WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION · 33 MacGregor, Stuart & 18 Rechichi, Don & Elisabeth Patricia 102 Roberts, T, The Planning 43 MacKay, John Group for 26 Macri, Antonio & Concetta

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 ofKatamunda, Mundaring, Peppermint Grove and Serpentine-Jarrandale

SUBMISSIONS 42 - 90

VOLUME 2 OF 6

November 2005

PERTHWESTERN AUSTRALIA

c-; Government of

Australia

WesternAustralian

If PlanningCommission5Orsd

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER Et RELATED LANDS

SUBMISSIONS 42 - 90

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 of Kalamunda, Mundaring,Peppermint Grove and Serpentine-Jarrandale

WesternAustralianPlanningCommission5001P'v

VOLUME 2 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 42-90 Volume 2 of 6File 809-2-1-77 Pt. 2Published November 2005

ISBN 0 7309 9548 8

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 this

process.

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 bemade 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 ispresented 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 the

following 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 an

amendment to the MRS before it is advertised. Should it require assessment anEnvironmental Review is undertaken, and that information is available at the same time as

the 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 1082133

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 Bayswater, 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 for

65 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


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 Mori, 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 Burns93 Kwinana, Town of Beach Property Trust,

163 Land Information, Hardy Bowen Layers forDepartment of 70 Petrovski, Dimce

115 Landcorp 58 Phoenix Forest Products16 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


168 Rosher Family, Taylor 109 Urban DevelopmentBurrell Barnett Institute of Australia

90 Saggers, Stuart & 118 Van Doornum, MaximilianMarriott, Summer & Jennifer

178 Satter ley Property Group/ 51 Vicini, MaryOcean Springs Joint 11 Victoria Park, Town ofVenture 117 Vincent Nominees Pty Ltd

106 Schultz, Beth 9 Vincent, Town of141 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 Block144 Sorgiovanni, C,

Landvision for 39CompanyWakefield, Ashley

21 South Perth, City of 92 Wanneroo, City of

5 St Mary's Anglican Girls' 123 Water CorporationSchool 126 Western Australian Local

28 Sterndale, John Government Association160 Stirling, City of 153 Wetlands Conservation

76 Stockland Trust Group,MGA Town Planners for 145

Society 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, A T&M E 183 Newland, Dennis

6 Ten Vaanholt, Mr & Mrs D 184 Jordan, Paul120 Tigerhawk Pty Ltd, Corrs 185 Prestage, Ralph & Lois

Chambers Westgarth for 186 Creasey-Chapman167 University of Western LATE

Australia, 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

12 November 2004

Please send your submission to:

SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Submission 42

SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PERTH'S BUSHLAND

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment 1082/33: Bush Forever & Related Lands

I would like the following comments to be considered in relation to the proposals in the above MRSAmendment:

I strongly support the establishment of Bush Forever Protection Areas (special control areas) in thePerth Metropolitan Region Scheme over all Bush Forever sites

I oppose development within Bush Forever Protection Areas and clearing in these sites should beexpressly prohibited

Any development proposals that would adversely affect the conservation values of Bush Forever sitesshould receive scrutiny from EPA, WAPC, so that community members are consulted.

Legal status of the SPP 2.8 needs to be strengthened. Otherwise provisions of the SPP 2.8 may not beimplemented faithfully

The emphasis should be on 'conservation management' rather than 'development' in Bush ForeverProtection Areas. A section should be inserted to require that all Bush Forever Protection Areas aremanaged by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values.

I support the reservation of all proposed Bush Forever sites as Parks and Recreation for conservation.

The amendments fail to give priority protection to sites with vegetation complexes below the 10%target. It is a Government commitment that through the Bush Forever process at least 10% of each ofvegetation complex will be protected.

Name.

Organisation.

Address.

Signature.

DADA FOR PLANUNG4? "VRPP2TRUCTURE

5 NOV 2004

ALE 1SCP -71 °OFor mor4 informanon nteaw cnniact the Conx6rwalmn Cruinol of WA on 9420 7266 nr the Urban 14941AarA enuncil WA nn 9420 7207

12 November 2004

Submission 43













6:..rnTrarrOWPtikritatmoifer,FA2TRUCTURE

5 NOV 2004

"/

Name: S rvk A-4-1 CA-!

g r of C,Jeits(A-JSOrganisation

la ( Y PL.

Signature:.

CUI

IPAYA/2-tic u A 6/J{

tivl A v.

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 orthe Urban Bushiand Council WA on 9420 7207.

4 November 2004

Submission 44




I would like the following comments to be considered in relation to the proposals in the above MRS

Amendment:

I strongly support the establishment ofBush Forever Protection Areas (special control areas) in the

Perth Metropolitan Region Scheme over all Bush Forever sites

I oppose development within Bush Forever Protection Areas and clearing in these sites should be

expressly prohibited

Any development proposals that would adversely affect the conservation values of Bush Forever sites

should receive scrutiny from EPA, WAPC, so that community members are consulted.

Legal status of the SPP 2.8 needs to be strengthened. Otherwise provisions of the SPP 2.8 may not be

implemented faithfully

The emphasis should be on 'conservation management' rather than 'development' in Bush Forever

Protection Areas. A section should be inserted to require that all Bush Forever Protection Areas are

managed by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values,


The amendments fail to give priority protection to sites with vegetation complexes below the 10%

target. It is a Government commitment that through the Bush Forever process at least 10% of each of

vegetation complex will be protected.

AB, 11 POIWONTI;IGNPFA31-RUCTURE

- 5 NOV 2004

FILE 8'a-CZey

Name.P/YTI SiRrature

/CriCC OF "RR)- Z.S9 S

Organisation.

Address. 6 icG co./ P a )/49 Jay

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 or

the Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207 .

Metropolitan Region To jPlanning Scheme Act 1959

Section 33 Ame mint (Substantial)3//iF OA

SUB ISSIONMETFIOPOUTAN REGION SO EMIR AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER i RELATED LANDS

..4:- LNPQA:istocroc:E.

To: Sec-MaryWestam Australian Planning Commission

489 Wegingion SmutPERTH W A. 8000

Name

II

5 NOV 2004

TILE P

Ma UV ONLY

Wiliki00.11117a47

Submission 45

Z 1 moo/-P-1 (-1-7// /25' S(PLEAS PRINT. Of

Address7411-7/6`14$ Poetcode..0S7

Contact phone number.0-4E0 7 /9 37SSErna laddrese

Submission "ass Sth didatatlii pages If rawksd. It Ipralartaa *tat any acIdlassl Inionnealanbores rate Man Sound)

5 7 7; er_1;

R-,51i Sao 777 4_,

.6)

oi-/ I()ffti /17,17

$7u In 47 /e)1 (DA-- .4c3rrfriff- 'Up/P-2'

4t as

v 4

/-/ C c /- r/1.2:1,--

ote r evo

o'c 5..41..G7:-Ce° 4-r -> T-2 (--6rV

.27,E. <cc °Ai

c6);Q-earzis-s

S "7) 7711 S ii$7-A/1,0 )

C 6- 7-11

/ Co-12-; C TioN)

ALtit- 7/ 0 err

dcR. (91/ P 'o0 rI o7.":// /4-77 5titevi

2TURN OVER TO OOMPLETTE YOUR SURiettilKni

N ) -/Arlia o "/"tt -779-6-- ,/n cU /2 r 41 (-) CU G

5 Al-d) el 4b ir -TA /4se/ it2v

0 fai /cc( 4 .7771 To 1lrI aq S

ti 4 6 i 04.c

'7 it/ /2 /Z

42-te,d Yi 7L, (Lk" c2 -714 5" co ( rry /.

Ne=tibmx/vbi2w37 d )9 LP 111-}7 6(/-1

Hearing of Stjbmissions

The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1950also provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of theirlsubmission to a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australia 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 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 tot 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 Into

account 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 hearingb. (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): C 41-0-7 I ci .3 7

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:

I would prefer my hearing to be Conducted in:

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

OT

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

Signature

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Date 5/7Ot

NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advert/wed closing date, being close of

business (5.00pin) on FRIDAY 12 November 2404. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: 'Telephone - (08) 9264 77771 Fax - (08) 9264 7868; Email mregewspe.wa.gov_au; Thtemet htlplAwntwapc.wa.gov.au

raj zz-Y

15T October 2004

Mr Ian PattersonSecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

39 Swan View TerraceMAYLANDS WA 6051

Attention: Buie Colliver

Dear Sir

Your Reference: 809/2/1/77PT1 Bush forever AmendmentNumber 1082/33

I own properties lot numbers 305 and lot 8 Swan View Terrace, Maylands.

Lot 8 land goes to the river and the amendment will be the subject of objection bymyself in respect of proposed rezoning, Which I consider to be an example ofgovernment land grab. I will outline my points of objection on the form suppliedhoping it will do some good.

What is of serious concern is your plan for lot 305 (river land already taken bygovernment), which shows the bottom survey line changed. In other words it would

appear you are taking more land from me' I spoke to your Karen Sanders about this.

She assured me of a plan drawing error.

Could you please advise/confu-m as soon as possible if the boundary survey line at the

bottom of lot 305 (on river) is to remain as is orWhether you intend to change

which case 1 will go to my local member.

I would point out there is no bush at either lot 305 or lot 8 and I consider the extent of

land to be amended by government, extreme.

The boundary lines are on an embankment and at least should be amended to the

bottom of the blocks.

A response in respect of the boundary as shown on your map for lot 305 would be

appreciated as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully

W J Chilvers

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959

Section 33 Amen tent (Substantial)FO M 6A

SUB51ISSION

METROPOLITAN REGION SC WE AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER RELATED LANDS

u{'," FOR Pylpliir!G"I

To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission

469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 8000

Name

Address

/II f77 c\I(PLEASE PRINT

y--,5h/ V

C1/21-01 /,S 73Contact phone number.

Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pagesif required. it la fl:eterresi that any additional Information be Wes rather than bound)

ILE

NOV 2004

Q-- / -17P

OFFILt USE ONLY

BUBIASSION NISABP-R

H v S

ze tNi 0s Posicode.6.0 C97

4: A7 77.-A7 ft _Sc/ 7,3 S / erNi

I

,

-,so _z3 T..-c-.4c7-c_ Vi_zt---7z

74?..0 g /. 7--it /0 /4 /-2/ --7-7 -7 C -7-"eic?

Lr V , / V Fa /en ArR l off= in i.7 5

-rozzr-o7/2K7 77714r

e4-"/S t 17-4-7-'do., 4e1

t><- FITC r }25 3 ic-,e)cps znirz--,c

E-P.Acirc-7-7 (-4 17. crA-i 5 ei-N Q)=?

k tic) -FIE ler ./ as re.) ; jr-1/fr.:Zo

73 07-nV57:: A/

/r/g o S PLO

-Th-Q/9

D

4- 770 pi6 c_ ;Co ./eco rr7

_CA Cr OCD r7

iilev ii/// /1-1/ A:: At -7-0WAN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

<L5 Afie zd2,A cp /72 ArAl ,1"7-Sb i-co A 7-1- 1 /5

4°'55 A77- 54 7 `43'.. ;Z5t3c;cDo mogei.)

Hearing of Stbmissions

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

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australidn 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 andplanning rationale, and Is not a forum of general public debkte. 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.

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




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

I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (bpsiness hours): C9*-17-7 I '3 7.513

Or

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

2/ I would prefer my hearing to be Conducted in:

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

Or

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 PER$ON(SS MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Date 5/1

NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the actvortleed closing date, being close of

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

Contacts: Telaphone - (08) 9284 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7568; Email I. inre wapn.wrtgay.eu; Internet - http://wentrwapo.watpv.au

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 13, 15, 17, 19, 25, 36, 39 and 49Swanview Terrace, being the residents who were able to respond within the timeframes of theMetropolitan 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 circumstancesbeyond their reasonable control.

This submission has resulted from community meetings held by the residents noted aboveduring October 2004.

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:-

The Swan River and its adjoining environs require long-term protection fromenvironmental damage;

The private property owners are ultimately the best custodians of their property andsurrounding environs;

Preservation by government whilst also allowing development by government is an abuseof 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 property and 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.

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

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

Paget of 6

QUESTIONS AND ISSUES

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 May lands 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 well 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 inthe future by public access.

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, unlit, 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 theupper 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.

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

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 3 of 6

inadequately 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 lands 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 ofphosphates 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 thegovernments 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 governments inability to manage and balance riverinesystems.

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


Page 4 of 6

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

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 adequately analysethe property of each landowner to identify ecological, environmental and ethnological aspectsunique to the property that justify its inclusion in the scheme. Just as importantly the schemehas failed to attempt to identify regions that should fall outside the scheme due to their lack ofsignificance 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.

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, let

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 5 of 6

alone 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 whichexisting title boundaries have been eroded and now are submersed.

IL Precise details of the existing land use restrictions and the boundaries and landarea pertaining to each land use restriction.

lit Independent assessments of the financial effect of the change in land rightsproposed for each landowner.

iv. Precise details of the development and land use rights that each property enjoyscurrently together with a contrast to the legal position should the scheme proceed.

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.

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 and 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.


Page 6 of 6

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 WA. 6000

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 46

Name JE1 NA/L ft/CA/ELLE 6rnr,t5 AN° rhwygS A'a cic-NazAs

Address

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY).

RAvav STJ 6/-7/ N/otJ9E Postcode..6.0.5.7

Contact phone number.. ?:4S.i. cs.3!.4g. ... Email address Lyee,51e.1/4etne4ouos (442///06e2 040353790

Submission (Please attach additl nal edges if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

fiz.ensE 5EC AtrACHEO Sv<vviss/eA/)-,3 /0A,E,5

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

01-7A7,7AVifrni1PIA-gPfU7Gkri2oi;nicTuriz'

fl NOV 2004

FILE Ze

Hearing of Submissions

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.

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 folloiving:

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.)

I will be represented las?

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 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.)

Or


Signa ur


Date 5////47/-

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 - mrs @wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet htlp://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

Submission

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33

Bush Forever & Related Lands

hi reference to the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme to create aBush Forever protection Area (BFPA) and apply it to our block Lot 100, Raven St HighWycombe, in BFPA Site 45, under the site implementation category of "regionalcreeklines", we wish to request/propose that the amendment be withdrawn.

While we understand the need to protect regionally significant bushland we believe thatthe selection of our block is not an appropriate selection for a bush forever protection site,due to the small size of the total area proposed in BFPA Site 45, and the urban andresidential growth which will surround this area.

On Plan No 1.5300 (copy enclosed (Appendix 1)), it shows that our whole block has beenselected as a Bushforever Site. However only our block (2 and a half acres) and nextdoors block (3 acres) have been selected (in their entirety) in the special control area tothe west of the proposed BFPA. The rest of the special control area just runs along thearea immediately surrounding Poison Gully Creek, apart from some land to the very eastof the special control area in Lot 82, Brae Road, High Wycombe.

We believe that the size of the area selected is not sufficient enough to have significantlong term environmental benefits for this area and we feel it is already too late toestablish this area as an area of regionally significant bushland when the majority of thesurrounding region has been cleared for residential, urban and industrial purposes. Anysignificant allocation of land to be conserved for environmental purposes should havebeen done a long time ago for the desired long term environmental impact in this area(Kewdale-Hazelmere Region).

When enquiring with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) (H.Colliver) as to why our block was selected as a BushForever Site, we were advisedthat this area (site 45) was included, to meet the required total area to be allocated underBush Forever because of the past clearance near the Swan and Canning Rivers. We feelthat this area has been selected to meet a desired quota of land and feel that there must befar more suitable (and much larger) area of land that would be a far more suitable sectionas a bush forever site.

We feel that the proposed bush forever category is in conflict with other land useplanning and proposed zoning changes within this area.

The Shire of Kalamunda has already previously allowed residential development up toPoison Gully Creek as per 'Proposed modification to outline development plan for Lot105 (211) Maida Vale Road Maida Vale' ( see copy of letter from Shire of Kalamundaregarding this (Appendix 2)). This area is currently a gardening nursery but is going to bean urban development zone, divided into lots for residential housing. This is directlyNorth of Poison Gully Creek.It seems contradictory that on one hand you have a shire allowing re-zoning of land toresidential development on one side of Poison Gully Creek and directly on the other sideof Poison Gully Creek (our block) you have the State Government proposing a BushForever site. If this land is of regional significance because of Poison Gully Creek thenwhy do you have one zoning on one side and a completely different zoning/proposal onthe other?

There is also a much larger overall plan for this area in respect to Transport Infrastructureand Land Use planning as outlined in the draft `Kewdale-Hazelmere Region IntegratedMasterplan' (copy of letter and brochure from WAPC regarding these changes enclosed(Appendix 3)), which is also in conflict with the Bush Forever proposal.

As per Figure A: Summary of site-specific recommendations which shows a map with theproposed Kewdale-Hazelmere Region changes, our block (Lot 100, Raven St, HighWycombe) is included in an area which shows a potential change of MRS zoning fromrural to urban (recommendation reference numbers- R35, R36, R37, R38). The zoning forthe land directly below this area (recommendation reference numbers-R35, R36, R37,R38 shows a potential change of MRS zoning from rural to industrial.

Therefore it is clear that the intention is to change the entire area from any sort of ruralzoning to urban and industrial zoning to allow for residential and industrial development.This sort of development would mean widespread clearing of land and the encroachingresidential and commercial development would take away any environmental potentialthe area would or could have had.

The proposed Kewdale-Hazelmere Integrated Masterplan seems to be in direct conflictwith the State Government's proposal to allocate a Bush Forever site to proposed Site 45.It seems that future development in this area can not possibly provide the desiredenvironmental outcomes proposed in the government's Bush Forever Strategy.

As per the Bush Forever Newsletter (August 2004) it states that Bush Forever is the stategovernment's strategy to provide the people of Perth with a guarantee that they will haveaccess to our natural bushland into the future.While we are sure that this will be the case with the large majority of the 51200 hectaresidentified in Bushforever, particularly those already reserved for Parks and Recreation,we can not conclude that this will be the case for Bushforever Site 45 as the area of landselected is far to small and the proposal is contradictory to the proposed zoning anddevelopment changes in this area. Our block is also not a public area. It is a privateproperty that the public does not have access to.

When we bought our property in February of this year (2004) we were not aware of anyBush Forever proposal for the block. We bought the property on the basis that it wasunder a Special Rural zoning and as such we do not think that it is appropriate or fair thatwe have any further restrictions placed on the property other than what is alreadyrequired under normal zoning laws, especially when our block is largely cleared of treesalready.

In conclusion we would request that the amendment be withdrawn or at the very least bechanged to include only the area immediately surrounding Poison Gully Creek if thepriority is to protect the creekline. While we love the natural bushland on the propertyand have no intention of changing or destroying the environment in anyway, we do notconsider that this is an appropriate selection for a Bush Forever site due to the reasonslistcd above. We do not see the point in selecting an area that is restricted to basicly twopeoples properties when it appears that there has been no consideration given to theJargechanges occurring within this area. These changes are in direct conflict with-the proposal.

We hope that you consider our submission carefully.

ne Gates homas Cicholas

7 eject

Date: 5 November 2004

Phone: HM: 94548443 MOB: 0421110602 / 0403537490

enet

onn

utct

enei

trva

Wai

ttO

itten

tIAlle

rld is

. NY

Sill

trtg

oa"

tig11

71&

* 'N

..M.r

aLS

VU

Q

MIA

151o

014

baut

tioxi

nv

St S

iEl -

1131

1V N

O11

031,

01:1

d E

l3A

31:1

03H

sna

1:70

,101

ry / x/c

/v9r

idit>

-41

0,ta

ttate

tAA

1111:1:J.:

f14.

Your [;et.

U3413:

David Tomlinson

MD-08/211

4 May 2004

T Cicholas & L Gates15 Raven StreetMaida Vale, W.A 6057

Dear Sir/Madam

A19/9NDI>c 2 6:A7-Ey 47 CfrAIL-J9

qt

shire ofkalamunda2 Railway Road, KalamundaWestern Australia 6076

. PO Box 42, Kalamunda 6926

Tel: (08) 9257 9999Fax: (08) 9293 2715

email: [email protected]

PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT105 (211) MAIDA VALE ROAD, MAIDA VALE

I wish to advise that the Shire of Kalamunda has received a request to modify the OutlineDevelopment Plan (ODP) for the above site to facilitate future residential development. Aplan depicting the proposed subdivision/modification to the ODP is attached for yourinformation

The primary changes to the ODP include the removal of two proposed roads (FulmarPlace and Goshawk Place) to facilitate the subdivision of the land into eleven (11) lotsranging from 548m2 to 789m2 (the total potential number of lots proposed is consistentwith the original ODP). Further changes also include a larger portion of subject landbeing integrated into the existing POS of Poison Gully which is now nominated as BushForever Site No. 45. This is to allow for the retention and protection of the regionallysignificant vegetation located to the south of the subject property.

By way of background, the subject land is zoned Urban Development R20 under theDistrict Planning Scheme No 2. The Scheme requires that an ODP be prepared andadopted for land zoned Urban. The intent of the Outline Development Plan is tofacilitate future urban development of the site.

Prior to giving consideration to the proposal, it is Councils policy to give surroundinglandowners the opportunity to comment. Your comments in respect to the proposeddevelopment are requested by 18 May 2004.

If you have any comments regarding the proposal, please complete the attached pro formaletter and return to this office in the attached prepaid self addressed envelope.

Should you have any further queries, please contact David Tomlinson of Council'sPlanning Services on 9257-9928.

Yours faithfully

v/49kSue BurrowsEXECUTIVE MANAGERPLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICESEnd: Site Plan, Adopted ODP, Proposed Modification to ODP, Proforma and Postage Paid Envelope

p, o.p PUr-logy\ Dcc,-eto riv\Q

NOTES,

1 NE indicates future developmentproposals and amendment .tc

this plan.2 residential density R20 unless °then/

/AZ- R V--2 CA

Ck Q - 9-9

STA

TE

IVE

ST SU

RV

EY

ING

& PL

AN

NIN

GP

rajeCP

RO

PO

SE

D S

UB

DIV

ISIO

N

LOT

105 MA

IDA

VA

LE R

OA

DH

IGH

WY

CO

MB

E

Licensed Surveyors 8 T

own P

lannersD

irectors B.A

. Hunt &

R.111. R

ogersA

ssociates P. Incerti, S

E. O

'Hara 8 L.G

. Sm

ith

Midland H

ouse P.0.600 1377, M

idland,W

.A. 6936

69 Great N

orthern Highw

ay, Midland

feleptynefoernm 3198 F

acsimile. 108)9274 3878

Em

ail statewestl5statew

est.oz.nfW

ebsite. http/l.ww

w.statew

est.oz.nt

Scale

1.500

Date06/02/06

Draw

n

RR

Checked

Reference

SW

13581

Sheet N

a.

GArEs/(/evio L/95

Enquiries: 9264 7615Our Ref: 410-2-1-45

049 '11111111111

TK Cicholas & LM Gates15 Raven StHIGH WYCOMBE WA 6057

Dear Landowner

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN

PLANNING COMMISSION

KEWDALE-HAZELMERE REGION INTEGRATED MASTERPLAN

P/oL 'Dix 3

I am pleased to announce that the above draft masterplan has been released bythe Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah Mac Tiernan MLA, for a two-month public comment period.

Kewdale-Hazelmere, which includes the Kewdale intermodal freight terminal andPerth Airport, has been identified as a key freight precinct for Western Australia.The masterplan provides a clear direction for transport infrastructure and land useplanning in this important area. It has been prepared in consultation with key stategovernment, local government and industry stakeholders.

A public information session will be held on:

Thursday 30 September 20042.00 pm until 6.00 pm

Midland Redevelopment AuthorityCnr Yelverton Drive and Helena Street, Midland

I enclose a summary brochure which contains information on the masterplan andexplains how to make a submission. Please provide any comments to the WesternAustralian Planning Commission by 4.00 pm Friday 29 October 2004.

Thank you for your interest in this important study. Your comments will contribute tothe preparation of the final Kewdale-Hazelmere region integrated masterplan, dueto be completed in 2005.

Yours faithfully

Jeremy DawkinsChairmanWestern Australian Planning Commission

03 September 2004Enc.

tomt,yi. Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street (cnr Forrest Place), Perth, Western Australia 6000Tel: (08) 9264 7777; Fax: (08) 9264 7566; TTY: (08) 9264 7535; Infoline: 1800 626 477

-n e-mail:. corporate @wapc.wa.gov.au; web address: http: / /www.wapc.wa.gov.auABN 35 482 341 493

Zvi S002512N Antis

K dalediazelmere region integrated masterplan _

1--E 5,N) 141

A lta

FL-Scef prni s-Ssca.r.rier-as reopysslcs_S

0,--ssfres pssse

Inscvd*n_prits re-sLB gsLiart 1-mtt

Cada-al sssfei Osz.nsi

Legend

Kr dare-Haza. e regionLa gratod mange:an agar

y

RC/ I a a- a en land WAS

rEcorrment,. o_ nR'" roganne Arran

nil knee,. trans DIA ortoce

g=2, pr neoreJ malt dry

- -- 6sus.irali e

erg 1,4-11-2.1EllA

goopne-cl FRI Ere

prop and read

LegArd

Reserved do

pa-5 a 1 reaa _ on

L_J

, °Aar ging/rends

P±LtPLEILe-teS

Zo e'

flan

atrerdarnM

rerun/ Ety oa

fNrt al

Ualan,A4B as sr-O'ra, dec -c rd

r-s "etas SS aft 'LA In /LSI 204

R43&iodize pan Agar eel ter aspnr1

regret 3 MA ads ogg logosporton/go Amour/den read r rage_

;1117 =g__er

(AF

Hi

sLH T,

7<GDA

DPI lo "Asa wont, elan PC77lac to _=

erau e nfraolnuolurecrardogrart sagprocnng and nukes a'oonitseoI r/ E'en a md.Arnel load

R39 R-n R41 R42 ,' then

Pogreal changed MRSzorrng Ave rural A ganger

A-Co-AA.

