

7.11

0c-0

(1c

.Sc

,)am

0 t

C ti

Tce

''q3

703-

9.4

0

vige

--0

STyp

72o

Al-

s17

4-fc

4),4

gti 1

174-

7JC

I-77

C'C

'0 7

'." 'e

ms

A#7

,4oe

m,..

47--

Sys

/ orv

,i-'4

6 3

57,-

--"a

--fr

y V

)/6e

-, 7

-4

-.,o

2, 2

;.---

YL

.6,(

0g

--eL

Ale

r,k7

1)g/

s /

eXem

-?c

Var

a /3

/Qef

rAce

.61

otie

yezc

,--/

9is

&va

vrL

..44-

4)-t

v

1(1

r9a.

4(1'

1//a

'c-c

) re

./0

-9-K

i-fi

geki

.bs

,fa

r/92

<7,

2 2_

, 7 ,

r-4

9,2

o.; C

/We,

/7/ 4

/44,

--1/

2-ec

.)te

-vre

w,

..e-'1

',,/

I-6

, .5-

793

7e)5

5.

tti?

,c4.

-77,

,,?./.

v,e.

--z_

z_.,

/C,

,..--

-44.

,-,-

,,,,.,

,,, i-

Ce

..-

9-7,

-1,

A-2

,44

,Fey

c.c,

/9

5-6.

S72

C-r

i

-4,-

)-A

--\-

s\ L

s &

,D%

\4,c

s.v,

-,3c

-- c

yw A

-,--

L,,l

e_,A

:cam

.-\-

vA

-^-t

t--,

r4h

-'s

0 o

c- k

9; 1

k 1

S--

-S 2

'

1,-

E 5

-e-

-t L

YL

k-fs

szA

v-k-

-,>

, yk-

-\e.

S- S

1-0

vor-

4,1.

ez.

.-,-

,'-c

- c

c,_

IL,N

v4,-

y L

is--

,-,,-

t 4)

Coo

C k

ia-A

k-i

c-ss

(..7

/-fa

ch6

"(5-

74/S

--r

I `7

.Sk

v9-r

wee

(&)

!Er

Ars

-0 r

eon

0737

/ or

71






OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER I

Submission 149

Name Carmen 0 Valehe 3:-1/4:11.ct arca(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address 461 ShitinvileiV Tce. P101 iOnda Postcode.. 51Contactphone number.9 232 2.2. address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. it Is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

As peir 0+i-tithed A

1 2 NOV 2004 TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION








All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings,along with all written submissions,


Submissions.





VYES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by: Cho di c Ga rreff4:;1/4 1((birrcos 0

VMYSELF My telephone number (business hours): .o.ib.i.a9.23-3-...6 1Or


57I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)

Or


Signature

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSONS) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Date


Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - httpJ/www.wapc.wa.gov.au

garralla49 Swan View Terrace, May lands WA 6051

PO Box 575 MT LAWLEY WA 6929Mob: 0418 927 781 A/Hrs: 08 9272 2779 Fax: 08 9272 1154

8 November 2004

SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1082/33

We the undersigned wish to herewith record our strongest possibleobjection to the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan RegionalScheme affecting the river foreshore parallel to Swan View Terrace,May lands.

One of the main attractions when we purchased our property was the factthat it ran right to the river, offering us our own piece of 'paradise'. Thetranquil setting and privacy it offered was second to none.

Our principal concern is the opening of the foreshore to the public willexpose us to burglary and vandalism on two fronts, as happened to theresidents of Stone Street a couple of years ago with the access for theconstruction of the sewer along their rear boundary.

The boat owners who have mooring parallel to the bank have for years hadtheir boats broken into and movable parts and gear stolen. They can'tmove further off the bank as the navigational channel is close to our side ofthe river.

The width of the proposed reserve is narrower than is indicated onproperty dimensions. Within fifty years of the original subdivision fivemetres of the bank has been washed away. Some residents have erectedforeshore retaining walls which have slowed this erosion, but the erosionalthough slower is continuing.

Continued over page...

2I'm sure the bureaucrats proposing this land grab have given little thoughtto the value of the land. To us, it has a premium value when its access tothe river is considered by the adjoining owners land. The value toadjoining owner is far more than the average price for square metreenvisaged by the bureaucrats. A comparison between canal frontage lotsand no canal frontage lots in Mandurah can prove our point.

There is no need to acquire this land for a future cycle way as a cycle wayhas already been constructed around the front of these properties on SwanView Terrace and I don't believe the public have any problem with itspresent location.

We recommend that area 313 be removed from the scheme due to its totallack of ecological relevance and the existence of far more deserving areasfor protection.

We also recommend that the existing partitioning of land for Future PublicOpen Space on the properties in area 313 be removed to allow thelandowners to have certainty of tenure and to ensure the lands enduringuse is restricted to riverine urban living.

We hope you will seriously consider our views and facts presented on thisproposal favourably.

Yours faithfully

C & V GARR

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTHWA 6000

This is an attachment to the appended submission Form 6A under theMetropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959.

OVERVIEWThis submission represents the interests of the community interest group made up of theprivate residents of Swanview Terrace May lands with properties adjoining the Swan Riverand specifically represents the views of the residents of 7,13, 15, 17A, 19, 25, 29,7/31, 8/31,35, 36, 39, 43, 47, 49, and 51 Swanview Terrace, being the residents who were able torespond within the timeframes of the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33 of

August 2004.

The residents consenting to this submission believe they are also entitled to represent theremaining residents of Swanview Terrace adjoining the Swan River on the basis that severalresidents have been unable to respond to this Scheme proposal due to circumstances




The current residents of Swanview Terrace have occupied their current private residences fora variety of timeframes from as early as the 1950's to recent members of the communityarriving since 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND PERSONAL RIGHTSThis submission supports the broad premise that:-






of process; and

The personal and financial security of the private residents as property owners must bebalanced with their custodial duty to the maintenance of their propertyand the broaderobjectives of the community at large to enjoy the public open spaces of the Swan River.

OBJECTThe object of this submission is to highlight aspects of the Bush Forever and Related LandsReport and associated processes that are deficient and require urgent redress prior to theadoption of any of its proposals as they may relate to the parties to this submission.

FORM OF PROPOSALThis submission is presented as a list of issues and concerns that must be addressed prior tothe adoption of any recommendations proposed by the Scheme.


Bush lands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace May lands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 3 of 9

This submission also makes a number of recommendations to be considered prior to thefurther analysis of this scheme.


1. Land Based Access IssuesWithout doubt the principal concern of the residents is that this proposal is ultimately likely toresult in future development of the foreshore in such a manner as to provide permanent landbased access to the foreshore by the public through the use of paths and cycle ways. Thisstyle of access presents the following community and environmental issues: -

a) Increase in CrimeThe provision of public access to the unguarded front yards of Swanview Terrace willinvariably result in an increase in crime in the areas of theft, vandalism, graffiti, burglary,assault, and home invasion and has been the case in this neighbourhood extremeviolent crimes such as sexual assault, paedophilia and even murder. The experience ofthe residents of Stone Street Maylands following the creation of a riverside pathway bythe Water Authority must be taken into account, where the residents of that street faceconstant property and personal crime fuelled by riverside access to property.

b) Incidence of RubbishThe inevitable result of increased public access to the river will result in the increase thedisposal of refuse and rubbish. As residents of the foreshore we are welt aware of thevolume of rubbish that we collect daily from the river foreshore. This rubbish to date hasbeen generated from flotsam disposed by shore and water based river users andrepresents a small proportion of the rubbish that will be injected into the river systems in


c) Antisocial Behaviour and Drug AbuseShore based public access to the foreshore will inevitably lead to a rise in publicantisocial behaviour and the incidence of drug related vandalism, crime and abuse. Theattraction of quiet, unfit, private foreshore locations will prove irresistible to vandals anddrug addicts, who would otherwise frequent areas capable of being controlled andmonitored by the authorities.

2. Lack Of Government Capacitya) Government Initiated 'property improvements'

Invariably government bodies will seek to impose their influence on the riverineenvironment by 'development' with poorly inspired public interest ventures such ascycle ways, pedestrian paths, environmental walk ways and the eventual foreshorerestoration works to correct the environmental damage caused by their ownintervention. You need only examine the disastrous examples of government worksupported by the Swan River Trust at Herrison Island on Causeway and works on the

upper Swan River.

b) Environmental OveruseThe existing authorities capacity to manage the ecological, environmental andethnical environment is insufficient to justify their appointment as custodians ofprivate land environs. Government agencies inability to understand and balancebetween the interests of the public and private land interest in respect toenvironmental issues invariably leads to a degradation of the environment throughoveruse.

c) Lack of ResourcesThe government is not financially capable or personally equipped to deal adequatelywith the intense land management requirements of the properties subject to thisreport without the strong and committed support of the private landowner. Thegovernment is ill equipped to replace the commitment to property protection andmaintenance that can only be found in a private landowners interest in theirhomestead.

Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no 1082/33Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 4 of 9

d) Government Based InertiaMany property owners are facing increased losses through erosion that has beeninadequately dealt with by the responsible authorities to date. Instead of directingresources to the resolution of joint property management issues the governmentagencies have chosen instead to place responsibility for land management with theprivate property landowner by the use of a regulatory stick being waved at themwithout any corresponding rights and importantly without any acceptance ofgovernment responsibility to accepting the cost of land management.

e) Existing Riverine ConcernsIt is totally unacceptable to assume that the Government should be given more powerand control over the riverine system when they are demonstrably incapable ofmanaging what they currently control. If the government wishes to demonstrate itscommitment to ecological sustainability of the River Systems then its priorities shouldbe directed to addressing the problems associated with the following issues;

I. The Water AuthorityThe continuous and disastrous sewerage spillages associated with poorly plannedand inadequately maintained infrastructure. The Government must place thehighest priority possible on the elimination of risks to the river systems by reviewingand upgrading the infrastructure and policy associated with wastewatermanagement. While the Water Authority continues to kill off our marine ecologyand deny the residents of Perth the safe use of their river the Government cannotseriously expect people to believe that partitioning more land into the governmentshands is a solution to the policy inertia in Government.Are we to expect the deep sewage system put into May /ands in 2001 will fail in2020 because of a lack of forward planning?

II. Belmont Park ExamplesThe current focus of this scheme is totally imbalanced when compared to themismanagement of semi government organisations such as Belmont raceway. Inthis case the government was happy to let a quasi government entity off with littlemore than a slap on the wrist after producing one of the biggest environmental fishkills in Perth history. There is no evidence readily available of the governments truecommitment to managing infrastructure associated with the river systems and itappears we will just have to wait and see where the next poisonous spill occurs likethose at Claisebrook East Perth or Guildford pumping station, or the Canning River,or Belmont, or the sub terrain leaching in Bassendean.

lit Catchment Management IssuesIt appears the Government would like us to believe that the problems associatedwith algae blooms are all to do with the fact that some properties extend to the rivershore. It would be a fair bet that very few private river homesteads have usedfertilisers on their properties for many years, whilst the government pours tonnes of

phosphates onto its riverine parks, gardens and sports grounds only to watch it allwash down storm water drains into the river and contribute to algae blooms.

The government has aggressively promoted the growth in vineyard activity in theupper Swan for the last decade or so, blissfully ignorant of the fact that industrialagriculture involves the use of industrial pesticides and fertilisers. How is thegovernment's ecological management policy for the industrial and agricultural useof the river system balances to its urban use policy.

The Swan River is not unique in being a major river system under pressure throughagricultural use. The deteriorating state of the Blackwood, Warren and MurrayRivers are testament to the government's inability to manage and balance riverine

systems.

The focus of this scheme should be on cleaning up the broader catchment arealand use and industrial and agricultural contributions to ecological degradation.

Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no 1082/33Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace Maylands, Pat (24/10/04)

Page 5 of 9

3. Clarity of PurposeThe scheme lacks specific clarity of purpose. The future use of the proposed land under thescheme in respect to the Swan View Terrace properties has not been specified. In theabsence of a specific land use proposal it is totally unreasonable to expect the affectedproperty owners consent to their land holding being reclassified to a non-specific future use.The landowners are entitled to specific and precise clarity in respect to the future use of theirproperty under the scheme before being expected to comment precisely on the schemesproposals.

4. Justification for Classification of 'Regionally Significant Bush land'Status

L The Scheme is based on the premise that 'Regionally Significant Bush land' requiresprotection but has failed to specify the basis for the land precincts and specific tracts ofprivate property being included in the scheme. The proposal has failed to adequatelyanalyse the property of each landowner to identify ecological, environmental andethnological aspects unique to the property that justify its inclusion in the scheme. Justas importantly the scheme has failed to attempt to identify regions that should falloutside the scheme due to their lack of significance or due to lack of ethnological,ecological or environmental significance.In many cases the historical use of the private lands have removed the presence of anycapacity to restore any semblance of pristine riverine environs and in most cases theequivalent development of public lands is no longer compatible with such ideals.

it The area disclosed on the 'map' of the Perth Metropolitan Area discloses the area asregion 313. There is no discussion or evaluation of the actual land or identification of itssignificant bushland value.

lit There are six Identified pockets of land in the "map" of the area between Maylands andMidland, being area's 313, 314, 319, 214, 491 and 305. Of these sites the SwanViewTerrace site appears to be the only residential area selected. There is no discussion asto why this area has been selected or why it is no regionally significant when the vastmajority of other tracts of the Swan River have not been identified as significant.

Iv. Why have land areas such as Maylands Peninsular, Belmont park Lands, Burswoodwetlands, Maylands Golf Course, Ron Courtney Island and surrounding garvey park,Hinds Park , The Bayswater Riverside gardens and wetlands, Sandy Beach the HelenaRiver and literally thousands of other pockets of significant bushland been ignored in thisscheme. This is particularly illogical when it is considered that a 200 meter strip ofresidential housing land that has been developed for between 50 and 100 years issuddenly significant.

v. Schedule 1 of the Statement of Planning Policy sets out in its description of OtherCriteria under subsection (viii) the following principals as a basis of determining therelevance of environmentally sensitive areas to protect;

a. Threatened Ecological Communities and species. Area 313 has NOthreatened ecological communities or species (Other than perhaps theriverine homestead communities of people)

b. Threatened or poorly conserved plant communities. Area 313 has NOthreatened or poorly conserved plant communities under the EPA 1994maps. The predominant plant communities are back yard grasses such ascouch and buffalo. Imported fruit trees and flowering plants such a s rosesand other urban plants. The predominant free ranging plant species otherthan grasses are wild blackberry which is a declared noxious weed and wouldbe forcibly eradicated if it was found on farmland. This weed is the singlemost destructive plant invading our river systems and should be eradicatedby the local councils as a matter of urgency.

c. Declared Rare Flora or Specially Protected Fauna. There is NO rare ordeclared flora or fauna in area 313. The only flora is common back gardenvarieties found in most back gardens and the predominant fauna is cats, dogsand rats, with the occasional snake living in the noxious blackberry.

d. Lakes, There are NO lakes in area 313

Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no 1082/33Bushlands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 6 of 9

e. Vegetation complexes where less than 10% of the original extent currentlyremains on the Swan Coastal Plain. There is NO rare vegetation complexes.Indeed after 50 to 100 years of urban development the predominant flora isimported flowering trees and plants as found in the majority of Perths backgardens.

f. Wetlands and creeks. The only wetlands in area 313 is the storm water drainsthat deliver pollutants from the roads and sports grounds surrounding thearea.. De Lacy Reserve was once wetlands but it is now a fertilised andmanicured cricket and soccer ground.

5. Lack of Analysis of Regionally Significant 'Urban Use'The scheme report has totally overlooked the ethnological and historical significance of theurban use of the land under review. The May lands region of the Swan River in particular is ofsignificant historical urban importance. The report focuses on ecological values but fails toaddress the social urban history of the region by addressing the need for the maintenance ofthe link to urban history such as the May lands airfield, mounted police division, brickworks,boatyards, Tranby House, market gardens, sailing and rowing affiliation, riverine homesteadsand other river use history. In this regard the scheme is unbalanced and ill conceived as astatement on the future use and maintenance of the regions social, environmental, ecologicaland ethnical links to history and the development of the region into the future.

6. Private Property Landowners Issuesa) Lack of Consumer Rights

The scheme effectively seeks to 'dump' landowners into a mass scheme without anyquantification or specific analysis by the proponents of the impact of the proposals onthe landowners. Nowhere else in Australian consumer law could a member of the publicexpect to be treated so shabbily as to be informed of a substantial proposal to changetheir consumer rights without any attempt to quantify, value or financially justify the costto the consumer. This proposal would be damned from beginning to end under FinancialServices Reform Act and any other consumer protection act for its total disregard for theright for a consumer to be properly informed of the financial impact of a proposedchange to their rights.Whilst the government demands that a member of the public be properly informed asthe consequences of $10.00 per week being paid to their superannuation fund itappears the government is happy to ignore its responsibility to quantify land use lossesthat could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

b) Lack of PrecisionThis scheme invites landowners to submit their opinion on the proposed scheme withoutproviding any empirical details of the impact of the proposal on even the most basicaspects such as the impact on existing boundaries. The land owners have not beenprovided with any specific detail as to what actual quantity of land is being affected, letalone what the financial impact of that loss of land use will be both in terms of theimmediate and future value of their property and the resultant limitations on their futureuse of the land.Prior to this proposal being able to be subjected to reasonable analysis by the landowners the land owners must be provided with the following minimum details in respectto each of their properties;i. Surveyed details of their existing property, including details of the extent to which

existing title boundaries have been eroded and now are submersed.Ii. Precise details of the existing land use restrictions and the boundaries and land

area pertaining to each land use restriction.ill. Independent assessments of the financial effect of the change in land rights



Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no 1082/33Bush lands Forever and Related Lands,4 submission by_affected residents of Swanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 7 of 9

c) Right of Quiet EnjoymentThe scheme document do not adequately deal with the rights of existing propertyowners in regard to the right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

d) Existing InfrastructureThe scheme does not adequately cover issues such as the current and future use andmaintenance of riverine infrastructure such as jetties, moorings and breakwaters.

e) Complexity of ProposalsThe documents presented to the landowners are ridiculously long and complex, whilstat the same time lacking in meaningful detail.

f) Lack of Public ForumsConsidering the complexity of the scheme proposal it is unreasonable for landowners tobe expected to adequately consider the scheme and make meaningful submissionswithout the provision of a series of community forums in which government regulators,town planning experts and environmental scientists are made available to speak atpublic forums directed to each area of the schemes application.The relevant Government Minister and Shadow Minister together with the localgovernment Minister and the Shire representatives should also be made available todiscuss these issues with their constituents.

Degradation of Land Values without CompensationThe proposal devalues the financial value of the landowners property with noappreciation of the need to determine that devaluation and provide for immediatecompensation based on the immediate diminution of value. The scheme proposes thatthe landowner may retain title to the property or seek to sell the property to the authorityas an alternative. The scheme does not offer to pay compensation for loss of value ofthe land whilst allowing the landowner to continue to own the land with its diminished

value.

h) Lack of Financial OptionsThe scheme should allow for the landowner to either sell the land to the Authority andthen have the right to reacquire the land with its diminished land rights for a lessor valueand with stamp duty concessions, or the landowner should be entitled to compensationequal to the diminishment in value between the pre and post scheme implementationphases.

0 Removal of Existing Development ConcessionsClause 5.2.2 (vii) of the Statement of Planning Policy 28 states that the gazetted landwill no longer qualify for public open space contribution value when consideringdevelopments on the land. The removal of this planning value will severely devalue allaffected properties immediately as it reduces the potential density of development ofadjoining lands. There is no recognition in the scheme of this loss of financial value orrecognition of the.governments obligation to provide financial compensation for that


g)



Page 8 of 9

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the public submission period for this scheme review be extended by at least 12months to enable a proper analysis of the issues and concerns raised in thissubmission to be addressed.

2. That all land owners be provided with an independent report that sets out clearly andprecisely the impact of this scheme proposal on their specific land holdings and theimpact of those changes on their future use of their land and the likely change invalue of their land should the scheme proceed.

3. That the government initiate a series of open public forums for each micro region inwhich the community members can be addressed by state and local governmentministers and representatives together with town planners, regulators andenvironmental scientists.

4. That the government embody in the scheme restrictions on future development ofhomestead foreshore use to preserve the heritage value of riverine homesteadlifestyle. Specifically the scheme should recognise that there is a loss in ecologicalpreservation value by development of existing homestead properties to involve theuse of cycle ways, walkways and other infrastructure that degrades the ecologicalvalue of the riverine environment and encourages over use and misuse of the riverenvironment.

5. That area 313 be removed from the scheme due to its total lack of ecologicalrelevance and the existence of far more deserving areas for protection.

6. That the existing partitioning of land for Future Public Open Space on the propertiesin area 313 be removed to allow the landowners to have certainly of tenure and toensure the lands enduring use is restricted to riverine urban living.

Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no 1082/33Bush lands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace Maylands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 9 of 9

1 2 NOV 2004

0,50Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959





OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 150

Name 6 e ra rcA of in al Stiff kifotryye(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

lb elver C evt- le a 5Seyi de ofAddress

Contact phone number.(9411°413 6C Email address

Postcode bos--14

p3 co .564 1-1- KetCh el. a (A

Submission (Please attach additional pages If required. It Is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

We are, f owners o f /est e. Ct + 16 iv et §freet

a ssen ea, &GA. Ito ferkit IS Iden4-1 A ea( 013 10 2 i /ewe./ 5+-

or, out/ wits ,

Pe, 6eli eve, cam e.g.° / has e&i, made, fel/ /iv 614-1

aeirm I 4 0 40#0 eti as 1k 6asis lot clue, hop out Gar Lica/0?

Ni C.Fs 3 oc_ --rhe, tie..9e+pfliov, is tecionlibiaatti excite, (zetanese,

Ar/ &bide /14 tieecis avia{ at et-to -frees. '&1141 4trees ate,

ale pIctecil-ect 6-i 14, San, ve,- Dos+ oNne Co/ cThn des oc,

Iv re 17,2 out 6 a ckya,,,,,1 s no* et ;li t freer-it eKermicirt

OF Re, riprtiVe, &aside-1-'6,Z r fe9toki 4 s;Ie, so /tic.? te0 0 c+/

6 efieLitlai( Conc videc,4 10/evez 416,109tjh OC4o6e/ ornd

He, we, suit '1-;j suivei kid/ co.- ,Plitt cov-

Uz tespecl-64-2 swg,es.f 14,4- lit bowvulazi coP fsgos- 6e,

te- ail!yne{. io F00014 Sre ,' rz /s Eciye, a e 41-J oar out /970/0,n9

IA& have, 044-0 ecif covan 5W° /9 of air SGIegy)11(100

vu4 Mars Sll Otaiv, 0 &I ga,..9e31-eo? re -0-dt,oniemi-,


1 2 NOV 2004

F -02912- a- 1-




'tithe group must be appointed.





1°1 YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): 04110436s-

Or


I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:f-V PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)Or



Signature a---------x--- / Date //////ot

: , 3, pt. 1:f -4z I-

NOTE SubmissionsMUST,-,b,eivelived by_the advertised_closing date_; being -tadbusiness 00pmi antFRIDAY 12 November'. NOTbecOnsidere

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7586; Email - [email protected]; Internet http:thInvw.wapc.wa.gov.au

Gerard and Sue Kearney16 River StreetBassendeanLot 28 (16) River StreetBFS 305Aerial Photo 2004

Additional comments for inclusion with submission.

1, We have not been provided with written advice regarding the Bush Forevercategory that our property falls under but we were verbally advised by HuiaCol liver that our backyard has been classified as a Regional Creek line.