II,a ,

So in GJLer-I

= Re R7 113Supped Re crop/Red Llaid Streetvisa-on to Great Eaorem KA-rWay%pass end reonaren n ARS

171'

I1r ,/ L/ Tr _

®":///i7LL- I

114 F15

r,

AndrAmdca es Ma po.ner

/'N ea-gnaw-id Its fre074 nal Ing

nraanh Haven-re rag nth,

/I //RIP ' nun soughtane'ed.10/nAr communly Age

R24 Re5Reg/ WA Real Inegstry turtorybodge], ererneat annarnhp lafanTtate haapencornlergang3and 6.-aq/wren/ clan. AraLoanInclutal a a

Re an MRS GM recturrvnG forp cpoeod Tager Hirer,/ roe gn-0Brearge Agnue notes-aeon_

-a;

- - - -

Ras 1 .6 &afar isa.ro eertnfAsiNot Ai onmior

R23, RaePtaraIng and pron1Aon of GrOgal Roadextension to Abernethy Road sapported_

. Iragoagala addegaal axes, penes Ana' ago&

n'1-1-14"Z.T1111.111i

1133

Ogegp panne gun:IVA/es to promcre 05freight-reread tralasfral development onsurpIus arrporBard (procects 2, 3 4/

"11111/7"111111.V.:/teAr411A/a1517'1. "1/

HISgesegaled-Mnfor4-ang gradesopara'eclireernerann at Leach1-13174,)/Torng ftnAray fAteronaecr

1115 1138 P27 RA1Pdarrad charanA MRS-

SawflL

-17 4-2-1 -Li ItEic ?II11'1

4,I=L-MLn

RIBIns -tea e prat rapag on °pro nrfcr Leann RunagrAtomegy {bad

ELF,LCIOR

/=r1 -I -1 _, / R n FAD 1117 B38

- Paler d thorge el MRSII, \ rg,,_ Nero 1 um agar broiggiJ7/1/ i-;2-j. nrL, - -11.,- ERE

_t_ , RIO R11

/11 -se amass sea_og for

L At eng my Anal1,-, I . ,_

I=r 4 ----R` 1

11 re--1-

fI

1'

-ffloaci-e,

R3Repose and <dont &tad tiosienfir operaing el rat Anna/ea bentg,/, 0 ae-oage.,

{

R31 1112_ RP L.VIC ppnrtur fon nIerak-cl

land LAB planr on and clert-Agrnentb gas arena ard ForroreedWang) sea. gaining PC anal Innairegral reermocIA madeal leer nal

R14Ccn rm Lea-re 41-3a van Wrong Roadn ornacr on as east pa /fry forgrade nepag on_ flaamrtran1 AntalA IA- Finnes 1 /A4 gear grogram_

_ q

,/

gAn nen erg kr d/recl ra1 Are to n.'errtnnal from siva.

Conedor mean reo. to en/AL/raga andI_ man /dental And age- re-an/Ion

Vol freight lore et. ma nal mod'pro -ct on el mar on lot gen ailarenltetra m ear al 1Rr nal

R12Supparldacarenualca at racer/getorochan of 11-nord lanct en-Weal-podra way Ine

N

_ )e-e &iff(7 IV

RI4Sapp rt gropanod Aborne hy Read-

/ I I TOnkan Rctrvay on-raTp cit eat I)err ronra-real cregareas_

ResCorerm Daft., Road Ai Lenar enottan as Ann Atd-ronhostpage for erode 'opera onPecurrrad beam mReeds WA 4 )ear p-otrara

lge

I , I

e

The masterplan

The Kewdale-Hazelmere region is one of the mostimportant areas for the freight industry for Perth andWestern Australia. It contains WA's primary road/railintermodal terminal at Kewdale, Perth Airport andsignificant areas of industrial land in dose proximity tothese facilities. In short, the region can be described as afreight transport hub.

This draft masterplan offers a dear direction forintegrated transport and land use planning in the regionand a framework within which expected freight growthcan be managed.

This important plan has been released by the Minister forPlanning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTieman MLAfor community comment for a two month period.

Objectives

The masterplan recognises the Kewdale-Hazelmere regionas a major road and rail freight transport hub. The plan:

sets recommendations for land use changes andplanning for the area;

considers how key industrial areas function andexamines the relationships and opportunities thatmay exist between these areas;

provides guidance for structure planning of land usezones;

investigates the potential for realignment of thefreight rail line through Hazelmere to avoid theMidland town centre; and

recommends road and rail network upgradingrequirements to handle anticipated futnre growth infreight and general traffic in the region.

Issues and recommendations

The preparation of the masterplan commenced in2003. Significant consultation with both governmentand private sector stakeholders has ensured a detaileddiscussion of the key issues. Major issues coveredindude the following.

Future industrial expansion in Hazelmere andFonesffield.

Potential Midland freight rail realignment.

Potential direct rail connection betweenFremantle inner harbour and Kewdale intempadalterminal.

Proposed Lloyd Street extension between ClaytonStreet, Midland and Great Fastens HighwayBypass.

Access to industrial properties to/from AbernethyRoad.

Grade separation (bridge) requirements for keyroad and rail intersections.

Service infrastructure provision in the Kewdale-Hazelmere region.

Future strategic land use opportunities inHazelmere.

Potential integration of Forrestfield industrialarea with Perth Airport.

Protection and maintenance of freight-related landuses in key industrial areas.

Discontinuance of an unused section of theMidland ]unction - Welshpool freight railway line inWelshpool.

The masterplan has more than 45 recommendations andthe community is now invited to comment on these.

The inside pages of this brochure contain a summaryplan which identifies the masterplan's site-specificrecommendations. For the full list of recommendationsyou will need to refer to the draft report.

Copies of both the full report and the submission formcan be obtained by visiting any of the followinglocations:

Western Australian Planning Commission,Albert Facey House469 Wellington Street, Perth

City of Swan2 Old Great Northern Highway, Midland

City of Belmont215 Wright Street, Cloverdale

Canning City Council1317 Albany Highway, Cannington

Shire of KalamundaRailway Road, Kalamunda

Gosnells City Council2120 Albany Highway, Omens

Shire of Mundaring7000 Great Eastern Highway, Mundaring

Midland Redevelopment AuthorityCorner Yelverton Drive and Helena Street, Midland

Several sub studies have also been undertaken as part ofthe masterplan process and these reports can be viewedat the above locations. Copies can also be made

zw_ available on request.

ro n-o-p /Adak:aid°A,wAr:^°A 5` Aa.O.O.a.11

Aaa saas _Amp of La,. LAJo

c°- A ou EMI -.^.P 1.,eStIn 949 009I.`,ASESZKL5(sol9951 FOL6 NOVOLill rare OW -FT

rotAtacJAJ aadalio,to. froode.oafplJi J

6 gad eon( 0 HIVOOL a'r-S

coco goof too Yad.SIP

uao-a, OnY

iTRO

k

Al9PAr'-"r"a v 1P act0

NOSSPIONO/OLOTOOHAMMY PrOS3JA

tit!

4003 IMP° 6Z ABlifti

VOOZ taqwaides 6C Aeps111111

muopsturcinslog awp Butsop

:pops.",noputuacgul afignd

sem luepoduu

L

aaaaaa

se, teeits

-

0009 WA tlitad

1901IS mamas/ ger

uoissgmuog fiumueld mummy walsom

umdraisem pateThang uothat amunazeii aleltHeM

Memel loafed

qopq vcampe nm It Ddym am of quantum-,mum 1 pins tie, no(AiamnanallV cluouninaoS

ream pa MO kill put Alumpnv luatudoiaNapagputipip4 'uolettunuop fiumeew netirmilV

umsam um wort au:pulse an Qum) uowsnucing

paredaid axe uetthaict at pug um Jot tuonepuatutuolaiasp emaq alma put luenodun art amain mot.,

Tamp aq lOm ueidimsetu pannfianstumBaa alatmazemairpmax rug aql pur pamapaar aq

Thin mu:belt-mu yep asp isuoisstwqns al apetu smaunuou2upapisuco lag panclard aq pun sumssuuqns

no nodal e put pasAitne aq pun lndul AguntutuoD

'5I9L tftzo uo arm auoqd Apms asp Ilea 10

netaoTem.admagnuptpl :puma JO

nrwoffemodemyzavallnwtatilt -uo uoisstultuop &gnaw umpinny usanaM

'Doff 0192 IIKA2DIE 110d01 asp Jo satdop -mammon Buipposd tft raiseor tams ttopstumns amind e sapnput nodal gay agi,

putthassem yep aql uo slummed)mai sqaas ucussuttmoD firquueid uegensny usassam aqy

ILIOLUW03 o; uole ;Inul

1190111119

pang eurgag pue antra 110110AIOA 1011103

11111011111V tuawdoiasapag wpm :mum

wd 00:9 !Run wd 00:2

POOL raquiaidas gs 'Awing! :atop

moissat uopetwoint aqqnd e of mite) os amoulamare noA 'meal °Sid atpxo xactulam e of snonsanb

pang of xo ueubmsetu iimp asp snoop mow mo pug °I

watuwoo 01,M01-1 , , turn UCWW.101.U1 0.10w


FORM 6A



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

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

4-7

Name

Address

E V sINJ t \f-} CAci(PLEASE PRINT CLEARER

12,5 V-Pit c.A4 tOpk cb H (-) C n> 17.1. Postcode 61 2-3

Contact phone number.1.5.),:5: .472. Email address ft fie", n au_

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

0 (6- 11/44 11/41,-,S(ir

1A-ker,



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 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







I will be represented. by:




or



SignatureVit)---

Date -2 / r b


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

COLWYN PARK

3 November, 2004

Draft Bush land policy for thePerth Metropolitan Region Statement ofPlanning Policy 2.8Western Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Submission 47

KEVIN & VICKI BAILEY1255 KARGOTICH ROAD,

(P 0 BOX 66),

MUNDIJONG W A, 6123

PHONE/FAX: (08) 9525 5970

EMAIL: kevick @iinet.net.au

RE: OBJECTION TO BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS 1082/33Dear Sir/Madam

We possess freehold title of Lots 11 and 12 Mundijong Road, Mundijong and wish toplace the strongest objection against inclusion of our land as a Special Control Area inyour Bush Forever Programme. We have already had a planned 20m truncation excisedfrom our southern boundary for the upgrade of Mundijong Road despite the fact that thereis a 60m wide road reserve on the southern side immediately adjacent to our property.

Our objections are as follows:-There is NO BUSH on our property.Our land is a viable farm.Loss of productive land cannot be acceptedRestrictions on future use (as stated in relevant documents) MUST affect resalevalue and ability to attract a willing buyer.

We are not against the philosophy of Bush Forever programme however when there isNO existing bushland on our property, why should our land be included? There will be adual carriageway between our open productive farmland and the road reserve where abasic form of bushland exists. How our land can contribute as a "Special Control Areabush Forever Protection Areas" to bushland beyond a dual carriageway defies logic. Theonly contribution we find from this major thoroughfare to our land is noxious weeds andrubbish.

Please acknowledge that our land CANNOT constructively contribute to your BushlandForever Project and confirm that it will be excluded from this proposal.We look forward to your advice.

Yours faithfully

a QKevin & Vicki Bailey

491T FOR PLANNi,'-'1AINW,TUri-

- 8 NOV 2004

'FILE 'gCara -rA P 2

Submission 4812 November 2004










The emphasis should be on 'conservation management' rather than 'development' in Bush ForeverProtection Areas. A section should be inserted to require that a 11 Bush Forever Protection Areas aremanaged by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values.



77.-77itaT FOVff:ANNi.Gzkii:24:1Y.IC11117:e.

5 NOV 2004

egild

IA 6

Organisation.

Name: s Signature:

Address t S'6)149-... CO 42- CA-

........... 61..G3

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 orthe Urban Bush land Council WA on 9420 7207

Submission 49

12 November 2004









Legal status of the SPP 2.8 needs to be strengthened. Othenvise provisions of the SPP 2.8 may not beimplemented faithfully




Name:

Organisation

Address

DE1AFTMElili FORt- 'NgF712::TRUpTUFIE

- 8 NOV 2004

Is et-hal, Lie-rt n is Signature:

Cu9 ire chat- EtQa COkt c. /CJ C /CL

For more Information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 orthe Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207 .

Your Ref

Our RefMRS9909-06

Enquiries Ha Hayward

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

ATTENTION: Hula Co 'liver

Dear Sir/Madam

SWANRIVERTRUST

Submission 50

PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME (MRS) AMENDMENT NO.1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

Thank you for referring the proposal to the Trust for advice comments.

The Swan River Trust considered the MRS Amendment at its Trust meeting held on1 November 2004 and resolved to advise the Western Australian PlanningCommission that is supports the proposed MRS Amendment No. 1082/33 thatincludes amendment to the MRS Scheme Text as described in plans received bythe Trust dated August 2004 subject to the following comment:

The Trust also considers that the preparation of Draft Statement of PlanningPolicy No. 2.8 will aid the statutory process in providing a decision makingframework to assess future planning proposals that will allow consideration ofbushland protection issues and further environmental sustainability of Perth'sbushland areas.

Should there be any queries regarding this matter, please contact Ila Hayward,Swan River Trust on (08) 9278 0400. In all correspondence on this matter, pleasequote our above reference number.

Yours sincerely

OCCaarlie Welker

DF:),A;TmFm-CHAIRMANtkrnQiI,E;TRUCTURE

2 November 20048 NOV 2004

in_71 Pa

Caring for the Swan and Canning rivers

Level 1 Hyatt Centre, 20 Terrace Road, Eost Perth WA 6004PO Box 6740, Hay Street, East Perth WA 6892 Phone (08) 9278 0900 Fax (08) 9325 7149


FORM 6A



EE' ttiOttiLri0 tfr4 RA.,31 RUC URE


9 NOV 2004

FILE 8

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

(

Submission 51

Name 0 Rs- JriaPV (c(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

lb/10FAddress 60 ey,c0e0 Mg4- an DP11)E- Postcode ... ha/

o 0 leoContact phone number. 6/5.0Q GI Email address

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

/ / q ,c-o oval (+- I SSPC"I graPtir/Sol-CIM ogi-4 EgVE au or c-1-171-ftle-z2 ()Akir-

1).(1(.?Ec fRor4 /341,5WP2-nail PL, ,1F FY AWeiv.5"ED

P ce-/ o.F tri (999 Scienissiviv,la krw 0 est tcr crizgAV 1D779-5 RAW ;filmy

.5 will- yo 7r) e :3,19-eRa6y Virg a-RE aw er 712

R EtsTR KT 4. aF -THE ciR len oF 4-c-eg-scor/CERNto You .Q.T.H.Ter. .f2D

et) t Gr fiss-ktra /AI mV /999 ceiefilL.S1S7viv Fese?7 P 12? x 1-4/16 /t90 Pelom Ve2c-PF

en? yaw -779-(;1,g 13 -tc4/ 771-E .Ra-Te/croos OP P2Y-i-ivoth90(4' vow Aesee-liggek" E (647\4) P-r TvlaReer fa-sPR/CE4)1-Jed,' On. V naor/A/P -r/14- .d)277-A2C,

P-A1/0 ale/eaCn1g)..5 (4-11) a..5. FE 17-/E ectsw tict,V /s46& Kr f4A-kce,,gn eV 6-tnal mak& 70 1575 peg 04[4.

0 6--) 26 you R Esre T cRAI to-do cnvr02 od my ,ce-friniy ft-e Re /-Msi-ZD 0 pwis-4Fitt 2---ve-er-as4---o (Ay tc:'/Ee cci.v.heD 1-4..PLE8s7F SE ivorli---/ED .c.ifeir/i1/4/6-- oio-77.4E R /Pr of St / am, ISS/ kVA/ .


0(9-te_ovicii1/47/


The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides the opportunity for people who havernadela


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


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.

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



NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)orI71 YES, 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


I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in:

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



Date . 110/04

, NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close ofuslness (5 00pm) on FRIDAY 12 November 2004 Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts Telephone - (08) 9284 7777, Fax - (08) 9284 7588, Emall - mrs@wapc,wa.gov.au; Internet - htlplAwnv.wapc.wa.gov.au_ -

Public submission formDraft Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8

1 Name MRS', Alia9/ V f Cid/

2 Organisation (if relevant).

3 Address: .. 17 Ye 'Fp/ R pi stwotas OP (..ig .049-ki.EceD

4. Interest: 064/VER

(eg local resident, business operator)

I/we would like to make the following comments on the draft Bushland 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:

32 Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8. : Draft Report

PERTH'S BUSHPLAN

SUBMISSION BY M VICINI

ficrl CciBm 1S5-74DAI

I3USHPLAN SITE: No 316

VEGETATION: Forrestfield Complex

NAME OF SITE: Maida Vale Reserve And Adjacent Bushland

PROPERTY: Lot 202 Watsonia Road, Maida Vale

SITE AREA: 1.02 hectares (50m x 204m)

ZONING: Metropolitan Region Scheme - RuralShire of Kalamunda Planning Scheme No 2 - Special Rural

CURRENT USE: Undeveloped7a,

INTENDED USE: Rural Residential

I purchased my property more than 70 years ago. with the intention of it beingultimately developed and used, although investment for retirement was also aconsideration. The property was purchased prior to the introduction of capital gains

tax, and therefore any future disposal would be capital gains free.

In the event that I decide to build on the property, it would be my preference to locatethe house towards the rear of the property, so as to gain maximum benefit from therural environment and provide a generous separation from both adjacent houses andWatsonia Road.

The land rises gradually towards the centre of the block, approximately 100 metresfrom the road frontage, and it would be my preference to build on this rise. Thiswould involve at least partial clearance, including understorey vegetation to around150 metres from the front of the lot, leaving only the rear 50 metres in its natural state.In the event of productive use of the land. such as horticulture or the -keeping ofgrazing animals, there would be no opportunity to preserve any of the existingunderstorey vegetation.

Land in the immediate vicinity of the site is currently developed and being used for avariety of productive and income generating purposes such as nurseries and horsestabling, and there is an opportunity to use my property for similar purposes or todispose of it at some convenient time in the future to a buyer interested in such useand development.

CURRENT LAND USE CONTROLS:

The land is zoned Special Rurial under the Shire of Kalamunda Planning Scheme.According to published information from the Shire, the Special Rural zone providesland for rural-residential retreats, hobby farms and rural pursuits such as intensiveagriculture, market gardens and viticulture. (Refer Attachment 1) While there is arequirements to obtain the Councils approval for any clearing of the land, the Shireadvises that building approval allows for clearing of a building envelope of 4000m2.Minimum setbacks allow for construction of buildings, including a house, to within10 metres of rear and side boundaries of the lot.

The Scheme currently permits a range of rural uses within the Special Rural Zone,including (subject to Council approval) horticulture, nurseries and stables. It is clearthat none of these activities is conducive to the preservation of the remnantvegetation, and even those not involving gross clearing, would severely prejudice theviability of the remnant vegetation in the longer term due to the loss of understoreyvegetation which contains the majority of the species diversity identified in Bushplan.

It is understood there is no restriction imposed by the Commissioner of SoilConservation on clearance of land up to 1 hectare in area, which would enablevirtually the whole of my land to be cleared without approval of the Commissioner.

Any change to the existing controls would limit options for future use and thereforereduce the marketability of the property, as well as its usability for productive ruralpurposes such as those for which the land has been zoned under the Shire PlanningScheme.

OBJECTION:

I object to the identification of my property as part of a Bushplan Site, and seek tohave it removed, The following are the main reasons for my objection:

1. While I concede there is remnant vegetation on the site, formalisation of itsprotection through identification in Perth's Bushplan will undoubtedly reducethe range of uses to which the land can be put, and therefore inevitably reducethe range of potential purchasers. As a consequence, there would be areduction in the market value of the land, and I would incur a significant lossin the value of this longstanding asset. In the event of having to dispose of theproperty due to the presence of the remnant vegetation, any replacementproperty would be subject to capital gains, and would therefore not be asattractive an investment as my current property.

From the information provided in Bushplan, the site has been classified asForrestfield Complex. of which there is less than 10 per cent of the originalareas remaining. However, I would submit that absolute areas are a moresensible basis for protection than an arbitrary percentage of the original areasof each complex. It should be appreciated that there was a considerably largerarea of the Forrestfield Complex (11,328ha) than was the case for many of theother vegetation complexes. Eighteen of the 26 complexes identified in thereport were less prevalent than the Forrestfield Complex, and 11 of the

C: Oro PJ ES t-Ve ti'lls1R,150-11-6-43 PC;

in 19 /PI C-1 iN ,7 piL ci,_65 f.?:- #210ce

1(e 2 p-,,;79-,t-iti pi. (C 15.1,11

3. With regard to the configuration of the site, it is clear the irregularity of theproposed boundaries of the Maida Vale site do not meet the normal criteria fora viable ecological unit, nor do they provide any connectivity with otherconservation areas. According to the Bushplan report, the shape of bushlandareas is an important factor in site selection, with a compact shape beingpreferable to an elongated shape. The longer the interface with nonconservation areas, the greater will be the susceptibility to weed invasion anddisturbance. (Refer page 25.)

4. Inclusion of the three privately owned Special Rural properties (pt lot 201, lot202 and pt lot 203) would add very little to the overall area of the CrownReserve identified in the Bushplan site. Furthermore, construction of a houseon lot 202 in accordance with the standard setback requirements in the Shire ofKalamunda Planning Scheme could effectively isolate the remaining portionsof remnant vegetation on both my site and on the adjoining lot 201. (Referattached extract from Bushplan.)

5. Any productive rural pursuit carried out on the property would beincompatible with the long term preservation of bushland, which is clearlyevidenced by the existing pattern of remnant vegetation and its absence fromthose adjacent properties used for nurseries and horse stabling. It wouldhowever, be inequitable to penalise those land owners with remnant bushland,merely because they have delayed the development of their land.

6. It is noted from Bushplan and from my observations, that the adjacent MaidaVale Reserve, contains some severely degraded sections of land surrounded by

remnant vegetation. In addition, part of the area to the east of the playingfields is cleared and appears to be used on an occasional basis by an archery

club. In terms of the value and viability of the surrounding remnantvegetation, it would be desirable to rehabilitate these degraded and clearedareas in preference to the identification of private rural-residential lots.

7. Depending on the priority to be given to the protection of the ForrestfieldComplex, and to the preservation of the Maida Vale Reserve as part of thesystem of remnant vegetation sites, part or all of the active recreation areascould also be rehabilitated. This would be preferable to the imposition ofdraconian limitations on the use and development of privately owned rural-residential sites, which according to the Bushplan report, are unlikely to meetthe conservation objectives. (Refer page 36 - final dot point)

8. Trans location of selected plants from adjacent areas would be an obviousmeans of rehabilitating the degraded or cleared parts of the reserve (east of theplaying fields) and the existing remnant vegetation on adjacent privatelyowned land in the Special Rural Zone would be a valuable source of plantstock. Being situated within the same vegetation complex in the same area.and itself being under threat, provides a unique opportunity to enhance theviability of the reserved and protected area of bushland situated within theMaida Vale Reserve.

3

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

As stated above, I have no current intention to clear or develop my land in theimmediate future. Nevertheless, I object to the identification of my property as aBushplan site because of the foreshadowed constraints upon vegetation clearance andtherefore the development of the land and its use for productive rural purposes in the

future. I am particularly concerned about the effect on the market value of my land

likely to result from these limitations.

I would however be prepared to permit removal of selected vegetation from the sitefor translocation to the adjacent reserve, which includes several hectares of degradedvegetation. This would avoid the need to disturb the existing more pristine areas ofthe reserve, for either translocation or seed collection, and would enhance the long

term viability of the reserved area of bushland.

It is understood from the Bushplan report that there is no intention to reserve and

acquire the land for addition to the adjacent reserve, but that complementary

mechanisms would be employed instead. However, in the event of any significant

restrictions on the use and development of my land without adequate compensation, I

would prefer outright acquisition of part of the land. The price of any land acquired

should be no less than the pro-rata market value of the land, and all subdivision and

transfer costs should be borne by the relevant public authority.

While I may be prepared to consider the excision of a small area of land from the rear

of the site for inclusion in the adjacent reserve, subject to adequate recompense. it

should be borne in mind that this would reduce my lot to below the minimum size

specified for the Special Rural Zone. Furthermore, any subdivision may be contrary

to the intent of the zone, and would also raise a question about the usability of the

land for the full range of purposes provided for under the Shire of Kalamunda

Planning Scheme.

Mary Vicini12 March 1999

E.* T4'A PRA) tvt cts HP!: k, tviPt? 579

oilCr i

11141/404

/1\-,-,L

"<,-

11

SPECIAL RURALcivn=i-ditdwitit'vdf.wi42 SHIRE OF OF KAIAMUNDA

AHmtE LsTHeFoaur

This information should be read in conjunction with the Development Applications InformationSheet, Keeping of Animals Information Sheet, District Planning Scheme No. 2 Text and SchemeMaps. The information contained within this sheet is taken from the Scheme Text, CouncilPolicy and general conditions of development. Council reserves the right to modifyrequirements. Should you have any queries contact Council's Planning Services for furtherclarification.

Purpose/Objectives.

This zone provides land for rural/residential retreats, hobby farms, and rural pursuits such asintensive agriculture, market gardens and viticulture. In determining development applicationsin this zone, Council shall take into account relevant environmental issues such as use offertilisers, tree preservation, flood and stream management. Any clearing of the land requiresprior approval of Council.

Zoning Table

Use permitted by the Scheme. (P)

Single House* Public Utility*In order to ensure that thedairal environment is maintained. no building shall he constructed without the external colour andtexture or materials being approved by Council.

Not permitted unless approval granted by Council. (AA)

Additional Accommodation (granny flat) Horticultural PursuitClearing of land NurseryCommercial Vehicle Parking * Rural PursuitHome Occupation Stables

** Commercial Vehicle Parking of more than one commercial vehicle is pennined without reference to Council if it can bedemonstrated that such vehicle(s) are used in connection with approved agriculture or horticulture operations on the subject land.

All other uses not mentioned are not permitted in this zone.

Site Requirements

Setback from Main Street IraSetback from Minor Street ISmSetback from Side Boundaries 10m

Setback from Rear Boundaries 10m

Subdivision

Minimum lot size I hectare v. here, scheme vvacer supply is available.Minimum lot size _' hectare where scheme water is not available.

Each Special Rural Zone has a Subdivision Guide Plan -Appendix C of District PlanningScheme No. I

Page 2

Development Application Requirements

Council's approval to commence development is required prior to the issuing of any buildinglicences except for a single dwelling.

To make a formal application to Council, you are required to:

fill out a Development Application Form 1 (MRS Form 1)

provide four (4) copies of site plans showing:

Boundaries and dimensions of lot,existing and proposed buildings,existing / proposed paddocks/orchards,existing creeklines, dams, vegetation,

' proposed tree removal and clearing,type of fencing (Refer By-laws Relating to Fencing).

letter/report addressing land management practices such as:

use of fertilisers (to be assessed by Council's Environmental Officer),the keeping of animals as per Clause 6.27 (refer Information Sheet).bush fire preventative measures.

Keeping of Animals

Clause 6.27 of the Kalamunda District Planning Scheme No. 2 specifies that:

A formal application for the approval of keeping of hoofed animals is required.The keeping of hoofed animals shall be limited to horses, goats. sheep and other similar typehoofed animalsSpecific written approval of Council shall be subject to appropriate land managementpractices such as dust control, prevention of soil erosion and damage to ground cover andtrees.

Rezoning

Currently the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has placed a moratorium onad hoc rezoning of Rural land to Special Rural Zone. Council, as part of its Scheme Reviewprocess, is considering rezoning all of the Rural land in the foothills to Special Rural Zone.Until such time as the Scheme Review is finalised, ad hoc 'spot' rezonings will not beconsidered by the WAPC.

Should you have any queries on the issues raised, contact Council's Planning Services forfurther clarification.

SPECIAL RURAL ZONESheet No. t9 Located :une

800.0, filgSSPTTP-PIRF '26;1°4

Bid to haltland grabat airport

By CATHERINE. MADDEN

ENVIRONMENT Minister JudyEdwards has backed a bid by WAconversation groups to stop thedestruction of wetlands atPerth's domestic airport,

Dr Edwards opened a seminaryesterday before a united front ofconservationists, ' condemning thework by Westralia Airports Corpora-tion as "environmental vandalism".

The Urban Bushland Council, Con-servation Council and other groupssay the protected land is beingdestroyed without adequate publicconsultation.

"I believe there has been a failureby Westralia Airports Corporation toimplement the memorandum ofunderstanding (on the land) signedwith the former state government,'Dr Edwards said.

She called for the Commonwealthand Westralia to join an urgenttaskforce to address the conserva-tion concerns.

The 44ha area -hieing cleared for aWoolworths distribution centre ispart of the State Government's BushForever protection strategy. .,

A further 7ha is being bulldozed tomake way for a depot for FleetwoodPortables,.

The and is home to native birds,the southern brown bandicoot, rep-tiles, frogs and more than 300 nativeplant species.

Urban Bushland Council presidentMary Gray said: "These areas are

VANISHING BUSH: Land beingcleafed at Perth airport. .. 4,

beautiful, rare and irreplaceable. It isa disgrace that large tracts of virginbushland and wetlands are still beingcleared only .101-ri9..- from Perth's ,

CBD."Conservationists are particularly

angry that the work is being carriedout for non-aviation purposes.

Kevin McLean, of Friends of PerthAirport Bushland, accused Westraliaof holding up the -release of theairport's masterplan Until after the

'federal election. '2

'The masterplan was approved inAugust, yet the public aren't allowedto: see it until October, )the said

Westralia representatives, includ-CEO OrahaMMuir, also attended

the Sol-ninth.Vestralis sPckesman said clear-

lug of the land was part Of the airportmasterplan, -which' had been ap-proved by - former 'federal enviroument minister David Kemp

TifEWESTAUsTRALIAN

r4.1. ..ptuj,ii

THURSDAY,SEPTEMBIR 16, 2004

Opinion17

Land use rules erode freedomEnvironmental regulations threaten constitutional rights dating back-to Magna Carta, Wolfgang Kasper argues

tease over the security ofprivate property rights isspreading throughoutAustralia. Rural landown-ers in Particular are being

subjected to proliferating new envi-ronmental regulations which takeimportant traditional property rightsaway.

In WA, thousands of landownershave received letters telling them ofnew environmental regulations andinviting them to comment.

They fear that the productive andmarket value of theft properties willbe reduced. However,most farmersdo not really know how to deal withthe complicated procedures and thelegalese of the authorities.

They may have to incur new costs,for example, for fencing off wet-lands Vague definitions confuse anddraconian penalties intimidate them.

They feel helpless in the face ofrelentless erosion of their freedomand have to contemplate the prospectof shrinking values of their land,which is often their only superaonua-tkn and collateral for 'mfr.

It is becoming dear that rampantenvironmentalism undermines thetraditional legal foundations onwhich Australia's prosperity is builtand which we trusted

It is ironic that a decade afterthe demise of global socialism newassaults on theinstitufion of privateproperty proliferate in the labor-ruled States.

Traditionally, property owners donot have to prove anything whenthey wish to exercise their rights.

Private property is not the merepossession of an asset, whether it is ablock of land, a mineral deposit, amachine or a skit

Ratlaer it is an open-ended bundleof rights to exclude others from one'sproperty, to use, benefit from anddispose of some or all property rightsas one sees fit.

Frequently, one cannot even knowwhat specific rights a property con-fere. New rights are discovered allthe time, for example the right todevelop land for the enjoyment ofpaying tourists. Such discoveries arepart of what maintains propertyvalues.

Property rights are not absolute.The exercise of ownership must

not unduly harm othersCen

gees ab brat-lett

=

of legitimate objections to propertyuses has been recognised.

Objectors, of course, incur theburden of proof.

Mere fear of harm or precaution isnot a valid ground for underminingproperty rights, and the evidencemust be well founded. Vague allega-tions will not do.

In recent decades, prominenteconomists and lawyers have beenconcerned about the abuses ofself-seeking politicians and officialsioroshiog public choices that inter-fere with private property tights

This research has inspireddemands to reassert property rightsby always asking:

Does government action advance adefined policy objective? Vagueambit aims, such as "avoiding envi-ronmentaldamage", do not justify

intervention nor an the nrp,r acni-

rares-Pr

-e4

a

--

Do assessed benefits exceed theassessed costs? Without the disci-pline of a cost-benefit analysis,administrative Ware all too oftenonly replaces market failure. __Welephants are a thriving spedes.

Are owners compensated for theloss of their property rights on justterms? Governments are nowadaysconfronted by pushy lobby groups,but also taxpayer resistance.

Therefore they try to pleaselobbies on the cheap, curtailing pri-vate rights by surreptitious regula-tory activism_ It can only becontained by an obligation to com-pensate fully, which forces policy-makers to set priorities.

Compensation on just terms nor-mally means "at market value beforethe intervention was announced".Socialisers often erode propertyriehts to cut the cost of compensa-

When Mao had prohibited virtu-ally all private uses of capital after1949, China's government could'compensate" the expropriated mil-lionaires for a pittance. Such Maoisttactics are now spreading inAustralia. _

This must be resisted, not onlybecause it is a gross injustice toselected fellow citizens, but alsobecause it undermines everyone'sprosperity and freedom.

It will also produce a regrettablebacklash against nature conservation.

Some Green lobbyists and Stateofficials want to do away altogetherwith this cumbersome protectMn ofindividual rights.

When environmental harm isfeared, alleged or proved, regulateand confiscate, all in one elegant neo-socialist leap.

Some want to brush aside the coo-

Magna Carta- They assert that gov-ernments grantfreehold and can takeit hack. This concept from the feudalera is a sure-fire way of underminingthe foundation of our wealth andconfidence.

It offers a shortcut back to theDark Ages.

Economic history invariablyshows that disrespect for privateproperty rights and the rule of lawdestroys people's confidence to riskand produce.

Arbitrary Confiscation impover-ishes alL The abysmelfailures ofSoviet and Third-World socialismare based on the slogan that"property is theft".

By contrast, the economic rise ofEast Asia was preceded by gradual

'Disrespect for privateproperty rights and therule of law destroyspeople's confidence torisk and produce.'

improvements in economic freedom.Likeivise,Reagan's, Thatcher's

and Hawke's economic reforms dur-ing the 1980i and 1990s, by improv-ing our freedom ratiogs, underpin arobust economy and an optimisticcan-do spirit.

Unchecked environmental activ-ism and the regrowth of regulationsare now diluting theseachievements,

The costs of property rights viola-tions rise as globalisatiop progresses.

Let's never forget that foreigninvestors are watching us closely.Ministers now compete with theiroverseas counterparts in the business

of providing confidence-inspiringinstitutions.

This does not mean that State gov-ernments should not pursue natureconservation. But it must not be atthe expense of property rights

-oters want to retain native veg-etation and wetlands, political lead-

ers must raise taxesto fund full

compensation-It is not honourable for depart-

ments to deny that their regulationsconfiscateprivaterights or to send

out confiscation notices without

..offering compensation.

Professor Kasper is all economist and

a senior fellow of the Centre forIndependent Sthtuidnikesi.tana pkuinhliscypodnliacyy.


Section 33 Amendment (Substantial)FORM 6A




ITiTt1/2WATEETramitTleL .10!NPRASTRUCTLIRE

9 NOV 2004

FILE 8$-3-_ p

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 52

1-1/-1-r--L_Name

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

25 cCV/1147; atdAddress

Postcode (-95(

2:7 / 6z 9 5-Contact phone number. Email address


wer- 7 c 'tar AvO <c9

tr- r C-22 ova, &-7 reo-y-Z

-rc c"-Azfre se" as piccee Pee (.0-rec52-/i-5

4-411z-E5-e=

41-1" t-n-') cu il/&cfq /ti v; %WO (7c-D ct,trot fdarranyPfrur

4,59B/t->7 Ver6h c--cie. ca-Se sife" 7" 1 ft3:- PACit,-565A) cifespes-

ts-ernc--r g

/ it2 7;2 friVG-6t /i/e Ler reec-zig-CS

/C!.HCCS e711t/ ztr t+(202--c- àte e.y La `^-t' 6 I1tV2-4/11-4-6t2t-i:

ce/61C CoaZ/4-ecrer ivcrc& -c-C-5.42 PItIlat-p9fietc-Tc9 .c.9' r c-r-r-&-aztic P,.

pe-tierrernto-yu ote

g LP c lez-, /1--A-5 7:5 /2 t oce.) 4E47 ty- raVif7L Ce7 cin-toc,rrr-- rrir-AveiscS /me

cr-471/./ erle-t9

.7nt, ( 41 C kir (71,571-124 6Q r2- I rez ,3"- t-fr-67-114-so

ro "-9A7 j2c-- 041-/6-8 4'i2,6t c-c-sj ere.%

tflOcic-p 4-r-co c -ride 6:a vcil- 4441 crtity AsficSeT-0

9 r 12- 4, l'Ac323,5A-c- tcrove--p 72-.511oWstr' of a-- Sc:-A-rt /t-etr-1177-11--

if-zetapi/c./ cc3c."-eferti1*7 /e -- /-ADS 44--LI/5

lit -ti A-ire/17E1' A/9 e-crte 1.21.--c/2-(A-r cri.1 6.-erzcw

1/1/ -rises A-6:(rA--(4,2

4- Palike-4.5,---o covt-tioiliferre v/5- A-n-fi-eas-rinzeury 64)o_e_icTURN OVER TO9CritTE0ASUBMISSION

5111911-/760 MVP ,0,---C24.-)C-- 9vA P4-0 .-r6:97- 7- etra,cee--747c

,frva4/1-6--ra- iptenitcre4 nec-/Z,


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.




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

Submissions.





I will be represented by:

MYSELF My telephone number (business hours)'or



Or


Signature


ce-Date 71( Ce.r4


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

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 ofAugust 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 circumstancesbeyond their reasonable control.

This submission has resulted from community meetings held by the residents noted aboveduring October 2004.

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:-

The Swan River and its adjoining environs require long-term protection fromenvironmental damage;

The private property owners are ultimately the best custodians of their property andsurrounding environs;

Preservation by government whilst also allowing development by government is an abuseof 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 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.

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 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 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 May lands 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 well 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

the future by public access.

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, unlit, 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 through

overuse.

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 their

homestead.

Attachment to Submission for Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no 1082/33Bush lands Forever and Related LandsA submission by affected residents of Swanview Terrace May lands, 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 tall in

2020 because of a lack of forward planning?

it Belmont Park ExamplesThe current focus of this scheme is totally im balanced 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.

iii. 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 ofphosphates 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 the

upper 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.


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

I. 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 of

private 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 its

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

Midland, being area's 313, 314, 319, 214, 491 and 305. Of these sites the Swan ViewTerrace 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 May lands Peninsular, Belmont park Lands, Burswoodwetlands, May lands 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 1082/33aushlands 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 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 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 it

appears 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 tuture 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 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 whichexisting title boundaries have been eroded and now are submersed.

ii. Precise details of the existing land use restrictions and the boundaries and landarea pertaining to each land use restriction.

iii. Independent assessments of the financial effect of the change in land rightsproposed for each landowner.

iv. Precise details of the development and land use rights that each property enjoyscurrently together with a contrast to the legal position should the scheme proceed.

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 (24/1(/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.

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

immediate loss of value.

9)

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

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 cdSwanview Terrace May/ands, Perth (24/10/04)

Page 9 of 9

Rec

ord

of A

ttend

ance

Str

eet M

eetin

g25

th O

ctob

er 2

004

Nam

eA

ddre

ssC

onta

ct T

elep

hone

No.

4A/7

704/

1--

7-i)

X J

ar7

s yY

AN

Wzr

w17

7- A

tA

t el-

NA

-YLi

41Y

DS

6 (4

/ e, f

r 9

_sW

.5

703

?7 (

il)

oi-v

ieA

....0

-b7

c-S:vy/pAllte;:"i

d 7-

-(7?

-AP4

iR-G

r-/7

-in49

1,4i

-Cor

.-7/

szec

g O

ci3g

)-7

, 23

/ 6 7

00

/251

,-)

.J.)

44C

7SI

A)A

l\M-6

--)

7 60

7=v,

nil

--04

/1/4

7 b

S

f\-,

pf-

R (

Cc:

1Thi

i i-s

Aci

--Z

I S

tnlA

)k)d

ie (

A)

77-a

- r

pti

It 0

ie

7?-y

4--A

ivi e

----

7,7

-r-c

-e-

,444

- y4

_4-7

1/42

-W

C '7

0 11

1

ei 4

.7-r

3 o

q- 3

.-b

A-A

l C-

bie.

irite

r-S-

ger4

--ai

Ar*

L-c

_2-

5 ce

t/A-7

1442

-Vcr

-1.

-Z.,`

"I"

2_7

/6 2

-95-

1--u

.7e-

)10

c1N

-0(

f;.

Sc-J

aA/\t

heti

-Ice

,,q3

703-

att 0

&.v

.

{VE

---

09-

--77

/2-7

(7

Ai

liti

Ayl

a7/

4-71

95c

-cl

at-7

.i.a.

.-la

cid

02 2

,97-

--/_

;< .0

(0g

,S

4,72

z64-

x-e-

t*-i

go.-

,,6-

_c4)

A3

5;,,,

a-2-

v /;,

-,-,

. 774

,,,

-ect

aig

mik

/hte

ttxR

I si

ptith

Lce

4,v

d'im

,90

-7a

/3/Q

(?/4

144/

e en

-,e,

e,e-

,,,it?

-ry

./-

01-K

z-e9

:01/

4-11

)S,

e 9

- 0

S- /

<92

7 2

2-, 2

9'

n 1)

C 9

2

..t.,/

,o)(

2_,-

)e,

ciaz

it2/1

1/45

6i

/7/ s

ide-

vief

_..)

-7--

-s. -

,---

t,/-

.6-6

.5-7

4737

0s-2

,15.

ce,/

ntit

-7)

(--;

f, ,i

-, ,,

,. e2

,_/S

T-

.,.-

-- f

r,.,,

,, ,?

,.

.97r

,A

-r-

L-1

A, 6

,,-.

c 7

---t

vAA

...,,_

\,3\ L

iw,b

, \-1

,144

in--

\3

S--

CyL

A A

----

AR

e_,

-.1

---c

c_E

_L

' 4,-

c c

-,A

.-<

,in

0 c

-- k

co, i

I'7

S-1

) s

t- E

sa'

tc.

...1

\ \ -

AS

ILA

1-1

-,C

SL

...j ,

..4-t

,3c-

_,,

--c-

c f

,\k

",,,A

yuz-

,-,3

-,C

oo \-

- k

-.-

\,1

) SS

S

6Int

tlo

tst

ivva

llef.

Au

rre-

rilt

)r44

,--4

9 (

60S

7q.

3-7

/a)

7/,/h

(,-1

4,fr

-,





To SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission

469 Wellington StreetPERTH W A 6000

OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER I

Submission 53

Name&OGG /EL MO SWELL/

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) j4j y EAWER00 606i/0o (la I'S ) Sella. /NG Tv /v PostcodeAddress

Contact phone number. 9 9'2-2 cfb Email address

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

Trnc#g_b

1:Thr(CI:T.C-:NT FOR PLAW4INGINFP/A3TRUCTLIP.ETU N OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

9 NOV 2004

F LE







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






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



Signature Cztzo)-e-e.e Date ///77


Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - mrs thvapc.wa.gov.au; Internet - httplAvsniv.wapc.wa.gov.au

SUBMISSIONMETROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENTS No.1082/33

To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Name Guglielmo Passarelli

Address 100 Shillington Way Wanner000 WA 6065Contact phone number 9409 2280 Mobile 0418 913 908

4.Interest Title holder and owner of Lot 196 Shillington Way Wanneroo

SubmissionI would like to make the following comments on the draft Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan RegionStatement of Planning Policy 2.8 and would like them considered in the preparation of the final document.

5.2 Bush Forever Reserves Areas Specific Policy Measures5.2.1 Bush Forever Reserves Areas (Proposed and existing)

On viewing the Bush Forever Reserves Area BFS 327 Plan 3.1913 portion of my land is at Lot 196Shillington Way Wanneroo has been designated as "Proposed Special Control Area". My land has a total ofarea of 1.12 hectares on which is built my residence, On the above plan BFS 327 Plan 3.1913 about onethird of this area has been delineated as "Proposed Special Control Area". It would appear to myself as alayman that it has been drawn in because of an aerial survey and has not been viewed in absolute practicalterms.I consider that I should be allowed to continue my life style as intended when I originally acquired the land.The changing of this land usage may in the future have a disadvantage to me and drastically reduce my landvalue. My wife and myself may wish to move on later in like as we get older and retire to a smaller property ,at that time we will need to achieve as high a value as possible at that time.By changing the very small area to"Bushland" forever will only have an adverse effect on the value of my property.

The removal of this relatively small area from the proposal should have no effect on future planning as thearea is insignificant in the overall scheme.

Commonsense in these circumstances should prevail because of the small amount of land in question.

As stated in the Draft proposal the proposal is to seek to protect regionally significant bushland , this smallarea on my land cannot be considered "significant" and excluding it would not effect the area as the majorareas on the plan take a significant area.

My land does not constitute a corridor to any other proposed protected land and removal of it has no effect on

overall plan.

My land is currently zoned special rural and I built my residence in keeping with the special rural buildingrules at that time, I am environmentally aware, and consider the existing area is sufficient to protect this smallarea.

The attached photocopy sets marked sets out this minor area in question.

Please record my objection to this policy especially in regard to the very small area affecting my property.

WANNEROI

Sub) g.t.to'suryey.,4:4.

tectf2,010atesAceAl chmensions are i

PROPOSED SPECIAL cor4moi, AREA No I

500m 0 500m


FORM 6A



DEPARTM5tritibil'PLAINii.,;5-1-47:NPRASIBUCThiltE


8 NOV 2Q04

a-

OFFICE USE ONLY


Submission 54

Name 1) E I 011 cE,---r


Address 311 Summ.cgr Postcode

A LL

Contact phone number, P.... Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages If required. It is preferred that any additional information he loose rather than hound)

ctuA is-ck 1.42-3S12 Livccr LawiyggAza-4-efin cgs". FS

L0-1 4 Sh,rcmcscd-Wad {lac Ivia-radect

-11-2 gttAsL re-P24-F t;e,cii-uceas

..

MC Ob.(12 aid 44-0-125 0.474 4-7) 4112 CZ tee QAci 44.t<12-$ (.44- t

II..61\4 .. ce-t-1;-@c;ch.0 upasL2-( 1,04 ickyLoi a 0.3ci nnaz

Qta,d, ack, t< Jeo-te_ct

ceaskr a is II 4-e -Q-4;04--e cs-rsna

SPA -4,114aci- -145a4vcandchm.a..gend vaact cps.

opri\ac aug pverkAgS Gt-s-A

a24122-4C,A K oar

-4.4 ()A£ cco_red-i-e st.r.ci a Zig-

r-f:Q.424-Aiski40-A-02A rEirt.4. -10-(42.32-1- fss

..gagot neeLoiA-42- ivta&

yufr-.41. Z-L,k,sk Fv-raku 7_,D-rua

4A-1 .......... ..

tt Fcski)24.41 bet4,,,,dit (Li 1-ecteA /LS 40

,e-x clock 1/414 So- -.ekt'cis cbrags..644,4.4 L1 Lu Lt.

acy-P 0-1 oba-iLvd-e, ccwJ

04

J aien dd .414, "itakL,,d cjea_t evl

re-i2c045 3 LcsleJle

ag_v, trfal C¢$ 1/41L4 kOts-r' n vc1 a) rer_du

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION d\




< the group must be appointed.



Submissions.



111 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): 4c? 6 330

Or



Or


Signature


Date V (


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

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

FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY


Submission 55

Name 141r. An NrS TC4E/ma. /3/4..kt.e...etr c,c6


Address 7 Se- c/C 31-1 Afrret-W-L Postcode 6 fa9 3 7 / q 3 8

Contact phone number. Email address N/A


l it ad111-an L-0/K-' 0-1` ",

znr... kad.etem...La6.41-41trick.../Sa,4 /- 76/4444. ;iPii6.t4. ate paernencreaccto t-i)?.v..krire.../..Fe-ii

i2, a, Rz-c,i&>v de42-tz .Lak& ..w.e.,..ktersm,L6...camre Lice-59,6

. etcott-17, c:(4Latsre -iltner

.A0.-aathZ. pfrgir-fienne-er. .;et, vaz;terd 13a1

. /1-t7te4ilitet4-9,-a 4,411,1-cavn4 (uaira(frc &dnaarted-e, Icetg.prziLe CeAVZ- Yrtetivit04 ge-/-m-ya,--0 0/-

itivewt-e, d4 4:40(44n.-- iotykt}g/ a-act/A -4) the, ea.:Cee 4kle.exAtlx,w4 ,hu &de, ,zerix.:4:k.-at.yL6 1-4-,-,e-ez teCo bacaL keit

..... a6....auearraelthi-s .a.4:ctx aztalcc<... <Co...castnirke.(to:L.

..krS....ao-Atintrytat .

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING...... ADIN P.Ac.;TRUCTLIRE

- 9 NOV 2004

FILE LSO -\ 72TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

Po--




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 sutimission. 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



Or


Signature .


V

/1/0-24,--0- ZoosDate

NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised' closing date, being close of-business (5.00pm) on FRIDAY X XXXXX 2004 Late submissions will NOT be considered

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


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER I

Submission 56

Name GI 7" `7 or FREMANTLE(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address PO (30.X 307 FIN-MANI-LE Postcode.6 1 61

Contact phone numberMg 7- Cigcici Email address 1).06@f(Q manil t ,wa.gov.auc

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information he loose rather than hound)




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.



Rt7 NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)


Or






Or


Signature


Date 5 /* 211194--


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

OUR REF: JG:051104CONTACT: Jill Gaynor - 9432 9805

5 November 2004

SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPerth WA 6000

Dear Madam/Sir

SUBMISSIONMetropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No.1082133- Bush Forever and Related Lands

CITY OFFREMANTLE

Telephone: (08) 9432 9999Facsimile: (08) 9430 4634

TTY: (08) 9432 9777Email:

[email protected]: wwl.v.freofocus.com.au

Town Hall Centre8 William Street,FremantleWestern AustraliaPO Box 807, FremantleWestern Australia 6959

ABN: 74 680 272 485

Please find attached a submission from the City of Fremantle on the above amendment.