2. Section 5.2.5 of the Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan RegionStatement of Planning Policy 2.8 outlines the Specific Policy Measures to beapplied to Regional Creeklines. This essentially states that the land is alreadywell protected by existing policies such as the Environment Protection (Swanand Canning Rivers) Policy 1998.

3. The section of our property proposed for inclusion within the RegionalCreekline consists of the land between the back of our house and the river.There are a few gum trees on this land but the vegetation is predominantlyexotic with Japanese Pepper, Oleander and weeds covering much of theuncleared portion. The gums, although not the natural species for this area andprobably planted by previous residents, are already protected by the provisionsof the Swan River Trust and we would never consider felling them anyway. Asite survey was conducted by Bush Forever Biologists in October andalthough we have not been provided with the results we are confident that thesurvey will confirm that this land is not a significant example of the naturalvegetation of the area.

4. We were advised that the decision to include our backyard and the backyardsof our two neighbours would have been based on an aerial survey, not a sitesurvey. An examination of the aerial photograph provided by the botanists(BFS 305, Aerial Photo 2004) shows that the borders of the protection areaencompassing our backyard have been arbitrarily drawn along the aerialphotograph to include what appear to be the canopies of large trees. In fact,much of the canopies shown on our property will be the exotic plants, notsignificant natural vegetation.

5. There does not appear to be any scientific basis for the border of protectionarea BFS305 to cut through our backyard and the backyards of my twoneighbours and then move down to the river's edge. We are the only threeresidential properties along this stretch of river to have our backyards includedin the BFS. It would make more sense for the border to move down to theRiver's edge before cutting across my backyard. This would allow theprotection area to include the vegetation through Success Hill Reserve but notunnecessarily encroach on our private property which contains no remnantnative plants. The border could run along the river's edge as it already doesapproximately 60 metres further down the river. This would be a simpleamendment to the map and would not reduce the overall objectives ofprotecting the natural bushland in BFS305.

Recommendation

As there does not appear to any additional conservation benefits in including ourbackyard in BFS305 as the land is already protected by existing policies and thefact that the vegetation is not significant natural vegetation we respectfullysuggest that it will be more practical for the boundary ofBFS305 to be redrawn tomove down to the river's edge at the end of Success Hill Reserve so as to avoidthe inclusion of our backyard and those of our next two neighbours. The boundaryof BFS305 already moves to the river's edge after lot 37 so our suggestion is very

simple to implement.

As the trees in our backyard are already protected by the Swan River Trust and theremaining vegetation is exotic the inclusion of our backyard within BFS305 willprovide no additional protection or conservation value. It will only add additionalmanagement overhead to our plans to rehabilitate the vegetation close to theriver's edge and to prevent further erosion of the bottom of our backyard.

We suggest that the inclusion of our backyard and our neighbours' backyards hasbeen a simple error based on misinterpretation of the aerial photograph and thiserror can be easily corrected prior to the finalisation of the MRS Amendment.

We trust that you will assess our request favourably and re-align the boundary ofBFS305 as suggested in our submission.

HMI=MI 1 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MR MMMMMM MB BAM

1 I 1IMIMMEOOMIMINIM

MEI 1 I

...1 I ler. 3.0 MMMMM J 1....,

lismumn/i.

.. I I.1..

I

11NMI

:

aMIT ' mml i 1

In

IIIIIIIIII

II

II

II

1I

. Him MMMMM iiliai°° i

1 i /I

g g

i

i

i

I

C

I

I

I

I

r

Al

1,111

AllI

16I

I

I

I

lawillhItam

1

MEMMIUMITIMOM IM

MM..c.141MMM

MMMM

xi

IMMMMMMM

I i 1 II

'

OF151111101ii..mmg ""

I1 !l1I.

111,4

200

I

011OB3sZ21.160IUD

VISWEN1 M "I-

c9

411

111141

: :

I

MEME11.610 IIIONE Ira!

11NEM &WmIIIMVO MMMMMMMM 11'BIM

IIVL.

.,.A

4D, U

rn v

unnAm

1111

19M

"m

g

subj

ecr1

04ur

voy

tl

A11

41>

P10

/not

oo p

reC

OA

9AN

1men

t1=

=1e

4 '

05

BU

SH

FO

RE

VE

RP

RO

TE

CT

ION

AR

EA

-B

FS

305

LEG

EN

D

NO

RT

HP

LAN

No

"c--

_,_

Ez

-__.

. a_

a --

--

cm--

lit -

---

EM

I 000

000-

.Z

.7...

.a

....

= ..

...-

"^ s

ot ..

......

.C

O...

.b..

...--

- =

3 ..

a --

...a.

......

= ..

"-..

co ..

......

.=

.....

.--

AU

TH

OR

ISE

H. C

OLL

UD

E

DR

AF

TS

PE

RS

ON

: 9. F

IELD

ED

EX

AM

INE

D'

ftevi

sEo

DA

TE

: MO

ON

S M

OM

PIL

E R

EF

: .k

OM

PLA

N R

EP

: t:,,

,090

1".,.1

,PF

,,,,

rtA

wI0

A9,

1.5356

SC

ALE

1:7

500

5..

1.5

tqp

pp'

1

41'1

1,1,

"r

. i

_,,II

ild

Hhi

, ' V

il

'19

'Pr

Oc.

ii

0 H

I. I

M.

klig

10.1

1,..

1,

111I.,1

1.p

, d...

,

11

' "In

4,

..1

3III

11.

114

4l'

(Non

ll,.1

;el

I,1

yr

1,1

1,'1

ill It

140

,1 Il

liji0

1nr

..,IA

:ri.

OP

rir

'

.di

lk1

1110

1I.

,.1

li.ip

ri.d

hp:.a

."1

1 I 1

i

OS

\ )s/P

1

N

.I

'14

ireyj

a41

, Irh

Of!

'i 1%

,11

,H

Irp

, ail

P

,

In

,,',w

hiz

!,

hi,'

.t'

I1g

11.9

"'

',1P

,li

."

.'

lgd!

1411

r

''1

"iir

.1q,

,,irl

yel

11

A f

,1p

i,;

III'

Mr:

.111

01i

1,

I-'1,

11

1511

1,

nprt

el p

qiii

ow!.

vol

,.6,

.1:

::k,,,

,,:

ph!,

ph.

.:,

:.:1:

:::',

po"

slop

toth

.,,po

l.!I

ilr' d

r., r

i"

ir It

:ill?

,ig

ir.:,,

..I

.ru

lr

4it

di ,I

ilil,p

il.

" 1

'fl;

'Mill

ili

I.

I

'I

.;,' '

:rif

:I

.-rr

"r!,

,, I,

i0'

,,p,

.,

iih.

%III

01.1

,1

4,11

1I1

i'I',.

41,i

,

I

i'd

11''''

,"'l

I I'

'

1 ",

eic

h''',

,,M

0;1

"1".

., M

Ihi

tkir

,0,,,

..,.1

,4.

25,y

,,, 1

091

IMP

001

,,, 3

hi,

le,A

iliI

l'im

,j4

,,,

ity,,:

,;:i

:,1

\ jk

et ,-

.4, '

rim"'

eil'

'11)

,ITIO

,'

1111

:14.

01P

ie%

I cl

..

.., li

te P

i4.

I.7,

11h&

j!' I

'," r

i,.

,

iril

loI

'1

a .1

o !

IIIi.I

III

1,I

'

I

PeI

ibIl

ed"1

"'

..1

klII

11%

1:1

'110

11

I'

:Nil,

I ;%

:1,1

1

'141

11ili

till

Ili,

'6hi

iii ;I

n 1r

"Ili

' Vii.

1

1'

110

.110

. "I I

.11,

PIP

11

r4'

.Ir'

,..

"I4

pIII

..1,

..,. i

d: ,M

',. i

,

flII

1,

111:

1::

1

II

1

190i

,Ir

Ir

n.rh

iRin

".

r

,, : ,

11

i:

d

,er

g 1

i

9,il

11li

I'

II

,. I

iii, ,

d of

;' i

e'r

,I , It

1

is

ON

I'

,' 'IP

KT

c:','

11,,,

rr

'l'r

lir:o

r19

'144

14',1

01,

or %

ill,4

1,4

III

; IF

liel

:,I

'"1

.It'

0,'

11,

rr

iii

,H

'Illb

1 N

r I I

r'1

'4

i i,

li 4,

041

I01

. ipt

o ri

'IN I

1.04

4ri',

,.,:

','

, 1 3

I'10

114,

110

1,1.

,.

'Jr

', ,

4,..

hdge

l,[1

,,

Illi '

,Ill

,,

,,,pr

i.

r.

..,t.P

d

rfi

l iI

'i

J;I

:, dP

ror

'is.

ii,

1iP

11:II

1

I11

1111

.

.1

,,,,

erb

;'Ii

'II I

11Ir

1

I,

,.

HI

,

i',0

rilil

ihr,1

1h.

ph

it O

rli'

I."

1I'

hi: ,

!.

19

i1

.,

.ir

wr"

,o'

rIr

.,

II,

1,11

01:1

ilif

ri

... 1

,.,,,,

;,p z

i.i,,

,1P

II.

PI

I 11

i.

pp

,1

'11

.11;

0' .

I,

,i, 'r

ile'

',.

eat;

11

,

r

plrip

44,9r,,

r_._

or .

0

iles..%

,t-

Piricveli

41110,,1

,,

c-,

C.

,RI

,i

,

fre

1

I

'11,

,t1I 1

.,,,

_'h

ilil

:LH

,1

...

,,1

1,

+k,

I,'

I ,,P

ill' r

'HI

,I

-,"

;;--

nIK

Ecn

II,

4,9

c/..)

'110

11 0

ire

1\ f

l


FORM 6A

SUBMISSIONMETROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No.1082/33



OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER 1

Submission 151

Name Mit Toth., A . Sre vans

P(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address 3 ATEAsoiv 6Aft.cegs 1411.4rintoP Postcode g So

Contact phone number. 1314 666° (W)Email address j.4eRv" n 5 (cntt ret.ak9310 3 So 73(10

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

?LEASE Piv0 ArrAcHCO A .1,46,-.IStrov Me-PA/LCD fiy MAEAk/smos op' (Font) ANO me AviniAgtoP /14e440ocii

CO /1.4 &Ind / 7 Y 6 1Z-0 4. A./ C 6 )

These Two 6.2ouPS Su/re/LT THE A",4"./0A4...ner

1411314 To 1924 Po S'E THE c 4-c-tS it pd oP A fttoPos A c Aut.

/3u .5 N Poneveil. S/TE 339 (Pieder £ -A /e6s s asue.

TURN_,OYER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSIONPIANitit's

1 2 NOV WA

) P2


The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959a1so provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.


othe group must be appointed.





114- YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by:[Zee MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): 932d 6,5GoOr



Or


Signature


REHAcr or )( Poet IL LvAnc6- 12 // 20°C

Date

NOTE Submission& MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being' cloie of2 business (5 00pni) on PRIDAY112 November 2004 Late submissions will NOT be considered

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - http://vnevcwapc.wa.eov:au

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment No. 1082/33


SUBMISSION BY THE FRIENDS OF PINEY LAKES and the WINTHROPMURDOCH COMMUNITY GROUP

The Friends of Piney Lakes (FOPL) and the Winthrop Murdoch Community Group (WMCG)make the following submission in relation to MRS 1082/33:

(1) Support for the Amendment

FOPL and WMCG support MRS Amendment 1082/33 and Statement of Planning Policy No.28. These groups believe that:

The provision of a statutory policy and framework with the specific objective of protectingand managing bushland within the Perth Metropolitan Region will be beneficial.Future planning and decision making processes will be improved by having a policy inplace that effectively integrates and balances wider environmental, social- and economicfactors against the effects of land use pressures and proposals.

(2) Specific Concerns

FOPL and WMCG wish to annunciate the following specific concerns in relation to the PineyLakes Reserve:

FOPL and WMCG have noted and concur with the level of community concernsurrounding some of the options that emerged from the Freight Network Review process.This level of concern has heightened since the adoption of MRS Amendment 1055/33(Deletion of the Fremantle Eastern Bypass). Specifically, FOPL and WMCG believe thatthe pasSage of MRS. 1055/33 will place future land use pressures on the Piney LakesReserve. Such pressures, if strong enough, may result in the implementation of FreightNetwork Review Options, such as H and T.It appears that the level of urban density may increase sharply in future years. FOPL andWMCG are therefore concerned that if this occurs, the biodiversity and environmentalvalues of the Piney Lakes Reserve may be threatened.

(3) Recommendations

In order to address the concerns outlined above, FOPL and WMCG make the followingrecommendations:

3.1. That MRS Amendment 1082/33 include a Proposal specifically related to the PineyLakes Reserve (Bush Forever Site No. 339), hereinafter referred to as the Piney LakesReserve Proposal.

2

3.2. That the Piney Lakes Reserve Proposal formally recognise and acknowledge potentialfuture land use pressures, specifically MRS Amendment 1055/33 and Freight NetworkReview Options H and T, together with urban infill.

3.3. That the Piney Lakes Reserve Proposal should specify and enable a "re-mapping" of theexisting Conservation Category Wetland (cross hatched area in dark blue containedwithin the Bush Forever Protection Area bordered in red and numbered 339 on Map 1:Bush Forever Protection Areas): Further, that subject to a review of data gathered in the"re-mapping", consideration be given to expanding the Bush Forever Protection area.

3.4. That the Piney Lakes Reserve Proposal should specify and enable a "re-mapping" of theexisting Regionally Significant Bushland (green shaded area within the ConservationCategory Wetland mentioned in the previous dot point). Further, that subject to a reviewof data gathered in the "re-mapping", consideration be given to expanding the areadesignated as Regionally Significant Bushland.

3.5. That the Piney Lakes Reserve Proposal include an acknowledgment of the BeeliarRegional Park Draft Management Plan (BRPMP) 2001-2011. Specifically, the PineyLakes Reserve Proposal should contain a clause closely aligned to the "Transfer ofgovernment freehold land" clauses, page 7, under the heading "Land Tenure" containedin Part B7 of the BRPMP. These clauses, in part, state:

"Reserves created from WAPC freehold land and vested with the ConservationCommission of Western Australia will be afforded an appropriate purpose for theprotection and enhancement of Park values and will classified as class A under the LAA.

As agreed to by the relevant local government, reserves created from WAPC freeholdland and vested with local government will be reserved for the purpose of "Conservationand Recreation" and afforded similar tenure arrangements as the reserves vested in theConservation Commission of Western Australia".

In other words, the Piney Lakes Reserve Proposal should recognise that the Reserve,which was created from WAPC freehold land and now currently vested with the City ofMelville (and reserved under the BRPMP as Area 5 'Conservation and Protection' andArea 6 'Recreation' respectively), could potentially, with the agreement of the City ofMelville, be classified as Class A under the LAA.

3.6. That the Piney Lakes Reserve Proposal include an acknowledgment of the Piney LakesManagement Plan May 2004, specifically, paragraph 1.3.4 Classification under the LandAdministration Act. This paragraph aligns the Piney Lakes Management Plan with theBRPMP with respect to the future reclassification of the Piney Lakes Reserve to Class A.

3.7. That the Piney Lakes Reserve Proposal include any necessary provisions to enable thefuture upgrading of its classification to Class A..

3

(4) Request for Hearing

FOPL and WMCG wish to request the opportunity of a Hearing so as to present more detailto support this submission and to provide any clarification, if necessary, of the intent.


FORM 6A

SUBMISSIONMETROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No 1082/33



OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 152

Name PAUL TRICHILO DIRECTOR Integrated Transport Planning(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address Department for Planning and Infrastructure - AFH PERTH WA Postcode..6000....

Contact phone number. _9264 7940 Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

Integrated Transport Planning Directorate of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has

reviewed the Bush Forever Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment proposals in terms of

Regional Transport issues such as planning, delivery, maintenance and management of infrastructure,

and makes the following submission.

Attached is a copy of the detailed submission.

1 2 NOV 2004 I


-La ri



These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.



or





Or



PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)Or


Signature


Date ..gin I 04

NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close ofbusiness (5 00pm) on FRIDAY 12 NOVEMBER 2004. Late submissions will NOT be considered

Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - httplAway.wapc.wa.gov.au

ettickDepartment

for Planning and InfrastructureGovernment of Western Australia

"........-- Integrated Transport Planning Your ref: 809/2/1/77PT2

Our ref: 809/2/1/82P1

Enquiries: Paul Trichilo

12 November 2004

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 6000

Dear Sir

SUBMISSION TO METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS AND DRAFT BUSHLAND STATEMENT OFPLANNING POLICY No. 2.8

Integrated Transport Planning (ITP) Directorate has reviewed the Bush ForeverMetropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment proposals in terms of Regional Transportissues such as planning, delivery, maintenance and management of infrastructure, andmakes the following submission.

PART A DRAFT STATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY 2.8

1. General.

Since the release of Bush Forever, experience has shown that the conflict, of Bush ForeverSites on transport reservations impacts on the effective planning, delivery, maintenanceand management of transport infrastructure. The stated objectives for Bush Forever Sitesand proposed Bush Forever Protection Areas (BFPA's) are clearly in conflict with theintended use of transport reservations, which in some cases have been planned for manyyears. Bush Forever and proposed BFPA's infer increased conservation status for theareas identified for transport purposes.

There are very limited opportunities to comply with the Bush Forever and BFPA'srequirements, including clearing and protecting equivalent environmental "offsets" onprivate land. It is also worth noting that the WAPC has over time made a significantfinancial commitment to the purchase of land to protect and "offset" transport impacts onsome Bush Forever Sites (eg Mitchell Freeway/National Park and "Lexia Wetlands").

2. Draft SPP 2.8

Integrated Transport Planning has undertaken a review of the impact of the draft SPP ontransport reservations in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). Transport reservationsinclude "Primary Regional Roads", "Other Regional Roads", 'Transit Routes" and"Railways". A composite plan showing the conflict between the BFPA's and all thetransport reservations, shown coloured blue, is attached. As can be seen in the attachedplan, there are a significant number of locations where the proposed BFPA's boundariesimpact on transport reservations. These impacts range from minor overlap to significant

Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street (cnr Forrest Place), Perth, Western Australia 6000Tel: (08) 9264 7777 Fax: (08) 9264 7566 TTY: (08) 9264 7535 Info line: 1800 626 477

[email protected] http: / /www.dpi.wa.gov.auABN 40 996 710 314

conflict. It appears that not all the transport MRS reservations are included in the draft SPPMap 1.

To clarify the intent of transport reservations and achieve more cost effective and timelyplanning, delivery and management of transport infrastructure the following is suggested:

2.1 Remove all the transport reservations in the MRS (including those covered by PCA's)from the BFPA's. Impact on any bushland would continue to be managed in accordancewith existing environmental management best practice.

2.2 If the removal of transport reservations from BFPA's is not deemed acceptable thefollowing is suggested:

Review and revise the proposed BFPA's boundaries to coincide with the transportreservation boundaries to remove minor overlaps.

Map 1 does not appear to include all the transport corridor reservations andtherefore should be amended to include all the corridors, shown coloured blue, inthe attached plan, as "Government Lands and Public Infrastructure".

Section 3.2: "Local Bush land" indicates that the draft SPP will apply to "all areas ofnative vegetation" including areas outside BFPA. This approach would appear toadd significant constraints on transport infrastructure and potentially make theidentification of any equivalent "environmental offset' requirements almostimpossible. This provision should therefore be clarified or removed.

Section 5.2.3: "Government Lands and Public Infrastructure", may not clearlyindicate that transport reservations should be exempt from bushland prioritymeasures. The wording should be reviewed and amended to:

o Clarify whether "Government" land includes Federal, State, and Local.

o Separate proposed policy measures applicable to "Government Lands" fromareas for "Public Infrastructure". There is potentially much more opportunityto avoid BFPA impacts on Government owned land not affected by transportinfrastructure requirements.

o Clarify that the exceptions referred to in sub section (i) apply to all transportreservations shown in the modified Map1, (which are protected under theMRS, including PCA's), so that the "other measures" described in the draftSPP, do not apply within transport reservations. Any impact on BushForever Sites would continue to be managed in accordance with existingenvironmental management best practice requirements. Revisedwording can be provided when required.

PART B MRS AMENDMENT PROPOSALS

This part of the amendment proposes the rezoning of 94 different proposals to Park andRecreation zone of which, 25 proposals abut existing Other Regional Road (ORR) andPrimary Regional Road (PRR) reservations currently gazetted in the MRS. As theseproposals do not directly impact on the ORR or PRR reservations, ITP directorate have notsubmission to make on these proposals.

However, in addition to the above, ITP directorate is currently reviewing two transportcorridors that will be affected by proposals listed in this amendment. These TransportPlanning reviews are at a stage that completed planning design concepts and proposedland requirement boundaries have been defined. Therefore, we make a submission on thefollowing two proposals:

Proposal 31 (Anketell Road) - ITP Directorate in consultation with the Fremantle PortAuthority is currently reviewing the transport corridor for Anketell Road to service theproposed outer harbour development. This project proposes a planning design concept forAnketell Road that provides for a new 4 lane dual carriageway between the harbour andRockingham Road and refinement of the existing road alignment between RockinghamRoad and Kwinana Freeway. This will increase the ORR reservation that is currentlyreserved in the MRS. The ITP Directorate is also preparing a Planning Control Plan toprotect this requirement and therefore recommends that proposal 31 be amended to reflectthe proposed new boundary for Anketell Road as shown on the attached plan.

Proposal 91 (Lenore Road) - The City of Wanneroo has submitted a request to the NorthWest Districts Planning Committee, which includes a proposal to include a number of roadsin the area as ORR reservations in the MRS. One of these roads is Lenore Road, whichforms part of the East Wanneroo Structure Plan. The ITP Directorate is currently reviewingthe City's proposed road design concept for the road, which provides for a 4-lane dualcarriageway and the land requirement boundary that proposes an increase to the currentORR reservation in the MRS. Therefore, the ITP Directorate recommends that proposal 91be amended to reflect the proposed new boundary for Lenore Road as shown on theattached plan.

Please note that full size or electronic copies of the attached plans are available on requestfrom our office by contacting Gary Manning on 92647945.

Yours sincerelyaPdul Trio iloDIRECTOR INTEGRATED TRANSPORT PLANNING

I

LEGEND

IN PROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION

Ma AREA TO BE EXCLUDED FROMPROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION

-- METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME BOUNDARY

NORTH

. 4

L

BUSH FOREVER AMENDMENT No 1082/ 33PROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION RESERVATION CONFLICTS WITH STATE REGIONAL TRANSPORT RESERVATIONS

'4 ;\1,4,1

Nft&\

WE L A MD 5 C ONSERVATION: SoC I E Y UNC)

Submission 153

10 November 2004

The SecretaryWA Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StPerth, WA 6000

Dear Sir,

MRS Amendment 1082/33 : Bush Forever and Related Lands

The Wetlands Conservation Society strongly supports the intent of this MRS Amendment tocreate Bush Forever Protection Areas (BFPAs). We support most of the proposed schemetext apart from a few issues that are listed below.

1. We believe that all of the Bush Forever sites should be included in BFPAs, not justthe easy ones. We are disappointed to see that only 14 out of 55 Government-ownedsites are included. This seems to be a clear violation ofan election commitment bythe Government.

2. We would like to see all Bush Forever sites protected as fully as possible by rezoningthem (where necessary) to Parks and Recreation. It is not acceptable to leave manyof them in other zones which permit development to occur, particularly extractive in-dustries and urban development.