If you have any questions on the submission, please contact Jill Gaynor on 9432 9805.

Yours faithfully

1Graeme MacKenzieA/Chief Executive Officer

End: Submission

CC: Cathy Hall, South Fremantle PrecinctChristine Duckham, Friends of Clontarf Hill

44E iT FOR PANNWG.791r,TUE1.

- 9 NOV 2004

FILE q:;;EP(

WINNERLeadership in

Local GovernmentAward 2002

www.freofocus.com.au

CITY OF

FREMINTLE

City of FremantleSubmission on

Metropolitan Region SchemeAmendment No. 1082/33

- Bush Forever and Related Lands -

IntroductionThe City of Fremantle considered its position on the above amendment at its meetingon 18 October 2004. The submission below is based on the report adopted byCouncil.

CommentsThe Bush Forever Program and SPP8 2.8 Bush land Policy for the PerthMetropolitan Region are supported by the City of Fremantle.

Bush land protection and management must be examined at the regionallevel.

Designation of Samson Park as a Parks and Recreation reservation in theMRS, gives regional acknowledgement of the bushland values of the Parkand" is supported by the City. It is noted however, that this designation isunlikely to result in any additional financial or other resources to assist withmanagement of the Park. City of Fremantle support is on the understandingthat the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) will delegate alldecision making for the Park to the City. Samson Park comprises crownreserve 34233 and lots 578 and 579 owned by the City and is currentlyreserved as local open space reserve in Town Planning Scheme 3.

Means to provide additional funds or other resources to local government toassist in the management of bushland reserves is suggested.

Consistent with the City's submission on MRS Amendment 1055/33(Fremantle Eastern Bypass), Clontarf Hill should also be considered as aregionally significant Parks and Recreation reserve for its landform,vegetation (Tuart trees) and landmark features. It would also be consistentwith recent decisions such as the inclusion of Cypress Hill as regional openspace. It is acknowledged that more detailed planning will be required torehabilitate the area and assess appropriate boundaries and linkages withthe existing community.

Clontarf HillThe natural values of Clontarf Hill have been severely eroded over time dueto lack of management and uncertainty over the former Fremantle EasternBypass reserve. Clontarf Hill has become the southern most section of"urban blight' that extends along the length of the former FEB reserve. TheIandform and landmark significance of the site remain, however, along with astand of significant tuart trees. Based on these values, the hill should bereserved as regional open space in the MRS and recognised in the BushForever Plan.

Page: 1 of 2

City of FremantleSubmission on Metropolitan Region Scheme

Amendment No. 1082/33 - Bush Forever and Related Lands

Cantonment Hill and Clontarf Hill have an almost 'sister' relationship for theCity of Fremantle. Both are examples of coastal limestone hills, withCantonment Hill having river and ocean exposure. There are no remnantnative trees on Cantonment Hill and the ability to compare the flora of thesehills should remain for future generations to explore and study.

More detailed planning will be required to rehabilitate Clontarf Hill and assessappropriate boundaries and linkages with the existing community. Futurelinkage to South Beach and other areas, consistent with Council's Clontarf Hillpolicy, the Fremantle Planning Strategy and Green Plan is required.

Clontarf Hill is a prominent landmark in the Fremantle area, forming part ofthe coastal limestone ridge. Together with Cypress Hill, Buck land Hill,Cantonment Hill and Monument Hill, it provides 360 degree views of thecoast, across the Indian Ocean, the Darling Range, the Port and City ofFremantle. Clontarf Hill is one of few remaining areas of remnant bushlandand has been included in Council's Green Plan (adopted April 2001). It isalso one of only two areas where Limestone Mar lock (Eucalyptus decipiens)is found in Fremantle. The Tuarts (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) on ClontarfHill are also significant, as they are the largest and oldest trees and providehabitat for native birds and invertebrates. The only other large area of matureTuart that grow on land vested in the City is at Samson Park. However, theseTuart grow in a Jarrah/Marri/Tuart Woodland. The Tuart/Limestone Mar lockassociation at Clontarf Hill does not occur elsewhere within the City ofFremantle.

The type and number of fauna species found in or that utilise Clontarf Hill isunknown, as no detailed fauna surveys have been undertaken by a qualifiedzoologist. The importance of Clontarf Hill is therefore unknown. Noentomological study has been conducted either.

There has been no control over vehicular access to Clontarf Hill. As a result,four wheel drive vehicles have eroded access tracks and rubbish is regularlydumped in the car park and adjoining bushland. There has been little or noweed control or revegetation by MRWA. Community groups such as TRACand Friends of Clontarf Hill have being involved in trying to maintain andrevegetate the site with very limited resources.

Existing levels of visitation to Clontarf Hill and recreational activitiesundertaken have not been surveyed and reported.

Page: 2 of 2


FORM 6A



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

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 57

Name 5HP 114E -300 so NI?(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address SOI °PION P) Oisti<FOgel Postcode 61ZI

Ger o

Contact phone number. 0143 911ti2ThEmail address

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

'1O whom It rna3 concern,w :Sh tct hay-c m ptopiert

re mo veck cergvn 1 lie, weliatic/s ii-er I have. 0 reagi ma e

a submissi on to tine- V.:.P...A: Si.etild rt kat 'their i5 no

weilaviA on nil plod,* 1 have also 5poke4 toD. ,e.c.12 4-101 of 11,e Es.P.A wino has v ;ewe njp CfRONj GILA Qi j A a teleekoPte, CO h ver,54()i v4:411 me

otc Koovulea .za 1IW. 1,18 filial no we:flak-Id -e-Xisls 6'1

lin p capc.c.j Ctn01 Pit _Aker.. p ............ would in rep/100j

from lite C.C31,31-qc. (2 f 11.:S I., hqve no/ CeCearej

Qv Led4-er Q ot, IC 4I have. also seokevk

c:011;ve- r Om lbe p(anAi.,h j

toko Ci °lig Q 3

51 "'-Ccil im

CO ii1i Kell .33;4 A

p CA Pc Pi LA 0 A lite /310 I 14 elo5,1e, C3ilt 1clew,

0144 01 kp auk ineQ14 je) tke fact lkia no weflavA

-QPiSts o" ill/" p rot)eila 4140A if Gitc, u/q01 he, remov 04

4"1"-e, ia.9.1sier. 44- two u iJi 1-1<e, iR i eller Frost

1061111 pi ep al 1M eli. ad(vlowier,i3i thew-el \ p vtck ey.-51-5 ph 04 j pr.o.per, WO s &elm

r-ewov.ej Pr clok { reiLsfer

or

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING4171'SIPPASTRUCTURE

9 NOV 2004

FILE

ourS 5,4Cereli

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Sh cute, -Soh 4.So A







Submissions.



2.1 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): olfS 992) 72.6Or

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:


or

.1X3 PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only personsnominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)


Signature .---6/1 Date 5/ 1/10


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

r


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

iSUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 58

Name P (APC.141)( r-ORES 1 PRODUC1/5(PLEASE PRINTtLEARLY)

Address 3r(0 -113 RI-3'5(P ati)adq)- VC A Postcode C7 12 I

Contact phone number).524I:77.t.. Email address Kek, cu.A.


C71-EIK cre kin!) 4-5 oivQ- MKeRelk- kc 10Q LIKIZOC V2V2, -VRS 21K4AV A I ag

PROEM fOREST-PRODUCTS36.13IRDROAD

OLDBURY WA 6121

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANftl

!NPRALIRUCTURt

-9 NOV 2004

t 1

N OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION







Submissions.









Or


Signature


Date2 r I o 2L-,c4


Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 92647586; Email [email protected]; Internet - httpl/www.wapc.wa.gov.au

IDUCENIX man PRODUCTS

36 Bird Road OLDBURY WA 6121 Phone: 08 9526 2778 Fax: 08 9526 2925

[email protected]] 46 104 242 015

8 November 2004

Regarding that area of Bush Forever Protection Area 68situated on Lot 1 Jackson Road Oldbury.

As known the southern section of this property is land filled withconstruction and demolition waste carried out under licence by the DEPand a licence is being sought to continue landfill to within 25 metres ofthe Bush Forever boundaries.

The approach to this boundary will be as per the accompanyingsketches No 1, 2, & 3.

Sketch 1 shows the area concerned.Sketch 2 gives a sectional view of the same area with a 25 metre bufferzone.Sketch 3 gives a sectional view of the same area with a 50 metre bufferzone.

As can be seen from these the optimum protection of the Bush Foreversection of the property is more satisfactorily achieved with a 25 metrebuffer zone.

We would like to point out the following regarding the area shown asBush Forever in your literature

(a) What has the Bush Forever area been created to protect? Wepresume that this would be the growth of paper bark trees.

(b) The whole area is badly contaminated with exotic weeds.Bracken fern and Veldt Grass to name a few obvious types. Thisweed growth was prolific when we purchased the property10 years ago.

1

(c) The area as per your Plan 1.5302 is not very specific as to whatis being protected as the area to the east of our access roadmarked A on sketch 1 is a large open area of weeds with no realnative growth of any significance. We do not question the areacovered we merely point out the difficulty in determining whatwe are trying to protect and who is to pay for the cost of thisprotection. We are prepared to enter into a conservationcovenant in this regard.

The attached photographs of existing noise abatement bundsincorporating the buffer zone, established and vegetated on ourwestern boundary illustrates what the separation between the landfilland the Bush Forever would be if the completion of landfill on Lot 1Jackson Road were to proceed. Photos A & B of the western bundsshows a section after two year's growth and photos C & D after fouryears growth.

In view of the above we would appreciate you reviewing the area andagreeing to the requested 25 metre buffer zone.

The land filling of the remaining area of Lot 1 is basically required forfurther development of the company's Forest Products ProductionCentre. Which means that the area will be easily managed to preventexotic weed infiltration and further deterioration of the bush foreversite. A 25m noise abatement and buffer zone bund (as shown in sketchNo.2) would be preferable to prevent further infestation of the BushForever site.

We would welcome advice and input from Bush Forever and the Shireas to the species to be planted on the bunds that would complement thebush forever site.

A 50m buffer zone of clay left uncovered by landfill would create theongoing problems described in sketch No.3.

Yours Sincerely

Okf f,0(9

Gordon McleanDirector

2

czkE4CkA c \

125000 "SUR-ER-Lomt. io We gni) klAComlubtC,lioft writA circeickt \I°. 2

24,200 A4 COYAssi Votalzogkrctte Jaz.

Nt%91-ail %iota CoststaWOWI) wrtkk 5.0k`s-t-Mictiot,I

Dmou'uons %die* Govozzio \mrnk cLota sot L 7t.iewmb lidem

latet-St, c-tomeAtaasottoo-s.

Lol 12 &czD Rota)

MOM Pturs,iewwt EAAD

;_nc IA IC bithl

CLier SCPk0.AllNG tfrakIrS5

Pt R1 PAC R 09,MA _ SUM:ACC.- R_WW - ocV

cc,

3:

win

d 14

1-

excp

t rbz

u 2

V a

53A

1L

p1

::1-1

wz-

-37F

5443

-im w

aloN

ntw

cY)

yik

,9))

07, -

21aW

YA

0005

Z

5

z

111

31-S

-VM

vc\ i

nn/1

3A 1

1-10

\ 1,0

0710

10)

:13,

1b,c

9c1W

+S

lA)1

37).

WV

:vs

z4 r

apno

-v.

(?1'

15)

5$21

1, a

NI,

N0A

A

¶(k 5L1n4i6 &go Deku.S5 kits. Ad-Rtst(PN( Irl ftkoa tkl-LD u1S:E tt4S-pd_La bar4CA asr-oictcs

Su Matt t 5111,n12. 1...914L,514

Wks infte.00ta (AO.

C70104-->0

ISeu ESL-52 201-5

AO/RA -315ov

OrIPICLox.-2504,0

W uULD Pat- 1 m VosS t ffra to PittNici.rf uR CotAlF201_ artoki-N

C WalPS (.e.ol LA 14 kl 16419 >=coltc)ov .-t2_-titis kit6 ': Pc-RE&

L3(0000 x Lk ES WOULD tg.e < cvectbCI.L`( Sty twa,\T4c, "4-1416

Cre:RDAtnf k-i to t4 ecta 0 powmta ee-etotis tio Access t..)4.--Lt-ties

CUL.? IS ettitSt& Lc WAS itizbc7L.Is s -to leALS kt.Sket ot-c 025.

CRovia -to Sonar( M4P-1

kc

,e?

Atgfa nHekk,", 4" k A:OM

'A"` tetc- W4t,4' 4

e",W 3,k- it

tfr

c)owcyc,V.AJt-recz, ICC

.L lGL, (,/,(

\ iv); k

phi

11

Am

citia

rr,m

110.

ihei

rMnI

HIM

mm

Itri

mi

Mb!

OW

giri

mpl

,11

1:I

,

glin

:1"

hh

I;'d

"N

IiII

'I

.11

NA

zir

cir.

orri

r,41

1,:r

10ri

''1

1:,;1

Nit

j10

141

114.

,4W

WI

P

r (I

P bl

it Y

IP!'

lEP

IEK

IA'r

11,1

1,11

11W

ich,

Whd

ep,

e

him

!;0

00,0

444-

41:."

q. J

i*,

ill!:

"1Pi

hked

irdA

lidliT

"N

No"

0,ki

d ,

'le

%14

1110

11

Ai

1 n,

i I;I

:111

r.

.1

11th

! 41:1

111

Ip

1844 7-,Ler[9,v,:i tc,44ei If 044) lja-V-1A.-.3c,/0 a;r6vc /

Submission 59/1). WM/45

'<I:I '7 c

r":1.a2 At Ars 5 , ,401.t"""'4- 657,6 'r' Fs, a.4

4 6q vittnAdocato sVitz A, #12-670

&I" (E74-eifiai tA/--/ attleCiCA-4.

ENT FOR PLANNING:,ti:Pfi:ifP9CTUFIE

- 9 NOV 2004

ALE

Sole/1i AbfeS61-10vi "0 6955113

Pa

44°'/"V 441(5111,W)e--

r c

6Si,fieeniAci d:0 A 3Ai

5,AQfsrvl9 /14WAJ14 ,c5/ r et 't.#6'

A 5 Inv Aies1-.9 Sir sical 4,9A445 LvKi rybAl("7 6D 6;4"--4*-ICAM

to la-49/ Aeligano ecist 44,v,a

1647-2coli fiee." ...

)11,44.ed-Ai ;it" Alierillet ,;-"Ir ccikAzfrA.,<zenk,---se.._

Myer c.o.? 4e eeni r 1c..tire t 174,41Mt c Irv,/ c $706.07- y re-14;

A2sfriti-- zivAdnv- 6--

A3 /W9 A-S1 ew20,,X, gb a lecv5w7-91: cfra494 dece4cexclat4/47te/H44- iil4%b-9,9 pee/i4 y:e4rAce/a-treff,ote ;;ICs.

nteaKI-0 1"6.- c /7V(.;4-.4-4-Y.-v,44, A44 di."10-15 ®C A /191/274: 7 4 "1"1.5

4g- /-74,a

toe7614.1) ilar 6010`7 -2-1.9 con, inv.c.47=kovrs-

c7/ video 443 PA/ 5 7-49.11- F/Aevr,,,,(_,c(54( /42X1PL4-44 jeoc,t-ric.-e e2,6-echc

/OAS

kflot,AZ ri;:e..47041

L,./.5: id-Ai/cc A0,5.C.--Se-I,CA, Am./ Jr fes3.5iolitedzetgec ia-C22- e.te t s ietrea

gitt-enntasa' ficei4 SOLI


FORM SA



To: SecretaryWestern Austral:an Planning Commission4430 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

OFFC11 UM OHM

ISUMMONMate;

Submission 60

Name ....2)(1 \-) 1.37 I") (41°.*&71-

Address 1-4.Z Ja; 14)....au,se-Parcricir Alki ctegss.... Postcode 4f.e).4%.6-17(cry roe] paakiagg.,S,AdAnt. E'er., . CLAA--Contact phone nunter. fj 33-13c2- 3 Email address

Submission (Moan attach additional cages t/ saqtthad. it la pritancri thal any additional kora= bo loon maw than hound)

--4-----....---.

I have been sent in excess of 170 pages of literature and maps about the "Bush Forever " concept. Theyconsist mainly of semi-legal jargon and are therefore convoluted and difficult to follow. I have been asked

to study these carefully and, if in disagreement, make a submission. This, of course puts me and thousands

of other landholders like me, at a great disadvantage. We don't have the time and we are not used to legal .jargon but, at the same time, our suspicions are heightened by the manner in which this exercise is beingcontrolled. We are even forced by the form on which we are to write this submissionwith its .dotted lines to

do so by hand.To quote your patronising document describing "What is a submission?", I am ignoring all of the aboveand giving you "a reasoned argument of why a particular thing should or should not be done" (and I

suggest that it is more reasoned than your 170 pages of jargon in the SPP document).

1. Land for which we paid money and for which we were once responsible is to be. taken from us and

vested in a government department.2. The only rational justification for such an action is either.

a. .We,have demonstrated that we have not carried out dtnyof Care for the land responsibly

b. The Government Department has dernianstrated that it is more responsible in carrying out

its duty of care than we are. ,

3. Neither of these cases has been made or attempted in the documents on the SPP that we have been

sent. .

4. In the specific case of the expansion of the Serpentine River reserve, which affects me, there hasbeen demonstrable action and care by individuals and the Serpentine River Group and Serpentine-Jarrandale Landeare programs in weed control,fencing, replanting, riffling and participation in

awareness programs. By contrast, the yarious.Government Departments implicated in the same

region, including CALM, The Water Corporation, and Water and Rivers have demonstrated grossirresponsibility. Land under their direct control is infested with vermin and acts as a very visible

and frustrating source for the multiplication and dissemination of exoticweed species.

5. The fact that some of the replanting done by private owners on their own land and fencing toprotect it from animals has led to that land being now proclaimed in the "Bush forever" conceptonly exacerbates the lack of logical reasoning in the whole concept.

6. In conclusion, I believe that no reasoned case has been made to justify either the process or the

actions that seem to be developed from it.

DU?' AT FOR PLANNIRP:1)

ioFF.KSTRUCTIAR2

- 9 NOV 2004

FILE Pa


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

These beatings are arranged ao that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person shouid 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 ofgeneral public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to representthe group must he appointed.

All hearings are recorded and transOribed. 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 followlng:

V0 N0,1 do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)

YES, 4 do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You willbe contacted to arrange a tkne for your hewing.)

127:101 be represented byMYSELF My telephone number (business hours): ................Of

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's !lama*Group narne:Agent's telephone number (business hours): ........... ........

fling address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted In:PUBLIC (with a public hearing otherpersons, Including the media. may attend.)

PRIVATE (a private heating Is conducted behind closed than and only personsnominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

Signature

ore'z"=.7. V2.rtim-

aajtkatr-Offlifes TessmOOrtio4 frre; not-KOPOEQ144150:g Erred mrttowapthapn..yaw **am* - MicrAftenapangovatt


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

b

Name 6/9A L .6 /9r(0 '11/4(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address 40 5 mo- 445 r ege=s7 Postcode (06 (5-

Contact phone number. 9. ... Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It Is preferred that any additional Information be loose ratherthan bound)

(ea24e.ii-et cLtt- 64,

RN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

1 1 NOV 2004

FILE 'CO










CA, MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):or

In 1-)Or



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


Signature


Date 74/


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


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

(01

Name r/9 iffAddress Cr


rift/ z z giv e /5z_ V Postcode.. .11

Contact phone number..05(2.i.-ge:62-Email address

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











Submissions.

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


LJor

V




I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): 04/2 9-5-2 t62

Or




Signature


Date . 05-

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.wapc.wa.gov.au

Submission 61

6TH November 2004


RE: Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33Bush Forever and Related Lands

Draft Bushland Policy for Perth Metropolitan RegionStatement of Planning Policy No.2.8

As owner of Lot 8 No. 45 Pinecrest Way Gnangara comprising of 4.0562 hectares Ioppose any re-zoning from General Rural zoned land and any future proposal for my landto be allocated under Bush Forever.

Wanting to live in a rural environment was the reason I purchased this land but if I hadbeen aware that there was a possibility that my land was going to be allocated to BushForever I would not have purchased my land.

I believe that as a ratepayer and landowner I should be able to use a minimum of 1hectare of my land with no restriction. My understanding of Bush Forever is to keep ourvirgin land in its native state and as this land has been previously cleared of all vegetationin 1970 and was used at some time for cattle grazing.

This land is heavily infested with non native pine trees with a predominance of shrubswith very little Banksia overstorey (which is not indicative of a healthy Banksia_woodland ecosystem), and most importantly the undergrowth is dominated withnumerous weed species.

For this reason I am confident that the area is not in any way representative of a Banksiawoodland ecosystem that would benefit from Bush Forever protection. Your reply andconsideration would be appreciated on my objections to a Bush Forever re-zoning wouldbe appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Carl Basso BrusaLot 8 Pinecrest WayGnangara WA 6065

ul,:ag-AFMFHT Fct,E Et 01M? 1

INI:PA:;11%1Qrit

9 NOV 2004

a Pal' ico

Submission 62

12 November 2004












The amendments fail to give priority protection to sites with vegetation complexes below the 10%target. It is a Government commitment that through the Bush Forever process at least 10% of eacb ofvegetation complex will be protected.

ENT FOR Pl_ANNiNGlr.a:PATIRUCTLIRE.

9 NOV 2004

Pa_

Name. V ckkck

Organisation.

Signature.

Address. C11 /77/-; It

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 orthe Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207 .


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

b3

Name

Address


/2-5 11/973 0 Al // 0(19 600J-derer /la" Postcode 6076

Contact phone number. 907-f 7,2"-q, Email address . on4, jit/ i dfrciaI I

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

PA "'WENT. EX.PLANNINVc

1 2 NOV 2004 TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION










Submissions.



or





Or






Signature 0/4 Date / NOY 200(6-,


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

Submission Les Lima

I enclose a copy of my earlier submission that appears not to have been read and to which Ihave never received a response.

I reiterate:

1. there is no regionally significant bushland on my property.

2. the property is my family residence not a public park. The land has been in privatehands for decades.

3. over the last eight years, to my certain knowledge, no government department ororganization has conducted any effective conservation endeavour or initiative inconnection with the block; no public resources have been expended in hands-onrevegetation or similar effective conservation endeavour.

4. the area over which you now, unconstitutionally, wish to place burdensome andonerous 'protective' restrictions has for decades, prior to my purchase, blissfullywithstood bush walking, dog exercising, horse and trail bike riding, general publicneglect and misuse, soil and waste dumping, degradation and weed infestation.

5. the sole agents of "effective preservation of vegetation" (however regionallyinsignificant, native or introduced) on this block are members of my family. Yourmisguided, ill-informed, high-handed action ensures the discontinuance of mystewardship.

I take extreme umbrage at your ignorant, grossly overbearing, pointless and unnecessary,unjustifiable attempt to curtail my present unfettered enjoyment and use of the land.

Were your misconceived, misjudged intentions not such a travesty of hypocriticalmaladministration it would be laughable. Here we have a bureaucratic attempt to:

give the appearance of protecting something that does not exist;

give the appearance of protecting something that has never either been identified ordefined;

give the appearance of protecting something that apparently has survived fordecades without your belated, ethereal efforts; and

coerce me to maintain that undefined, unidentified "something" which you mustassume I have otherwise benignly and benevolently protected for years.

No public good will be served or advanced by including a portion of my land in somegrandiose parkland project.

Your track record evidences that no public resource will be utilised in any revegetation orsimilar effective conservation endeavour. The degraded, weed infested area overrun fordecades by introduced flora will further degenerate and may become a fire hazard.

Your proposed inclusion of privately held land, insignificant to the totality of the regionallydefined area, into an overarching bushland management blueprint is impractical, nonsensical,administratively unworkable and inherently unfair inequitable, punitive, unconstitutional,biased and discriminatory.

Your presumptions regarding regionally significant bushland indicate that you will continue toneglect your responsibilities in regard to the effective management and conservation of publiclands (of which the bulk of Site 316 consists) and attempt to shift the economic burden ofconservation of non-existing flora onto the shoulders of private landowners.

I will not be putting any effort or resources into protecting or maintaining figments of yourimagination.

I object to the identification of any portion of my property as part of a Bushplan Site, and seekto have the entirety of my residential homestead excluded.

Please:acknowledge receipt of this submission;confirm the exclusion of the whole of my residential block from site 316 (proposal43); andthe continuation of its present zoning.

Page 1 of 1 11/11/2004

YOUR REFERENCE:

BUSHPLAN SITE :VEGETATION :NAME OF SITE :PROPERTY:

LOT AREA :ZONING :

CURRENT USE :INTENDED USE :

PERTH'S BUSHPLAN Submission by Les Lima

805/2/1/32P10

No 316Forrestfield ComplexMaida Vale Reserve and Adjacent BushlandLot 203 Watsonia Road,Gooseberry Hill 6076I hectare (50m x 200m)Metropolitan Region Scheme - Rural Shire ofKalamunda Planing Scheme No 2 Special RuralRural/ResidentialRural/Residential

BACKGROUND

Prior to the receipt of your letter dated 30 December 1998, and accompanying publications, the onlyindication that I had that any part of my family homestead consists of anything other than commonscrub was a call, some months ago, from a person connected with CALM. That person soughtapproval to enter my property to confirm whether certain rare or threatened vegetation existed withinmy block. This as CALM's perhaps dated records indicated that some flora of interest was endemicto the general area. He was unable, or unwilling, to describe or identify what sort of vegetation was ofinterest. He confirmed that he was merely being courteous in seeking my approval as statutorypowers conferred him access. I indicated that I would be obliged if kept informed of his findings. Afailure to hear anything further from that organisation reinforced my assumption that the inspectionfailed to reveal any specimens of the type sought.

Lot 203 has been in private ownership for some decades. I have owned the block for the last threeyears. Conversations with the last two prior owners have revealed that none of us have anyrecollection of any conservation endeavours or initiatives carried out in connection with this block byany government department or organisation. No public resources have been expended, no advicehas been proffered.

My family home has been constructed on the block. Portions of the gardens and surrounding apronmay well currently encroach on the seemingly arbitrarily shaded portion of the site map.

Quaintly, the equally undisturbed scrub between the eastern edge of the house and Watsonia Roadis not dissimilar to the scrub observed west of the house in the area that falls within the shadedportion of the site map.

Specimens of smoke-bush, said to be one of the threatened species of vegetation in contention, haveself germinated along the compacted verge of my access driveway and in the cleared apron aroundthe house and are thriving.

I commissioned a bore in the extreme south western corner of my block about the time that thehouse was constructed. The site at which the bore is situated falls within the shaded area of yourmap. The south western corner has always, to my knowledge, been sparsely scrubbed - was, and is,almost denuded of understorey vegetation. The submersible pump sits at a depth of 150 feet. Thethree phase power and main out-flow reticulation pipe is trenched five metres off the southernboundary fence . The trench thus runs just off, and parallel to, the fire break the (approximate) 140mfrom the bore site to the rear of the house. An initial drilling adjacent to the house provedunsuccessful. Neighbours east of Watsonia Road have been unsuccessful in their attempts to sinkbores. I am advised that the prospect of successfully accessing an adequate supply of undergroundwater increases the further west of Watsonia Road the bore is situated.

Tropical fruit trees have been planted, in rows at 6m centres, and extensive reticulation installed inthe area west of the house. The orchard already extends, I would estimate, two thirds of the way tothe western verge of my block. The process of planting out commenced three years ago andcontinues. Some of the pre-existing understorey vegetation has had to make way for the fruit treesand trenched reticulation. I have chosen to restrict the slashing of scrub in the immediate vicinity ofeach introduced tree to a minimum in order to impede weed infestation. Eucalyptus trees have beenretained to aid as a windbreak.

- page 1 0


The western end of both my block and block 202 has been fenced. This to discourage the prior useof the blocks as a thoroughfare by those bush walking, exercising dogs, riding horses, and trail bikeriding; activities that continued even after my residence was built and inhabited. The latter activitiesmentioned could hardly have contributed to the conservation of any pre-existing native bushland.

The mandatory fire breaks are 3m wide. Lot 203 and 202 are 200m long by 50m wide. Hence thereare existing, statutorily required and maintained, upto 6m wide scalped scars within the blocks whichmake up the insignificant (to the overall proposed Bushplan) shaded portions of lots 203 and 202. A6m wide buffer also cuts the two blocks off from the Crown Reserve area.

The fire breaks, naturally occuring localised clearings, and disturbances associated with the fruit treeplantings combine to reduce the actual native bush covered, surface section of my block included inBushplan to a very insignificant area.

I rang your office to inquire:

what is planned to be protected and how this is to be done? In particular, who will bear theburden of providing the necessary ongoing resource - time, money, and physical effort?

from whom or what that which is planned to be protected is to be protected? What has recentlyoccurred or is impendingly threatened that would endanger flora that has survived neglect, bushbashing by trail bike riders, horse riders, and dogs and their exercisers? Does regionallysignificant bushland that may have survived on privately owned land over an extensive periodwithout the umbrella of official protection now need protection? If so, why?

how contemporaneously has it been established and confirmed that "regionally significantbushland" still exists on this particular privately held property?

What knowledge is being refined? The "conservation vale" (did your letter mean to refer to"value"?) And how is it of value to the community at large to expend scant public resources toprotect bush on privately held land?

Your publications state that site visits may be desirable but a phone call to your office hasestablished that your staff have neither the resources nor the inclination to visit the '5000 or soprivately held sites'.

What are the presently existing "proposed protection mechanisms" that are to be furtherdeveloped?

Within what matrix are the submissions sought required to be framed? Your officer stated thatplans were 'at a very early stage' and was unable to suggest a framework within which suchsubmissions ought to be drafted to be of any practical use to the decision makers.

My intentions for future use remain nebulous but includes the same unfettered enjoyment and choiceof options as that enjoyed by my neighbours - whose blocks were once host to vegetation notdissimilar to that observed on mine. Is it envisaged that public monies is to be spent in assisting themto foster the revegetation of their land?

In the event of future productive use of the land, such as horticulture or the keeping of grazinganimals, there may be no, or very restricted, scope to preserve any of the existing understoreyvegetation.

Land in the immediate vicinity of the site is currently developed and being used for a variety ofproductive and income generating purposes such as nurseries and horse stabling, and theopportunity may arise to use my property for similar purposes or to dispose of it at some time in thefuture to a buyer interested in such use and development.

- page 2 of 4 -


CURRENT LAND USE CONTROLS:

The land is zoned Special Rural under the Shire of Kalamunda Planning Scheme. According topublished information from the Shire, the Special Rural zone provides land for rural-residentialretreats, hobby farms and rural pursuits such as intensive agriculture, market gardens and viticulture.While there may be a requirement to obtain the Council's approval for any clearing of the land, theShire advises that building approval allows for clearing of a building envelope of 4000m2. Minimumsetbacks allow for construction of buildings, including a house, to within 10 metres of rear and sideboundaries of the lot.

The Scheme currently permits a range of rural uses within the Special Rural Zone, including (subjectto Council approval) horticulture, nurseries, and stables. It is clear that none of these activities isconducive to the preservation of the remnant vegetation, and even those not involving gross clearingwould severely prejudice the viability of the remnant vegetation in the longer term due to the loss ofunderstorey vegetation which contains the majority of the species diversity identified in Bushplan.

It is understood there is no restriction imposed by the Commissioner of Soil Conservation onclearance of land up to I hectare in area, which would enable the whole of my land currently fallingwithin the scope of the Bushplan proposal (being approx. 0.5 hectare in area) to be cleared withoutapproval of the Commissioner. Any change to the existing controls would limit options for future useand thereby reduce the marketability of the property, as well as its usability for productive ruralpurposes such as those for which the land has been zoned under the Shire Planning Scheme.

OBJECTION:

I object to the identification of my property as part of a Bushplan Site, and seek to have it removed.The following are the main reasons for my objection:

1. Whilst there may be remnant vegetation on the site, formalisation of its protection throughidentification in Perth's Bushplan will undoubtedly reduce the range of uses to which the land canbe put, and therefore inevitably reduce:

my present unfettered enjoyment and use of the land; andin the event of a future sale, the range of potential purchasers.

As a consequence there would be a reduction in the intrinsic value to me and my family in ourpresent use and enjoyment of the home, its setting and its surrounds; the notional market valueof the land as an underlying unfettered, unencumbered asset; and I would incur a significant lossin the monetary value of this asset on eventual disposal.

2. From the information provided in Bushplan, the site has been classified as Forrestfield Complex,of which there is less than 10 per cent of the original areas remaining. However,] would submitthat absolute areas are a more sensible basis for protection than an arbitrary percentage of theoriginal areas of each complex. It should be appreciated that there was a considerably largerarea of the Forrestfield Complex (11,328 ha) than was the case for many of the other vegetationcomplexes. Eighteen of the 26 complexes identified in the report were less prevalent than theForrestfield Complex, and 11 of the complexes are less well represented than the ForrestfieldComplex in terms of the land areas recommended in Bushplan. (Refer Appendix 6, page 76 ofPerth's Bushplan, November 1998.)

3. With regard to the configuration of the site, it is clear the irregularity of the proposed boundariesof the Maida Vale site do not meet the normal criteria for a viable ecological unit, nor do theyprovide any connectivity with other conservation areas. According to the Bushplan report, theshape of bushland is an important factor in site selection, with a compact shape being preferableto an elongated shape. The longer the interface with non-conservation areas, the greater will bethe susceptibility to weed invasion and disturbance. (Refer page 25, Perth's Bushplan, November1998.)

4. Inclusion of the three privately owned Special Rural properties (lots 201, 202 and 203) would addvery little to the overall area of the Crown Reserve identified in the Bushplan site.

5. Any productive rural pursuit carried out on the property would be incompatible with the long-termpreservation of Bush land, which is clearly evidenced by the existing patterns of remnant

- page 3 o 4 -


vegetation and its absence from those adjacent properties used for nurseries and horse stabling.It would however be inequitable to penalise those landowners with remnant Bush land merelybecause they have delayed the development of their land.

6. It is noted from Bushplan and from my observations, that the adjacent Maida Vale Reserve,contains some severely degraded sections of land surrounded by remnant vegetation. Inaddition, part of the area to the east of the playing fields is cleared and appears to be used on anoccasional basis by an archery club. In terms of the value and viability of the surroundingremnant vegetation, it would be desirable to rehabilitate these degraded and cleared areas inpreference to the identification of private rural residential lots.

7. Depending on the priority to be given to the protection of the Forrestfield Complex, and to thepreservation of the Maida Vale Reserve as part of the system of remnant vegetation sites, part orall of the active recreation areas could also be rehabilitated. This would be preferable to theimposition of draconian limitations on the use and development of privately ownedrural-residential sites, which according to the Bushplan report are unlikely to meet theconservation objectives. (Refer page 36 final dot point, Perth's Bushplan, November 1998.)

8. Trans location of selected plants from adjacent area would be an obvious means of rehabilitatingthe degraded or cleared parts of the reserve (east of the playing fields) and the existing remnantvegetation on adjacent privately owned land in the Special Rural Zone would be a valuablesource of plant stock. Being situated within the same vegetation complex in the same area, anditself being under threat, provides a unique opportunity to enhance the viability of the reservedand protected area of Bush land situated within the Maida Vale Reserve,

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

As stated above, I have no current intention to totally clear or extensively develop my land in theimmediate future. Nevertheless, I object to the identification of my property as a Bushplan sitebecause of the foreshadowed constraints upon vegetation clearance and therefore the developmentof the land and its use for productive rural purposes in the future. I am particularly concerned aboutthe effect on the market value of my land likely to result from these limitations.

It is understood from the Bushplan Report that there is no intention to reserve and acquire the landfor addition to the adjacent reserve, but that complementary mechanisms would be employedinstead. However, as has been stated, the subject area contains the bore site, maturing tropical fruittrees and intensive reticulation. Any imposed restriction on access to, and the cultivation of, this areawould be draconian, unwieldy and unworkable.

The excision of any area of land from the rear of the site for inclusion in the adjacent reserve, even ifsubject to adequate recompense, would reduce my lot to below the minimum size specified for theSpecial Rural Zone. Furthermore, any subdivision may be contrary to the intent of the zone, andwould also raise a question about the usability of the land for the full range of purposes provided forunder the Shire of Kalamunda Planning Scheme.

I would however be prepared to permit supervised removal of selected vegetation from the site fortranslocation to the adjacent reserve, which includes several hectares of degraded vegetation. Thiswould avoid the need to disturb the existing more pristine areas of the reserve, for either translocationor seed collection, and would enhance the long-term viability of the reserved area of Bush land.

Should the preservation of remnant vegetation on the site be held to be imperative to the aims andobjectives of Bushplan, I anticipate that your organisation would provide the freehold owner annualfinancial compensation for the diminution in the unfettered enjoyment of the land and undertake tomeet all ongoing annual costs associated with the conservation effort, in perpetuity.

11/11/2004 8:24 AM

- page 4 of 4 -

10 NOV 2004 4:13 PM FR CITY OF ROCKIGHRM El 95921705 TO 9264 Submission 64

FACSIMILE MESSAGE

To: Fred Hainsworth - Co-ordinator for Region Scheme

As')CITY

aingham

Company: Department of Planning and InfrastructureFax no:

From: Paul Neilson, Manager Strategic Planning and Infrastructure

j Date: 10th November 2004 Pages: 1

1City of Rockingham Submission on the MRS Amendment and SPP released by the

j Subject: Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to implement the State

Government's Bush Forever

jThe information contained In this facsimile is strictly pivots and confidential.

If the recipient of this message is not the intendedaddressee, please contact the City of Rockingham and promptly destroy this facsimile.

Fred;

I wish to notify the Commission that the City of Rockingham intends to put a submission to the WAPC on the

latest initiatives to implement the State Governments Bush Forever. The City will submit its full submission on

Wednesday 23rd November 2004 following CounciPs ordinary Meeting to be held on the 22nd November

2004.

f

I have been in liaison with Mr Kieran Beardmore of the Bush Forever Office who advised that he was happy

with a submission being submitted late provided that I advised you of the arrangement and advised of the

forthcoming submission.

I hope that this arrangement is satisfactory. If you wish to contact me, please call me on 9528 0330 (Please

note that I will not be in the office on Friday 12th November 2004).

You aithfully

afrti AL4Paul NeilsonManager Strategic Planning & Environment

City of Rockingham

Ph 9528 0330I Fax 9592 1705

Civic Boulevard Rockingham Western Australia

PO Box 2142 Rockingham DC Western Australia 6967 Telephone (08) 9528 0333 Facsimile (08) 9592 1705

Email councilgrockinghamma.gov.au Websile wAitrockinghantwa.gov.au

** TOTRL PRGE.OI **

Submission 64

Our Ref: TP16-2-7

Your Ref: g809/2/1/77V3

Enquiries to: Mr Paul Neilson

24th November 2004


Dear Sir / Madam

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1082/33

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above amendment.

RockinghamABN 63 101 842 180

The City received approval from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to providea late submission on the Amendment. This was to allow Council's consideration of thematter at its ordinary Meeting held on the 22nd November 2004.

Council has now considered the Amendment at its meeting and resolved to advise the

Western Australian Planning Commission (VVAPC) that overall, the proposal to introducegreater protection and certainty of process for Bush Forever land and to protect locallysignificant bushland is supported by the City of Rockingham, however, the following

issues of concern need to be addressed by the Commission:-

1. Whilst the WAPC is requiring local government to amend Town PlanningSchemes to accommodate Bush Forever Protection Areas (BFPA's) and relatedcontrols, it has provided no information within the MRS Amendmentdocumentation about accompanying text changes to the local Planning Schemes.In this respect, it is appropriate that model text provisions for local planningschemes that may accompany the creation of the BFPA's be prepared andprovided to local governments. This would ensure a consistent approach acrossall of the Perth Metropolitan Area.

2. Further consultation be held with the City prior to finalising the MRS Amendmentin respect to the appropriate reserve width of Mundijong Road, where the road

reserve is affected by the proposed reservation of Public Reserve 22429 to 'Parks

and Recreation Reserve' (Proposal 57).

Council has also provided separate comments to the WAPC for the draft Statement of

Planning Policy (SPP) and associated planning bulletin.PLAtcvls

FILE

JeTURE

2 5 NOV 2004

11

: I . . 11 :e

- 2 -

If you have any queries, please don't hesitate to contact Mr Paul Neilson, ManagerStrategic Planning and Environment at the City on 9528 0330.

Yours faithfully

R M JEANSDIRECTOR, PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Submission 65

Denis & Gwen BrookesLot 2 (120) Pinecrest Way

Gnangara WA 6065

09th November 2004

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission496 Wellington StreetPerthWA 6000

Re: Metropolitan Regional Scheme Amendment No 1082/33

Bush Forever and Related Lands

Draft Bush land Policy for Perth Metropolitan RegionStatement of Planning Policy No 2.8

The above address is a 10 acre block presently zoned as General Rural.We oppose the re zoning of our land under Bush Forever.This plan would severely restrict our use of the land, which has at present adequate

restrictions on it.We purchased the land with full knowledge of these restrictions, at a valuecommensurate with these restrictions.If the Bush Forever plan where to go forward, then this would drastically alter the

land use and its value.The land in question was obviously cleared at some stage and in no way representstrue bushland. In fact we have to spend considerable amounts of money each year tonot only provide a fire break, which breaks up the land, but considerable slashingwork to stop the land becoming overgrown with grass and weeds.

urs Sincerely

Denis wen Brookes

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING;71INPPAURUGTURE

1 0 NOV 2004

P20

12 November 2004

Submission 66



METPOPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment 1082/33: Bush Forever & Related Lands



ose development within Bush Forever Protection Areas and clearing in these sites should beexpressly prohibited



The emphasis should be on 'conservation mane egied rather than 'development' in Bush ForeverProtection Areas. A section should be inserted to require that all Bush Forever Protection Areas aremanaged by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values.


The amendments fail to give priority protection to sites with vegetation complexes below the 10%target. It ista Government commitment that through Meth/sitForever process at least 10% of each ofvegetatioricotiiplex will be protected.

) )AIRTMEMTIOR PLANNINGII-, PRASTRUCTURE

1 0 NOV 2004

) Pa

Name C6//14 th(lf./ 0 /A, Signature;,-//7-414-1

fiLe_tne /9C-ne:VcA, SA ZiejearddOrganisation.7

Address- g Reneenc7c, esezdXemo (; /0 7

For more information please cbrit3s4 the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 orthe Urban Bushland CouneilWA on 9420 7207


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY


Submission 67

Name it/Again/ PkILS(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address ..4(77 93 A/020 A'.-4/95e077 Postcode..6il./...

Contact phone number. .232c263. /2... Email address


8778.e.1/6-10 SgEt-T

Dit2AICIMENT FOR PAWING URN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION16ippg:TRUCTURE

FILE

1 0 NOV 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,


'the group must be appointed,










Or

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


Signature It e. e Datel-g-


Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - httpffienvw.wapc.vra.gov.au

Submission MRS Amendment No.1082/33Marion PriesLot 93 No 20 Turner Place Kelmscott

My property adjoins the Canning River and is identified in BushforeverSite 246. Whilst this particular site is not included in this amendment Iam concerned that this amendment sets a precedent for Bushforever sitesto be rezoned to Parks and Recreation. I am concerned that Site 246 maybe proposed for inclusion in a future amendment and I would oppose thisfor the following reasons.

While I think it is appropriate to retain some bushland along river banks,it is unfair that land owners are not treated equitably with regard to thesetback boundaries identified in Bushforever Site 246. Landowners whohave cared for and retained their trees have in some cases incurred asetback boundary involving about one fifth of their property or more.Other properties that have been cleared right to the river's edge havealmost no setback. A narrow more uniform setback on all propertiesalong the river would be a fairer solution.

In my case the area of my land identified as Bushforever is approximatelyone fifth of the block. I consider this excessive and I am concerned thatthis imposes a significant encumbrance on the property when it is time tosell.

I would not like to see this area of my property become Public OpenSpace or Parks and Recreation Reserve as this would expose my home tounsociable behaviour and vandalism by some of today's youth. Publicaccess would also increase the fire risk to my home as numerous fireshave recently been deliberately lit on neglected reserve areas adjoiningmy property.

Mrs Marion Pries

,e ierc;,6

8 November 2004 Page 1 of 1

Submission 6812 November 2004













/1.:;-4,CRENTFOR PLANNING10 'Nf:PAC.ITRUCTIJPE

FILE

1 0 NOV 2004

5aL,_Name: ..:-, . /3-1) ii e al/ t--- r INJ ... . ... ....Signature: . ,..' --.

Organisation:P7e/ i..: /UP '52. a F ? R., CL.- cs-5- H/ Li_

Address: t I/ 170 1.--e i7 1?- i."1.-17. ......

Far more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 or the Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207.

Submission 69

12 November 2004








Any development proposals that would adversely affect the conservation values of Bush Forever sitesshould receive scrutiny from. EPA, WAPC, so that community members are consulted.

Legal status of the SPP 2.8 needs to be strengthened. Othenvise provisions of the SPP 2.8 may not beimplemented faithfully




IDEPARTMENT FOR PI ANT47-'4r", ;J:7,70PE

1 0 NOV 2004

Fal '- Q.:- 1- -1-7 p

Name: .Signature(249.2:h...*..111...15,;, Cie

Organisation: Sclir-L : 1/0-4-7)-k. (741/...

Address. a 1

For mote tormatian please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 or the Urban Buthland Council WA on 9420 7207.


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Name DII-Ate e CC a--es\J K((PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address 2 6if (bit/1-617- Sr ue,r; itetter Postcode 665

Contact phone number.C907 8°Ii)Eig 0 Email address .27-1- PE771-13JSc) e -WV/ CE 1 '601/41 n°


..1G/Let t. ca,[coar of gay/ it-YZEVOZ

Ctitzt/C Plitt /I/ /11-0"47-1

Sic&f. 0-/-; ftyalun/ LIWO G l /fit SICIdi IC/Cbtr VC& ilft DO"(

771 r is.liAaril-mkniciirN/ 7 NAJL 71i/r7' 774/S if -/O tym-i

41.1 cciAtito 4-A0 e °Iv n teNts I-1AM I.,iLOS.

poc lb for Lies H ID armit MY Lfrvo on27

M Jr%/ 441aft/ hvy Lit 1-/..)d 1--9 Li I c2E `f 3 CURLCotititCNICL-,

1-11/43/LL_ 1-14/Y-i At.- A ev._0-t0 rAithethlegite TVIC (IGSKItichst._14.1P-f

C(1r3 6Qakfortts.i*A_ 1U a C ASt. 12 K flJ u

51._cch-i-r 0 11,JCL.u.iiii(, rect_ ray Aarocitui Pir-O

Co n_ stn a-CSiO .

c.r.f-rivc.4iPPAtqw.r.:,

2 6 NOV 2004

FILE



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



wish 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



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






I will be represented by:MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): Ott01 800 n°



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

nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

Signature


CytOodivs Date 23 °LI

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.wapc.wa.gov.au

Submission 70

Dimce Petrovski2/64 Forrest StreetMT LAWLEY WA 6050(Formerly of 105 Grand Promenade,Bedford WA 6052)8th November 2004

Western Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

RE; Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment Number 1082/33 Bush Forever & Related Lands andDraft Bushland Policy for Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy No 2.8

I D imce Petrovski proprietor of (Lot 12) 42 Pine Crest Way Gnangara oppose any re-zoning fromGeneral Rule and Bush Forever allocation of the land which my property is situated on.

When I purchased the land in 1997 I was never notified or advised that this land was to be included inBush Forever. Although I agree with the concept of Bush Forever and do not wish to clear anyvegetation other than for residential purposes, I do not believe the vegetation on my property and onsurrounding properties is of any significance. I have been advised and it is evident that the entire areahas previously been cleared. The land now contains many types of weeds including an abundance ofPampas Grass and Pig Weed. Therefore this property should not be included in Bush Forever.

I hope that my submission will be taken into account and await your response.

Yours faithfully,

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNINrI 'NFRA:1TRUCTURE

1 0 NOV 2004

0


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 71

Name HOR! leth9P-1 A-1-1-,C.. efk.erd(PLEASE PRINT 9LEARLY)

fre t/e.n.t.4Address OSF-Pal . PostCode....61./.0.

2s'eiContact phone number.9 D9 B G9 at Email address cox°hintw Cl-.),n,) cam


Acri A c--(4-/-C'.) o,Q ,AP5 510,0

771:;FMENT16,R PLANNTA

1 0 113 V 2004











Submissions.






I will be represented by: 9 398 ntclMYSELF My telephone number (business hours): Sqg 6R 9-I



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

nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)


Signature?(H. C. iseifirr) P ,

Date 7 (1


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

The Secretary LaphamWestern Australian Planning Commission Lot 4 Holmes St469 Wellington Street Southern River 6110Perth WA 6000 7th November 2004

SUBMISSION

We would like to state our disapproval of the Bush land Site 125, for thefollowing reasons

Lot 4 was a working farm and has been owned by the Lapham familysince 1966.The land has been inhabited since before the 1950's and had beencleared for settlement and farming.Lot 4 has been machine cleared 4 times and been burnt out throughbushfires at least 3 times prior to Bush Plan.In the early 1980's a storm water drain was put in Balfour Street thiswas connected to existing drainage at the rear of Lots 4 & 3 etc. Thisextra drainage significantly affected the winter water levels in this area.The extra drainage has caused a drastic change to the vegetation of thearea (1) a change in vegetation has taken place, which is not indicativeto the area, (2) some species of vegetation have had their growth stuntedand some species are now non-existant, (3) water levels are inadequateto sustain nesting birds against predators ie: foxes and feral cats.We understand Lots 1604 & 1605 being affected, as they have neverbeen properly cleared and have no dwellings on them. Lots 4 & 3 are theonly long-term blocks with dwellings on them that are being affected.Why is this?Other blocks, which adjoin the drain, have low areas of wetlands onthem and are not affected.

In Summary

We feel that the wetlands you claim to exist does not, as you perceive it. Wefeel that the original survey is outdated and ill-informed. If the area was to bere-surveyed again you would see a significant difference. This has been causedby the irreversible damaged of part drainage for over 20 years. Combine thiswith the impact of surrounding urban development, illegal entry of off-roadvehicles (as has happened in other reserves). The area will become a waste-land (not a wet-land). We feel that the blocks between Holmes Street and thedrain (at rear of properties ie: Lot 4) should be exempt from Bushforever.