3. Clearing of Bush Forever sites should be specifically prohibited and this should beclearly stated in section 27C and in the SPP2.8. Some Bush Forever sites have al-ready been cleared since the plan was first released 4 years ago.

4. Provisions should be made to facilitate additions to the BFPA without recourse tofurther MRS amendments.

5. We would like to see Stakehill Swamp (Bush Forever site 275) included in the BFPAand rezoned to Parks and Recreation. This wetland is conservation category andshould be included in the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park. We cannot understandwhy it is not included in this amendment.

This proposed MRS Amendment is an important step forward in protecting our natural heri-tage in the Metropolitan Area. We hope that you will improve it along the lines suggestedabove.

Yours faithfully,

Phili JeniYingsPresident

14 Stone CourtKardinya, WA 6163

OE SIMI FL !ANTE-

;TUE,

1 2 NOV 2004

FILE_ Pa,

Please find attached:

1. Form 6A duly completed.Note: I have indicated a reluctance to speak at a hearing, as I do not wish to becomplicit in an exercise that serves to provide the appearance of complying with"due process" to the complete rejection of effective and just outcomes.

2. my submission.

3. my 1999 submission which has never been afforded a reply and which appears tohave been completely ignored in the roll forward of your "planning" process.

I FOR PLAN:Pik:3P IT,UCTURE

1 2 NOV 2004

FILE pr.)

Metropolitan Region .Town Planning Scheme Act 1959Section 33 Amendment (Substantial)

FOAM 6A



To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commieelon

. 469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 8000

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 154

NameWA BUILDING BLOCK COMPANY

Address

(.LMMEPRINTOLMILY)

PO BOX 0 APPLECROsS WA 6953 Postcode

--anklet phone number. 9407 5005 Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. it is preferred that any additional Information he loose rather than bound)

BUSH FOREVER SITE 290 COVERS GRANTED MINING LEASE M70339, M70/13 ANDM70/141 ALL OF WHICH ARE ACTIVE QUARRIES WITH APPROVAL THROUGHDEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND RESOURCES. CLEARING OF VEGETATIONHAS BEEN APPROVED AND EXCAVATION IS PROGRESSING.

FURTHER DETAILS WILL BE SUBMITTED NEXT WEEK

90/170 39Vd

_

ilf-PAInlWNT izo ii PLANNIOvdi tNFRA,:ikueTtiKE

1 2 NOV 2004

FILE M'22 1 71

OSEcL6E680

HONV3S3e1 VIHOACINV1 09E9L6E680 TO:LT 1700L /TT /LT


The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity 1 or people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee,

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is Intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and Is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings, along with all writtensubmissions,are published as public records. The Commission's recommendations are also published in a Report onSubmissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented byyou In this written submission will be taken Intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.


NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)Or


I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): 1 I-10 7 p-5-1,05-

Or

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's name. ENVIRQNMENTAL CONSLITANT MID aQ1-10.11:QAGroup name:Agent's telephone number (business hours):Mailing address:

or

Fx1

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted :In:


PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and onlypersonsnominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

Signature


LINDSAY EPHENS for

4ciittinip!-PRitik overt-Bar

Date12 NOVEMBER 2004

Contaft Telephone-(08)926477M Fax-(O8)9264766: Email -awsempemmotaw, Woutet-htpAmwtwapoma.govsm

OSESL6E680

90/S0 :9Vd HOIV3S3 WYTJA0NV1 I OS652_6E680 TO:LT VOOZ/TT/ZT

Western Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPerth WAfax 9264 7568 4 IP aq e S

Attention:

Re:

Julie DaveyBush Forever Office

Bush Forever Site 290,

S_KbANAtctstcNs 64 a IsS

Land-form ResearchLand Systems - Quathea - Environment

ABM 29 841 445 694

13 January 2005

I lodged a notice of objection to Bush Forever Site 290 on behalf of WA Building BlockCompany and Limestone Resources Australia Pty Ltd. I also have contact with CockburnCement, who also have an interest in Bush Forever Site 290 and have lodged their ownobjection. Essentially the issues are the same for all the companies and it may be possibleto treat then concurrently. I will send a copy of this letter to each company for theirinformation.

I work for all the companies and have been involved in ground mapping.and reportpreparation over the whole of Bush Forever Site 290, and the Mining tenements covering it.

The following Points are relevant and have been pointed out to the Western AustralianPlanning Commission on a number of occasions in the past but they seem to have not beentaken on board.

1. The main problem seems to have occurred from Bush Forever 2000, Volume 2 notadequately researching or reporting on the site.

2. Site 290 appears to be isolated and has no Bush Forever linkages to other sites.

3. The main vegetation on site, on the limestone Is Coftesloe Complex Central South ofwhich EPA Guidance No 10 January 2003 notes that 41.1% of the pre European arearemains, and 8.9% was already in secure reserves at January 2003. This is likely tohave changed because the large areas of the same complex occur into the YanchepNational Park which is being extended. It was understood that Bush Forever sought toprotect 10% of the original area of each Vegetation Complex as a minimum, (Draft SPP5.3 (v), gush Forever 2000, Volume 2 page 5, Figure 2). This appears to be easily metby protecting other areas with less clearing approvals or by upgrading the reservationstatus of other locations.

4. There would appear to adequate representation of Cottesloe Complex Central Southwithin the extended National Park and other nearby areas, Vegetation that would appearto able to be well protected.

5. The site has been identified by the Department of Industry and Resources for manyyears as containing high grade limestone resources, eg Record 1987/5 of Geological

.

Survey of Western Australia.FilANbilibMN

-to TO RECORDS FORr

RATION W- NO ORIGINAL

25 Heather Road, Roleys1One WA 6171Tat 9397 5145 Fax 9397 5350

i it-r I .1, ri 11-1-1

r i r Ella!Illru:-.ithOy-,Sie kehE ciao i6'8160(21 r4;6(B767126,,e) chnEukra I

1

E EI'1711"M" ) r rr nn r17 T T non,' /TO /CT El

OSESL6E680Sac - Morn WA Enviton C01-14. A.1.100

P9 /39 BOVE!

6. The whole site has been totally covered by Approved Mining Leases for twenty years, soit is curious that no mention is made of this in Bush Forever 2000..

M70/13 and M70/339 Building Block Company

M701109 and M7/0346 Limestone Resources

M70/141 Cockburn Cement

M70/126 and M70/266 Vigeo Pty Ltd

7. There Is no mention of the whole site being listed as a Priority Limestone Resourcewithin the Western Australian Planning Commission Basic Raw Materials Policy 2.4,which predates Bush Forever.

8. The site has been identified within Metropolitan Planning Policy by the then MetropolitanRegion Planning Authority (now WAPC) for many years, as containing high gradelimestone resources, since tho mid 1980's in the "Availability of Basic Raw MaterialsPerth Metropolitan Region, An Information Base to Complement MRPA Policy', MRPA(undated but 19.86 I think).

9. It is curious to see that one part of the Western Australian Planning Commission seemsto be ignoring another part of the Commission and SPP 2.4, and is persisting in trying toplace vegetation which has many approvals to be cleared, within a relative highpreservation category

10. M701109 and M70345 has approval for excavation from the Department of Industry andResources and has excavated much of their leases.

They have had approval from Department of Conservation and Land Managementfor excavation since 1989.I believe the approved Notices of Intent were sent to the Environmental ProtectionAuthority at the time.Limestone Resources has paid State Government Royalties, Clearing Fees to CALMand has bonds in place to the Department of Industry and Resources.They have significant infrastructure on site, which I believe Is worth a large amountof money, in the millions of dollars.They also have proven limestone reserves for which they have approval to excavate.Limestone Resources has clearing approval from CALM and DOR.Excavation and Rehabilitation Management Plans and Notices of Intent are in placeand approved.

11. M70/13 and M7/339 has approval for excavation from the Department of Industry andResources and has excavated much of their leases.

They have approval from Department of Conservation and Land Management forexcavation since the mid 1980's,I believe the Notices of Intent were sent to the Environmental Protection Authority atthe time.Block Company has paid State Government Royalties, Clearing Fees to CALM andhas bonds in place to the Department of Industry and Resources,They have significant infrastructure on M70/339, which I believe is worth a largeamount of money, in the millions of dollars.The also have proven large volumes of high grade limestone reserves for which theyhave approval to excavate.Building Block Company has clearing approval from CALM and DOIR,Excavation and Rehabilitation Management Plans and Notices of Intent are in placeand approved.

OSESL6E680

HONv3S3e1 kINOAGNv-1 y 95E5LGE680 03:TT 5003/WET

C0 /£O 39Vd

12, M70/141, is approved limestone extraction and is being quarried.

Cockburn Cement has Ministerial approval to excavate limestone from the whole ofM70/141, EPA Bulletin 491, October 1991.M70/141 was sublet most of M70/141, to Building Block Company, who obtainedDEP and EPA approval to excavate the sublease area in 1986.Both Cockburne Cement and Building Block Company have had approval fromDepartment of Conservation and Land Management for excavation since the mid1980's.Cockburn Cement has paid State Government Royalties, Clearing Fees to CALMand has bonds in place to the Department of Industry and Resources.They have proven large volumes of high grade limestone reserves for which theyhave Ministerial approval to excavate.Cockburn has clearing approval from CALM and DOIR.

It is hoped that this information will provide the Bush Forever Committee with sufficientinformation to adequately research Bush Forever Site 290. In reality with the approvals inplace the site will be excavated and the land surface lowered significantly with a final coverof rehabilitation,

Should you require any further information please let me know.

Lindsay Stephens

OSESL6C680

HalVESBei M030NV1 y 09E92.6E680 OZ:IT SOK/TO/ET

J. \IPPRoPos OEXTEaStONTOVA/104P nktIoNAL

,:oty

I/14

Id;°1Area of high resource potential.

I Tenement Applications within proposedextenalone to National Pa(

YANCREP

EDEThil43109

WA Limestone(meliont)

CITY OFWANNEROO

Li 70/105110Erato Sand)

I _

SVV

3511Oods

050'pistons

ResnmaAust.PIL?A/0416

PINJAR

1-4,---.), --,.....,.---..---

2..4-4-BoTOR

A trite4 Swan Portland

ComfitM7'1143

General location of 11MB/cementplant elte (approved by Mlnialer

-7711 for trorlronment Juno 10132)

re'

l_smNagAl

RIE -r

Staged excavationto prepare elle for

fuluto Industrial uaeInt22)..--t-TA-41jr

'k,15')Ctr pta

A

\ BURNS 'q1713 /00 3SVd

'5 f. mOcES.L6C680.

HONV3S323 1^1N0joi\ltrly 05E.9L. E68t11 OZ:Ti GOOZ. -/LC07EIT

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Aot 1959Section 33 Amendment (Substantial)

FORM GA



'To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreotPERTH WA, 6000

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 155

AUSTRALIAN LIMESTONE RESOURCESName

09.03SE PRENTCLEACILY)

UNIT 1, 7 GUTHRIE STREET, OSBORNE PARK WA, 6017Address Postcode

Contact phone number. 9407 4300 Email address

Submission memo attach additional pages If required. It Is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound)

BUSH FOREVER SITE 290 COVERS GRANTED MINING LEASE M70/109 AND M70/341BOTH OF WHICH ARE ACTIVE QUARRIES WITH APPROVAL THROUGHDEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND RESOURCES. CLEARING OF VEGETATIONHAS BEEN APPROVED AND EXCAVATION IS PROGRESSING.

FURTHER DETAILS WILL BE SUBMITTED NEXT WEEK

OcEcL66680On /TO 7C11-4_J LP-Van-cr.-RI Lnan ICF1.11-1-1

frNitaiiPLAWNTK6AA() INPRAMUCI LIRE

1 2 NOV 2004

0-02-(-77

I rr, ern tr.

Sr-

1111.111:11

MI%IIII


The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the oppodunityfor people who have madeawritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

Those hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission caq listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is Intended far listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate, In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings, along with all written submissions,are published as public records. The Commission's recommendations are also published In a Report onSubmissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be taken Intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.



YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please-complete the following details. You willbe oontaoted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): 4Pq 7 4, 300

Or

NJ MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's name' .ENVIRGNMTNTAI, SOLICITORGroup name:Agent's telephone number (business hours):Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted InPUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)

or

13(1 PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only pertonsnominated by ydu and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

Signature

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSONS) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

LINDSAY TEPHENS forDate 12 NOVEMBER 2004

Contacts: Telephone - (0E) 0284 7777; Fax (08) 8264 7688; Email nits Owapc.wa.gov.au; Internet htip://www.wapcma.gov.au

OSES/6E680on /711 7C11-1-J OrAIH=0=1 GMJM rf" rornn n T trr

Our Ref

Your Ref

McL/B12

12 November 2004

McLEODSBARRISTERS &SOLICITORSLocal Government LawEnvironmental Planning Law

Stirling Law Chambers220-222 Stirling HighwayClaremont WA 6010Tel (08) 9383 3133Fax (08) 9383 4935Email:[email protected]

Denis McLeod (Counsel)Linda RowleyDavid NadebaumGeoffrey GwenPeter WittkuhnJulius SkinnerCraig StarkeFiona GrgichElisabeth Stevenson (Associate)

SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000 BY FACSIMILE: 9264 7566

Dear Sir

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGIONAL SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1082/33

We now enclose herewith a submission pursuant to the proposed amendment to theMetropolitan S heme No 1082/33.

Yours fa* h

encl

:,ItTMENI" FOR PLANNINGPRASTRUCTUPE

FILE

1 6 NOV 2004

MIDLAND OFFICE: 35 SPRING PARK ROAD. MIDLANDALL CORRESPONDENCE TO CLAREMONT OFFICE

(McLeod; Submission - WAPC (Iota-04.11.12))

Western Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPerth WAfax 9264 7566 4 f, exile s

Attention:

Re:

Julie DaveyBush Forever Office

Bush Forever Site 290.

ibmvss\cmcNs Q_k a 1 SS

Se.Skateat,...La rl CITO r Frl Research

Land Sy fern - Quaniee - EnvironmentABN 29 841 445 694

13 January 2005

I lodged a notice of objection to Bush Forever Site 290 on behalf of WA Building BlockCompany and Limestone Resources Australia Pty Ltd. I also have contact with CockburnCement, Who also have an interest in Bush Forever Site 290 and have lodged their ownobjection. Essentially the issues are the same for all the companies and it may be possibleto treat then concurrently. I will send a copy of this letter to each company for theirinformation.

I work for all the companies and have been involved in ground mapping and reportpreparation over the whole of Bush Forever Site 290, and the Mining tenements covering it.

The following Points are relevant and have been pointed out to the Western AustralianPlanning Commission on a number of occasions in the past but they seem to have not beentaken on board.

1. The main problem seems to have occurred from Bush Forever 2000, Volume 2 notadequately researching or reporting on the site.

2. Site 290 appears to be isolated and has no Bush Forever linkages to other sites.

3. The main vegetation on site, on the limestone is Cottesloe Complex Central South ofwhich EPA Guidance No 10 January 2003 notes that 41.1% of the pre European arearemains, and 8.9% was already in secure reserves at January 2003. This is likely tohave changed because the large areas of the same complex occur into the YanchepNational Park which is being extended. It was understood that Bush Forever sought toprotect 10% of the original area of each Vegetation Complex as a minimum, (Draft SPP5.3 (v), gush Forever 2000, Volume 2 page 5, Figure 2). This appears to be easily metby protecting other areas with less clearing approvals or by upgrading the reservationstatus of other locations.

4. There would appear to adequate representation of Cottesloe Complex Central Southwithin the extended National Park and other nearby areas_ Vegetation that would appearto able to be well protected.

5. The site has boen identified by the Department of Industry and Resources for manyyears as containing high grade limestone resources, eg Record 1987/5 of GeologicalSurvey of Western Australia. , _ ,

friSiToiVH,ON

-TO RECORDS FOR

-MON IF NO ORIGINALN

I

II I

I111

25 Heather Road, Noteystone WA 6111Tat 9397 5145 Fax 9397 5350

t!frtiStiV Sieibtieka' ia'42.122):1\4L'(B:(r5.tonv) mEtp.Nz

s So,- - Morn Wp.EnvIcon Cons paioaOSESL6E680

nrrnirrrnn n7 7 7 nnn9 iTn /CT

00/Z0 39Vd

6. The whole site has been totally covered by Approved Mining Leases for twenty years, soit is curious that no mention is made of this In Bush Forever 2000.,

M70/13 and M70/339 Building Block Company

M70/109 and M7/0345 Limestone Resources

M70/141 Cockburn Cement

M70/126 and M70/266 Vigeo Pty Ltd

7. There Is no mention of the whole site being listed as a Priority Limestone Resourcewithin the Western Australian Planning Commission Basic Raw Materials Policy 2.4,which predates Hush Forever.

. .

8. The site has been identified within Metropolitan Planning Policy by the then MetropolitanRegion Planning Authority (now WAPC) for many years, as containing high gradelimestone resources, since the mid 1980's in the 'Availability of Basic Raw Materials

Perth Metropolitan Region, An Information Base to Complement MRPA Policy", MRPA(undated but 1986 t think).

9. It is curious to see that one part of the Western Australian Planning Commission seemsto be ignoring another part of the Commission and SPP 2.4, and is persisting in trying toplace vegetation which has many approvals to be cleared, within a relative highpreservation category

10. M701109 and M70345 has approval for excavation from the Department of Industry andResources and has excavated much of their leases.

They have had approval from Department of Conservation and Land Managementfor excavation since 1989.I believe the approved Notices of Intent were sent to the Environmental ProtectionAuthority at the time.Limestone Resources has paid State Government Royalties, Clearing Fees to CALMand has bonds in place to the Department of Industry and Resources.They have significant infrastructure on site, which I believe is worth a large amountof money, in the millions of dollars.They also have proven limestone reserves for which they have approval to excavate.Limestone Resources has clearing approval from CALM and DOIR.Excavation and Rehabilitation Management Plans and Notices of Intent are in placeand approved.

11. M70/13 and M7/339 has approval for excavation from the Department of Industry andResources and has excavated much of their leases.

They have approval from Department of Conservation and Land Management forexcavation since the mid 1980's.I believe the Notices of Intent were sent to the Environmental Protection Authority atthe time.Block Company has paid State Government Royalties, Clearing Fees to CALM andhas bonds in place to the Department of Industry and Resources.They have significant infrastructure on M70/339, which I believe is worth a largeamount of money, in the millions of dollars.The also have proven large volumes of high grade limestone reserves for which theyhave approval to excavate.Building Block Company has clearing approval from CALM and DOIR.Excavation and Rehabilitation Management Plans and Notices of Intent are In placeand approved.

OSESL6C680

F102:1V3S321 lAl2:10AGNV1 y 09E9L6EG80 OZ:II SOH/TO/ET

P9/0 Eguid

12, M701141, Is approved limestone extraction and is being quarried,

Cockburn Cement has Ministerial approval to excavate limestone from the whole ofM70/141, EPA Bulletin 491, October 1991.M70/141 was sublet most of M70/141, to Building Block Company, who obtainedDEP and EPA approval to excavate the sublease area in 1986.Both Cockburne Cement and Building Block Company have had approval fromDepartment of Conservation and Land Management for excavation since the mid1980's.Cockburn Cement has paid State Government Royalties, Clearing Fees to CALMand has bonds in place to the Department of Industry and Resources.They have proven large volumes of high grade limestone reserves for which theyhave Ministerial approval to excavate.Cockburn has clearing approval from CALM and DOIR.

It is hoped that this information will provide the Bush Forever Committee with sufficientinformation to adequately research Bush Forever Site 290. In reality with the approvals inplace the site will be excavated and the land surface lowered significantly with a final coverof rehabilitation.

Should you require any further Information please let me know.

Lindsay Stephens

OSESL6E680

H02:1V3SAN klelOSINV1 09E5/.6E680 03:VE 500Z /T0 /ET

301!M/0/142

Swan PortlandCement

:49PRoPos atENS,ONTO

.?

YANCHEP

I

E 741i43? 05)WA Limestone

(Ueintont)

Area Of high resource potential.Tenement Applications within prepeaed

emensbne to National Park

FITT74-61

-o

302714701370Rhos

CITY OFWANNEROO

11 7611051(p)Ent* Sand)

IL I

b

I50/40

LimestonenesouleasAL131.111.

M70015

3?ST

aw 1traboodaHoldln a

PINJAR

WI!Swan Ponland

ContentMi.Ii

General1)

LI 4 100(100 of lint a/cementplant site (appr ved by MhIster

\I\ _LI 1_5" for Environment Juno teezj

ilS

Staged excavationit to prepare site for

futura Industrial use

m'e43(PIL

<1M.,

BURNS00/170 Egtid HONV3SEN

L'fP'"IL..42k

i

INGOcESL.6E680..., . ..r Mc, 1, -I ." VI

MOACIN'll y OSE9LEE680 OZ:IL

r

rgW1'.65

SOBZ/TO%Ei


FORM 6A



To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 600 0

Name: Jacksonville Holdings Pty Ltd

Address: cl-McLeods220.222 Stirling Highway, ClaremontPostcode: 6010

Tel 9383 3133Fax 9383 4935

SUBMISSION:

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 156


1 This company is the registered proprietor of Pt Lot 40 Armada le Road, Forrestdale, whichland is proposed to be included in BFPA 344.

2 We oppose the inclusion of the land in any BFPA. We also fundamentally oppose the MRSamendment and the BFPA in their current forms for the following reasons.

3 Fundamentally there are two related and overarching aspects of unfairness:

It is alarming and unnecessary that bush protection measures should be achieved byway of Bush Forever Protection Areas which prevail over existing zoning.

(2) Draft SPP 2.8 is unfairly but deceptively imbalanced in such a way as to facilitate thedestruction of legitimate development expectations and to lead to a huge devaluationof property, on a highly selective basis.

4 The relationship between these two points needs to be explained more fully.

5 First let us examine for a moment the position that presently exists. ProposeTBFPAis whichare privately owned are (with the exception of those which are reserved under the MRS)presently zoned for some purpose under the MRS and under a local scheme.

E00 9617'0N

1

E69ZSBE6

9992,179E68 T9 e 00 ' aminw kR/ii/7.-C

6 The imposition of a BFPA will have the effect that the existing MRS zoning will be put aside,and within 3 months the local government will have to amend its local scheme so as to, putaside the local scheme zoning and to substitute the BFPA designation.

7 Under the existing zoning, land will have certain development potentialities and thelandowner will have certain legitimate expectations as to that potential. The ability to rely onthat legitimate expectation is fundamental to private property ownership. The right of thegovernment from time to time to make reasonable regulation for the development of land isaccepted, but at all times this needs to occur in such a way as not to effect a radical anduncompensated fundamental downgrading of the potential of the land.

8 The imposition of a fair and balanced Bush Protection policy over and above the existingzoning would be a reasonable and equitable environmental protection outcome. It wouldacknowledge that the existing zoning remains and the guidance obtainable from thatexisting zoning would still be relevant to assessing the development potential of the land ingeneric terms but would acknowledge at the same time that bush protection is a primaryplanning and environmental goal which needs to be given effect to as an integral part ofmany developments.

9 Doing away with the existing zoning, however, means that there is no zoning any morejust the BFPA designation, There is no longer any guidance as to what is the underlyingdevelopment potentialof the land.

10 Take this company's land, for example. It is over 12ha of uncleared bushland. Ourcompany purchased the land because It was prime land for special residential subdivision.The principals of the company are highly environmentally conscious and we did not moveimmediately to realise that value. We wished to create something truly wonderful by way ofa bush-centred special living environment but nevertheless to realise the substantialacquisition and holding costs by maximising lot yield minimal interference with bush butnevertheless a commercial return for an investment.