H.R. LAPHAM

Submission 72

12 November 2004

STIBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PERTH'S BUSTILAND

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment 1082/33: Bush Forever 84 Related Lands

I would like the following comments to be considered in relation to the proposals in the above MRS

Amendment:

I strongly support the establishment of Bush Forever ProtectionAreas (special control areas) inthe Perth Metropolitan Region Scheme over all Bush Forever sites

I oppose development within Bush Forever Protection Areas and clearing in these sites should be

expressly prohibited

Any development proposals that would adversely affect the conservation values of Bush Foreversites should receive scrutiny from EPA, VVAPC, so that community members ate consulted.

Legal status of the SPP 2.8 needs to be strengthened. Otherwise provisions of the SPP 2.8 may not

be implemented faithfully

The emphasis should be on 'conservation management! rather than 'development' in Bush ForeverProtectionAreas. A section should be inserted to require that all Bush ForeverProtectionAreasare managed by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values.

I support the reservation of all proposedBush Forever sites as Parks and Recreation for

conservation.

The amendments fail to give priority protection to sites with vegetation complexes below the 10%

target. It is a Government commitment that through the Bush Forever process at least 10% of

each of vegetation complex will be protected.

Arpti D 1/40/7-

Organisation CrAS Ld 14 AC 1/

Address:(ci A4 2-- C479

DE.14.F.TMENT FOR PLANNING"-

FILE

,.tri tirFPALTRUCTLIRE

1 0 NOV 2004

L Pa

Submission 73

Garry Stone11 Dorking PlaceMorley 60624/11/04

MinisterWestern Australian Planning Commission

Dear Madam/Sir

Re Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33

I

My wife and I own a parcel of land in Henley Brook, on which we have developed avineyard. We have maintained the bush which adjoins the river.

WE object to a government organisation telling us or instructing us with respect toproperty which we have acquired and preserved.

The government should look at the Ellenbrook development and the allowance ofMultiplex Pty Ltd with respect to Belhus to develop and also the swamps along

Karrinyup road near Balcatta.

Don't tell us how to manage what we have when you have allowed this destruction.

Yours Sincerely

-resy- done

3i:::;;!,RIatTIFOFTFLANNINGi t 1:)1McPA.STRUCTURE

1

1 0 NOV 2004

Fil_EL- 1- a

City of Swan Submission Page 1 of 1

Submission 74

From: Trina Anderson

Sent: Thursday, 11 November 2004 4:41 PM

To: mrs

Subject: City of Swan Submission

Goodafternoon

Please find attached the City of Swan submission and associated Council report on:

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1082/32 Bush Forever and Related LandsDraft Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8

Hard copies of the above submission have been forwarded in todays post. I have been advised that on thisemail address I am able to make electronic submissions on both the MRS and draft SPP Bush Foreverdocuments. Please advise if otherwise.

<cLMRS Bush Forever 11.11.04.doc>> <<LSPP Bush Forever 11.11.04.doc>> <<City of Swan BushforeverCouncil.Report.doc>>

Thankyou and regards

Trina AndersonContract Strategic PlannerCommunity PlanningCity of SwanTelephone: (08)9267 9068Fax: (08)9267 9444PO BOX 196MIDLAND W.A. 6936Visit us at <http://www.cityofswan.com>IMPORTANT:This e-mail message, including any attached files, is private and may contain information that isconfidential. Only the intended recipient may access or use it. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify us promptly. We use virus-scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or similar defects in anyattachment.

12/11/2004

Submission 74

Our Ref: M6474Your Ref: MRS Amendment No. 1082133Enquiries: Trina Anderson 9267 9068E-mail: [email protected]: 9267 9444

11 November 2004

The SecretaryWest Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPerth WA 6000

Dear Sir / Madam

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1032/33

Let's make. it happen

In reference to the above MRS Amendment No 1032/33 (Bush Forever & Related Lands), onthe ri November 2004 the City of Swan Council resolved to make the followingrecommendations in regards to the public advertising of this Amendment .

(1) Advise the West Australian Planning Commission of the City's in-principle support forthe Bush Forever protection mechanisms as proposed in MRS Amendment No.1082/33 and the draft Bushland Statement of Planning Policy 2.8, which gives greaterprotection to regional bushland and provides a clearer process for this protection tooccur.

(2) Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission of the City's concerns about anumber of detailed recommendations within MRS Amendment No. 1082/33 and thedraft Bushland Statement of Planning Policy 2.8, as identified in the attached fullCouncil report.

The City's concerns specifically relate to:The City would recommend a fast-track amendment process from the WAPC beestablished to support local government requirement for the replication of the BFPASpecial Control Areas in their town planning schemes, given the resourceimplications and timeframes of preparing such documentation.

Proposed Parks and Recreation vesting additions and changes will have significantresource implications for the City given its geographic size, and the City's responseto this approach will be carefully considered, primarily in light of the extent andrange of existing local bushland and foreshore reserves for which the City is currentlyresponsible for maintaining with limited resources.

The City emphasises the limited resources it has in place to manage current localreserves and likely unwillingness to take over vesting and management of additionalbushland reserves, particularly those recognised as being of regional significance,without adequate resources being provided.

DEPARTMNT FOR PLANNINGAND INFRASTRUCTURE

1 2 NOV 2004

FILE

tAstralserlenvironment \ state enviro & mist submissions \lmrs bushforevcr 11. 1.04.doe

Midland Square,

Midland,

PO Box 196

Midland WA 6936

wunvswan.wa.gov.au

Please find attached the full Council report on this Amendment for further information andbackground discussion on this issue. If you have any further queries please contact TrinaAnderson on 9267 9068.

Your sincerely

Martin RichardsonExecutive Manager Community Planning

Ostratser1environment \state enviro & misc submissions \ lmrs bushforever 11.11.04.doc

Ordinary Meeting of Council3 November 2004

2.2 CITY OF SWAN SUBMISSION - PROPOSED BUSH FOREVER PROTECTIONMECHANISMS

(M6474) (ALL WARDS) (SD)

KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATION

Bush Forever Protection Areas (BFPA) are proposed in an amendment to the MetropolitanRegion Scheme, and a complementary draft Statement of Planning Policy has beendeveloped to provide a policy framework. Both are designed to give statutory effect to BushForever, which was released by the Government of Western Australia in December 2000.

Part of MRS Amendment 1082/33 also aims to protect 94 Bush Forever sites with thehighest priority for protection through a 'Parks and Recreation' reservation in the MRS.This amendment is based on recommendations contained within the original Bush Forever2000 document. Nine of these occur in the City of Swan, seven are on Crown land ownedor vested by State Government agencies, one is vested with the City for the purposes ofrecreation and one is privately owned.

`General' and 'Specific' policy measures are proposed within the draft Bushland Statementof Planning Policy which apply to all regionally significant bushland within all BushForever Protection Areas. These policy measures identify specific informationrequirements, issues requiring special consideration and, more specifically, planningassessment and decision-making criteria and processes that are required to be implementedthrough the Policy

Proposed development within privately owned BFPAs, which is generally land zoned Ruralin the MRS, will be required to comply with the proposed 'Best Practice Criteria for Rural-Living Subdivision for Conservation and/or Rural Development'. These criteria suggest anumber of statutory protection recommendations which the City has concerns about.

The proposed Bush Forever protection documents recommend the preparation of localbushland protection strategies by local governments in the Perth Metropolitan Region. It isrecommended' that local bushland: protection strategies should be prepared which form partof a wider local biodiversity strategy, or similar, where possible, that identifies and proposesprotection and management mechanisms for both vegetated and nonvegetated natural areas.The City is currently in the process of preparing one of these documents.

It is recommended that the City of Swan supports in principle the proposed mechanisms forprotection of Bush Forever sites as identified in MRS Amendment No. 1082/33 and the draftBushland Statement of Planning Policy 2.8. However, the City has a number of concerns overdetailed recommendations contained within the documents relating to statutory protectionmechanisms and resourcing implications of reserve management, which are discussed in this reportat length and will form the basis of the City's submission on the draft documents.

BACKGROUND

Perth is part of one of the most biologically diverse regions in the world. Bush Forever is a Stategovernment initiative seeking to protect 51,200 hectares of regionally significant bushland. Themajority is in Government ownership, with about 9% privately owned.

Page 1


Bush Forever Protection Areas (BFPA) are proposed in an amendment to the Metropolitan RegionScheme, and a draft Statement of Planning Policy. Both are designed to give statutory effect toBush Forever, which was released by the Government of Western Australia in December 2000.

The City of Swan made a submission on Bush Forever in April 1999, and predominantly supportedits establishment and inclusion of land within the City of Swan into its program, whilst notingsubmissions made by the Bullsbrook Progress Association and the Blackadder-WoodbridgeCatchment Group for the exclusion and inclusion of land respectively.

REPORT

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment No. 1082/33 Bush Forever and Related Lands

The purpose of this major amendment is to :

Create a Special Control Area (Bush Forever Protection Area) and related provisions in theMetropolitan Region Scheme Text;

Establish a Special Control Area (Bush Forever Protection Area) in the Metropolitan RegionScheme (MRS) over all Bush Forever sites; and

Reserve a number of Bush Forever sites for Parks and Recreation within the MRS.

The Amendment has two parts:

Part A

As part of the Bush Forever and Related Lands Amendment, a 'Special Control Area' (called aBush Forever Protection Area) will be introduced into the MRS. The Special Control Area (SCA)will overlie current Bush Forever sites and give statutory effect to Bush Forever. Acomplementary Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) has been prepared that provides a policyframework and requirements for BFPAs. The SPP also sets out guidelines on particular matters tobe taken into account when considering development within a BFPA.

Implication

Once BFPA and its related provisions are incorporated in the MRS and related text, the City ofSwan will be required to initiate amendments to its own town planning scheme within. threemonths of gazettal of the MRS amendment, to ensure consistency with the MRS.

Comment

The City would recommend a fast-track amendment process from the WAPC be established tosupport local government requirement for the replication of the BFPA Special Control Areas intheir town planning schemes, given the resource implications and timeframes of preparing suchdocumentation.

Part B

This part of the Amendment aims to protect 94 Bush Forever sites with the highest priority forprotection through a 'Parks and Recreation' reservation in the MRS. This amendment is based onrecommendations contained within the original Bush Forever 2000 document.

Page 2


Within the City of Swan, there are nine proposals to reserve land to Parks and Recreation. Ofthese, seven are Crown reserves owned or vested in a government agency for various purposes orunallocated Crown land, one site is privately owned and the remaining site is vested with the Cityof Swan for Recreation with permission to lease the southern portion to Chequers Golf Club,Morrisey Road, Bullsbrook.

With regard to management of these sites, the amendment proposes that high value and significantassets are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM). It isidentified as 'desirable' that areas with less specialist management requirements are vested withlocal governments, with community involvement guided by a management plan. Where land hasbeen acquired by the WAPC, financial assistance may be available to the local government forcapital development of reserves, or preparation of management, where a local government acceptsvesting and management responsibility. Technical support is to be available through CALM.

Where Bush Forever identifies bushland in local town planning scheme reserves, the planrecommends that these areas remain under the management and control of local government, andwhere appropriate, the purpose of these reserves should be revised to include "conservation" as apurpose.

Implication

The City currently owns freehold four foreshore reserves that are vested for the purposes ofRecreation and are Bush Forever sites. None are proposed under Part B of this Amendment asthey are considered protected through their existing vesting for Recreation purposes.

The City will be approached by DPI for vesting and management of lesser conservation valuereserves.

The City is recommended to consider revising the vesting of local reserves designated as BushForever to include 'conservation' as a purpose. This is applicable to 4 reserves vested orowned by the City, including Bells Rapids, Burley Park, Pickett Park and Talbot RoadBushland.

Comment

These vesting additions and changes will have significant resource implications for the City,and the City's response to this approach should be carefully considered, primarily in light ofthe extent and range of existing local bushland and foreshore reserves for which the City iscurrently responsible for maintaining with limited resources.

In its submission, the City should emphasise the limited resources it has in place to managecurrent local reserves and likely unwillingness to take over vesting and management ofadditional bushland reserves, particularly those recognised as being of regional significance,without adequate resources being provided.

Amendments to the Notice of Delegation under the West Australian Planning Commission Act willoccur with regard to the development control powers for BFPA under the MRS to localgovernment.

Under the current notice of delegation, most development control powers under the MRS aredelegated to local government, with the WAPC retaining a number. With the introduction ofBFPA, these delegation provisions are retained. However, under proposed amendments to thenotice of delegation, an application for development on land within or abutting a BFPA which, in

Page 3


the opinion of the local government, is likely to have an adverse impact (direct or indirect) onregionally significant bushland within a BFPA, shall be referred to the DPI (Bush Forever office)for comment and recommendation before being determined by the local government.

If the recommendation provided by the DPI is not acceptable to the local government, theapplication will be referred immediately to the WAPC for determination. In the interim, prior tothe proposed changes to the Notice of Delegation, local government is advised to consult with theDPI (Bush Forever office) where, in the opinion of local government, an application is likely tohave an adverse impact, direct or indirect, on regionally significant bushland within a BFPA.

Implication

The City will refer the majority of proposals for development within or abutting BFPA to theDPI (Bush Forever office) for comment and recommendation prior to determination, whichmay result in assessment delays. The City will need to develop an internal protocol for thereferral of proposed sites that are either abutting or indirectly affecting BFPA.

The onus will be on the proponent to address and satisfy required criteria, for example thepreparation of an 'Environmental Effects and/or Management' statement, and the City willneed to advise proponents as early as possible of this requirement and direct proponents to theDPI Bush Forever office for pre-application consultation.

Statement of Planning Policy No 2.8 - Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region

The aim of this Policy is to provide a statutory policy and implementation framework that willensure bushland protection and management issues in the Perth Metropolitan Region (PMR) areappropriately addressed, and integrated with broader land use planning and decision-making tosecure long-term protection of biodiversity and associated environmental values.

Policy Measures

The 'General' policy measures described below apply to all regionally significant bushland withinall Bush Forever Protection Areas. These policy measures identify specific informationrequirements, issues requiring special consideration and, more specifically, planning assessmentand decision-making criteria and processes that are required to be implemented through thisPolicy.

1. Recognition of regionally significant bushland and its management as a primary purpose in aBFPA as part of an area's essential environmental infrastructure. In a number ofcircumstances it will be a case of 'how development fits in with bushland rather than howbushland fits in with development'.

2. That all reasonable steps are taken to avoid, minimise or mitigate any likely adverseimpacts, direct or indirect on regionally significant bushland. Recognition of existingcommitments and approvals and wider social and economic considerations.

The following planning assessment process where there is likely to be an unavoidableadverse impact, direct or indirect:

A requirement for a Statement of Environmental Effects and an EnvironmentalManagement Plan for significant adverse impacts.

Page 4


Negotiated planning solution criteria as a basis for determining a reasonable outcome,including: bushland retention benchmarks for different categories of land in privateownership; adoption of bushland-sensitive design measures; a requirement for long-termprotection, management and minimisation measures; support for wider strategicoutcomes; consideration of mitigation and offset measures; and support fordevelopment which provides for an improved environmental outcome, such as ruralsubdivision for conservation and the provision of large bush blocks.

(The decision making body, at its discretion, may waive the requirement, modify informationrequirements or provide guidance in the preparation of the Statement of EnvironmentalEffects or Environmental Management Plan, depending upon the circumstances of eachcase).

3. A presumption against clearing within the Bush Forever Reserve (proposed and existing)and a site implementation category, which includes land within the current conservationestate and parks and recreation reserves in the MRS.

4. The protection of regionally significant bushland within the government lands and publicinfrastructure site implementation category as a priority; and support for the co-ordinatedconsideration of an agency's land assets - referred to as Bush Forever sustainabilitystrategies) as part of wider government agency sustainability action plans (as required underthe Hope for the Future: Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy, Government ofWestern Australia, 2003).

In general terms, the General and Specific Policy Measures do not prevent development where it isconsistent with the draft Bushland SPP. In addition, existing land uses can continue at theirexisting approved levels of activity.

The 'Specific' policy measures apply to Bush Forever Protection Area site implementationcategories, as applicable, and apply in addition to the general policy measures. The five BushForever Protection Area 'site implementation categories' identified within the specific policymeasures are:

(a) Bush Forever Reserves (Proposed and Existing) - this generally includes land reserved orproposed to be reserved for Parks and Recreation in the MRS, areas of the conservationestate vested with the Conservation Commission of WA, and/or Crown Reserves vested forconservation.

(b) Urban, Industrial or Resource Development - this generally includes land zoned for Urban,Urban Deferred or Industrial purposes in the MRS or committed for future developmentthrough planning and environmental processes, or lands committed or approved for resourceextraction.

(c) Government Land and Public Infrastructure - this generally includes State, Commonwealthor local government lands in freehold ownership, or vested/unvested Crown reserves; andpublic infrastructure on land zoned and reserved in the MRS.

(d) Rural Land - this generally includes land zoned Rural in the MRS. Proposed developmentwithin this category should comply with the proposed 'Best Practice Criteria for Rural-Living Subdivision for Conservation and/or Rural Development'.

Page 5


(e) Regional Creek lines - this generally includes mapped vegetation along regional creeldines.

Where a proposal or decision is likely to have an unavoidable adverse impact (direct or indirect)on regionally significant bushland within a Bush Forever Protection Area,- consistent with therequirements of this Policy, the decision-making body shall have particular regard to the proposed`Negotiated Planning Solution Criteria' as a basis for determining a reasonable outcome and theacceptability of a proposal.

Implication

The City will primarily be involved in those BFPAs that relate to rural land, and the proposed`Best Practice Criteria for Rural-Living Subdivision for Conservation and/or Rural Development'.The City has a number of concerns with the best practice criteria.

Comments

Urban Industrial or Resource Development Specific Policy Criteria

5.2.2 (vii) - Regional conservation areas should not be considered in 10% POS, as this POSrequirement is to addresses a range of active and passive recreation uses for local communities,and then becomes a regional asset for which the local government is responsible. The commentsrelating to acceptability relating to 'viability' should be carefully considered, as proponents willargue the overall viability of a project will be threatened due to the inability to include theconservation area in POS.

Rural Lands Specific Policy Criteria

5.2.4 (ii) - It is not necessarily the role of this SPP to indicate where rural-living or ruraldevelopment should be supported. It is also potentially conflicting to support subdivision wherethe goal of the SPP is protection of regional vegetation. There is a need to further define the term`rural-living subdivision'.

Schedule 2 'Best Practice Criteria for Rural-Living Subdivision.'

(i) The retention rate of 90% may conflict with the need to clear Building Protection Zone andHazard Separation Zones for Fire Management. In addition, the subdivision of rural-livinglots within extreme bush fire areas may conflict with the Planning for Bushfire ProtectionPolicy (WAPC/FESA 2001).

a) Building envelopes only control location of buildings. This criteria infers extendingthis control to include grazing, except where associated with an essential service orinfrastructure. The City queries how to control grazing within a building envelope.

b) The use of this criteria alone will probably not be sufficient to achieve SPPobjectives.

d) 'a statutory conservation covenant is placed on each title'. It should be noted theCity, although potentially able to, will not become a body responsible forcovenanting.

Page 6


àreas being set aside as a conservation reserve and vested with an appropriatemanagement under s20A of Town Planning and Development Act 1928'. In themajority of cases the City will be unable to accept vesting of these properties due toresource constraints. In addition, there is no statutory requirement under DC3.4 RuralSubdivision Policy for provision of POS rural subdivisions and the City supportsprivate management of bushland in rural areas rather than local governmentownership and management.

h) 'an Environmental Management Plan is prepared and implemented, in accordancewith this Policy, which should be linked and enforced through either the localgovernment town planning scheme, a legal agreement or a conservation covenant'.Reference to enforcement though local government town planning scheme should bedeleted in preference for a legal agreement or conservation covenant option.

(iii) Query as to whether a minimum of 10ha lot size is sufficient for viability in rural areas thathave significant tracts of high quality bushland, taking into account the need for clearing fordriveways, firebreaks and building envelopes.

(iv) 'A complementary local government town planning scheme rezoning amendment beprepared and implemented where appropriate, to facilitate the application of more detailedsite-specific controls and provisions....aimed at protection of regionally significantbushland...' A Conservation zone in this regard is considered onerous in terms of timeframeand implementation, other options should be considered to achieve the result required,compatible with potential use Special Control Areas zones.

Planning Bulletin 69 - Proposed Bush Forever Protection Areas (BFPAs)

The purpose of this planning bulletin is to advise of a package of statutory planning measures thatare being introduced to ensure that bushland protection and management issues are appropriatelyconsidered and addressed in planning decisions and actions in the Perth Metropolitan Region. Inparticular, these measures will give statutory effect to the protection of regionally significantbushland identified in Bush Forever (Government of Western Australia, 2000).

The planning assessment process for BFPA will increase the scrutiny of proposals and may causelonger assessment times. It is suggested that, to minimise delay, proponents should undertake pre-application consultation with the Depaitment for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) Bush Foreveroffice. For more complex applications, DPI recommends that an environmental planningconsultant be employed.

More detailed guidelines, planning bulletins, practice notes and operational policies willsupplement the policy measures identified in the draft Bushland SPP, as required, to assist theplanning assessment process. Preliminary draft guidelines on particular matters, such asrequirements for statements of environmental effects, are currently available and copies may beobtained from the DPI's Bush Forever office.

Local Bushland

The package of Bush Forever protection mechanisms support the preparation of local bushlandprotection strategies by all local governments in the Perth Metropolitan Region. This is to enablethe identification of locally significant bushland for protection and management. It isrecommended by all of the Bush Forever protection documents that local bushland protection

Page 7


strategies should be prepared which form part of a wider local biodiversity strategy, or similar,where possible, that identifies and proposes protection and management mechanisms for bothvegetated and non-vegetated natural areas. Such strategies will be required to be formallyendorsed by the WAPC.

The proposed clearing permit regulations under proposed amendments to the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1986 also highlight the need for comprehensive native vegetation assessments as arequirement of future planning proposals that involve the clearing of native vegetation. Endorsedlocal bushland protection strategies, which should consider wider social and economicconsiderations, will provide a strategic basis for the consideration of clearing permits.

The City is well placed in this regard with the preparation of a draft 'Local Biodiversity Strategy',which is currently being formatted for the purposes of printing and public advertising.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Nil

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Protection of biodiversity is a key goal area in the City's Natural Environment Strategy, and inprinciple, the City would support any mechanisms which are initiated by the State Governmentthat achieve this goal. However, due to its size and range of environmental issues requiringattention, the City primarily orientates its concerns around its local assets, and considers theprotection of regionally significant assets, such as Bush Forever sites to be the responsibility ofState Government to initiate, resource and implement. From this perspective the City cannotsupport initiatives which devolve responsibility for their implementation to local government, andrequire additional financial and human resources.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Once BFPA and its related provisions are incorporated in the MRS and related text, the City ofSwan will be required to initiate amendments to its own town planning scheme within threemonths of gazettal of the MRS amendment, to ensure consistency with the MRS.

The City will refer the majority of proposals for development within or abutting BFPA to the DPI(Bush Forever office) for comment and recommendation prior to determination, which may resultin assessment delays. The City will need to develop an internal protocol for the referral ofproposed sites that are either abutting or indirectly affecting BFPA.

From a statutory perspective, the City will primarily be involved in those BFPAs that relate torural land, and the proposed 'Best Practice Criteria for Rural-Living Subdivision for Conservationand/or Rural Development'. The City has a number of concerns with the best practice criteria that

Page 8


are identified in this report, in particular relating to the creation of Conservation zones in theCity's TPS and the allocation and vesting of POS.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed MRS Amendment identifies as 'desirable' that those BFPA rezoned to Parks &Recreation under the MRS with less specialist management requirements are vested with localgovernments, with community involvement guided by a management plan.

These vesting additions and changes will have significant resource implications for the City, andthe City's response to this approach to this should be carefully considered, primarily in light of theextent and range of existing local bushland and foreshore reserves the City is currently responsiblefor maintaining with limited resources.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to:

(1) Advise the West Australian Planning Commission of the City's in-principle support for theBush Forever protection mechanisms as proposed in MRS Amendment No. 1082/33 and thedraft Bushland Statement of Planning Policy 2.8, which gives greater protection to regionalbushland and provides a clearer process for this protection to occur.

(2) Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission of the City's concerns about a numberof detailed recommendations within MRS Amendment No. 1082/33 and the draft BushlandStatement of Planning Policy 2.8, as identified in the report.

CARRIED

Page 9


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission isS

Name Al at TP-inr- Piaver= rem 6-el talC keki.g.,mc.i.e..1....apcir.fic 106, LitrA(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address Pe2 7&y, /9 4- biect- Pad-t. Postcode ..6 657x

Contact phone number. q62-1 '30 if. Email address Mita_.. ?JP ba-/. ne-t-i a- ci

Submission (Please attach additional pages it requited. It is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound)

a../.19-4greleca

tMENI F? PLANNING,RUCTLIRE

1 1 NOV 2004

FILE 1'




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



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.





MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):or

F-21. MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)Agent's name: 0 e ak cr-A- T E.24c. P(aac,.crsGroup name:Agent's telephone number (business hours): ci*3 2- 30oMailing address: E.Q....sax /0 4- -041-1/4. 6,171-




Signature


Date /0 I/ 01

AitqfTESubmissiatisIVRISTIvetedehiejtbyihe advertised_ ClosMg-datatbeihg clase,ofusinet0OpirtienFRIDAYitiNovember.2004.. WO,T,IlieeherdeiTed.