11 If an SPP were to come into operation on top of the existing zoning that said in effect 'thisland has quality bushland which should be protected to the greatest extent reasonablypossible within the limits of its existing zoning and its existing generic developmentpotentialities", that would be fair and reasonable. That is °orderly and proper" planningorderly and proper in the sense that there Is a reasonable progression of incrementalconstraining of the underlying development potentialities in recognition of the imperatives ofenvironmental protection and society's changing expectations; but also orderly and proper inthe sense that all of the social and economic goals achieved through a reasonable degree ofcertainty as to development potentiality, are not fundamentally undermined.

12 The imposition of the BFPA In substitution for the existing zoning is disturbing andunnecessary because it clears the slate as to pre-existing guides as to developmentpotentiality and leaves the citizen at the mercy of government. There is no balance betweenpre-existing legitimate expectations of the owner on one hand, and environmental protectionon the other.

13 The SPP contains provisions that appear intended to reassure the reader that nofundamental change to underlying development potential is intended. However if thegovernment is serious about not intending such fundamental change, then it would notsubstitute the BFPA designation for the existing zoning it would be enough merely that theSPP take effect as an additional measure within the pre-existing framework of the existingzoning. The substitution of the BFPA for the existing zoning can mean only one thing thatthe government does not want the legitimate development potentialities of the site to be afactor in the planning decisionmaking for site, The government wants to be able to tell the

E69158E69c:41,1797AR T9 e rn R arqm Rq:9T VniTT77T

landowner 'what legitimate development expectations? Don't you know these were takenaway when the zoning was abolished and the BFPA substituted? You should think yourselflucky if we allow anything on the land) ". If the government agencies were genuine about notaffecting the fundamental existing potentialities of the land, then they would not be grabbingfor a BFPA but would be content merely with a SPP to operate on top of or side by side withthe existing zonings.

14 This leads to the second point about the deceptive imbalance in the SPP for bushlandprotection over landowners' reasonable expectations. There are some limited provisions inthe SPP which attempt to give an impression of balance, However what is lacking is someindication of the benchmark for what should be regarded in generic terms as the expecteddevelopment potential. This would enable the government agencies to dictate what theyconsider to be the "appropriate" development potential. To restore balance to the SPP, weurge and submit the inclusion of provisions along the lines of the following:

15 In the POLICY OBJECTIVES provision, inclusion of the following:

"Protection and management of bushland within the framework of the fundamental pre-existing underlying development potentialities of land as ascertained from their prior zoningsand other planning and environmental instruments and constraints otherwise applicable

Where alteration to the fundamental pre-existing underlying development potentialities ofland is required in the public interest, this should only occur through reservation under theMetropolitan Region Scheme or through compulsory acquistion of land so as to achieve justterms for landowners?

16 Similar provisions should appear In Part 5,1 (1) concerning BFPA's General PolicyMeasures.

17 Other aspects of the SPP that are of concern Include:

A The SPP is misleading in relation to the BFPA category "Urban, Industrial or ResourceDevelopment". This is an unusual linking. It sounds like one of the more robust anddevelopment-tolerant categories, but in fact it refers to Priority Resource Locations andother categories which require reference to other publications. Some of these areas aredesignated otherwise in Map 1. The lay reader could easily skip over this category and gostraight through, for example, to "Rural". Indeed at the time of preparing this submission thewriter has not been able to ascertain whether Pt Lot 40 is in fact in an "Urban, Industrial orResource Development" designation by indirect Incorporation, or not,

The scope for injustice through affected landowners not appreciating the incorporation byreference, has, we submit, caused the consultation process to miscarry.

B The proposition that land should be given up for conservation In addition to the ordinary 10%contribution, is unconscionable and appears as a government land-grab. If land is requiredfor the public purpose of conservation, it should be paid for with government monies.

C The tucking away of the most significant provisions in an Innocuous-looking Schedule INegotiated Planning Solutions a presumption against clearing of certain categories ofvegetation. This Is made applicable to Rural Land BFPA's by cl 5.2.4(11),

On our limited understanding, it may well be the case, indeed it probably is the case, thatthere will be few BFPA's that don't satisfy at least one of the descriptions in Schedule 1 cl(vii). In other words, the document should state at the outset that there will be a

17211 BEVTIN

3

C696SE6

9T-CL79E615 T9 4 03 8 (1031014 8S:9T V0 /TT/ET

presumption against clearing in all Rural BFPA's. When all is said and done, that is themost significant provison of the document, and any attempt to argue otherwise Is spin-doctoring of the worst kind.

18 Let us examine for a moment what this means in practical terms for our client.

19 It has a 12-plus ha uncleared rural lot to which a presumption of no clearing applies? Thatis absurd. It is absurd that there should be no clearing, and it is equally absurd that theonus of proof of the appropriateness of any clearing should be on the proponent.

20 By what criteria will presumption against clearing in certain circumstance be rebutted? Nodoubt the answer would be by reference to the other criteria set out In Schedule 1 andfundamentally by reference to "what is appropriate and reasonable" Schedule 1 ci (xv).But appropriate and reasonable by reference to what? The test is circular. This returns usto the start of this submission the SPP must recognise that what is appropriate andreasonable must take into account the framework of the fundamental pre-existing underlyingdevelopment potentialities of land as ascertained from their prior zonings and other planningand environmental instruments and constraints otherwise applicable. It cannot be impliedthat "appropriate and reasonable" will be ascertained by balancing the hardships to theowner of not being able to carry out the expected development on the land based on priorexpectations. The reasons this cannot be implied are:

it is not expressly set out

not being expressly set out it is open to individual and arbitraryInterpretation unguided by what factors are to operate on the "otherside of the ledger to environmental protection

there being no zoning other than the BFPA, any pre- existing developmentexpectations have arguably been expressly swept away.

McLeods

On behalf of Jacskonville Holdings

Solicitors

12 November 2004

4

E69ZS8E6crig.i.vq7sn T9 4- rn '$ ClilqTh 1=1:ca 1721/IT/7i


The Metnopo Man Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their s ubmIssion to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and Is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to represent thegroup must be appointed.


are published as public records. The Commission's recommendations are also published in a Report on Submissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing, The comments presented by you In thiswritten submission will be taken intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.



or

FR41ES, i do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)


MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):

Or

MY AGENT or SPOK PERSON an agent may be from a local group)Agent's Name: 14 nSGroup name: MrAeodsAgent's telephone number (business hours):Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in;

Fa/PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, Including the media, may attend.)

Of


Signature

TO SE SIGNED BY PERSONIS) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Date Pi/M( 4C-

NOTE; Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close ofbusiness (S.00pm) on FRIDAY 12 November 2004. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 777; Fax (08) 9264 7566-, Email mrectimapo.ws.spy.gm; Internet http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

qa'i Pg17,'IDN

5

6696S8E6

9gRe.t7,9Fge 19 E 09 '2 CORDDW BS:9T 170/TT/ET


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 157

Name: McLeods (Attention Mrs L Rowley)

Address: 220-222 Stirling Highway, Claremont Postcode: 6010

Tel 9383 3133Fax 9383 4935Email [email protected]

SUBMISSION:


1 We are solicitors involved in a significant number of cases and clients concerning to issueswhich pertain to Bush Forever sites and related matters.

2 The present proposals to reserve Bush Forever land and, on a much greater scale, to createa new creature of Special Control Area is fundamentally contrary to and competes withprivate propietal rights.

3 In 1955 when the Stephenson & Hepburn report was prepared delineating the overallplanning objectives for the Metropolitan Region, those authors made it clear that it was adesirable public objective, amongst other things, to reserve significant tracts of the PerthMetropolitan Region for the purposes of public objectives such as parks and recreationreserves, preservation of foreshore, schools, roads etc. Put simplistically, the purpose ofreservation was to indicate first of all to owners inclined to forward plan in respect of theirland that such land was earmarked for a public purpose and secondly to prevent significantinvestment into that land which might prejudice or embarrass future acquiring authorities interms of the price to be paid.

4 The Stephenson & Hepburn report and subsequent debates in Parliament canvassed thepossibilities of acquisition and how that should be done. In terms of parks and recreationreserves, although the primary focus was in respect of active recreational areas, there wassome acknowledgement of the need for conservation and preservation. Ultimately it wasacknowledged that if such areas were immediately acquired, the cost to any WesternAustralian government would be enormous and unbearable. Consequently a method ofstaggering the payment was found by the provisions set out in s.36 of the Metropolitan

Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959. At all times it was contemplated thatcompensation would be paid whether under that Act or as a consequence of compulsoryacquisition under (what is now) the Land Administration Act 1997.

5 The current measures seeking to establish, on a wide spread basis, the Special ControlAreas, seek to circumvent the payment of just compensation or indeed any compensation atall whilst interfering with a landowner's right to deal as he or she wishes with their landsubject to normal regulatory processes and social, economic and physical constraints. Thatis a significant interference in private propietal rights contrary to long established policy andcontrary to dicta of the High Court in cases such as Marshall v The Minister for Transport[2001] HCA 37.

6 There is a clear and significant lack of transparency with regard to the process. In particular:

(a) who has carried out a vegetation survey in relation to these Special Control Areas orBush Forever sites;

(b) if it has been carried out why has it not been disclosed;

(c) if it has not been carried out what is the scientific basis for the identification of thisSpecial Control Area;

(d) what significant vegetation exists on this land;

(e) who decides what is significant vegetation;

(f) what are the criteria for that decision;

(g) where are they published;

(h) are they adhered to;

(i) where is the clear and readily understood explanation with regard to such implications;and

(j) it is not always readily understood how the boundaries of the Special Control Areashave been identified (and in many cases this would apply similarly to the identical orsimilar boundaries of a Bush Forever Site).

7 In relation to many planning initiatives which include the current matters under submission,there is an apparent lack of thoroughness or will to contact in an effective manner affectedlandowners to enable them to comment upon initiatives which affect their land. This is awidespread problem which must be addressed as it constitutes a clear breach of naturaljustice.

8 The incorporation of provisions for Special Control Areas within town planning schemeModel Scheme Text for local town planning schemes as drafted by the State Governmentwould appear to be an attempt to transfer obligations for compensation to localgovernments. In the wake of cases such as Wines v Shire of Harvey [2000] WASCA 39and Cornell v Town of East Fremantle (2003) 131 LGERA 20 (now under appeal) there ismore than a possibility that obligations to pay compensation which should rightfully be thatof the State Government will be transferred to local government. At the very least, the riskpasses. Will the government be underwriting such risk?

2

9 The requirement now placed upon local government to prepare a local Bush land ProtectionStrategy is an extension of the last point made. It is not uncommon for strategies andpolicies to be incorporated into town planning scheme text or annexed as part of thegazetted scheme. The consequence of this is to lay local governments open to vulnerabilityto pay compensation in accordance with s.12(2a)(b)(i) of the Town Planning andDevelopment Act 1928 in the event that such strategies do not permit any use of the land inquestion other than for a public purpose or alternatively under s.12(2)(a)(b)(ii) where the netresult is that there is a prohibition wholly or partially of the continuance of any non-conforming use of the land.

10 The present proposals with regard to the presumption against clearing Special ControlAreas amount to conservation without responsibility. There are no proposals for, and norshould there be, the imposition of obligations upon landowners with regard to thepreservation of vegetation. There is also no corresponding volunteering of contributiontowards such preservation. Effectively these measures are arguably not conservation at allbut merely anti-clearance.

11 The MRS Amendment No 1082/33 is deceptively simple. However it actually brings in, in amuch more complex fashion, the provisions of supporting documents such as PlanningPolicy 2.8. To be perfectly plain with regard to intent, the documentation should invitesubmissions on Planning Policy 2.8 in addition to Metropolitan Scheme Amendment1082/33.

12 Proposals concerning negotiated planning solutions are noted. However how does alandowner negotiate such a solution where the whole of his or her land is affected by aSpecial Control Area ie there can be no quid pro quo.

13 If the government wishes to take land free of cost then it should pass clear legislation so thatits intent is plain and so that such intent can be challenged in a straightforward fashionshould landowners feel that it is appropriate to do so. It cannot be good governance to hidebehind metaphors such as negotiated planning solutions in order to disguise intent.

14 The material indicates that Bush Forever Special Protection Areas may include clearedareas for administrative boundary purposes and that these are not intended to be protected.However there is no clear statement as to which areas these may be and that ought to berectified.

15 Section 2.5.3 of Bush Forever indicates that Special Control Areas "may be interimprotection". If that is so, there is no clear statement as to what is likely to follow theimposition of the Special Control Areas and that should be rectified. There is also no clearstatement in the supporting papers on the amendment whether these areas are interim. Ifthey are not, government's changing position on these issues is both unfair and creatinguncertainty in the planning process which is undesirable.

16 Once of the major difficulties facing owners of land reserved under the Metropolitan RegionScheme for parks and recreation where there are environmental conservation orpreservation connotations has been the struggle to obtain fair compensation. Up until nowthe difficulty has been in trying to establish a higher and better use in the face of suchpotential planning constraints. There is a clear difficulty and conflict in the planning andenvironmental authorities who seek to acquire land and have to pay compensation for it alsoundertaking the decision making role in the hypothetical vacuum in which a negotiation andcompensation court case is conducted. In other words it is time that an independent bodyshould determine the highest and best use of land which is required for acquisition bygovernment whether by way of resumption or by way of reservation or by any other method.

3

17 Following on from the last point, it is clear that the imposition of a Special Control Area overland which is later desired to be acquired only increases the difficulties of a landowner.Whereas prior to this point such land once reserved or resumed was at risk of beingevaluated for its highest and best use as simply rural even where surrounding land wasbeing used for residential, industrial or some other higher use, now it is possible that weenter into the no mans land of such land being evaluated as a Special Control Area ieincapable of any development or indeed agricultural pursuit which involves clearing. It isquite possible that such land may have no economic function whatsoever. This is plainlyunfair.

18 Finally there is a philosophical but nevertheless valid issue in relation to conservationgenerally. Those landowners who have exercised restraint and responsible attitudes inpreserving and not clearing vegetation are now being made to suffer economically whilstothers who have taken early steps to clear and developed have reaped the rewards. Theactions of government in condoning the latter group and discouraging and punishing theformer group is not conducive to responsible and fair-minded government but, moreimportantly, is not conducive to the encouragement of a sense of responsibility in itscitizens.

McLeods

12 November 2004

4



These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to represent thegroup must be appointed.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings, along with all written submissions,are published as public records. The Commission's recommendations are also published in a Report on Submissions.


Or

or

Or





MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's Name:Group name:Agent's telephone number (business hours):Mailing address:




SignatureLC


Date / Z Aj OV&A-4.


Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 777; Fax (08) 9264 7566; Email mrsAwapc.wamov.au; Internet http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

5

Eire/11 2004 16:46 FAX

ArmIItt

e %

A


FORM GA



To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A- 6000

OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISStON NULIDEA I

Submission 158

Name PPit-rt° m4,/ 2-06;,4-,/

Address(PLEASE PRINT CLEAill.

Lo:r. /l e) it-'-otts sticar soidot1-49 finis- Postcode eff °

Contact phone number. 439 e Y.5-4 a Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It Is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

.( /

ffi001

PE14-041,14WiTitrOtt-CflA:41;11NPRAmtWORJRQ

N.W.2004

FIi 417-77 2


12/11 2004 1U:4U FAX A

Bush Forever- Make it Fair for All

Bush Forever has evolved from a State decision to adopt a policy that aims to preserveimportant remnant vegetation within the Perth Metropolitan Region for the benefit of all-the State, the region, the district and the immediate community.

A major portion of lands so affected is Government owned and managed, however, asignificant area is also privately held. For the latter, the initial Bush Forever informationdocuments made comment that land owners so affected would not be disadvantaged andif land was to be acquired it would be purchased at unaffected value.

What has evolved is blight on land identified as part of a Bush Forever site.

There is now clear evidence to show that Bush Forever land is affected in valueparticularly land zoned for urban purposes. It is therefore understandable that landowners in the South West of WA and metropolitan action groups have formed to exposethis unfair situation.

The basic issue of fairness relates to the conservation being a benefit to the widercommunity and the current iniquitous impost of the depressed land value being afinancial penalty on the land owner. In essence Bush Forever sites become public assetsand thus the public should pay for all such lands required for conservation.

Commitment by government to pay for the urban conservation, on a fair and equitablebasis, will ensure proper scrutiny of environmental values in proper balance with goodoutcomes for the community.

After all, the sites identified as regionally significant are a finite number to be protectedfor conservation, forever. As Perth grows, and not necessarily in sprawling suburbs, thereis the capacity to fund purchase of all required conservation land under the MetropolitanRegion Improvement Tax mechanism. This is the very type of community improvement,improvement to the region, which qualifies, and justifiably, that all share in the cost ofthe benefit.It should not be the individual owners that are prejudicially targeted to bear the financialburden!

Yours sincerely,

anovember 2004

10002



These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand Upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In thecase of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.




21 NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)or



MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):or


I would prefer my hearing to be conducted In:



Signature


Date /1-1/4(/°),-

NOTE: SUbmIssions MUST be reeelved;bY thOadirertieed cidilng:date, tiding close atbusiness (S.CtOpm) on FRIDAY 1 altioveMber 20a4:Late.SubMlesiOns WIII:NOT be considered

Contacts: Tetephone - (08) 92547777; Fax - (05) 9264 7560; Entail [email protected],gov.au; Internet - http:liwww.wapc.wa.goe.au

en n Ffi VVJ InAT BOAT TT /7T

:Southern Hypnosis Mandu

A

08958112995811299 12 Nov. 2004 04:33PM P1


FORM SA



To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commieeiond69 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 6000

OFFIOEUSFOSLY

SIJRNtEISION WADER

Submission 159

Name 3730.n 1.. 1.. (Y).e C, owtlY1VI-EASE norr CLEARLY)

Address 144 Saldiecs ,, Rcx!=,,c1 RPlecd Postcode...

Contact phone number.0400 S41 415 Email address IZO ... wefrinthe,...,..Submission (Please attach addlIkmal pages If required. It }3 preferred flint any ad$Ilonal Information be these rather than bound)

ATA andNad

4E+ YriFF:.4\ 01144.1(41tIRL:

1 2 NOV 004

FILE/0?--?-(-77P


FROM :Southern Hypnosis Mandu

A

389631123995911299


12 Nov. 2004 04:34PM P2

The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959also provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is Intended for listening to points of view and

. planning rationale. and Is not a forum of general publlo debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings, along with all written submission;are published as public records, The Commission's recommendations are also published In a Report onSubmissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented byyou in this written submissionwill be taken intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.


NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)onYES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details, You will

be contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

13will be represented by:

MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):or


or


PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, Including the media, may attend.)


Signature

TO BE SIGNED SY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Date

0060_ uST?beliteedved'bObeAdveHUMainfiltikdiA)utilise:G*4W trM;404bediikba2Q114.1:iiid9filiOisaireiik*1rkY0,kosialti4

/.Qt//o4c

Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 7777: Fah (08) 9294 7566; Email - [email protected]; helmet - MEEtheeeovapo.lea.gov.au


A

1 1 2P5"1"912 Nov. 2004 04:34PM P3

My submission relates to the processes used by the WAPC to identify properties forinclusion in Schemes, and for reservation and acquisition. My observation is that theWAPC has at points in this and other reports failed to meet common standards of rigourin defining the criteria they use to select properties, and in assessing how the propertiesselected fit that criteria.

My observation, from direct experience of WAPC reservation processes, and from theevidence of the report before us, is that the process is driven by generally well qualifiedCommission and DPI staff, who (perhaps) generally make the correct recommendationsin the best interest of the State, but who for lack of training, or leadership, or time donot, or can not, document their rationale for including some properties while excludingothers. I do not suggest that anything improper has been done by WAPC staff, butsimply suggest that the lack of detail against some proposals leaves affected landownersperplexed, and (worse to my mind) reinlbrces a perception in the mind of planning staffthat what has gone before is good enough to do again. I have noted some improvement inthe preparation of proposals specifically flagging within the report those properties thatare privately owned and I might flatter myself that this could have been a result ofsubmissions I have previously made to the Government. However suggestions I have putto them about improving the rigor of the evidence that they put forward to supportdecisions seem to have been ignored or disregarded.

I would emphasise that I am not suggesting that specific decisions are wrong (but I wouldnot accept the proposition that they have always, been correct), but that the issues thatwere in the mind of thc planning officer are not always expressed in some proposals, andin fact arc completely absent in some, and deficient in many. I would cite just a fewexamples in this written submission, such as proposal 77 in this report which says in part"In some instances the boundary for the amendment will be over and above the BushForever site boundary. This is so that an adequate area of land can be acquired to ensureappropriate management of the site." This expression "appropriate management" soundsvery rational, and may well be some DPI or WAPC jargon, but it is completelymeaningless to anyone who does not share the special knowledge or understand thespecial intent, of the person who crafted the expression. For land to be acquired on sucha basis, and for reviewing authorities to accept such "explanations" is to my mindextraordinary, and undermines thc authority and reputation of the WAPC as aninstrument of careful and considered Government policy.

A second example, and 'thc last I will cite here, is again from the report where it describescarefully and intelligently I might say the circumstances where land might be

acquired for Parks and Reservations. The criteria quoted is "Bush Forever sites with highconservation value such as threatened ecological communities, large populations of rareflora or fauna and sites that are essential to achieve conservation objectives." All this isrelatively easily documented, assessed and reviewed. The authors of the report then startsliding into obscure-speak. They refer to blocks of land which provide representation ofkey vegetation community types (potentially valid but doesn't explain what criteriamakes a certain property "key" and the one next door "not key") and then fall off theedge of reason when they suggest that valid targets arc properties "where public access


A

cd 9. 8. 1 1 "2 9-9'9 5" 1" 912 Nov. 2004 04:35PM P4

and management are regarded as essential, such as areas abutting existing reserves." Thisappears to be a catch-all rationale for acquiring any property adjacent to an existingreserve. The authors do a fine job in making that seem rational by next proposing thatland should be acquired where "existing commitments cannot be met by other means"and introduce a final note of financial rectitude by adding, as a last point, "considerationof the financial implications for the WAPC." The last point I might add does not appearto flow on from any of the previous points, but if I could assist the authors it may be thatthey meant to say that identification and selection of properties in light of previouscriteria would be filtered through consideration of what the WAPC could achieve givenfinancial realities. The alternative interpretation is that the WAPC would selectproperties on the basis of the financial advantage that might flow to the Commissionwhich of course would be an infamous suggestion.

I would appreciate the opportunity to make a submission in person, in order to makesome constructive (further) suggestions about the operation of the WAPC and the qualityof this report.

John McCann194 Soldiers RoadRoley stone

Ph. 0400 541 415Email [email protected]

mg m 12/11/20e4 16:05 93458809E

MU%OEM%

,

93458809

A CEO'S OFFICE PAGE 01

FOR PLANNING.1() iNitRA.:1:TRUCTUR.E


Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) 1 2 NOV 2004FORMOA




OFFICE USE


Submission 160

Name (ZoO CONS-in NYTt (VC ON) Oc MPI.F of l_nn) (Yr 1,07...93/One) C

TLEASEPRMUCLVOLNI

Postcorie.G9R.Vit.."<).Address .C.1:1.1.,CIF: 51/ N7G-9 .0.1.21(...P.V2Cg.9..5,-rt a Li r\)cr-

Contact phone number.93LiS X595 5 Email add re as K.On5I<rP1n rod( n

Submission (Please attach additional papa If required. It Is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

This submission is made on behalf of the landowners of Lot 118 Mindarie,which is affected by Bush Forever sites 322 & 323.

The owners are currently engaged in negotiating a planning outcome (NPS)with the WAPC concerning Bush Forever reservations over part of Lot 118.

Part of the proposed NPS allows that the delineation line between the Bush.Forever boundary and the part of Lot 118 that will be available fordevelopment purposes will be decided in the process of structure planningwhich will take account of topography, geology, ethnographic and otherissues.

A previous structure plan prepared for Lot 118 indicated areas totalling approx19 hectares in 3 parcels that could logically be excised from POS zoningunder the MRS 933/33 and Bush Forever sites 322 and 323.

The detailed plans SCA15362-Bush Forever site 322 and SCA31912-BushForever site 323 have no endorsements signifying the potential outcome ofthe NPS.

The owners believe that the proposed NPS should be notified on the plansand in references to outcomes relating to Bush Forever sites 322 & 323.

A plan showing the areas of concern is attached. The areas are thosedenoted with the numbers 5, 16 and 4. The aggregate area is 18711hectares. The delineation line between areas 3 and 6 on the plan are alsosubject of an agreement under the proposed NPS.


12/11/2004 16:05 93458809

93458809

CEO'S OFFICE PAGE 02


The Metropolitan Region town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunityfor people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing Is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to represent

ithe group must be appointed.

. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of any public hearings, along with all written submissions,

are published as public .records. The Commission's recommendations are also published in a Report onSubmissions.

You do not hatie to attend a hearing; The comments presented by you in this written submission will betaken intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.



YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a lime for your hearing.)


MY AGENT or S 0 E ONn(an ant ma be o tallocbley02)0-- cacAgent's name' v OcfrY

pto Ng/2 C-00 4:r Ye ga44.4,Group name:Agent's telephone number (bnusiness hou s :Mailing address: _coda. nace mant5 ea/

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted In:PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)

orPRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only persons

nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)'

SignsFat

TO = E SIGNED BY PERSON(5) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

or

0I1W thit tovbei-At

Date 12 " °L1

C

Cohtae13:. Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; F&X (08) 92E14 7566; email mrs0 wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet - httpWwww.wapc.wa.gov.au

ial 4

*S. P

lia,

5 .1

14P

I:pi

If -

Itiftr

fr--

."

--

SS

Ali

g in

teI

TA

I. i

is

0:11

-4,l

it'1

00tr

ri.

1 21

/41:

te \/

--1,

s.4

0--0

0B

LI,te

to.4

2 *

fatt

An

t .

Ibil

:IVst

aila

1 44

2: I

:so

Vri

l iff

i Tits

C`

az

ii. M

g; li

initl

111

1.11

Wal

l titi

ii.,

4It.

Mir.

ttt

,e,

dr#

tttttt

tttt

arn

:::-

-O

hsO

tre

, 224

. 2:-

LI-

:Tit

tttttt

tt.a

trz

re,A

r iv

' - -

''' a

an:t

tttI

......

,0 ..

.

4/ile

s0as

izi,

.n..,

in, '

ere

ate

,A

e I

s. tt

.. t

rI

II

II

-0.

CityofStirgingCity of Choice

Enquiries: Rod Constantine (08) 9345 8595

Your Ref: 809-2-1-77 Pt 2

21 February 2005

Mr I PatersonSecretaryWest Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington Street(cnr Forrest Place)PERTH WA 6000

Submission 160

Dear Mr Paterson

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1082/33

Seven local authorities jointly own Lot 118 Mindarie a land parcel of 432 hectaressituated in the City of Wanneroo.

In response to the advertising of proposed Amendment 1082/33 a submission was lodged

with your office suggesting that plans attached to the Amendment should show somedetail of a Negotiated Planning Solution (NPS), which is currently the subject of discussionbetween the owners and the WAPC.

The WAPC acknowledged the submission on 18 November 2004.

Since November 2004 a delineation survey has been undertaken to establish the northernboundary of Bush Forever site 322. A copy of the survey has been provided to the WAPC.Advice has been received from Mr Tim Hillyard, who has been co-ordinating the NPSaffecting Bush Forever site 322 indicating that the survey line has been approved.

The survey line is different from that which appears in proposed Amendment 1082/33. Inthe aggregate the Bush Forever site is reduced by some 1.88 hectares.

T purpose of this letter is to request that this information be added to the submissionviously made on behalf of the owners of Lot 118 Mindarie and that the appropriateustments be made to proposed Amendment 1082/33.

urs sinc rely

/OA/R`A ConstantineDEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNINGAND INFRASTRUCTURE

2 5 FEB 2005

FILE °C9( I 7 P

City Administrative Centre Civic Place Stirling WA 6021 Telephone: (08) 9345 8555 Facsimile (08) 9345 8822 Website: http/Awintitstirling.wa.gov.au

Submission 160

CityorStirlingCity ofChoice

Enquiries: Phillida Rooksby (08) 9345 [email protected],au

Your Ref:

25 November 2004

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469-489 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Attention: Bushforever

Dear Mr Patterson,

BUSHFOREVER

A report on the Bushforever MRS Amendment and Policy was submitted to Council on 16November 2004. Council did not resolve to formally comment on the proposal, but a copy ofthe associated report is enclosed for your information.

Should you have any queries regarding this matter, please contact me on theabovementioned number or via email.

Phillida RooksbyCOORDINATOR PLASERVICES

Enc:

ARTWENT FOR NANNINGINFRASTRUCTURE

3 0 NOV 2004

FILE %.0c: I P R RD

City Administrative Centre Civic Place Stirling WA 6021 Telephone: (08) 934.5 8555 Facsimile (08) 9345 8822 Website: http//www.stidingsva.gov.au

Submission to: Town Planning and Statutory Services Committee 9 November 2004

SUBJECT BUSH FOREVER - BUSH PROTECTION AREAS

Report Information

Location: Not applicable

Applicant: Not applicable

Application No: Not applicable

Reporting Officer Director Planning and Development

Business Unit: Planning Services

Ward: City wide

Recommendation

That the Director Planning and Development's report on the draft Bush Forever Policyand Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment be RECEIVED.

Report Purpose

To consider the draft Bush Forever Policy and MRS Amendment.

Relevant Documents'

Attachments: Bush Forever Protection Areas Community GuideAvailable for viewing at the meeting: Draft Bush Forever Policy, BFPA Map, MRS

Amendment

Background

1. Bush Forever, the State Government's metropolitan bush protection area strategy, wasreleased in 1998 and adopted in 2000 (to a somewhat controversial reception). It

identifies 51,200 Ha of regionally significant bushland for protection and managementover 287 sites.

2. In order to give statutory effect to the document, a Metropolitan Region SchemeAmendment (to formally create Bush Forever Protection Areas and to reserve somesites) and an associated Section 5AA Policy (`Bushland Policy for the PerthMetropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8' tabled) have been preparedand are currently available for public comment.

3. The following sites are proposed within the City of Stirling (refer tabled plan

No Site Current Status Implications281 Herdsman Lake; Regional Parks

& RecreationReservation

Reserved: Nochange

310 The coastal reserve fromCity Beach to BrightonBeach;

Regional Parks& RecreationReservation

Reserved: Nochange


308 The coastal reserve fromnorth of ScarboroughBeach to Trigg Beach &Karrinyup Bush landReserve;

Regional Parks& RecreationReservation

Reserved: Nochange

212 Lake Gwelup; Regional Parks& Recreation

Reserved: Nochange

Reservation204 Star Swamp; Regional Parks

& RecreationReserved: Nochange

Reservation203 Carine Open Space; Regional Parks

& RecreationReserved: Nochange

Reservation385 Mirrabooka Regional Regional Parks Reserved: No

Open Space; & Recreation changeReservation

43 Cottonwood Crescent Regional Parks LargelyDianella Natural Area & Recreation reserved.Reserve Reservation &

PrivateRemainder tobe determined

Freehold UrbanZoning

280 Diane Ila (Alexander Regional Parks Reserved: NoDrive) Regional Open & Recreation changeSpace Reservation

322 Mindarie LGA Private Negotiated& Freehold, Planning323 Recreation &

PublicSolution inadvanced stage

PurposesReserve UrbanZoning

Comment

1. Once (and assuming) the MRS Amendment is gazetted, the City will be required toensure that its District Planning Scheme is consistent with the MRS.

2. As the majority of sites within Stirling are already reserved for parks and recreationunder the MRS and owned by the Crown, the proposal has relatively little impact onthe City.

3. The establishment of Bush Forever Protection Areas is indicated as to not necessarilypreclude development but rather to restrict it to a manner consistent with bushlandprotection principles. The Policy also provides for Negotiated Planning Solutions(NPS) whereby the owner can negotiate the extent of development versusconservation (which process the City has been pursuing for the Tama la Park(Mindarie) site refer separate reports).

4. The Policy goes on to support the preparation of local bushland protection strategiesby local governments, to complement the more regional focus of Bush Forever. The

2


City is currently scoping a Biodiversity Strategy which would be consistent with thisobjective.

5. The proposal is consistent with broad sustainability and bushland protection principlesand so is supported in principle. With the possible exception of the Tama la Park site(which is being dealt with separately), the proposal does not appear to have anysignificant impact on the City and therefore no submission on it is considerednecessary.

Policy and Legislative Implications

Will create additional controls for identified Bush Protection Areas.

3

12Nov 2004 17:32 No.4984 P. 3

MINTER ELLISON


FORM 6A

SUBMISSIONMETROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No.1082/33



OrME USE OhtY

rSLIIMISMN NUMMI

Submission 161

Name Cockburn Cement Limited C/- Minter Ellison, Lawyers(PLEASE PRLYr CLEApvn

152-158 St Georges Terrace, Perth 6000AddressPostcode

Contact phone number, 9429 7606Email address [email protected]

Submission (Please attach additional pages If required. It is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound)

Submissions are set out in full on Attachment "A"


®. MIMIMME 12,Nov. 2004 17:32

MINTER ELLISON

MIM

MIM Minter Ellison

A

To Fred Hainsworth

From Gretta LeeEmailgretta.leecp,minterellison.com

LAWYERS

No.4984 P. I

LEVEL 49,CCNTRAL PARK 152-158 ST GEORGE'S TERRACE PER11 I WA 6000GPO BOX A39 PERTH WA 6837 AUSTRALIADX 124 PERTH VVWW.MINTERELLISON.COMTELEPHONE +61 8 9429 7444 FACSIMILE +61 8 9429 7666

Facsimile (08) 9264 7566

Facsimile (08) 9429 7666Direct line (08) 9429 7606Our Ref GRL: 60-1057253

Date 12 November 2004 Number of pages (including this one): 5

Subject Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33 Bush Forever and Relatedlands

Dear Mr Hainsworth

I refer to our telephone conversation yesterday.

I confirm that Minter Ellison acts for Cockbum Cement Limited. Cockburn Cement wishes tomake a submission in relation to the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Region Schemeand the Bushland Policy. Please find enclosed:

(a) Submission in relation to the Metropolitan Region Scheme AmendmentNo. 1082/33;

(b) Submission in relation to the Bushland Policy for the Perth MetropolitanRegion Statement of Planning Policy 2.8.

We confirm your advice that it is appropriate for us to lodge the detail relating to our client'ssubmissions on or before Tuesday, 16 November 2004. Please confirm in writing oursubmission reference numbers so that we can reference it when lodging the final details of ourclient's submissions.

Yours sincerely

/(1itretta LeeSenior Associate

so s-_-frge&PO ric)

If you do not receive all pages please telephone 08 9429 7444

IMPORTANT -The contents of this facsimile may be privileged and confidential. Any unauthorised use of the contents isexpressly prohibited. If you have received the document in error, please advise us by telephone (reverse charges)immediately and then shred the document Thank you.

IMAITAN)I,Y5011S4461 2D DC




These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian.Planning Commission can listen to a person should they


, planning rationale, and Is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to represent

.0 the group must be appointed.



Submissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission wilt he taken intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.




or

S


Or

121 MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's name: Grett a LeeGroup name' Minter EllisonAgent's telephone number (business hours): 9429 7606Mailing address: 152-158 St Georges Terrace,

PERTH WA 6000I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.)

Or


Signature

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S1 MAKING THE SUBMISSION

e7vtes-es,-.

-rg u &MSS ta fie IOUS bfteCeitie b -at civ rttie's* 5:00 on Fft1DAY t litticifinvirireng

- -"- 76-4-fni '

. 2 .Date

Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Ernail - nue @wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet - htlp://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

Minter Ellison

25 November 2004

BY FACSIMILE (08) 92647566

& BY POST

LAW YERS

LEVEL 49 CENTRAL PARK 152-158 ST GEORGE'S TERRACE PERTH

GPO BOX A39 PERTH WA 6837 AUSTRALIA

DX 124 PERTH www.minterellison.com

TELEPHONE +61 8 9429 7444 FACSIMILE +61 8 9429 7666

Mr F HainsworthWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33

I refer to our facsimile of 12 November 2004.

Original of

facsimile transmission

Please find enclosed Attachment A referred to in the submission inrelation to the MetropolitanRegion Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33.

Please confirm in writing our submission reference number.

Yours faithfullyMINTER ELLISON

Contact:Email:Partner responsible:Our reference:

enclosure

Gretta Lee Direct phone: +61 8 9429 [email protected] McLeod Direct phone: +61 8 9429 7587GRL:GAM 60-1057253

,)! ''',311.11V15111 RM.PLAN:4R

' 47' 'NFEA-,TWF.:11.

2 9 NOV 2004

FILE 331 a--OUP AND ASSOCIATED OFFICES

SYDNEY MELBOURNE BRISBANE CAN8ERRA ADELAIDE PERTH GOLD COAST

HONG KONG SHANGHAI BANGKOK JAKARTA SAN FRANCISCO LONDON

AUCKLAND WELLINGTON

ATTACHMENT 'A'

SUBMISSIONS

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1082/33AND

BUSIMAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGIONSTATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY 2.8

FOR

COCKBURN CEMENT LIMITEDAND

ADELAIDE BRIGHTON LIMITED

Table of Contents

1. Cockburn Cement Limited and Adelaide Brighton Limited 3

2. Land holding and affection by proposed MRS Amendment 3

3. The Value of the Cement and Lime Industry in Western Australia and the Contributionof Cockburn Cement Limited 3

4. Significance of the Adelaide and Cockburn's landholding the subject of this submission 4

5. State recognition of the significance of the subject limestone resources 4

6. Merits of the existing Bush Forever Sites affecting Cockburn's and Adelaide's land holding6

7. Current statutory framework 7

8. Submission regarding proposed Metropolitan Scheme Amendment 1082/33 andproposed Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 7

List of Tables

Table 1 Land Affected by MRS Amendment 1032/88 and SPP 2.8 11

I. COCKBURN CEMENT LIMITED AND ADELAIDE BRIGHTON LIMITED

Cockburn Cement Limited (Cockburn) was established at Munster in 1955 for the purposes ofmanufacturing cement for the expanding Western Australian market. Today it is part (a whollyowned subsidiary) of the Adelaide Brighton Limited (Adelaide) group of companies, Australia'slargest lime and cement manufacturer.

Cockburn is the holder of a number of freehold and mining tenements in WA. Cockburn'sfreehold and mining titles affected by the proposed MRS amendment and Statement of PlanningPolicy 2.8 are listed below.

Adelaide is the holder of a number of freehold and mining tenements in Western Australia,which are managed by Cockburn. Adelaide's freehold and mining titles affected bythe proposedMRS amendment and Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 are listed in Table 1.

To the extent that this submission relates to land held by Adelaide (both freehold or throughmining titles) Cockburn is authorised to make this submission on behalf of Adelaide.

2. LAND HOLDING AND AFFECTION BY PROPOSED MRS AMENDMENT

Table 1 in this Submission is a table of the land held by Cockburn and Adelaide affected by theproposed MRS amendment and proposed SPP2.8. Table 1 also includes a summaryof thecurrent statutory planning framework and approvals for projects relating to these land holdings.

3. THE VALUE OF THE CEMENT AND LIME INDUSTRY IN WESTERNAUSTRALIA AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF COCKBURN CEMENTLIMITED

Cockburn is the largest supplier of cement to the Western Australian market andis the soleproducer of cement clinker in Western Australia. Cockburn employs 240 people at the Munsterplant with 70 per cent employed in the production of cement and 30 per cent in the production oflime. Cockburn also employs an additional 41 people at their dredging operation at WoodmanPoint. The operations of Cockburn have significant flow on effects, both in terms of theemployment created in the industries that supply Cockburn with production inputs, and in termsof the value and employment added to the industries that rely on Cockburn for a reliable supplyof cement and lime. In a report to government in 2002, ACIL proposed that using input-outputmultipliers, the operation of Cockburn at Munster yields over 1262 jobs, including those workingin the plants and those working in industries that supply Cockburn with materials utilised byCockburn in their manufacturing processes, Additionally, the industries that are supplied byCockburn directly and indirectly account for 89,000 jobs and value addedof $9.8 billion

statewide.

The lime and cement supplied by Cockburn have many essential uses as production inputs to theconstruction and minerals processing industries Lime (quicklime, calcium oxide, CaO) suppliedby Cockburn is primarily used as a reactive industrial chemical and is particularly important tothe major alumina refineries, gold and nickel processors and the State supplier of drinking water.Lime is manufactured by roasting naturally occurring calcium carbonate (limestone or shellsand)

in a kiln.

Cement's significance to the State's building industiy is well understood and Cockburnmanufactures the clinker that is milled into cement using limestone burnt in large rotary kilns

The investment in plant to produce lime and cement at Munster is well over half a billion dollarsin today's terms.

4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ADELAIDE AND COCKBURN'S LANDHOLDINGTHE SUBJECT OF THIS SUBMISSION

The land held by Cockburn and Adelaide, referred to in paragraph 2 above is a significant sourceof limestone, the principal raw material for use in the production of cement. Alternative accessto sufficient high quality limestone in close proximity to markets in WesternAustralia is notavailable. While Cockburn have alternative limestone resources close to Exmouth, the high costof transport of these resources to the relevant markets makes consideration of Exmouthlimestone as an alternative resource currently not viable, particularly as cement is a relativelylow value product. Indeed prior to the merger with Cockburn, Swan Portland imported highquality limestone from United Arab Emirates in preference to transporting high quality limestonefrom its (then) Exmouth deposits, because it was cheaper to do so. The Exmouth reservesconstitute a future resource.

Imports of cement are available from overseas and other states, however the isolation of WesternAustralia and the associated high transport costs makes supplying the Western Australianmarketusing imported products not filly sustainable.

There is insufficient capacity in the Australian market to be able to import significant amounts ofcement clinker from other states in Western Australia at a reasonable cost. Cement clinker can beimported from overseas (when available) but this would lead to the loss of manyjobs atCockburn with the associated flow on effect for other jobs, the economy and increased cost tothe community.

The land and the underlying limestone resources held by Cockburn and Adelaide in theNeerabup Industrial Estate together with the contiguous freehold land and mining tenements,constitute the only critical mass of limestone required necessary to establish an alternative andviable cement clinker plant, when it becomes necessary. These are strategic resources. Whenthese land holdings were first acquired the strategic forecast for the winning of resources was 20

- 30 years. That strategic forecast for the development of these resources is now 5 - 10. Forprojects such as this, in an economy such as Western Australia, strategic long-term timeframessuch are necessary.

Looking to the long-term future of cement production in this state, it is important to note that theabove land is not only important to Cockburn but to the State. Cockburn anticipates thatconsideration of a $300-400 million cement clinker plant for the Nowergup site is only a few

years away. It is the only area that Cockburn, or any other company, can continue cementproduction in the State and maintain reasonable cost inputs to the building industry.

Planning policy which diminishes the right of access to these limestone resources will have adirect impact on the viability of the establishment of the future cement plant in WesternAustralia, which will have significant consequently flow-on effects into the economy.

5. STATE RECOGNITION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUBJECTLIMESTONE RESOURCES

The significance of these resources, the need for these resources to be identified andprotected sothat they could serve the future needs of the State, and in particular the Perth metropolitan

region, was first identified by the State in 1983. Following a whole government and stakeholderconsultation, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Basic Raw Material PolicyPolicy of the Perth Metropolitan Region (BRMP 1992) was published by the then Department ofPlanning and Urban Development in March 1992.

The BRMP 1992 noted the principal extraction areas for limestone and limesand in Wanneroo. Itnoted that in 'Wanneroo, extraction activity concentration to the north of Flynn Drive, extendinginto State Forest 65 where there are high-grade deposits of limestone'.

The key policy objectives were to:

ensure that the basic raw material needs of the Perth metropolitan region are suppliedfrom sources located as close as possible to the consumer;

protect identified basic raw material resource areas by land use planning mechanismswith different levels of protection reflecting the different significance of the resourceareas;

protect existing important extractive operations from the encroachment of land useswhich would be incompatible with the extractive industry;

maximise the availability of basic raw material resources by the use of sequential andmultiple use planning;

ensure the extraction of basic raw materials complies with acceptable environmentaland amenity standards.

The land holdings, the subject of this submission, were identified as a Priority Resource Area inBRMP 1992. The basic raw materials were reviewed by the Chamber of Commerce andIndustry in 1995 who came to the same conclusions.

BRMP 1992 stated that within the Priority Resource Areas there would be a general presumptionagainst the intrusion of new uses, which are not compatible with extractive industry.

BRMP1992 was reviewed and replaced by Statement of Planning Policy No. 10 (now 2.4) BasicRaw Materials (SPP2.4). Under SPP2.4 the land holdings, the subject ofthis submission,continued to be identified as falling within a Priority Resource Location. The objectives of this

SPP2.4 are to:

identify the location extent of known basic raw material resources;protect the priority resource locations, key extraction areas and extraction areas frombeing developed for incompatible land uses which could limit future land exploitations;ensure that the use and development of land for the extraction of basic raw materialspolicy does not adversely affect the environment or the amenity in the locality of theoperation during or after excavation; and

provide a consistent planning approval process for the extraction in extractive industriesproposal including the early consideration of sequential land uses.

Priority Resource Locations are areas of regionally significant resources, which are recognisedfor future basic raw materials extraction and are not to be constrained by incompatible uses and

development.

While SPP2.4 recognises the desire to ensure that extraction of basic raw materials occurs withminimum detriment to the local amenity and the environment, including regionally significantvegetation identified in Perth's Bushplan, it also recognises the existing environmentalprotection and conservation framework in which this will be achieved. That is the obligation ofthe relevant stakeholders to identify environmental constraints that may determine the extentand/or manner in which a proposal can be implemented.

Therefore the relevant stakeholders, including Cockburn acknowledge their obligation toworkwithin this existing regulatory framework.

Cockburn and Adelaide made land assembly and land holding decisions from the mid 1980's to

ensure the future resource availability for a $500 million operation based on the policyframework of successive governments to acknowledge the need to protect basic raw materials inthe Perth Metropolitan Region for the future needs of the State.

6. MERITS OF THE EXISTING BUSH FOREVER SITES AFFECTINGCOCKBURN'S AND ADELAIDE'S LAND HOLDING

While it is not within the scope of this submission to challenge in detail the technical merits ofthe BFPAs on the land holdings the subject of this submission, it should be acknowledge that inaddition to the SPP2.4 regime acknowledging the need to protect these resources. Most of theland held freehold was used for farming and rural uses at the time Cockburn Cement acquiredthe land and it is only through Cockburn's holding of the land for future resource use andresponsible management that it is now perceived to contain bush.

Further in 1991 Swan Portland Cement Limited (now part of the Adelaide group of companies)submitted a proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for the construction of aquicklime plant and limestone quarry on mining tenements:

70/143 (Pinjar)70/138 (Wesco)70/141 (Westco North)

and freehold land known as Lot 7 (Gibbs Road).