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

MGATOWN PLANNERSPrincipal - Peter Goff

Our Ref 1703

10 November 2004

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir,

Re: MRS Amendment 1082/33

26 Mayfair StreetWest Perth 6005

Western Australia

Telephone (08) 9321 3011Facsimile (08) 9324 1961

Mobile 0408 096 040Email mgaggrobalinelau

Postal AcIckessiPO Box 104

WEST PERTH 6872

ACN 008 867 230ABN 14 311 076 348

Please find enclosed a submission on the above Amendment lodged on behalf ofEmanuel Exports Pty Ltd, owners of land bounded by Furley Road, SouthernRiver Road, Ranford Road and Balfour Street, Southern River.

Yours faithfully,

P M GO

Encl:

cc: Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd Attention Mr Mark Shaw

bUR:PD*ING4:7 'NPRA.31 RUCTLIRE

Pater Nominees as Trustee la Ms MG Unit Trust T/A IAGA Tenn Planners

MGA Town PlannersPage 1 of 2

GROUNDS OF SUBMISSION:

Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd own Lots 1629 1632 Fur ley Road and Lot 1626 Ranford

Road, Southern River. Lots 1630, 1631, 1632 and 1626 are directly impacted by

MRS Amendment No 1082/33 (Proposal 77) while the other lots are indirectly

affected. Figure 1 identifies the Emanuel Exports land in relation to the relevant

proposals of the MRS Amendment.

1. Emanuel Exports supports Amendment 1082/33 and the reservation of Bush

Forever Site 413 B over other alternatives such as a Negotiated Planning Solution

because:

a) the reservation better protects the bushland arid,

b) the reservation better protects the Landowner.

2. Emanuel Exports along with related entities Devoncourt Pty Ltd and Daws & Sons

Pty Ltd have been pursuing the urbanisation of their land holding at Southern

River for many years. Land at Southern River including the subject land holding

east of Fur ley Road was zoned "Urban Deferred" as a consequence of MRS

Amendment 927/33 in 1993/94. That Deferment was lifted from the "Urban"

portion of the land in April 2003.

In accordance with the requirements of the MRS, Council proceeded to initiate a

local rezoning to bring its Scheme into line with the region scheme, in

December 2003, Council initiated Amendment No 30 to include the "Urban"

portion of Southern River within the "Residential Development" Zone. The zoning

required an Outline Development Plan over "Southern River Precinct 2".

Precinct 2 included not only the land zoned "Urban" in the MRS but also the

"Rural" land bounded by Balfour Street, Furley, Southern River and Ranford

Roads.

3. It is understood that Amendment No 30 to the City of Gosnefls TPS has now been

approved by the Minister for Planning & Infrastructure and is shortly to be

Gazetted. The ODP for Precinct 2 has been adopted by Council and is being

considered by the Commission. Local structure planning for "Rural" zoned land

surrounding Bush Forever Site 413 B is therefore well advanced.

Grounds of SubmissionSouthern River1703 4 Nov 2004

MGA Town PlannersPage 2 of 2

4. This local structure is generally consistent with district structure planning in the

form of the "Southern River/Forrestdale/Brookdale/Wungong District Structure

Plan" published by the Commission as a final document in January 2001.

Figure 2 is a copy of this District Structure Plan insofar as it relates to the subject

land showing the Emanual Exports holding outlined. Clearly, it is the intent of the

District Structure Plan that the balance of this street block not subject to Bush

Forever should be zoned "Urban".

5. In August 2002 and again in October 2003, Council adopted resolutions

supporting the zoning of the land not affected by Bush Forever from "Rural" to

"Urban". Copies of Council letters dated 4 September 2002 and 22 October 2003

are appended to this submission. Council's resolutions are consistent with

informal, verbal advices given by Department for Planning & Infrastructure officers

to MGA Town Planners that rezoning of the balance land to "Urban" would not

occur until the Region Open Space boundaries to secure the Bush Forever Site

had been more precisely identified.

As a consequence of MRS Amendment No 1082/33, the ROS boundaries have

now been reasonably well defined, sufficient to progress the initiation of another

MRS Amendment to zone the balance of the subject street blocks "Urban".

6. All planning makes provision for necessary services to include the subject land.

This incorporates social services such as primary and high school sites, retail and

other commercial facilities as well as power, water, sewerage and drainage.

7. In summary, Emanuel Exports supports Amendment No 1082/33 and requests

that as a result of the identification of the ROS boundaries, the Commission

initiate a fresh amendment to the MRS to rezone the current "Rural" land not

affected by Bush Forever to "Urban" in accordance with District and Local

Structure Planning.

Grounds of SubmissionSouthern River1703 4 Nov 2004

*

lie

if 'II'

\ /

4

<4

.

4,

Se

%41110,%4ler

I 25mm at scale l MTOWN PLANNERS

Ph: (08)Fx (08)

small: mga

G A9321 36119324 1961

globalmetau

MetresFigure 1

Bushforever - Proposed Amendment

As Advertised, Bushforever Site 413

NOTES:

- Emanuel Exports Land

Scale 1:8000

A4Date: 5 Nov.2104 Ref. 170315R14/kbushl

Al dimensions and areas subject to survey

--r1111

ILL

P.S.

1 25mm at scale j M G ATOWN PLANNERS

Ph: (0 )9321 3011Fi (08)9324 1981

erne: mgagglobalnetau

0Metres

200NOTES:Emanuel Land

Scale 1:8000

A4Date :5 Nov. 2004 Ref. 1703i8R14/A-bush2

NI dimensions and areas subject to survey

Figure 2

Southern River, Forrestdale, Brookdale

Wungong District Structure Plan

2120 Albany Highway Gosnells 6110PO Box 662 Grano Ils 6990Western Austrolia

Telephone 08 9391 3222Facsimile 08 9398 2922Email [email protected] www.gosnells.wa.gov.auA8N 18374 412 B91

4 September 2002

Mitchell Goff and Associates Our Reference: 58/10

PO Box 104 Enquiries: Simon Wilkes

West Perth WA 6872 9391 3237

Attention: Peter Goff.

Dear Sir

Southern River Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan

Council at its meeting on 27 August 2002 considered a draft Outline Development Plan forSouthern River Precinct 2 prepared by Mitchell Goff and Associates, when the followingresolutions were adopted:

Resolution 704

"That Council request the South-East District Planning Committee of theWestern Australian Planning Commission to consider the lifting of urbandeferment under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for land contained withinthe Southern River Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan area.

Resolution 705

"That Council request the South-East District Planning Committee of theWestern Australian Planning Commission to consider an amendment to theMetropolitan Region Scheme to rezone Lots 1625, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629,1630, 1631 and 1631 from "Rural" to "Urban" and "Parks andRecreation", consistent with the Southern River /Forrestdale /Wungong/Brookdale District Structure Plan."

Resolution 706

"That Council support in principle the draft Southern River Precinct 2Outline Development Plan and invite formal submission from the planningconsultants following further advice from the Western Australian PlanningCommission on the amendments and lifting of urban deferment to theMetropolitan Region Scheme."

PAPlanning \ _Planning Services \S S Wilkes_CorrespondeRce \snv056Atig2002_LtrDPI_SRprecinct2.doc

Further to a meeting with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure on 1 August 2002,Council is currently awaiting further advice on the Urban Water Management Strategy in relationto implementation approach and timing.

In accordance with the decisions of Council, we request that this matter be considered at the nextavailable meeting of the South-East District Planning Committee, which has been scheduled forlate September/early October. The Draft Outline Development Plan that you submitted will beforwarded to the WAPC. Should you wish to prepare revised ODP documentation (as per Councilcorrespondence dated 9 August 2002) for consideration by the Committee, could you pleasearrange for three (3) copies of the documentation to be forwarded to the City at your earliestconvenience.

Should you require any additional information or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitateto contact the undersigned on 9391 3307 or Simon Wilkes, Project Manager on 9391 3237.

Yours faithfully

Tim PriceMANAGER CITY PLANNING

Encl: Council minutes 27.8.02

Page 2 of 2 P:\ Planning \_Planning Services \S Wilkes \_Correspondencelsn056Aug2002_LuDPI_SRprecinct2

2120 Albany Highway Gosnells 6110PO Box 662 Gosnells 6990Western Australia

Telephone 08 9391 3222Facsimile 08 9398 2922Email [email protected] wwwgosnells.watgov.auABN 18374 412 891

22 October 2003

Western Australian Planning Commission Our Reference: S8/1/10Albert Facey House Your Reference:469 Wellington Street Enquiries: Simon WilkesPerth WA 6000 9391 3208

Response Id:

Attention: Andrew Trevor

Dear Sir

Amendments to the Metropolitan Region Sch ern River Precinct 2

I refer to previous discussions with y he above and respectfully request anamendment to the Metropolitan Re

The City of Gosnells is progress Inc Development Plan (ODP) and complimentaryrezonings for Southern Rive met 2 in accordance with the SouthernRiver/Forrestdale/B e/Wungong District Structure Plan. A copy of the draft ODP is enclosedfor your informs on. ncil at its meeting of 14 October 2003 considered an ODP for this areaand determined at he s satisfactory for advertising subject to some minor modifications.In addition to t 0 ' Co ci at its meeting passed the following resolution:

`That Cow 7 or lily request the Western Australian Planning Commission through theSouth-East District Planning Committee to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme from`Rural' to 'Urban' for those areas within the ODP area that are not required for regionalopen space and that these amendments be progressed concurrently with the MRSamendment for the Bush Forever sites'

Based on previous discussions with Ms Hula Colliver of the Bush Forever Office and our meetingat DPI on 20 June 2003, we respectfully request that an Amendment to the Metropolitan RegionScheme be progressed concurrently with the Bush Forever MRS Amendment for land not requiredas Parks and Recreation. Progressing the amendments concurrently is considered critical to theidentification and ultimate acquisition of open space and wetland buffer areas through the outlinedevelopment plan.

HPlanning \ _Planning ServicestS WilkekCorrespondence2003 snv3240ctober2003_SR2 - WA PC.doe

Should you require any additional information or wish to discuss this matter further, please do nothesitate to contact Simon Wilkes, Senior Project Officer on 9391 3208.

Yours faithfully

MAUREEN HEGARTYMANAGER CITY PLANNING

Enc. Southern River Precinct 2 ODPMinutes from Council meeting of 14 August 2003.

cc. Janine McDonald, Secretary South-East District Plann469 Wellington Street, Perth WA 6000.

Peter Goff MGA Town PlannersPO Box 104, West Perth WA 6872

ittee.

Page 2 of 2 1'1:Manning \ _Planning Services \ S Wilkes \_Correspondence \2003 snv3240etober2003SR2 - WAI


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMEEFI

Submission 76

Name Al 6rA -caulks- f loptit era a kt. -844 ar I ken 51 erro r(PLEASE PAINT CLEARLY)

Address Po &:44 /ao 6-1-636" eetti1/4 Postcode.C.'.F.Z.?"--

Contact phone number. 1321 3°// Email address fic. 7 a_ 7Iabet, "I et-, a Le

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

-e -e- acelt

1E?

1 1 NOV 2004

FILE




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.







or

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an a nt may be from a local group) ,Agent's name: "'I alt rotAn-t- M-411 C CMS" )Group name: ,t6C M-14-91 Gren99-Agent's telephone number (business hours 9 321 -4°1/Mailing address: I'D 11/42c l°11- 71 ag



Signature


\-5

IEE SOtp ptsmejlil tie,ecet e a ve se _dosing dar e tieing clon e of .._

ustridliCe90pgon RIDAYif2-Ntairembe0004. etesukrnIssfaitS*111-Kabicelisgteied.

Date /0 7(.

Contacts: Telephone (08) 92647777; Fax - (08) 9264 7666; Email - mrs wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

MGA TOWN PLANNERSPrincipal Peter Golf

Our Ref: 2339

10 November 2004

The SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir

Re: MRS Amendment No. 1082/33

26 Mayfair SkeetWest Perth 6005

Western Aushatra

Telephone (08) 9321 3011Facsimile (08)9324 1961

Mobile 0408 096 040Email mga@globalhetau

Postal Address:PO Box 104

WEST PERTH 6872

ACN CO8 867 230AFIN 14 311 076 348

Please find enclosed a submission on the above MRS Amendment, lodged on behalfof the Stockland Trust Group in relation to Lot 1625, corner ofRanford Road and Balfour Street, Southern River.

Yours faithfully

MG

Ends.

cc: Stockland Attention Mr Stuart Nahajski

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING'114FPAnSUCTURE

1 1 NOV 2004

r

Penter Noimnees as Trustee tar Me MG Una Trust T/A MGA torn Planners

MGA Town Planners Page 1 of 3

GROUNDS OF SUBMISSION

1. Submission by Stockland Trust Group

This submission is made on behalf of the Stockland Trust Group (Stockland),

purchasers of the portion of Lot 1625 at the corner of Ranford Road and

Balfour Street, Southern River, not affected by the proposed "Parks and

Recreation" Reserve contained within Amendment No: 1082/33 to the

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). Figure 1 locates Lot 1625. Stockland

supports the Amendment for the following reasons:

a) The reservation of large Bush Forever sites is the most appropriate

technique for securing their preservation as it means the land is fully

protected by the MRS and in addition, landowner's rights are also

protected by the compensation provisions of the Scheme.

b) Identification of the Region Scheme reservation allows the balance of

the land to be zoned "Urban" under the MRS to meet a growing

demand for urban land in the area.

These grounds of submission are expanded below :

2. Reservation Appropriate Treatment of Bush Forever Site

Lot 1625 is affected by Bush Forever Site No. 413B. The recommendation of

Bush Forever in relation to this site is that the affected land should be reserved

for "Parks and Recreation" under the MRS. The actions of the Western

Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in proposing to reserve the land

under Amendment 1082/33 are therefore consistent with the recommendations

of Bush Forever, a policy of the Western Australian Government supported by

Ministers responsible for Planning, Environment and Water Resources.

Over 25% of Lot 1625 is impacted by Bush Forever Site 413B. Accordingly,

a substantial portion of the lot is impacted and it therefore makes planning

sense that the land should be reserved rather than being subject to the

outcomes of a Negotiated Planning Solution. The fact that such a large

proportion of the site is affected suggests that it would be unreasonable for the

landowner to carry responsibility for the protection of vegetation on the land.

Grounds of SubmissionLot 1625 Ranford Road, Southern River2339 10 November 2004


Other parcels of land affected by Bush Forever Site 413B are even more

severely impacted by vegetation recommended for preservation under Bush

Forever. This fact reinforces the government's recommendation that Bush

Forever Site 413B should be reserved for "Parks and Recreation" under the

MRS and purchased by the Commission.

3. "Urban" Zoning of Balance of Land

The Southern River/Forrestdale/Brookdale/Wungong District Structure Plan of

January 2001, recommends the balance of the land affected by Bush Forever

Site 413B should generally be developed for Urban purposes. The Structure

Plan has been published as a final document by the Western Australian

Planning Commission.

The street block containing Bush Forever Site 413B is currently zoned "Rural"

in the MRS and Figure 2 shows the District Structure Plan's land use

proposals for that area, including Lot 1625

Based on the WAPC's District Structure Planning, the City of Gosnells has

identified the locality affected by Bush Forever Site 413B, i.e. that land

bounded by Ranford Road, Balfour Street, Furley Road and Southern River

Road, as part of its Southern River Urban Development Precinct 2. An

Outline Development Plan has been prepared over Precinct 2 and it forms the

basis to Amendment No. 30 to the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme

No. 6. It is understood that the Minister for Planning & Infrastructure has now

given final approval to Amendment No. 30 and that it is currently in the

process of being Gazetted. Accordingly, the necessary Outline Development

Plan to permit the rezoning of the balance land bounded by Ranford Road;

Balfour Street, Purley Road and Southern River Road is in place, although that

Plan remains to be finally endorsed by the WAPC.

A significant component of the Outline Development Plan for Precinct 2

involves servicing and cost sharing arrangements. In particular, the Outline

Development Plan for Precinct 2 determines requirements for primary school

sites and sets aside a site which is capable of serving students generated by the



urbanisation of the subject area including Lot 1625. Further, the Outline

Development Plan sets aside land for a future high school and Lot 1625 and

neighbouring properties within the subject street block fall within the

catchment of the proposed high school.

Adjacent to Lot 1625 (on the opposite side of Balfour Street), Stock land is

developing its Boardwalk Estate and Clough/Elderslie are developing a

commercial site. These developments ensure that other urban services are

readily available to Lot 1625 and that the land can be developed on a frontal

basis rather than as an isolated housing area on the fringes of the urban

development of Perth.

The drainage strategy developed for the Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan

takes into account the development of the subject area and Lot 1625

particularly. The land can therefore be developed in accordance with an

agreed overall Urban Water Management Strategy.

The Water Corporation has also identified a strategy for serving the locality

with deep sewerage. This strategy includes the identification of sites for

sewerage pumping stations and the subject land can be developed in

accordance with that strategy.

Demand for urban land in the area is evidenced by the consistently strong

sales record of The Boardwalk (over 50% sold) and the commencement of

development works on the commercial site at the corner of Ranford Road and

Balfour Street.


ille

if A

../yrr 4

__.W I

# N .

ie e.1/4

.

7 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 40 eo000 000

4/

\.

..k,

//'/ :\\Iir

NIPa

.000i\

As.

w 141

4/.

* .*A. .WA442

4.0A,WA,

WA,

V4/ di'/

I 25mm at scatsI M G A

TOWN PLANNERSPh: (08)9321 3011Fx (08)9324 1961

emat mgaglobatnet au

Metres200 Figure 1

Bushforever - Proposed Amendment

As Advertised, Bushforever Site 413

NOTES:L t 1625 ___

scale 1:8000

A4Ret.103/SR141A-bosh1625Dale: 10 November 2004

All dimensions and areas subject to survey

P. p

theth.'-ii,,24422,222-4222

1 25mm at scale

NOTES:® Lot 1625

M G ATOWN PLANNERS

Ph: (08) 9321 3011Fx (08) 9324 1951

email: m9a@orobatnet au

A4

Metres0 200

Scale 1:8000

Ref. 17031SR14/A-bush1625-2Date: 10 November 2004

All dimensions and areas subject to survey

Figure 2

Southern River, Forrestdale, Brookdale

Wungong District Structure Plan


Section 33 Amendment (Substantial)FORM 6/A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SURAOSSYDN NUMBER I

Submission 77A

Name ..MRS SACAddress !o FiggRi


5P1 frt-i-rimakg en.c Postcode& 5C

Contact phone number? 33Q33/. , Email address

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

(eirlerilet.44 eitarek.47.t.+4"4/1<ct

a-ciapne-td-c_. .. ...

......

recead....sc-CC.24,Aris,c4.1 `t-

se.lecor

free:2-9.-n,)-e.. /7

r-vtelette-

. .arSery.

odqz. ...o ,4

,--Laai-eA2vT-L. 7(7-eow

.tc-crt.t

DI;l::41.;:l;k4...5741:1-F0i4F42ANNING

Al) 'NFPiCthIJOTLIRE

1 1 NOV 2004

;4.FILE









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

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

Signature


Date /0(/70 ft.

. . . ,NOTE: SubmIssloni MUST be'received by the advertised closing date, being close of .business (5.00pm) on FRIDAY X XXXXX 2004. Late submissions will NOT be considered.Contacts; Telephone - (06) 9264 7777; Fax (08) 9264 7566; Email - MreZOwepc.wa,gov.au: Internet - http://www.wepa.via.gov.au

The. SecretaryWestern Australian Planning469 Wellington StreetPERTHWA 6000

DEPAOTEN PUMNiNGL4i70(41:92M2REEmmission

1 1 NOV 2004

--D-71-

DEPARANC

1 0 NOV 2004

Submission 78

We the undersigned are the owners of 51 Swanview Terrace,Maylands, 6051.

It is noted that the above land is included, together withseveral other properties in Swanview Terrace, namely area 313,in the Bushlands Forever and Related lands scheme.

Please be advised that we hereon object to any proposal thatmay alter or adversely effect our continued use of the land andor the manner in which we have enjoyed it( and for which purposeit was purchased in 1964)for the following reasons.

Antinspection will reveal we have at considerable expense (andmuch labour) installed an engineer designed boat-ramp, a land-thacked "wharf" ( for which we pay an annual boat ramp/jetty licensefee) a concrete driveway from our house to the rivers edge.

Further we have planted trees and reticulated large areas of lawnand gardens which are carefully maintained, together with the originalriver gums, palms and native foliage.

We believe no amount of Government works, cycle ways, bridges etccan improve on what we have in the past immaculately maintained,simply for the love of the location and at our own expense and withthe apparent approval of the Swan River Trust.

As you are doubtless aware there are hundreds of acres of wildriversedge "swampland"that could be "developed" in the above mannerif that is the eventual objective of what you want.

Tourists and locals in passing ferries photograph the several subjectproperties in Swanview Terrace which would suggest the owners mustbe doing something that is visually appealing and is worthwhile.

While not having the faintest intent or desire to sell, we are awareand conscious of the financial stigma your enigmatic proposalobviously places on our property and consider you have made noallowance for this situation which naturally makes the proposal in itspresent form totally -unacceptable.

In short it is our property, purchased with all its riverside rightsand advantages, and any proposal to change, take away, degrade ordevalue those rights must be dealt with within the provosions ofexisting laws embracing this situation.

For the reasons stated hereon and elsewhere in our correspondence weurge that :

1. That area 313 be removed from the scheme due to its total lackof ecological relevance at the existence of far more deservingareas for protection.

2. That the existing partitioning of land for Future Public OpenSpace on the properties in area 313 be removed to allow the land-owners to have certainty of tenure and to ensure the lands enduringuse r s ricted o riverine urban living.

ALLAN DIM9 11/2004

ESA444

BERYL JOY JAMES9/11/2004

C.%





To: SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission

469 Wellington StreetPERTH W.A. 6000

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 79

Name mFIGLIPA144E-az Po kt -FAQ crApistrfcgARitcwc..)

Address P 9

Contact phone number. 11 b.% 3 CX?-q Email address ..patp.d.e.

Postcodele

TAL.6...wa cw.om,tSubmission (Please attach additional pages If required. Il is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

es--Tr-t-Re..eck,D

I7:15-"AlkiNfi$fitRMWINItIS

.1!)'NFPAVIRUCTIJEE

FILE

Nov 2004



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


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






Submissions.







LvJ MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group)

Agent's name: Telitie.Group name: ..Mtlik.....aeMatIES.... DAgent's telephone number (business hours): g.3,Z3..cMailing address: .2p..BIZiNe..S.VCLAg4KAiE"Jr. Vir\s'y



Or


Signature


Date (

NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of

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

Contacts: Telephone - (06) 9264 7777; Fax - (05) 9264 7566; Email - mrs @wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet http:thvenx.wapc.vra.gov.au



SecretaryWestern Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000

Peter MacLeanMetropolitan Cemeteries BoardPO Box 53, Claremont WA 69109383 5229 peter.deaguemcb.wa.gov.au

Submission

The Metropolitan Cemeteries Board is alarmed that the Western Australian PlanningCommission is proposing that the whole of the Pinnaroo Valley Memorial Park publiccemetery be zoned as a Bush Forever protection area. This raises deep concern on twogrounds.

Firstly, the Board has been an active and cooperative member of the inter-agencyCemeteries Working Group which, as part of its charter, has been seeking proper andsensible negotiated outcomes with respect to cemetery sites at Pinnaroo, Midland andGuildford. In good faith and in the spirit of published Bush Forever guidelines theMetropolitan Cemeteries Board has been seeking outcomes that would properlyrecognise environmental, economic and social needs of the community. Withoutreference to the Cemeteries Working Group, a blanket zoning is proposed over thewhole of the Pinnaroo cemetery site with resulting serious constraints placed uponfuture cemetery operations. It will become increasingly difficult, perhaps impractical,to prepare for and carry out the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board's core burial andmemorialisation functions, including the development of cemetery land for such coreservices to the community.

The second concern of the Board relates to the fact that there is insufficient landallocated in the Perth metropolitan region for cemetery purposes. The MetropolitanCemeteries Board is alarmed that the Western Australian Planning Commission doesnot appear to view seriously the social needs for cemeteries in convenient locations toserve the community on a sustainable basis, particularly considering the new NetworkCity plan. Land is not being reserved for the future which must be a concern to theWestern Australian Planning Commission, and existing cemeteries are being soencumbered with layers of bureaucracy, they cannot meet community needs.

The Metropolitan Cemeteries Board already abides by planning regulations withoutthe need for further restrictions. This proposed extra layer of regulation stymies theMetropolitan Cemeteries Board in carrying out its function under the Cemeteries Act1986. A significant mandate of the Cemetery Working Group was to develop amaster planning process that would allow the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board to sign

off on a plan that would be approved by all relevant regulatory agencies. This wouldallow a clear process for development of cemeteries that enables the MetropolitanCemeteries Board to plan for burial and memorial areas for the community. It isperplexing to the Board that such a sound and pragmatic approach has been usurpedby this proposed scheme amendment. Interestingly, in the Western AustralianPlanning Commission's Planning Bulletin Number 69 (July 2004), it is stated on page7, table 1 - the status of key outstanding negotiated planning solutions, that withcemeteries, the status of negotiations is "to be determined." Why the incongruity inrestraining the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board under the Metropolitan RegionScheme Amendment 1082/33 when the Cemetery Working Group planningmechanism is already approved and working towards a satisfactory solution?