The proposal included quicklime production at the rate of 230,000 tonnes per annum andlimestone was to be quarried at a rate of 450,000 tonnes per annum:

The proposal was assessed by the EPA by way of a consultative environmental review andapproved by the Minister for Environment subject to compliance with certain conditions on 8

June 1992. Conditions included the implementation of an environmental managementprogramme relating to the clearing of native vegetation and the conservation of severalpopulations of Eucalyptus 'argutifolia'. (see Ministerial Statement 267)

This proposal was subsequently modified to allow for increased production capacity of thequicklime plant to 460,000 tonnes per annum and the rate of limestone quarrying toapproximately 1,000,000 tonnes per annum. The Minister for Environment on 2 September1994 approved this modification. (see Ministerial Statement No 364).

While the proposal subject to Ministerial Statement 364 has not yet commenced, theauthorisation demonstrates that the environmental impacts of extraction of limestone from thesemining tenements can be managed.

In addition in 1996, the EPA and the Department of Industry and Resources approved forquarrying and limestone block cutting operations on M70/143 and M70/141. Cockburn hassuccessfully managed and continues to manage the environmental conditions associated withthese extraction activities in a way that does not impact upon the declared rare flora, Eucalyptustargutifoliat.

In relation to Cockburn's freehold title affected by the MRS amendment, to the best ofCockburn's knowledge the BFPA notation is based entirely on aerial photography and thusquestions the scientific validity of the nomination. No one has ever asked to walk on the land.

7. CURRENT STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Table 1 to this Submission provides details of the current statutory framework.

In addition to the information contained in Attachment, we also advise that LandCorp has, overthe last 8 years, in conjunction with the Western Australian Planning Commission(Commission) and the City of Wanneroo (City) been preparing the Neerabup Industrial AreaStructure Plan No. 17 (NAISP). Land held by Cockburn, namely Lot 21 Flynn Drive(Certificate of Title Vol 1598 Folio 472) is included in the NAISP.

The Commission has considered the proposed NAISP and provided advice to LandCorp and theCity that amendments need to be made before the NAISP can be formally adopted. That said itwould be correct to say that the NAISP is at an advanced state of preparation and is nearingcompletion.

The NAISP recognises the long-term use and development of Lot 21 and the need to ensure thatthe implementation of the NAISP does not impact upon the winning of resources within thatNAISP.

8. SUBMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED METROPOLITAN SCFLEMEAMENDMENT 1082/33 AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PLANNINGPOLICY 2.8

Cockburn and Adelaide's submissions in relation to the MRS Amendment 1032/33 and proposedSPP 2.8 are set out below:

1.1 Amendment 1082/33 and SPP 2.8 are inconsistent with SPP 2.4 in that they fail toacknowledge state strategic limestone resources. All the areas held by Cockburn andAdelaide (both freehold and lease) have been identified as priority resource areas.Cockburn and Adelaide made land assembly decisions based on the government policyat the time of the land assembly. The variation of government policy in relation to thesepriority resource areas, reflected in the proposed MRS amendment and SPP 2.8, will notonly have an impact on Cockburn and Adelaide as individual companies, butimportantly, it will have a significant impact on the viability of the cement industry inWestern Australia, which currently is only supplemented by imported cement clinker.While Cockburn and Adelaide appreciate and support the need to maintain regionalbushland biodiversity, this must be balanced in the context of the other principles ofsustainability: both the social and economic principles.

1.2 Amendment 1082/33 insofar as it relates to BFS 293 is inconsistent with the BushForever Implementation Recommendations which indicates that the site implementationstatus is to be determined.

1.3 The imposition of a BFPA over BFS 293 is premature insofar as it relates to land heldby Cockburn because there has been no site specific flora assessment and surveyundertaken to confirm that regionally significant bushland exists on this site. Further itis premature because this area will be subject to a negotiated planning solution (NPS)and the BFPA makes certain assumptions about the outcome of the NPS. Cockburnsubmits that a NPS should be finalised before a BFPA is designated.

1.4 The BFPA insofar as it relates to BFS 293 covers M70/143. This is an area of highresource potential identified in SPP 2.4. Approval was granted on 12 June2000 for alimestone quarry on M70/143 (Sublease 7 NOI 3223) subject to conditions relating toproject management and the conservation of Eucalyptus argutifolia.

1.5 In Bush Forever, 2000, Volume 1, it states that the vegetation complex on M70/141 andCockburn Cement land at Neerabup and Nowergup is Cottesloe Complex Central-South(BFSs 290 and 293 respectively).

In Table 4 of EPA's Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors No 10,2003, Levels of assessment for proposals affecting natural areas within System 6 Regionand Swan Coastal Plain portion of the System 1 Region, state the Cottesloe ComplexCentral-South remaining would appear to be 41.1 %.

Therefore, the question must be asked, why Bush Forever Site 290 remains, when thewhole of the site is covered by mining leases including M70/141 held by CockburnCement. These mining leases are approved and most, including M70/141, haveapproved Notices of Intent that include permission to clear.

Bush Forever Site 290, whilst constituting a relatively large area, will ultimately becovered by rehabilitation of native species following the approved excavation. It willnot be linked to other areas of native vegetation to the south and its continuednomination should be reconsidered.

The lack of recognition of mining tenements and of SPP2.4 in Bush Foreverhasprobably arisen, and been perpetuated because these issues were not listed in BushForever, 2000, Volume 2 for Sites 290, 384 and 381.

1.6 BFS 290 insofar as it relates to M70/141 should be amended. M70/141 is subject toexisting approved limestone quathes. The extent of BFS 290 should be amended toreflect this

1.7 Map 1 to SPP 2.8 indicates a BFPA for the whole of BFS 381 and further indicates thatthe whole of BFS 381 is Bush Forever Reserve (proposed or existing). This isinconsistent with proposal 67 in MRS Amendment 1032/88, which recognises M70/140and M70/142 as being out side the Bush Forever Reserves.

1.8 Cockburn objects to provision 5.2.2 (vii) of SPP 2.8. It would be beyond the powerofthe Commission or any other body to require by way of a condition on subdivision ordevelopment ceding of an area on Cockburn's land, in addition to public open space.

1.9 It is interesting that approximately only ten percent of privately owned land within BushForever will be reserved as part of these measures. The policy documents areambiguous as to whether and to what extent further areas will be reserved, as opposedto being left in the hands of the owner. If the land is reserved, a clear route for the

payment of compensation and the purchase of the land by the State exists. If the land isleft in the hands of the owner, then no statutory compensation is payable.

Statutory authorities cannot, however, take land without paying compensation. Take' inthis context includes sterilisation by regulation. They do not have the power and in anyevent regulatory measures which effectively take could give rise to compensationclaims.

1.10 Cockburn only supports the reservation of a conservation area on its land, for exampleLake Neerabup, on the basis that it can claim compensation under the usual statutoryprocesses relating to reservations. However, Cockburn's main concern is not receivingcompensation, it is the guaranteed access to areas of high quality limestone. Cockburnsubmits that the management of conservation issues and access to high qualitylimestone must be considered at the appropriate time in a strategic manner, as part of acomprehensive land access package which takes into consideration all land accessissues conservation being only one aspect of that process. In the meantime, thepiecemeal conservation of various aspects of Cockburn's land assembly, is prematureand may not result in the most sustainable approach.

1.11 Cockburn opposes the approach in the amendment of planning a statutory overlay onexisting development or similar zoning on the basis that these overlays amount toreservation by another name and that the approach taken may be perceived as anendeavour to avoid paying compensation. This measure is doomed to fail because oflandowners' right to compensation at common law.

1.12 Cockburn submits that there needs to be a rationalisation of the NPS process and theenvironmental impact assessment process under Part IV of the EnvironmentalProtection Act (EP Act). Both industry and government spend a significant amountoftime and resources engaging in the NPS process. Much of this time, if not all of thistime, may be thrown away once the proposed NPS is assessed under the EPAct. Thefinal stages of the environmental impact assessment process under the EP Act can oftenbe dependent upon the politics of the day. Government in Western Australia hascontinued to make commitments to rationalise the approvals processes in this state andprovide certainty to landowners and industry regarding the uses to which their land canbe put through strategic planning initiatives. Unless the relationship between the NPSand the environmental assessment process under the EP Act is rationalised, NPS maybecome a waste of time.

1.13 If there is an inconsistency between the Bush Forever outcomes and local zoning, theMRS prevails. This means that the rights Cockburn has under the City of Wanner° oTown Planning Scheme would be overridden by the MRS and its specific provisionsrelating to the implementation of Bush Forever. This will have the effect, particularlyin the long term, of downgrading the value of Cockburn's land.

1.14 Where there are inconsistencies, BFPA provisions override zoning provisions. Once theBFPA and its related provisions are incorporated in the MRS and theMetropolitanRegion Scheme Text, local governments, under section 35A of theMetropolitan RegionTown Planning Scheme Act 1959, will be required to initiate amendments to their townplanning schemes within three months of gazettal of the MRS amendment, to ensureconsistency with the MRS.

1.15 The reference to environmental infrastructure contributions in clause 5.2.2 (iii) is open-ended and their implementation uncertain.

1.16 The proposed obligation to prepare an Environment Effects Statement andEnvironmental Management Plan adds another layer of administrative burden forenvironmental purposes, on top of those imposed under the Environment Protection Act1986, (Town Planning and Development Act 1928) The Clearing Regulations, and theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Therequirements under the Draft MRS Amendment and SPP 2.8 should be streamlined andrationalised with existing requirements.

Minter Ellison25 November 2004

Tab

le 1

Lan

d A

ffec

ted

by M

RS

Am

endm

ent 1

032/

88 a

nd S

PP 2

.8Fr

eeho

ld L

and

Ow

ner

Des

crip

tion

Are

a(h

a)B

FSM

RS

Zon

ing

TPA

Zon

ing

BR

PSP

P2.4

Prop

osal

unde

r10

33/8

2

Prop

osal

und

er S

PP 8

.2A

ppro

vals

Are

aaf

fect

ed b

yB

FS(h

a)C

ockb

urn

Cer

tific

ate

of T

itle

Vol

159

8 Fo

lio 4

7243

7.5

293

& 384

Indu

stri

alan

d so

me

P&R

Indu

stri

al

Dev

elop

-m

eat

and

MR

SP&

R

Prio

rity

BFP

AU

IRD

& Bus

h Fo

reve

r R

eser

ves

NIA

SP

Coc

kbur

nL

ot 1

05 o

n D

epos

ited

199.

538

4P&

RM

RS

P&R

BFP

AB

ush

Fore

ver

Res

erve

sN

one

199.

5Pl

an 2

3108

1

Coc

kbur

nL

ot 1

on

Dia

gram

20.3

384

P&R

MR

SB

FPA

Bus

h Fo

reve

r R

eser

ves

Non

e20

.315

762

P&R

Coc

kbur

nL

ot 1

2 on

Dia

gram

23.7

384

P&R

MR

S P&

RB

FPA

Bus

h Fo

reve

r R

eser

ves

Non

e23

.729

740

Min

ing

Ten

emen

ts

Hol

der

Des

crip

tion

BFS

Are

a(h

a)M

RS

Zon

ing

TPA

Zon

ing

BR

PSP

P2.4

Prop

osal

unde

r10

33/8

2

Prop

osal

und

er S

PP 8

.2A

ppro

vals

Are

aaf

fect

ed b

yB

FS

Ade

laid

eM

70/1

3912

971

.54

Rur

alR

ural

Res

ourc

ePr

iori

tyB

FPA

UIR

DN

one

Who

le

Ade

laid

eM

70/1

4038

111

1.95

Stat

eFo

rest

Prio

rity

BFP

AB

ush

Fore

ver

Res

erve

Non

eW

hole

Ade

laid

eM

70/1

4129

061

.88

Rur

alPr

iori

tyB

FPA

Bus

h Fo

reve

r R

eser

veY

es75

% a

ppro

x

Ade

laid

eM

70/1

4238

120

9.95

Stat

eFo

rest

Prio

rity

BFP

AB

ush

Fore

ver

Res

erve

Non

eW

hole

Ade

laid

eM

70/1

4329

311

8.15

Rur

alR

ural

Res

ourc

ePr

iori

tyB

FPA

UIR

DY

es N

OI

Who

le

12/11/04 14:21 FAX 08 9474 1172 IA-ay & Lewis

08 9474 1172

Public submission form

Submission 162

Draft Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of PlanningPolicy and Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33

1. Name

2. Organization (If relevant):

3. Address:

4. Interest

Geoff Lewis

Gray & Lewis

Suite 5, 2 Hardy Street, South Perth

Representing the owner of Lot 39 Taylor Road, Forrestfield.art A and M D'Orazio)

_Qe y. local resident, business operator)

Uwe would like to make the following comments on the draft Elushlend Policy for the Perth Metropolitan RegionStatement of Planning Policy 2.8 and would like them to be considered in the preparation of the final document.

Comments:

The western portion of Lot 39 is reserved in the Metropolitan Region Scheme as Parks andRecreation (P & R) as per the attached reservation plan.

The boundary of the Special Control Area (SCA) No. 344 shown in Metropolitan Region SchemeAmendment No. 1082/33 appears to be consistent with the Parks and Recreation reservationboundary i.e. there be no increase to the Parks and Recreation reservation on Lot 39.

It is acknowledged that the reserved portion of land has a conservation category status wetlandunder the Draft Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands) Policy 2004. Thiswetland is a seasonal swamp about 8.0 ha in size located in the north-west corner of Lot 39.

In terms of its 'bushland' qualifies it should be noted that the land was cleared of nativevegetation over 25 years ago. The wetland area contains some remnant vegetation withpaperbark (Melaleuca preissiana) trees and reeds (Juncus pallidus) fringing the wetland. Weedand pasture species (Couch. Kikuyu and Wild Oats) dominate the bare paddock around thewetland within the Parks & Recreation reservation. (Alan Tingay and Associates and ATAEnvironmental have undertaken vegetation surveys of the property on behalf of the owner toconfirm the wetland boundary and vegetation present.)

Whilst the land is included within Special Control Area No. 344 it is not a designatedBushforever reservation. Under Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) 2.8, the potential forsubdivision (rural living/special rural) may have been possible had the subject portion on Lot 39

not been included (previously) in the Parks and Recreation reservation.

We have no specific objections in respect to SPP 2.8 or Amendment 1082/33 in so far as theyrelate to Lot 39 Taylor Road.

Geoff LewisGray & Lewis12 November 2004

12/11/04 14:21 FAX 08 9474 1172, I Ir

08 9474 1172 , Jo!,'MC 7.%11Set

Our Ref: 10028912 November 2004

Draft Bushland Policy for the Perth MetropolitanRegion Statement of Planning Policy 2.8Western Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir

lahtitrep

- -

.1.E14f,L,

5olle 5, 2 Hardy Street

South Perth WA 6151

Tel 9474 1722

Fax 5474 1172

p [email protected]

DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION STATEMENT OFPLANNING POLICY 2.8

Attached is our submission in respect to Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 and Amendment No.1082/33.

Yours faithfullyGRAY & LEWIS

FF LEWIS

cc: Mr NI D'Orazio

CAGraysIFILES 100751 -11002691WAPC-submission SPP2.6.doc

licmber of the Amtrak= Aseadatto

raf Planotoo CoucuSion

Fleontered 71:nnt Mean; Comulftm

12/11/04 14:21 FAX 08 9474 1172 4ray & Lewis27/07/2004 14:52 1-61°°°°"ArA

474 1172SN&A D'ORAZIO & SON

OB 9

04PAGE B4/04

LAND RESERVED FORPARKS AND RECREATION

FROM JANDAKOT A.A. LOT 39

CT 1117/297

SUBJECT TO SURVEY

BAPTRAM ROAD

LANIMMERVVDPORAMU MAD FISCIIKATTON

J

WADI 1M710

al. 04104 Mom

0631

Submission 163

Department of Land InformationGovernment of Western Australia

Valuation ServicesYour Re 809-2-1-77 Pt I & Pt 2Our Ref: 95207Enquirios: Mnrio Palandri Tot: 9429.8592 Email: inario.palendrigdawa.gov.aU

Mr Ian PattersonSecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Attention: Miss Huta Colliver

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT BUSH roray.gR ANDRELATED LANDS (BFPA)

Thank you for your request for comment on the suite of proposed amendments to ,the MRS.

and the Draft Planning Policy No. 2.8.

The proposal and associated policy affects around 52,000 ha of land in Perth Metropolitan

Area and significant areas north of Path (Wilbinga).

It is anticipated that Bush Forever will generate controversy where it impacts significantly on

private ownership. There are around 300 significant bush areas identified in BFPA.

The policy also impacts on local bushland where native vegetation is located even outside a

BFPA but within the Perth region.

It is also recognised that the recent 'Dialogue with the City' program runby DPI and the

Minister was a success in producing planning aids for the City and one, which highlighted the

importance to people of preserving the natural environment in the city.

Although it is understood that the identification of sites was made some time ago in previous

studies the final implementation of the protection process may raise important issues.

As an indication of the hi-partisan support for conservation initiatives that are incentive based

Land Tax Concessions have been legislated for these lands where certain criteria are met.

This also reflects a real financial importance placed on this issue by government at the

highest level.

In the BFPA and related lands value is influenced by all of the individual circumstances

acting on each parcel. The degree of restrictions (or enhancements) will determine the degree

of loss or gain in value. In some circumstances sales evidence has revealed that there has

emerged a small market for conservation minded persons owning pristine bushlands. Overall

though the market value of land is determined by it's highest and best use.

Traditionally lands within metropolitan and townsite areas, held as large: .tincleared.talets of

land were acquired with future urban potential in mind.

?an sLty.nw

18 Mount Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000

Postal Address: PO Box 7201, Cloisters Square, Western Australia 6850

Telephone (08) 9429 8400 TTY (08) 9429 8720 Facsimile (08) 9429 8500

vsedlimiolt 6 t, 6 9 19 ABN 86 574 793 858

qqci.t7q7cR -HO S11-1>lqnr1 NqinHo CHI ric 1,2017/TT/7T

le

2

Smaller holdings forming individual long-term investment or part of superannuation plans

may suffer a change in this status as a result of BFPA affecting them. Where BFPA sites

affect these lands it is more than likely that values will have been considerably slowed in

growth since the sites were identified and the planning intentions made known.

Unimproved Values (UV) Council Rates and Land Tax

Where Bushforever sites arc valued on an unimproved value (as vacant land) basis any

restrictions placed on the potential of the land will reduce the value.

The circumstances that apply to individual parcels are varied depending on how restrictive

the Amendment is and how the Planning Policy affects or limits its development. Any

individual, negotiated planning concessions and solutions will affect these values individually

(or on a holding basis). Council rates in the Perth/ Mandurah local governments are based on

the gross rental value (GRV) basis rather than on the unimproved value basis unless councils

specify UV's as the basis. (See next section on how GRV's might be affected).

Land Tax legislation has already been amended to allow concessions to owners committed to

the bush conservation process. This is an advantage to those owners. The process 'locks in'

these owners who must ensure protection until the covenant is removed. The degree of

concession is still to be researched, as the Taxation Legislation still requires some policy

development for its interpretation and application. On equity basis the unaffected adjacent

lands may generate some potential for the unaffected owners paying Land Tax to be

aggrieved and lodge valuation objections to the Valuer General or Reviews to the State

Administrative Tribunal.

Gross Rental Values (GRV) Council Rates

Council rates in the Perth/ Mandurah local governments are based on the gross rental value

(GRV) basis rather than on the unimproved value basis unless councils specify UV's as the

basis.

(It is anticipated that in most instances water service rates (Water Corporation) would not be

affected by these values unless services subject to value based rating are available and the

properties are recognised as rateable by the authority concerned).

GRV's will be affected if the land value is reduced if the GRV calculation is based on an

assessed basis. This will occur if the improvements on the land are insignificant, non-existent

or of the nature that a direct rental comparison cannot be made from market rental evidence.

In this instance the capital value of the land (market) will be affected. Any reduction on this

basis will affect the Council rate capture on BFPA land.

It is entirely possible then that if the local government is not compensated that the rate burden

within That local government will then shift to unaffected land. A punitive shift of this nature

also has the potential to encourage aggrieved owners that are subject to a greater burden to

also lodge a greater number of objections to valuations for rating and taxing to the Valuer

General,

CVO cin.nm

011986C-176 8 l9

CieCif7C17gn 4 Q-11-WaMp )-mr1741 9c:17T 172017/TT/?T

3

Bushforever Policy Measures

Valuers win have to rely on the interpretations provided by your policies to determine

restrictions and longer term perceptions and effect to the land subject of the protection areas.

A consistent approach led by policy is seen as a benefit to both valuers and other property

professionals. The ultimate method of acquisition or compulsory purchase and ownership of

these reserves will determine the value applicable for rating purposes.

h71.41 c.l i7 nki

Bushforever Reserves - In the longer-term sites acquired for the Crown or for

vesting in conservation authorities will not be subject to rating and valuations will not

be required. In some instances values will or may be required to continue for Fire and

Emergency Service finding.

Urban, Industrial or Resource Development Depending on the type of negotiated

planning and approval conditions these sites can be among the most severely affected

in terms of values. Significant concessions and even compensation may be attracted to

these development sites.

Industrial and Residential inglobo land areas of Perth near services are in short supply

according to anecdotal evidence provided by WA Land Authority (LandCorp) and the

UDIA.

The States Resources plan should also be consulted (Main Roads) especially related to

extraction of resources required for infrastructure (limestone, rock, gravels and

potential road/rail base) as the potential of locking up such resources on the cost of

roads and other infrastructure is important to sustainable development.

Government Lands and Public Infrastructure These are expected to be the least

affected in valuation terms. Often there are however already preserved as ROS or

POS.

Utilities may require additional funding if such land is held undeveloped for future

corridors (rail, road and highway). Cost may be increased in order to meet strict

guidelines for service placement and minimal clearing burdens (tunnelling etc).

Rural Lands Values in rural lands will only be affected if a strong potential for

alternate zoning or use is apparent or there is future encroachment of higher zonings

nearby.

Genuine and continuing use farmland containing parts of BITA most likely will be

only minimally affected if at all in the short to medium term as most of these are

remote from urban development potential. Areas of the Swan Valley may be an

exception to this where bushland remains.

Most productive farmland within the Perth Metro Region (PMR) was 'early selected'

and bushland has been retained only for shelterbelt or shade purposes or is located on

unproductive wet or rocky ground.

011466176 8 l9

cicIcIbc17aM 4 q-:440 q71-lann Ngrilkin 71-11 bRP7/V1/7T

Other bush areas in the PMR are generally in areas designated rural and/or haveremained uncleared because they would otherwise have been unproductive oruneconomic possibly because of their geology (limestone, former pits). Its owners

may perceive some of this land as 'could be' urban land if close to existingdevelopment. The values here most affected would be high value residential locationssuch as the western suburbs of Perth or areas near rivers (Swan Valley, Canning

River) and the Ocean.

Regional Creek lines - It is unlikely that the values in these areas are going to sufferfrom protection areas as most would have been protected in any development byexisting regional or local public planning processes as some form of parkland

reservation or waterway protection. Many of these would have been identified in theoriginal System 6 planning research many years ago.

Negotiated planning initiatives in some instances may include advantages for owners

and attract additional payment by government on development for excess contribution

of POS.

Valuation Policy

It is not the intention to create any specific policy related to valuation of Bushforever sites.

Policies already exist where treatment of bush areas affect farming and rural lands in general.

It is anticipated that a more general approach will be taken with a policy developed that

covers covenants and other instruments and agreements that affect the value of laud either in

a positive or negative manner. When this policy is drafted it may be necessary to consult with

you further.

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly on 08 94298592 or

Mario_Palandri@dli,wa.gov.au if you require further information or clarification on these

comments.

Yours sincerely,

MARIO PALANDRIManager Regulation and Valuation Research

12 November 2004

Sal ELbmIN

011986D6 8 19

99S2A79260 4 TVAA0 S1HMRN4I mRniHn 3HJ. 92:0T V007/TT/7T

12-NOV-04 FRI 16:22 CITY OF GOSNELLS A FAX NO, 61 8 93982922 P. 02

61 8 93982922


FORM SA



To: SocretoryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 6000

OFFICE USG ONLY

suomissioN Numern

Submission 164

Name Cir/ UF606/46-44.(PLEASE snir T CLEARLY)

Address 2t 2-0 ALMO'? 4QSt eed---s

Contact phone number. el 3'1 1 5 2-2 1 Em iil address Loon 64.fose.Jfils. 43.4.4.,a9

Submission (Mosso attach additional pages if required. I; Is preferred that any additional Information be looso rather Than bound)

ri-e1WL GC; icritht:N.t.e/


12-NOV-04 FRI 16:22 CITY OF GOSNELLS A FAX NO. 61 8 93982922 P. 03

61 8 93982922


The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Sct,eme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the \N o:Aern Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should theywish to explain or oxpand upon their written submission. A hearing is intended for listening to points of view andplanning rationale, and Is not a forum of genoml publio debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must be appointed.

All hearings are recordod and transcribed. Tile transcripts of any public hearings, along with all written submissions,are published as public records. The C )mmission's recommendations are also published in a Report onSubmissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing. Thee omments presented byyou in this written submission will be taken intoaccount in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

Pleat.e complete the following:

NO, I do not wish to spea < at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)or

YES, I do wish to speak al the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

Or


MYSELF My telephon number (business hours):

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's name' ..., ......Group name:Agent's telephone num )er (business hours):Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:PUBLIC (with a public 1 earing other persons, including the media, may attend.)

Or

PRIVATE (a private hearing is conduoted behind closed doors and only personsnominated bv you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)


Signature.V2

riot ei rt O r u Ate. c ..,_s

Date /1/0/04

NOTE; SubmisslonS MUST be received by,the 'advertised ploSIng date, being,eloso ofbusiness (5.00pni) on FRIDAY 12 Ncsvember 2004. Lte sithmlisions will NOT be considered.',

Centacis: Telephone (DB) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 MG; Email - mrs @wapoma,gov.au; Internet - htlp://www.wapc.wa.gov,au

12NOV-04 FRI 16:23 CITY OF GOSNELLS FAX NO, 61 8 93982922

61 8 93982922

F GOSNELL

411

P. 04

CITY OF GOSNELLS SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGIONSCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1082/13 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

Introduction

Council, at its meeting held on 9 No/ember 2004, resolved to make a submission to theWestern Australion Planning Commission on the proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)Amendment 7082/33, based on the content of a staff report on the matter.

Council generally supports the broad c ims and objectives of Bush Forever and acknowledgesthat the MRS amendment provides the statutory framework For formalising the protection ofBush Forever sites, however recognition of the following is sought:

Development Process Issues

The City of Gosnells requests that an am mded Notice of Delegation be prepared and come intoeffect as soon as the proposed MRS Text modifications and the creation of Bush ForeverProtection Areas (BFPA) are formalised. This is required in order to clarify the role of localauthorities in dealing with development proposals within a BFPA.

The City questions why provision is not tieing made For a ?TPA, once formalised in the MRS, toautomatically translate into a local town planning scheme, in the same way that a MRS reserveis automotically reflected in a local scheme. It is potentially confusing For affected landowners,an unnecessary duplication of processes and a burden on Local Government to be required toinitiate and progress what will essentially be identical amendments to its district town planningscheme, particularly given that the BFPA and related town planning scheme provision willoverlay rather than replace the pre-existing zoning or reservation of the respective schemes.

Further guidance is required from the Cc mmission in terms of the content of required local townplanning scheme amendments.

Land Acquisition and Compensation

A significant implication of the proposed MRS amendment is that the Slate Government will beresponsible for acquiring land that is in private ownership and to be reserved for Parks andRecreation. Council strongly advocates that affected owners in the City of Gosnells should becompensated Fairly and reasonably For giving up land For conservation purposes, with valuesreflective of the landholdings' location within a rapidly expanding urban context,

It is noted that the State Government is not, however, proposing to acquire privately ownedland that is proposed For inclusion in a BI PA, but not For reservation for Parks and Recreation inthe MRS. Neither is the Government prop osing to acquire other bushland, either that which mayinclude wetlands or other lands identifiitd by the State Government as having conservationsignificance. In these cases, the burden of acquisition of land for public purposes is beingpassed onto local government and landowners,

It is the view of the City of Gosnells that land that is effectively quarantined from developmentfor conservation reasons and required for public purposes should be acquired by the StateGovernment, with landowners Fairly and adequately compensated. The Amendment proposalwill not deliver a system that is consistent tvith this view.

144440414111414amelann

12-NOV-04 FRI 16:23 CITY OF GOSNELLS £ FAX NO, 61 8 93982922 P, 05

61 8 93982922

The MRS should reserve for Parks and Recreation all Bush Forever sites intended for protection.If this will not occur, the Government should fund acquisition through other means, rather thanpassing this burden onto local government and landowners.

Support is given to the recommendations of the State Parliamentary inquiry into the Impact ofState Government Actions and Processys on the Use and Enjoyment of Freehold and LeaseholdLand in Western Australia, particularly Recommendation 33 where the investigating Committeerecommends that "the Land Administiation Act 1997 and relevant planning legislation beamended to provide that an acquisition of land by the State or a local government Following aclaim for injurious affection under the planning legislation, is to be treated on the same termsand conditions as a compulsory acquisition of land under. Parts 9 and 10 of the LandAdministration Act 1997."

Further resourcing implications

Council olready incurs costs in managing bushland areas and these will increase as more areascome into Council control. This generates the need For sufficient resources for bushlandmanagement, to enhance the capacity of staff involved in natural area management toeffectively maintain and protect bushland areas and to develop a bushland protection strategyfor the district, management plans for each BFPA site and bushland education programs, StateGovernment support is required in these matters,

Achieving sustainable outcomes

While the protection and conservation of key bushland areas is generally consistent with theCity's Strategic Plan and other planning and environmental initiatives, the broader communityimplications from a land use, service prevision and financiol perspective need to be considered.The setting aside of land For conservation reserves will impact on the Form and extent of newurban development, The reduction in developable area and the resulting loss of potential raterevenue is likely to have a bearing on the planning For and provision of infrastructure,community facilities and services and commercial opportunities. These implications are difficultto quantify need to be broadly consider( d in the pursuit of a sustainable urban environment.

Specific site implications

The proposed inclusion of Sutherlands Park (BF site 125) and portion of the Gosnells GolfCourse (BF site A67) in a BFPA has potential implications For the City of Gosnells in satisfyingfuture active recreation demands in the district. The environmental values of these two sites areacknowledged, however the Commission needs to recognise their importance in catering for thegrowing recreational demand in the are t that is generated by extensive new and future urbandevelopment in Canning Vale and Southern River.

Should you require any clorificotion on the matters raked in this submission, please contactSimon O'Sullivan of the City Planning Department on 93913336..

Maureen liegarlyManager - City Planning

12-NOV-04 FRI 16:24 CITY OF GOSNELLS A FAX NO. 61 8 93982922 P. 06

61 8 93982922

Public submission formDraft 13ushiancl Policy for the Perth Metropolitat Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8

1 Name' C aoseuLL-t._s

2 Organisation (if relevant)

3 Address' Po Lc K 66,2 CuMi Lt.& w11 644

4. Interest: tOG/}t. (Lou trz-,kri mart] fi-J-N_top_cry

(eg local resident, business operator)

Uwe would like to make the following commonts on 'he draft Bushland Policy for the PerthMetropolitan [legionStatement of Planning Policy 2S and would like the n to be concidorod in the preparation of the final documont

Comments: PL6A66 see Ater ACtfa'c

32 alloy lot the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement or Planning. Policy -.2.8Dail Report

12-NOV-04 FRI 16:24 CITY OF GOSNELLS A FAX NO. 61 8 93982922

61 8 93982922m--

411

P. 07

CITY OF GOSNELLS SUBMISSION ON DRAFT STATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY2.8 BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION

Council, at its meeting held on 9 November 2004, resolved to make a submission to theWestern Australian Planning Commission on the proposed Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 -Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolit in Region (SPP 2.8),

Council generally supports the broad aims and objectives of SPP 2.8, however recognition ofthe following matters are sought:

1. The Policy objectives are reflecive of the principles of sustainability and its measuresprovide a useful framework for r lanning assessment and decision nicking processes.

2. The adoption of requirements fo the preparation of Statements of Environmental Effectsand management plans is considered to represent a sound approach to ensuringconsistent supporting information and clear management commitments are provided inassociation with development proposals.

3. The inclusion of criteria relatino to negotiated planning solutions is also consideredbeneficial from a regulatory viewpoint, however the draft policy fails to address theissue of fair and adequate compensation For affected landowners, The progression ofnegotiated planning solutions should be the responsibility of the Commission with LocalGovernment acting in a recommending role.

4, In the City of Gosnells it is expected that Outline Development Plans (ODPs) will be theprimary mechanisms to achieve negotiated solutions and that the Plans will be likely toinvolve cost sharing arrangements that require developers contribute towards the cost ofcompensating those whose land s required for conservation purposes. The City has ledthe preparation of ODPs but the sbility of the EPA/DoE to override negotiated solutionsor to have little regard to the vehicles that deliver these solutions is hampering theeffectiveness of ODPs as a planni tg instrument.

There is a resource implication, c nd an inherent complexity, for the City in progressingthe planning required for bushland areas. It has been the recent experience of the Cityof Gosnells that the process of pursuing negotiated planning solutions where urbandevelopment proposals involve significant bushland is complex, protracted and notnecessarily delivering sustatnaile or implementable outcomes. The regulatoryframework within which SPP 2,8 is to be applied and the various agencies involvedclearly needs to be supportive anti capable of providing such outcomes.

6. While the SPP provides For cost-sharing mechanisms to be established to distribute thecost of acquiring bushland, as is generally proposed in each of the current and draFtODPs, no guidance is provided an valuation methodologies and principles. The Cityremains concerned that the onus c F bushland protection through acquisition is essentiallypassed onto those landowners who wish to develop and upon Council as administratorand banker of the cost-sharing arrangement. This exposes Council and its localcommunity to considerable Financi II risk.

allallANUAILtiangeenaosan-esasaane.

12-NOV-04 FRI 16:24 CITY OF GOSNELLS FAX NO 61 8 93982922

61 8 93982922

P. 08

7. The City of Gosnells already incurs costs in managing bushland areas and these willincrease as more areas come irro Council control. The State Government should providefinancial support to assist in the management of Bush Forever sites, which will likelyinvolve sufficient resources for bushland management, enhancing the capacity of staffinvolved in natural area managnment to effectively maintain and protect bushland areasand to develop a bushland protection strategy for the district, management plans foreach BHA site and bushland edcation programs.

8. SPP 2.8 should recognise the 'Local Government Biodiversity planning Guidelines Forthe Perth Metropolitan Region' prepared by the WA Local Government Association'sPerth Biodiversity Project os the metropolitan-wide guidelines referred to in section 5.31 1)c). It is stated in section 5_3 1 i)h) that local bushland protection strategies Formingpart of a wider local biodiversity strategy will be endorsed by the Commission. The Cityof Gosnells has already invested considerable resources in conjunction with WALGA onthe preparation of a local biodiversity strategy and seeks clarification on whether localbiodiversity strategies will be endorsed in their own right and obviate the need Forpreparation of a separate local bushland strategy, how the WAPC will endorse thesestrategies.

Should you require any clarification on the matters raised in this submission, please contactSimon O'Sullivan of the City Planning DI pertinent on 93913336.

Maureen HegartyManager - City Planning

ice. 11V V (-ICJ CP-I iLJ Fr1/21 1 I NlitiL/J wri q0 JOCC4J4 (

MAIN ROADS WA




:BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS


illJ bDCI r c.

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 165ti

NameMrt1ia (DsPvD U.3

)(ptsAsEppoNTeLEARLy)

AddressPostcode

Contact phone number9 11"-S k+-5-- I ) Email address UriAsi cab At, czoa^-14kAi*Lim\--Ru4S. \

SubmissiOn (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that anyadditional Information be loose rather than bound)


. NU V . LId04 1 b Gb I1H11Y NUHIJb 1.1H (

- MAIN ROADS WA

IYV.bDU r'..


The Metropolitan Region Town Panning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity for people who have made a

written submission to personally -present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee.







Submissions.

You do not have to attend a hearing, The comments presented by you in this written submission will be taken into

account In determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.



Or

YES, I do wise to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)


12I MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):Or

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)

Agent's name:Group name*Agent's tele-phone number (business hours):Mailing address:



Or



17Signature . )- Date / -11-

(: .:0

NOTE: Submission' eMOST'liet tlacr Chleatiii,l,hies.:UdYiOlt.41:0delrig.date; being -ciose of

business (8400pm)en PRIDAY.Igilosvpmber 2004;* Lite atibrintiseionS whItibt baConsidered

Contacts: Telephone - (00) 9264 7777; Fax (09) 92647566; Email- fors@wepowago v.a 'Memel- http:PWww.wapcma,gov.au

id.11UV.GW4 lb;db RUHDd WH d ddc:A4d4r

Government orWesternAustralia

MAIN ROADS WA

Enquiries: Lindsay Broadhurst on (08) 93234511

Our Ref: 28-15-103

Your Ref: 509.2-1-77 Pt 2

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

ATTENTION: HUIA COLLIVER

Dear Sir/Madam

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No, 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER Si RELATED LANDS

nu.bpo r,e4

MAIN ROADSWestern Australia

MEIN: 50 860 676 021

12 November 2004

Thank you for your letter dated 6 August 2004 inviting Main Roads to comment on theMetropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment No. 1082/33.

Main Roads has no comment to make with regards to Part B of the MRS Amendment No.

.1082/33.

However, Main Roads would like to provide the following comments related to Part A of theMRS Amendment No. 1082/33 that refers to the draft Statementof Planning Policy No. 2.8:

Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region.

Approximately 660ha of road reserve is included within mush Forever Protection Areas(BFPA), comprising about 1.3% of the total area under Bush Forever.

There are many pressures on the long-term viability of quality roadside vegetation in highlytrafficked urban areas, ranging from expansion of roads and related infrastructure to illegal

activities such as trampling, dumping, Uttering and fires. These pressures would result in alimited benefit from including narrow strips of roadside vegetation in a BFPA.

Although vegetation along roadsides adjoining significant regional bushland can provide abuffer to assist in protecting that bushland, the narrow strip ofvegetation in a BFPA itselfrarely forms a viable integral part of the bushland, especially where fencelines andfirebreaks are established,

Roadside native vegetation already has a high level of vegetation protection via therecently introduced legislation that requires a clearing permit for most clearing activitiesinvolving native vegetation. Thus the clearing of native vegetation, particularly verysignificant bushlanc., is already well regulated and managed.

Main Roads undertakes road management activities in a way to avoid any unnecessaryimpact on native vegetation and specifically undertakes actions to conserve these areas,such as weed control. Responsible management of roadside vegetation assists inprotecting any adjoining bushland outside the road reserve.

Don Aitken Centre, Waterloo Crescent. East Perth or PO Box 8202 EAST PEATH Western Australia esoTelephone: (08) 9323 4111 Facsimile; (08) 9323 4547 ITV; (08) 9428 2230

dac (Ymainroacle.wa.gov.au Website; WWW.MaThrOads.Wa.g0V.auCAD:moments and Settings\ s41221 \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Flles10LX5R28.15.10312nov04.doe

1C.111..W.CUU4 lb;C( MHIPI KOHL) WH IOU 7dC.A14(

MAIN ROADS WA

NJ.b5a V.5

The draft Statement of Planning Policy No, 2.8 documentation contains numerous

anomalies. For example;

some road reserves are included but other larger well vegetated land adjacent to theBFPA are not included, eg. BFPA 385some BFPA boundaries are based on cadastral boundaries but others are not, eg.

BFPA 288some roadsides are included within a BFPA while others are not, eg. BFPA 386land in the median between two existing road carriageways is included in some BFPA,

eg. BFPA 356the road itself is included as part of the BFPA, eg. BFPA 308some roadsides included in BFPA are very narrow, eg. BFPA 440some have degraded vegetation, eg BFPA 294

It is evident that the 'e are numerous instances where parts of road reserves within BFPA

are clearly a mapping mistake and/or have not been adequately verified on-site.

While the draft Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.8's intent allows for the managementand development of planned infrastructure within the Primary Regional Road reservation,however, some stakeholders appear to have interpreted the policy differently. Recentexperiences on projects such as Hepburn Avenue Extension (BFPA 480) and Roe Highway

Stage 7 (BFPA 2451 have demonstrated that management of State roads and efficient andtimely delivery of future road projects affected by BFPA will become much more difficult.

Also, having road reservations included within BFPA misrepresents the amount ofvegetation that Is actually protected by the Bush Forever strategy as there is broadassumption of development within these reservations.

Based on the reasons stated above, Main Roads request that BFPA boundaries beadjusted to exclude the Primary Regional Road reserves.

Main Roads request the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) consult furtheron the matters outlined above, in order to resolve them prior to finalising the Statement ofPolicy No. 2.8. Furher advice and additional evidence of the above will be provided to theWAPC following the submission closing period.

If you require any further information please contact Lindsay Broadhurst on (08) 9323

4511.

Yours faithfully

LindeoemROUTE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

CADoeuments and Settings \ e41221 \local Settings Ternporary Internet Res \OLK5R28-15-103 12nov04.doePage 2 of 2

Government ofWesternAustralia

Enquiries: Murray Limb on 9323 4254

Our Ref: 28-15-103

Your Ref: 809-2-1-77 Pt 2

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

ATTENTION: Julie Davey

Submission 165

k/ MAIN ROADSWestern Australia

ABN: 50 860 676 021

4 February 2005

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1082/23BUSH FOREVER RELATED LANDS

Thank you for your letter of 20 January 2005 requesting further advice and information inregard to our submission on the proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)Amendment No. 1082/33 and the associated draft Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.8Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region (SPP).

The principal concern is that land reserved for road transport is being identified for specialcontrol areas for the purpose of conserving regionally significant bushland. This will createan ongoing conflict in purpose and impede satisfactory outcomes for both transport andconservation. Therefore a whole of government strategic approach is needed.

Bush Forever (BF) documentation identifies approximately 50,000 ha of land forconservation. Approximately 1% of this land overlaps primary road reservations, seeminglyon an arbitrary basis. Main Roads supports WAPC efforts to conserve sizeable tracts of"regionally significant bushland to be retained and protected forever". However, includingroadside vegetation in BF sites presents significant problems.

In regard to the conservation purpose, it is our opinion that there is no significant practicallong term benefit of including roadside vegetation within BF site boundaries. Any benefitwould be small, in keeping with the narrow area of roadside vegetation. This benefit wouldalso be fragile given the pressures on roadsides and the possibility that furtherinfrastructure development may require clearing some of the remaining native vegetation.

In regard to the transport purpose, it is our opinion that there will be practical long termconstraints in managing and further developing road infrastructure if BF site boundaries

intrude into road reserves.

Remnant native vegetation in roadsides is always narrow in form, and its long-term viabilityin highly trafficked urban areas is subject to many pressures including those listed below.These pressures indicate the unsuitability of roadsides being included within BF sites.

expansion of road and other infrastructure (e.g. road widening for safety, laneexpansions, drainage improvements, foot/bicycle paths, signs, underground services);trampling, littering, illegal dumping and unauthorised burns because of easy access;

Don Aitken Centre, Waterloo Crescent, East Perth or PO Box 6202 EAST PERTH Western Australia 6892Telephone: (08) 9323 4111 Facsimile: (08) 9323 4547 TTY: (08) 9428 2230

Email: [email protected] Website: www.mainroads.wa.gov.auLetter to WAPC - Bush Forever In MRS submission - further info.doc

airborne pollution from large volumes of traffic; andvehicle excursions, and crashes and associated recovery actions.

Main Roads actively manages its roadsides with the aim of protecting native vegetation.Responsible management of roadside vegetation has the added benefit of assisting in theprotection of any adjoining bushland outside the road reserve.

Proposed clearing of roadside remnant native vegetation is subject to internal impactassessment and management procedures, and to statutory environmental and heritagerequirements including recent amendments for clearing controls.

Under the proposed MRS Amendment and SPP, if a BF site were to include roadsidevegetation then any proposed clearing would have significant statutory environmentalconstraints. This would probably include demands for an impact mitigation offset takingthe form of purchase of some other land, despite the SPP's provision for infrastructuredevelopment. However, recent experience is that environmental authorities will not allowland within another BF site to be used as an offset. We are approaching the situation thatall regionally significant land is already identified as BF sites, so when some land is to becleared within a BF site there is little possibility of a land offset being available that containsregionally significant similar vegetation. Regardless, the clearing of narrow areas ofroadside vegetation would be most unlikely to have any significant effect on the BF siteproper.

The overlap of BF sites into road reserves appears to be arbitrary when comparing varioussites, and boundaries even show quite obvious errors in some instances, possibly frommapping mistakes and/or inadequate ground-truthing. Some examples of such anomaliesare listed below and must be resolved prior to finalisation of the proposed MRSamendment. Maps and aerial photos are attached to demonstrate these examples.

BF site includes low quality vegetation along roadside, e.g. BF 310, 294 (see photos).BF site intrudes into developed road reserve to a very minor extent, e.g. BF 440 (0.3ha).BF site intrudes into a developed road reserve on one side of the road, while another BFsite on the other side of the road is well clear of the road reserve, e.g. BF 269 & 270.BF site intrudes into a developed road reserve, while another part of the site doesn'tintrude into an undeveloped (uncleared) road reserve, e.g. BF 130.BF site intrudes into parUentire width-of a developed road reserve yet excludes adjacentbushland outside road reserve, e.g. BF 385, 356.BF sites on either side of a developed road reserve with boundaries coincident, i.e. nointrusion, e.g. BF 268/269 and 337/339.BF sites on either side of an undeveloped (uncleared) road reserve with boundariescoincident, i.e. no intrusion, e.g. BF 288(part)/289.BF site boundaries adjusted after a road was developed and split the site. Remainingtwo parts now have boundaries coincident with the road reserve boundary, i.e. intrusionremoved, e.g. BF 456.

I have endeavoured to outline the main difficulties that lie ahead based on the contents ofthe proposed MRS Amendment and SPP. In order to resolve the conflict between differingland use requirements I propose that the approach be in three parts as follows:

Developed road reserves For situations where there is an existing road in aninfrastructure corridor, the BF site boundary should be adjusted to coincide with theroad reserve boundary. This would be a simple matter and serve to clearly demarkthe two separate land uses and facilitate well focussed management and outcomes.

Letter to WAPC - Bush Forever in MRS submission further info.doc Page 2 of 3

Undeveloped road reserves For situations where a road reserve contains noconstructed road, i.e. clearing has not yet taken place, then a strategic planningreview of the conflict with BF sites should be undertaken. The aim would be toadjust the BF site and/or road reserve boundaries to be coincident. Whereappropriate, land offsets would be arranged in a strategic manner rather than at thetime of road development. This would require close cooperation between relevantauth6rities and pave the way for timely delivery of road infrastructure according togovernment requirements.

Future road reserves For planning situations where road reserves are beingestablished, the aim should be to avoid BF sites where possible, ensure thatboundaries don't overlap, and where appropriate arrange land offsets at thisplanning stage, rather than at the time of road development. This could beaccomplished through the normal planning process and would require cooperationbetween authorities.

I'm sure that most stakeholders would agree that there is a need for a whole of governmentstrategic planning approach to conservation land and infrastructure corridors. The goalmust be to remove and avoid conflict in land use that arises when conservation areaboundaries intrude into infrastructure corridors. This would allow government to fulfil itsobligations to protect and conserve significant natural areas and to provide and protectinfrastructure corridors.

Main Roads staff are available to further discuss the matters raised on this issue.

If you require any further information please contact the Acting Manager EnvironmentMurray Limb on 9323 4254. In reply please quote file reference 28-15-103.

Yours faithfully

ellIVE DIRECTOR TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT

Enc

Letter to WAPC Bush Forever in MRS submission - further info.doc Page 3 of 3

I

91

'I'

.ftilill ' r 9

1., i. ', "99111hil 0,1 la rhi,has,121,L4,, IL.IV kahatilithafittiLl, , il

11: l'i"kats-minum-Lditiarrutml2.4 IL ,,, .1 2,14,,,41.t.z.,,,,, ,

.9,h IS

S Pir I win 'I PI I. himrlkidi Imufltazi %Agog, 9 '11999 ° 1 9" 'a a alailas ' .." " ^ 9":19i719rne 1,11W19919, 'mt. a ,,,, ,,,hilda ablziam,7 " ::::"" "z"zzz"zrz zi.zzazzzrina I

11794 i 09' ' i IIM ii,tssiii al.oughth , 1 all i

d ..

'I' ii lie11" III n

1 lgi 'WM " aa a 1 I ' ,', , 9 a li III I I'l

II '"I", zrazzizhizt. sff: limas ad'

al 1 X

9 a: a9 me II rl " 1 119,99 109 9,1

I

99,

'I

sum-999999", 9609.99artlahvatarts.asumazizzzazzz,z

9 , h as mataaaahna,za,zazzazaz marnirmaaaaaaams HYI mamma asterI.

PI, '99

I L' d' o9

JI § IAi I II 11 it

9 9 FFIrrir79,7r-7777:1-191

'0")RVterl ,f(W,W14411Pe-,

9

;1.

Istiv04 tig

-44V`P(Cfdi vA\t-4,;4}1::*

n%,

z

N.

Z -, , 4,.4,',\ N \. \ \. \\ \\N\ \ \ .. , \\ \ \: \ \.

I ..

\ \-- \s, -- \ I

,\ ' .'"-.\ k NN, \ \ \ A ",, \,.

\ \\ \\ N \ N.' V\\\\\\ &\x1\ I Nv.:^N \

\ N N ' N \ \ \ `.; ( ,

N 1\ , , ,t \ \-4'N\

"....4, \ \C\\\\1 \ 'AI' \\ 4 \ I \N \

\:\\\\,,,:\\\\,\\'\ TS\---\\---N2\:\\ \\\\ \;\ ';\\ \ \\, , , , , , , ,

,, ,\ , N.,--=<:,,

1

, \' v,

\\*P\-r..\\\

\

\ \\NI.; \ \ \ \' \ ANN \\ \ \\ N N \ \ CI N N N N

\ \ ca:-\ \.P

\C.\ \`. x, , \i\ \ \-----4--\ \\ N \, `., , ), , C,` C

\ F\ \\ \\\\\ ..,.C,

... , ,, ,*\\ ,,\'\, ,,,..-*-, \ _,________,- L', '

, ,,>-- , ,\ \ ",. \ \, \ , \ N\\ \ N\,\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \,g,,\.\\ \k i , \ , . to\ \ , \ , \-. \ \\, . \,,..N--,\ ' \,:\ ' 5' \ , ," \\, -` \ ,,.

\ \ \ \ \ N Ntt

s

0

1110z11

Ad

r ,I

ph

r

in

1'

9111 1111 11 s

s 1 1

,1

iIIe

11 1:1-1 1 :1 11 9:11

N

a_

,rizz

QE2 2

cr,

cn Eo ,0Er ZZ7t-c 0

IK

A' N

4

Ihasal

1,,

.5 51

idistahm

ihtlars:271.isilis is? sunk unsim

assindmi

21i

.1I

'Ai

1air"

gir

he....

ad

limatsgam,........

z

"12

PPP, ISM, ;111,1! IP I

1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I Fuzzir'101 IX'

'ifjnrrrrrr peg p

1,11 z.

rr

VI n7,r

4

nII

11

4.7.1d Innnnenn,l,4ei rpnr4s--

d

t!' e I2t..4onndinn len-s r

141

rm

Li n-1.40 Irr

Wel erreh,,mlinmhn% 1141,P; 11

I

rq

Lb- ""11-11 916,-

I , ;,,,, .:6.,. -.-: ^midi ij'ul n

,,, ,_id nair ,'

. ii lidlittlui h":1:1:1:1"rs'i:Ird p',, P41/::::;:,PI"m'ild.: el"::1":"'

or, 0, ...1.,.. h I. ren r 'I, 1 , l'

' F !' 11.4

I,, P

-do nir

',bur

xr

IrL :14 PL wILrr

til ,r,11

P

F-0303rCr;

I1,

5IIIp.'

a

94:

I

P,

pain

' 11.i

1.

....

.9 H41. m

a I:g.h.,A

dlidi.

11lu

.m

rid IIN

J adi .

szaL M

b'

ISS

mill

a ma daz

IIII

S iNm

i mass SIII.11

IS ISIS &SS ISIS

IISI

IS

,ar 14,,,

sizilltizzzzillzaIzzll

II

tiC(.1.9.

2au

IwI

ateI

1

hlb

R.

ri

1717

,",

,,

AI

,

Pr

rF

,I,F

,1:

Izi

t' "

inn

,;,

i..ri5

r,ii

r;,,,

I44

1 ! 1

171,

"lir

,..,IP

1' l

1:4

7."1

1/41

/'I

"HO

W "

r.,

-rit

u.,,,

,!"

..,o.

t1

te h

i.'

1 bi

P'"

'' 1"

'.p

r",,,

,- r

4'

,41

' r

i

:1i

,1

zp-0

0 ,,

A 1

4' '

t. ,1

;;IF

F01

414t

iire

;

.1"R

zr"

,1A

I%P

,14,

1, 4

10' '

i f k

,

aF.

14.

n I

.1'

I10

1

,01

Ihr

PIW

I '1

1141

,i l

y-'',

;.1

'ir

icy

Irk.

,Ii7,

-..,V

.,1

'.:21

14"r

' itk

irlH

ilI,

4,11

1,,r

:111

49 P

E-I

C4'

:',1,

11"1

''''''

I::14

44,1

1NI.

1,1r

iak,

,,C1

111

1

risi

rlr4

:''

11'

iiiiT

4

,1 1

,;

ra.

Y i

7 ill

riri

g!!

1

IId.

."71

014,

.,r

0 ,,

hL.1

. i '-'-

;''. 1

.,,LF

/J...

.11-

1:

' 6,

n'

HP

1'

tlr; W

ilt:9

54"

',

ii,' w

ir,i

r r

' 'i.,

litki

ll'''

t 'ir

r'

1

rirg

i

rs

",',1

4141

:1;1

1J<

J1,1

1'16

0ffi

ed'h

i;i:

144

. gg

-.,

licT

d:,,,

r,,,,

.:8:,.

.,,,,,

11.:

1; 4

c,,,,

i6,,'

,ri;

ii1,

,:i 1

11

r

1bn

i..,

,I

i

pri

14',,

/,ib

li;11

:7til

l n P

ril

-

,14:

:,i,4

,,,I,

44.,,

, [I.,

,,1 1

:%'.,

".

:Oil

.,11

411

?'

qp51

,9r

.1%

,:

q

1,44

PA

t

1-''''

kk

'I;,,

-im

"7.+

11-

ir:&

-"--

-"rii

rl :1

t"'Z

'ltaf

'14:

j mi..

..:s

ift

" t'

,,

',ii

rir.-.

.:7rif

ir,,,7

1 "

z1

'

"li

g ,

-O

r'I'

v71

11.:"

1-;p

liy;;;

,,,,;,

tdid

t,'

'W. 7

1'

'I' "

11P

,P4

144'

gr.

1"11

0;1

';',,7

"441

1.,

79

IT,,

wrr

irm

.i 1

;or

1r

rA

Cfi

r?1

149:

07rr

.

0R

e

y.dor

, 1,9-

0ii:

11

w ,

r 1

my,

rrrr

tr,

irr

r: r

y, r

r: r

r r

r,4

1,,

71

""""

"I

. ,11

4

I'I

'E B

EI

1C1"

"E'R

"H"

HIE

' s"

"""

'

'Pr

Jrdo

o I

,791

11,i

',wry

ly.1

,

V :

97.

4111

1k

It11

1

"qi

T-

',I r

i, I'

r,,,,

,,'

.1

,,

q4,

14

'11

,'I

,I, Y

1

.,i

i, ,

:m

ort1

I

Gam

19,I

,i,a

,,,,

rem

i dis

h111

1111

41,

ntow

ir1;

11'1

111

j11

4Pru

ninn

g111

1111

,11r

illtw

ini

1ai

rda:

I. O

r'n

nw.S

iini

,1

111,

11,A

lwri

SdIP

:Pci

llitr

ill,h

9H,

:tr.$

1),1

IM

P;::

',II

1171

111

r'''',

,:

"Thr

4'

I:i

tr,

i..1

7,,,I

ir ."

,

r1

1tie

nnzl

irm

i;"1:

!,11

'14

147

',7;

vitI/

RI-

1 .7

r14

11-

eigh

,',I I

,'

1Ir

ai

',,1

r ei

,op

,4

...N

ab P

iI '

1,k;

, i

1r

`. p

ei.m

.,,,it

IN ,

'I

I,,.d

',Pt

,,,

' - '

,I;1

riPir

tii'

111"

1°...

' , 4

9', !

i P

, Nili

:010

Ingl

r0:

iit

' [1,

;',3,

,; 'lb

;:

I

lie 1

1.1

ihr

PIrl

i PIS

IP ;"

1110

; 1 1

3hII

i11

-51'

""&

"' r

,L.

° '

d'p,

11...

4,I r

ef -

-ir

l.

,,,ki

,,r

,...'

. . ,

r lo

lr

11,

r o

r IL

'I

...di

R O

PP 4

;,

Alb

c '

,11,

4171

...!..

.,r

,(1

/4,4

"1.

1.,1

,,2r

l' id

e ?N

W id

'' ,, F

' ,

711.

4,,,"

'r

,,

1 ",

gr

-Hi

,r,l'

, .4

211.

,1:.,

' 1

1"11

1.9'

0947

1

fth;1

; Ph'

.'t r

liry

;

ipi

.11

pr ,,

,,r,,,

el,:

0, 4

,001

,, pl

y

'1

''' ' 0

$111

1' .1

,1i:7

1:hi

t1,

P,,,

r1i,1

1"

'',In

tr,,i

ttd,,,

,,,M

k.' i

i%.

hh

.1,0

It 1,

1h

,,,,-

, "1"

,, ,d

op,'

ALF

141

", :

"tV

ir I

Oil

k ,is

1144

; ; r

ir41

11, r

"..

ahO

ot.1

71,5

r.4,

11,.

'

I lo

os!

d".

,T

IP."

" ;

.' -

k ' k

rp

7

d'

d"

;71P

Eir

yd,r

, 10

41k

I1 $

490-

rik,

,1,

'''

,'i

i,,

ti ',w

'Fp

r ro

mly

Ihi

,r

or'I.

,

"11

r."2

1,11

',,:1

1:-

',lb

,ii

b

!,,

",R

I 11

,411

,r,,,

t,[,

r1"

1.".

.;'ill

0, Nil

.' r

o ri

.9,

416

irl'i

,01,

'Ai"

' 4'1

11'7

" -

"'

Il'P

r; "

71',

h T

ibhi

ll"

1,

4,;

1 g

purr

ir;jp

1..1

ftry

,r

,,,, ,

I,, e' A

Piji

n 1

,1

,

slik

r

z

i,.,

,,0

,-T

rF

aft,

IF"

01,,g

rjyr

dil

oh

14,5

;m.,

"II'

r"''''

4 9

"011

1.1

plin

Trz

'

.:11,

1° H

Pr'

1;1

0m

d,1,

4,..4

1,1,

1:,,,

,4,

11.

i'1.

-,,,

,,

p;,,D

. 0,I

dint

u11

1

'1"

"""'

.1,:

'I''

1

hiC

lirt;

1I ,

,,,,4

,1,,d

iirrie

rvi '

,11

1,

0 ,c

hru

ins,

11,

I;

', m

pg :

I"q'

111

illdi

prr

.- n

o ,

Lir

,,r,

r,,,

,r

Ego

lf,i(

41 I

P I

rm..,

,I,,

.'.1

, "'

,r,"

1"""

"11

"1.0

r'

''

''

'11

I', '1

1, 1

1,1:

,III

111

1 t!

'ir

I

flkilb

h P

I liF

livirE

ER

ET

r.

M 1

.11"

CE

run

Wm

"W

U.'

L.,

'9'."

; ;dm

11

....

....

.. 4

11'

zpsu

r:..

11

;

4 '

lb10

0.01

3R1,

'1r

44.1

0111

411

rh

'''1

''

P 1,

,'It

;"

4,,

I''

m' I

I1.

1i.

i, 4

*

/'1

il/li

rir

' '1 r

,',I:

11."

IP:,

PI

'I

lefl

II''

,

''''

rr r

iz

le.,1

10 5

24m

g.

rehi rr

'kJ

44 ;1

1:11

9

r1

Iei

holg

41I

4'

wu

FyF

ir,II

r IL

," I

,

417.

410

I

Iir

Iimbi

llem

ignm

urm

,

wm

141;

1111

,iti,1

,, w

.

rbI

re

4

SSI

16,

1.11" " "

,1,1",114141111311;

'''x

"'x wx'"7::"111:61""0"4:210$101

I lirphrhe

...., .16 ,il

h11110:711P.:1:11.

at'" 11110,.

6,I'

zA

ILy

1.:011111fl "

II"

la ai d

14:1111;b:011

Strnipprtiiphinism

ombo

1

'a

Yeti tril

,

41

I",1

la'1.1,',

glob!:

x,

r xpy

IIlz z

zI ;fizz:Ids

Ilzd

H

,pito

II ill!.1 II

inliiilME

EM

MIN

IND

IMM

MT

ME

ffici I

Ill

11

1,7r.

iI

011111111i

1111111119E

119099B

cif liEi

II

Sa

3.1886

I00

HOPE VALLEY

82

MANoo0ALUP

ref

000

001

667 -

602

PLOP

667

IBS

P1660

Subject to surveyAll co ordinates are GDA94AII dimensions are in metres

POSTANS

POUT 0

PROPOSED SPECIAL CONTROL AREA NO. 1

500m 0a a 500m

0040, 0304.01,-0.1

N EM 00--.00.,. 00,7.

BUSH FOREVER PROTECTION AREA - BFS268

WESTEMIAUS7PALLVIPLAIININO 7<COMEMS4ON CPA

AUTHORISED: 0.COLUVEH

DRAFTSPERSON: K HALLORAN

EXAMINED:

REVISED:

DATE: WAPV651 26/OVECKG

NORTH PLAN No

3.1886

2295

FILE REF: 809811

PLAN REF: Et ...........MRS 1:2500c SHEET* 21 24 427 I c ;1,5111, 1603

SCALE 1:10000

la

1,'.

1,I14;11'

,pir:4,111

%V

I

sill

'1:,

..I,.

,i :

9Y

0111,141jill

IM

ina'

II 4. "1/2°I

allim914141111114

"di'

u1,1

..i

1,4. "

.:-1

1.011114,4

'1

1"

11,,1,01: "III ,APPIV

:11

:dill P

,

1iii

MI4

.Pii,j411110,

ii,H'

iii.,,,,'''..py,

,I

411Ili

,di1;6

l'.,,

0a

Ir1 44110i

'

kiliI

1. jy

1.'411.zi

Id

It11111nll

Ni

zjr.)

liV

III M11,1Y

1x 11111111

111 Mil P

P M

I

ail,m

il, in

1106

qi 4,.,,

,141h

drhy,,, ti'd .,

'Iv, 1111, ithy4 i

?41'.141419 Set:A

rdlia;iiiirii%

Ph, i

I"

- till& d

.o., ,th....triihilihili thkia..1liii

. xi ,hi.

..,.

'

I,11 IM

M"

jara

A%

'A.'

1

,1,1

11.

siao N

ibW

I0 0

Pala

Cl I;.11

I -

121,

IS110

ILI

III

ran

:ph

IT!

:",1

1

,r

;tt,

11,1

d'7,

HE

:7, 7

:11.

,i r

,11up

,:141

1,11

,11

,,1

1r

,;

unu,

I,r

r ,

11

1:,

mum

& 1

,.1,

ey,

,, 11

, ert

h,,

,,,,1

,rI,r,

rr

,11.

1.,1

1,6,

11

:,11

4,

,, ,

,,;,

,I

,"

":1.

116"

"""

,1,

,Iyhy

,p, r

e u

.. ; .

. ,,,

r,

'11yr

:: ,,

," 1

1.1

11

y ,

y

Ir1

,11

., m

u .1

,,,,

....

1.,I

NI 1

41'1

:ut

i1.

P",

4,,,

,,1,

,, lip

r. 'r

r11

.11

1.11

mm

r.1

" "

" "1

" ""

"Ir

r ,i

,,1

yI

,1

,.,,

Titi

,,,,

.:

,

I

, y,

rur,

', t

,,,11

1

hit

1I

"'""

"""'

77,:,

,,1

,11

rt

1!1

'

r, ;,

""""

""""

'"'""

""m

"'

" "I

"' "

1"

1" "

" "

""""

: "q"

" ""

"t I

mu

9 m

" !

"1

n

:01,

-',i'r

:r"

,, ,

,,,,

,I

1,"

i 11

,1

i

,,,,0

,yr

,,

,,

, ,,,,

,,,,

" ,

, ,,

1 r

,r,

I,

,

,,;

,," '

',,

,,

1,,,

,,,,

,, ,',

..,,p

,..,,,

,,,,,:

.,1,::

:,,,,,

,,',i

1,,,

1,,'P

oi h

z ',e

l;14

,

1

,,i.,

,,

,,;

""

,,

,,611

,11,

1,1

,, ,

,i '

, ,,',

;TT

--,

,, .

!'' "

id ,

.,,,;

,,,,

,

,,,,,,

,,

;1

i,

1

d. ,

I pu

rl1r

It d

m: ,

,, r

,,

11.

r,1

1"

"I

"1

in, ,

, ii,

,,,r,

rr

rir

, r1,

4, ,

,1, ,

1,1

11

1,,

HI 7

1.1

I' I t

r!,

1, r

; rle

ird ,

c

,,

1

rir r

71,7

,7%

7,,,,

1,7,

7,1

7. 7

;m

z;7.

71

i,r

zoid

,, :I,

7m

, u.7

7 um

., i,

e' ,

omit

l'""7

7, ,

,,,,,,

,,,,1

,,,,,,

,,,,,,

,,, .

,

.7rr

rr r

rrr

rrrr

r.I

mm

mim

m

rrr

I17

i111

7; I; ,

,. q,

,, ,h

.0 1

,',.

[I"1

17"7

"7",

"1.1

pR

Ayr

nnnn

nnim

irnm

,:11

,m94

,

, , ;,

, p1!

1IQ

1r,

,m

t,,

i,

1I

4z

;1

r,; r

1,;1

z, r

l

Ii'

;;I

I

,1;

1,ir

rrzi

r1

rte

irrem

zrzr

trum

mur

rInz

rtI:

11I

1"

irr;

11:

rz

;

i; ,

Ir

111;

mpr

ririrr

uirz

r;r9

,1

r

'

11

,z

11,1

z,1r

114,

,rr

ilirt

rrrir

rum

urri

1

;

;pm

:IV

iirrit

zurr

imu

I;

14,,,r

11

1I

In,,

, ,

II

nmum

ul le

,p,

,, in

n 11

6,6,

1,1

11

1

I /

11m

um, T

yrzh

;mr,

nrrr

irrim

rlim

i1

I"'"

""u"

""""

"nr,

d1

mum

mun

m; m

ii"l

11

d

I

0141

'1.1

1.1,

"7.

7'77

1:1

1111

:7,:9

7,'lM r

1114

, ....

... r

m.

'I

1 r

1'1

1, "

ip,1

Irrr

,,,ry

I

II

I

CD 03

2:

III E.:I ju

I

'' -

""'

'' "

" '

' ";,"

"","

,;;."

:111

;;;;;;

411"

ritid

d;:d

rr.

prtm

im

in r!,

Iii,

mid

rrrxx

Har

m,

'

1,11

1"ri

'"n

1 4,

1,1

,

iir

nri

Nq

pr rI rI

IN;

I

,I

I I 1,

1i 6

,m'

1,1,

17: p

i 7ri

m

F,

Nun

,rm

rrrr

Fly

niri

1,1

nrniirirrrnrnnnl

lunr

riri

r4tu

rppm

, 7:

tir

:1, I

tr6

11r

'tltll

"Wm

dx"J

II116

BIIN

Ihhr

umm

r..

Tim

,nor

m e

,r

0,1:

9:,1

1,6,

1799

,,,tim

,

9,1

,;',:,

,T,',

;,',1

14

,

.,11

;

I101

111I

' i""

r,r

:ri

4r

rirr

rir

mrr

rl'1

ri

di ''

'n

ur

ri r

xm

, . 4W,1

;";

III

CO

nnr;

r.a

rrrr

rrr

rr

I, e

rit

;14

;;

Hri

,,r

ront

rvin

it,e,

i,rT

r :ir

Kw

FT

,p, t

rnm

srin

umity

rPT

, ir,

r. 9

1;41

711

1111

1P1

MM

." I

I M

U I

g

"""V

T 'C

r"a"

911.

'

III

111

111

" "M

I `I

IM 1

"111

1111

111,

1111

1MM

I "I

II1,

1191

I .0

Si"

LK

'''.11

11 7

1,11

#"y

r"'

Is

,11

,

11:1

1di

i

zti

,

Trir

,1:

:111

m:,

12;4

Scd

r" k

irri

rrr

, re.

azu

",'

ce

itd -id'.., tr; -.

d billaul VIII' 11.1:J1111b InlIbilligiudildshol

4

1

1.1;:r1;

PiM

ti.411:4

3.1

;NU

N"

,

2-7771F,Tr,rripipircipgrirritri

TIP

"IV

AR

leill.1

P.1P

1

941I

P11:11.11.11hIlithaililm

ie

I.'

IIIp

III'

II

II411

Ilui

I

'1b

id

.

,'

ir

1q

P

III

"

h11111W

ifillillifi=11111111111111111111111

:azw.

ei

9.141.111.1111191111,I

411

1 is

ii.h.asiailLis

k%'

11"

"

"114"1111;

I.....11S

-111

IM

ssi lissiiisssisi m

aimis

di

qunuudWudlld :z

dlzuzzaz

da

dfi,eirM

III I

1.141.1II 61

AI

CO

Co

clE2

411,

ZI

Amendment No. 1082/33 - Parliament of Western Australia

Documents

Transcript of Amendment No. 1082/33 - Parliament of Western Australia