It seems that the proposed clause 27C of the Metropolitan Region Scheme is neededfor regulating situations not relevant to the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board, andtherefore cemeteries should not be identified under the scheme amendment andshould be exempt from the application of clause 27C.

It is requested that the Western Australian Planning Commission does not allow thescheme amendment for Pinnaroo Valley Memorial Park (and all cemeteries), andallow the Cemetery Working Group to complete its task of securing enough land for asustainable cemetery system whilst considering the community's social, economicand environment needs.


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

II SUBMISSION NUMBER 1

4Submission 80

Name .... . RE)*(a, Lai)(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) 1_0 -f

Address (c2 C?. 11...ay's\ Pte) RO A:2 HO 1DA-.C.P.C.C-.1. Postcode toi 23

Contact phone number.021`1,34..2 8V3 Email address a ei can-,

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

Lor q-31 6flici+Foio, S I-7c 1=D?- Fici G,0

licn1/41a. kg. :47:;:....-Aniorne. k- --k-L--1/4 y c-p-,2 Lo....

i-emi c:514/a Ens, ---I-LrayLo-7-4-0i-o-A-ev-if Ny cl- wk in e ,

cfroir, ci. ariter CM- (N.\ V v \ A-A0v-tOt 143 LiCi., (thrik) ) 1

ctr. ) 6_ \ av1-0,,a -6.A-L- 2Q.C4i-)L- ,

s \ a:1/44.nct ts,..,3ccs corn p1.7._A-IR J. on ,R.4 1/4,....r. 2 ly Vioo is

4,..9.9, 17<2,:,.,--,.) kc).Q.C'eCt 01,-Cri-D;- .1 *- 1 CI 60 )Sx l e Sted? b 2r

pla Lc.A242, Leta, a, Lcs-,1 -k--;cu.t-Rr1/41 cp-ca a LoccS 1sa-Ji

\in_a5u2- CA,:.(3, -vb--,e-...*:aiLS -1-P/ 44,-.&...:1.$ 1) QA-.1.,Q SlatVI fix,--.b.4.e.,1-6,10. , C.1:).C.A0 i'do_-7-u2 T L 3 LOQ,c),..,. \-,45-.0

40_,_e .4--/__QQ5 -- ( r,;03.Q.i.O 0--,:a.. ae q/-----

\ Fei-rio -*LA RAP CO c-1 Q ri"\-g- 3 (jab., z,t443- a c.5 R4.-e,_.

nn

. acarni e

FOR PLANIÌ!!C- URN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION*dt:P,C.JitICTLIF(E.

1 1 NOV 2004

'FILE :,C27-


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.









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


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



Signature- Date "7- 11.10.°44-.


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


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Name(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address Postcode

Contact phone number. Email address


2AFTMENT FOR PLANNINGI' ;i7 'NPRP:aTRUCTURE

3 0 NOV 2004 TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION




AM 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.





I will be represented by: Nen/21. MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): 94(0 5- 3 7 SOor






Signature </.71t.ci: Date ea 77° Di

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; Emall - [email protected]; Internet - http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

Submission 81Your ref: 809-2-1-77pt1

Western Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPERTH 6000

Dear Sir

MRS AMENDMENT No. 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS,DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR PERTH METROPOLITAN REGIONSTATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY No. 2.8

Thankyou for your correspondence dated 6 August 2004 regarding the above.

We are the owners of 179 (Lot 29) Elliot Road, Wanneroo. From theinformation submitted we understand that our property is affected by theproposed "Special Control Area No.1" as outlined on plan No. 3.1980.

We strongly object to the proposal for the following reasons:

a) The impact of the special control area upon the development potentialof our land is unclear;

b) The actual conservation value of vegetation contained on our land isunknown and clearly does not justify protection via the special controlarea proposed; and

c) The special control area contains no provision for compensation forloss of development rights or potential as a consequence of theproposal.

We emphasise our concern that the accompanying documentation does notattempt to clearly explain the impacts of the proposal upon our land. Withrespect, we believe the Commission to be remiss in advertising the proposalwithout being able to clearly and fully explain the impact of the proposal uponthe future development potential of our land.

Yours sincerely

v1,41).2Luciano Mori07 November 2004

ibti,i;ccimENT FortiN.Fc-AardicTuRa

1 i NOV 2004

FILE SCn - ) PD-

Submission 82

12 November 2004


SecretaryWestern Australian Planning CommissionAlbeit Facey House469 Wellington StreetPERTH WA 6000








The emphasis should be on 'conservation management rather than 'development in Bush ForeverProtection Areas. A section should be inserted to require that all Bush Forever Protection Areas aremanaged by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values.



GIE'AR.; FOR RANN '777c 'NGPA.5.;ICUCTi.rE

FILE

1 1 NOV 2004

Name. iii #v getburoA/fr-22. MPS:

Organisation MeEkt3r h

Signature.

Address. /h0.eder-/4"; 187 r

For more information please contact the Conservation Caundi of WA on 9420 7266 or the Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207.


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 83

Name -(oaa tickkm(

Address 11 U.ISL ?.c(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

I bail C1 PostcodeWS

Contact phone number Olin o 250 Email address +VI Ad afek a -12:15(x)(\a. -corn


M.., 0..y.Q.1 oc Lok s (S)n' Set ?...clack Co\cif\ty.fc i VAto..92._

on -c-vc1/4A4c... Ce." zspf:t c,; to3 Rio, 2. t otil Cyi I gA1/4 CeltaCA

R.LA 40, pcocoya t \. 904t,..wr \ nok kap\ rk\rI. Q(e. 01

a \\oca\cd. kt> c Occa..k....Qmt. ...bk. .. ......c.. 1116.1 o(vta. Cte.)Ae..tc..\ Q1/41,4a\ \ vWf eto use

\\ .co 1 e_Nicack\, Veck to 1 aril boy - co\ i- co.Q.The o.nd Vinck cy.1.)1W1

\ Alt`ds \ SII\ov\e. Sae- eke\k- A° V4e- in.. 04ta. Ok-) e\A-a54-4

4\\AA *ta- (Ae-e q+kick\ %);viAtst-s om, 1/4zk.-k- t-Q-Ermesiktist

.i...note-- vA\W cALA cia\cl, QL3'^-1-Ls +t, (A1- 0-.tacy- 4(ak ANAAt 6\ SO

(Xti C. \ \CL5ea 1ef \ o &nia\ c2...ksioN clkx1Q0Se-S Ze:Ma city\ CakrA

ety$qkAG:v1 cmit'dAcS 04 Ae1/4)4\ o (1-1/410\ \\SCS \/1y 1/4:1

I (a\ C14"1 .4\1 9iek cal"&\ 1-Ef\e" \ Ck" a0 ki-Stie- c'cX (34i\Seck

ok a Rusk-Ain ft.- tacit ky \*.S.A..,\A Strati. lc 'c.o.& cA. N)....Q.AN

a4.0 Z-1,14. AA but Sc t V-SisA\ f \PSr à& .. Lid aiCSt A );\.:11

pee(tuKcki Q1ovt.1 .

1 1 NOV 2004

1, : -I 1








El

Please, complete the following:




or



Or

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


Signature Gear Date


Contacts: Telephone (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - mrs@voapo,wa.gov.au; Internet - httpilknvw.wapc.wa.gov.au

Submission 84

12 November 2004





I would like the following comments to be considered in relation to the proposals hi the above MRSAmendment:



Any development proposals that would adversely affect the conservation values of Bush Forever sitesshould receive-scrutiny from EPA, WAPC, so that community members are consulted.





Name. ,LA/ fitiSskzi. 22 DJ p

Organisation. 9-4;i4 7/11404v.. iv-4Y1 C-P-01014-e

Address- 3 /Z-l/41-Ply 2- 7

eeeSignature.

RTMENT FOR RAt' N:NC3'Nr:rA,.;(2.;JC;TLIEL

1 1 NOV 2004

FILE tCfl

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 or the Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207.


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 85

j.A.VrtA hi CreName(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address ;PVC-VS") Re\ Postcode to 2 I

Contact phone number. qh-S.I. gl g Email address


PleAct gac

1 1 NOV 2004


81\






LSor








Or


Signature


Date I 1/4 O4-


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

Mr John Boyle6A Quail PlaceLangford 6147

3 November 2004

Dear Sir/Madam

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33Bush Forever and Related Lands

Submission Re: Lot 57 Jackson Road, Oldbury WA 6121BFS 68

Category Regional Creek Lines

I support the plan to protect valuable bushland and in this case, the relevant bushlandalong this creek.

However, I respectfully request an alteration to the northern boundary line as set outon the attached drawing or a mutually agreed boundary line, if an on-site meeting todiscuss the exact area of land to be set aside could be arranged. It seems that the planwas drawn up using aerial photographs and not only the bush that needs to bepreserved has been included, but also areas of bracken.

This bracken is weed-like and a very real fire hazard for the bush and trees that areintended for preservation and conservation. Most of the neighbouring properties havebeen spraying to control this bracken for years (as can be seen from the narrowerareas designated on Lots 72, 73, 11, 12, 1 and 2). Last summer, this bracken did catchfire, quickly jumped the firebreak and threatened the trees and bush along the creekline. The fire brigade had to be called and they controlled it after some time.

I therefore submit that:

The area to be protected and included in the Bush Forever Site 68 on Lot 57Jackson Road, Oldbury, should be an area smaller than that shown on the BFS planthat more accurately represents the natural bushland.

The area to be protected include the creek itself and the bushland each side of thecreek as per attached diagram (or if preferred, a mutually agreed area following anon-site discussion).

The preserved area should be protected on both the north and south sides by a firebreak as the bracken is so volatile all trees could be wiped out if a fire started.

Weeds inside the protected area (including bracken, Arum lily and Sydney GoldenWattle) should be controlled.

The bracken infestation outside the protected area should be controlled asappropriate.

I am also willing to protect other trees outside the protected area.

There is an existing shed inside the protected area.

The basis of this request to alter the designated area is that the proposed plan takes inthe best, most arable land of the whole block. It was this portion of land that was thereason for purchasing the block. I have seven children and would like to know that ifeconomic or climatic conditions became difficult in the future, they could grow foodon this land and sustain themselves. They are responsible, working, Aboriginalchildren (who are now adults) who have been looking forward to working responsiblywith the land.

At present, some of this area is a breeding ground for mosquitoes (with attendant RossRiver virus concerns) much to the neighbour's disgust.

The value of the area in question is many times greater than other parts of the blockbecause of its arable value.

It has always been my intention to preserve the bush along the creek but this plantakes in far more land than is necessary to preserve the natural creek line vegetation.

I would consider covenanting the creek and the bush each side of the creek (as perattached diagram or a mutually agreed area) so that it could be guaranteed to remainundisturbed, but would like to retain the rest of my land.

Thank you for the opporhinity to comment on this proposal to save our valuablebushland and I look forward to your favourable response to my submission.

Yours sincerely

aaleJohn Boyle


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 86

Name LA trEA,(PLEASE PR/NT CLEARLY)

Address 0`1,\*- 4 /2g t 2.V.1/22.1) HI*1/41C-- icPoi\jstcode...6.12.51

Contact phone numberCILZ1 Email address hillet (Loct rcauSubmission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

...As Qv,. taw \nes:. ..c-cs`x.d.t.LKA-- c),_\ ik-Q..k 0, comae. cu6th.sc

..A:v. ...... .-ft. kluc..)..1c:?\ s

-TA._ b.,alicalf a...,..u..,,.Q., S-2...... utd are...aos-.E: .

AKc-v\ 19-- a's-a .c.k.c.of e.1, t-P.AL twst..-ki.cptAs cxxt wakruLtfassdi

..1)..r....a.e`\N\......rArnr2.&.1-- co\ks.s.s-nc.8... .L1 KA.C\,i.o.i--- u,9.,0.9..4

.)A, e.vN 4c) ..:-Amn AE..c)./.\. .thci u .6.ch_a\ `` on NtlAt

c. D-sa_.1- I-k- 19-Q-CCOne-a Qt.tie.....d

ocitc, r 'CQ.,Lc-- taso \sl_-.i . tttgLcoO,AL

U3P.cr.ease. i tA. c.kji vli\e

c)...... -ssiNa..es .

SSC.

cPrry,DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING

tr INEPP;;IS.IJCITURE

1 1 NOV 2004

sirALE


PO-







A the group must be appointed.



Submissions.







Er MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): Ct 3 AfrI 5or

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





Signature Date in )01f

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 htlp://www.wapc.wa.gov.au

12 November 2004



Submission 87











D .F.TMENT FOR Puthit'1,1gPiCi:leTURC-..

1 1 NOV 2004

AILEKE-0--

Name boc e-e et_ Signature' /71-e)

Organisation. 3 e cre_,1--a, e4 /c tie_ a. °tater

Address. PO £o)c /3 `3 /

f-ti r cit a .ne(

P,-/ cc( hntcrere eci-eA men I

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 orthp I Trhan Richland Cnnnpil WA nn 049(1'791 7


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 88

Name Zel tOda C.C.rm. re

(PLEAsLRINurcLEARLo

Address . P)D.x. (. 1-- Co "F.-e.$) oe

Contact phone number.%1KM.9).i... Email address .Z.10R-f-ki

Postcode 6q

hpettg-Aiti -

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

CLeLO"A-4M-ADt

FOR PLANO'

1 1 NOV 2004








F91.1 NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.)Or

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







Signature


Date©(.


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

Submission to WA Planning Commission - Bush Forever etc

Attachment to form 6A &Attachment to Public Submission Form Draft Bush land Policy for PMRStatement of Planning Policy 2.8

In July 2003 we responded to the Chief Executive Officer of City of Gosnellsin relation to the Southern River Precinct 1 (Holmes Street) OutlineDevelopment Plan with respect to the price of lot 1578 (491 ha) to be acquiredby the Commission at a price of $740,000.

We have not heard anything in response and now re-iterate that there isnothing in the literature provided explaining how the value of $150,000 per hawas arrived at. In our view based on valuations we have had provided to usand other professional advice from valuers and estate agents, the correctvalue of the land is $245,000 per ha and on this basis the amount theCommission should pay is $1,202,950.

That amount is of course based on the value of the land at this time. We arenot aware of the timeframe within which this transaction will take place andreserve our right to make further submissions on the price depending on whenthe purchase will be made.

There is no purpose in speaking at the proposed hearings, as it is clear thatthe only issue now is the value of the land for purchase by the Commission.My father purchased the land for re-development purposes and that purposehas not been available for many years and the Commission has indicated itwill purchase the land so there is no point in us continuing to hold the land ormaking submissions on any other details of the plans. This being clear wewould like to discuss the process towards resolution of this with someonefrom the Commission or any other agency that can make a final decision assoon as possible.

Zelinda Baffle9 November 2004.

eAzbafilthzb\wartonroacf \2004 W2-12.9.11.04- submission to wa planning commission.doc


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY


Submission 895

Name ?,0V--'{ \--\xDSK \(PLEASE PAINT CLEARLY)

Address \ go rn HRE-LL Postoode.L . 3:- .5

Contact phone number.tA5)-5-\ l Q Email address

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

? e-\.,01coc ,13 9\Ain ov-,s-0,9

?c,,,y3 A **,, \Th

DI7-'4117.riEv 1170;,tT

1 1 NOV 2004

tE I- Pvg-

RN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION













or


Signature


R Date 3- I °L1-


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

Ms B. Sturgeon & Mr. P. Hoskin69 Summerfield RoadMardella WA 6125

Mr. Ian PattersonWest Australian Planning Commission469 Wellington StreetPerth WA 6000

Dear Sir,

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

It is a very good idea to preserve our natural bushland because everyone is then ableto enjoy it. The question is who will maintain it? Is the fuel it contains evermonitored or reduced to safe levels? Has anybody who is implementing this programever been involved in a bushfire fuelled by one of these beautiful Bushland areas?

I have! When your own life and the lives of your family, stock and pets are allthreatened it affords you a very different perspective on what is beautiful and what isextremely dangerous.

Isn't it nice for people living in urban areas of Perth and the people who dream upthese wonderful ideas to come out here to admire the bushland areas? Where are theywhen a bushfire breaks out (tucked up in their safe little house out of harms way Iguess.) The general public is unaware of the dangers that we live with during thebushfire season because of lack of maintenance of these bushland areas.

Don't misunderstand me I do enjoy the bushland but, hey get real; it can beextremely dangerous if not managed properly. Instead of proposing more bushlandwould it not be more sensible to implement ways to manage the bushland we alreadyhave.

The severity of the bushfire we were involved in was directly related to the amount offuel from a railway reserve that no authority will maintain. Guess what, two (2) yearsdown the track it is an accident waiting to happen again because no one will beresponsible for maintaining the level of fuel within these areas.

Yours truly,

R.J. Hoskin

Images of the Fire Devastation

These photographs illustrated the total devastation that has been caused by the lack of proper maintenance ofthe local bush reserves. It is too late after a fire to state we should have The consequences are too great.

PLEASE before your office reserves any more land, implement realistic and sustainable ways to maintainand reduce the amount of fuel in existing reserves.

PHOTO 1 This paddock housed six (6) x one (1) month old calves. The calves in this paddockwere saved without serious injury because we were in attendance and able to move them to safety.

g - -

_ lielpat-

-.;ys rditrehrt-e=4,-ge-

---)Egiaa- e=--- rt--11

PHOTO 2 What would have been their fate if they had been left to try to escape the ragingfirer?

PHOTO 3 - This is an example of bushthat has NOT been maintained Weedslike Watsonia in the picture foregroundhave taken over This photo was taken2 years after the PHOTO l's illustratesthe rapid growth of the weeds, at thesame railway location As is illustratedthe weeds have taken over and this isNOT natural bushland

PHOTO 4 - Our fence line in the foreground with evidence of overgrown weeds in the bushreserves and you are able to just see the blue metal of the railway line at the top right of thephoto.

Ds. agik

_ g -

_ A

-

PHOTO 5 !mother location illustrating a fenced river. This photo is taken after the firein February 2002 and you are able to see a noticeable difference. One side are grazedpaddocks and abundant weeds such as Watsonia, Castor Oil, Wattle, Kikuyu, Arum Lily,Veldt Grass & Love grass on the other.

Who will be responsible for maintenance and control of these weedsif we are forced to fence off more of our farming land?

PHOTO 6 The house in this photo was saved. Two family members werehospitalized with smoke inhalation for their efforts.

'3/444 u- 4

t

PHOTO 7 The hay, machinery and cats these sheds DID NOT survive. Thesesheds are position directly behind the house!!!

THIS HAS HAPPENED ONCE TO US; PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW IT HAPPENAGAIN TO US OR ANYONE ELSE. YOUR ACTIONS HAVE LONG REACHING

AFFECTS.


FORM 6A




OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER

Submission 90

Name \sevakci-s-cs SAcc Sam\ Ef2,- 0A4P-9-zit(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address 2C9 WQt I3 20 DA \)NQ3-T--5-0Ck Postcode 6 \7-

Contact phone numberPg157-faSCIEmail address .C1,(224 R-exikreofeAN4 1-4,ier- itcctoOikes-2So-9-0

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

-te-c-tita

,

17 'sr tit.- ruItir

1 1 NOV 2004

ALE

URN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

Pa-










I will be represented by: .7MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): ozi3g r )4c>.-)1.

Or



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


Signature


Date


Contacts: Telephone (08) 9284 7777; Fax - (08) 9284 7588; Email - [email protected]; Internet - htiplAvww.wapc.wa.gov.au

RE: Proposal 59 Bush Forever Site No. 360

Lot 61 Watkins Road Mundijong

Bush Forever is a welcomed initiative with regard to planning for the future of ourstate and protecting its beauty and balance. Whilst supportive of this initiative I wishto express my concerns because I believe my property (and the adjoining CrownLand), have been selected erroneously due to the study conducted in 1985 now nolonger being an accurate representation of their current condition or use. Theproperties' have changed quite dramatically since the report and their inclusion is notin the best interest of the Metropolitan Region Scheme for various reasons discussedin this submission.

The question must also be asked why my parcel of land, (Lot 61), is now includedwith the adjoining Crown Land when in the previous study it was not, (it was cited as`to be determined') (pg 60, Table 3 Bush Forever Volume 1 Policies, Principles andProcesses Dec 20002), as neither property has a high conservation value. There wasno consultation or communication with myself regarding subsequent inclusion from2000 to date.

WHY BUSH FOREVER IS NOT SUITED TO THESE PROPERTIES

1) Lot 61 is not a private residence only:a. Primary Production and Financial Hardship; andb. Private use has restored the land to a better condition than previous.

2) Both Lot 61 and Crown Land no longer in condition of 'high conservationvalue'.

1) Lot 61 is not a private residence only.a. Primary Production and Financial Hardship

The report states that Lot 61 Watkins Road 'is privately owned ...' and that it hasan existing house on the property.' (pg 24 MRS Amendment No 1082/33) This is truehowever it is not used for private use only - it is a place of primary production andderives my income. For it to be included in the Rural Complementary zoning wouldmean significant impediment to my current and future plans for the property as Iwon't be able to develop my business any further nor carry on my business in itsexisting form.

We acquired the property for the use of primary production and selected this propertydue to its maximum exposure being on the South West Hwy. We currently live on theproperty but also use it to produce the stock for our business. My business entailspurchasing and propagating citrus trees which is my sole income. If the scheme goesahead I will no longer be able to earn an income to provide for my family. I was Inthe process of preparing a submission to council to allow me to further develop mybusiness and hence my property.

lithe properties' refers to the unallocated Crown land (Cockburn Sound Location 00410) and Lot61 Watkins Road, Mundijong which are both included in this proposal

2 this report will be hereon referred to as the Dec 2000 Report

b. Private use has restored the land to a better condition than previousThis property has been identified as an area to be protected under the RuralComplementary mechanism as it has `...a high risk of development' (pg 41 MRSAmendment No 1082/33). We have already started developing the property as it iszoned 'rural' by local council and the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (per the Dec2000 Report) and fits into a valid primary production category. The developmentundertaken has been complimentary to the environment and has only enhanced thevegetation rather than degrading it.

I acquired the property from the previous owners who had squatters occupying theland illegally. The squatters had destroyed its natural state and not maintained it in anenvironmentally friendly manner. We have worked very hard to get it back to a decentcondition and whilst further clean up is required it is far better than before.

Could Bush Forever do a better job of restoring the condition of Lot 61?

2) Both Lot 61 and Crown Land no longer in condition of 'high conservationvalue'

The properties are in poor condition and the proposal to include it to `...consolidate alarger areas of existing Parks and Recreation reservation which supports DeclaredRare Flora and contains Conservation Category and EPP wetlands', (pg 24 MRSAmendment No 1082/33) is not valid due to the following:

I. unallocated Crown Land vegetation is now at least 60% destroyed due to:a. dumping of rubbish including: (refer Appendix 1)

i. asbestos;ii. tyres;

iii. household waste;iv. hazardous waste (di!, petrol, paint, toxic chemicals etc); andv. declared plants (eg tatterson's curse, bamboo etc)

b. the property is used for illegal activities that include:i. car bodies being stolen, dumped and burnt out; (Appendix 2)

ii. off-road bikes and vehicles; (Appendix 3)c. land degradation due to non-trail horse riding.d. presence of Phitophera (jarrah dieback) (Appendix 4)

II. Lot 61 Watkins Road is also not suitable for Rural Complementary zoningbecause:

a. presence of Phitophera (jarrah dieback)b. land has been part-cleared and revegetated by the previous owner using

tree types not native to the area (eg Eucalyptus Platypus)

There is certainly not a high prominence of 'Declared Rare Flora' in the 'complexgroups' described in Proposal 59 on both of these properties. (As already sighted inthe Dec 2000 Report page 60 "EPA Threatened or Poorly Reserved PlantCommunities._ ') the condition of these properties has only got worse since the 2000Bush Forever Report. Additionally in the report it refers to 'wetlands' which are notpresent on either of these properties which lie on the Eastern side of the railway line.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

I propose 3 alternative options:1. Withdraw the Amendment for Lot 61 Watkins Road as it is being used for

primary production as well as private residence and is not of high conservationvalue. Retain the amendment for the surrounding Crown Land. This willrequire restoration to the condition of the Crown Land (this will be a costlyexercise as the Crown Land is in very poor condition as previously mentioned).

2. Continue with the Amendment but attempt to restore Lot 61 Watkins Road aswell as the surrounding unallocated Crown Land. This would requirepurchasing my property from me. Whilst at the moment I am operating as aprimary producer I was in the process of preparing a submission for approvalby Council to further develop my business when I received this Amendment inthe mail and had to halt by business plans. For this reason I cannot stay on theland under the Rural Complementary Mechanism zoning as it impacts myneeds. Page 20 of the Dec 2000 Report states that you will consider landownerneeds. This would obviously cause me financial hardship. For this reason Iwould propose compensation to enable me to relocate and allow you to takecontrol of the property and restore/return it to the state that you require. (ReferAppendix 5)

3. Modify the Amendment and allocate the land to Commercial use which bettersuits the condition of the properties. The presence of Phitophora, soilcontamination and general degradation of the land means the properties wouldbe better suited to commercial use rather than parks and recreation.

If none of the above options are implemented I seek confirmation that I cancontinue to use the land for primary production and no future impediment tofurther developing my business will be made. This is in accordance with the Dec2000 Report Part B 2.4 Landowner Consultation and Liaison page 19 "BushForever recognises the rights of landowners to continue to use their property inaccordance with existing approvals; that existing and approved lawful activitiesmay continue; and that legitimate development proposals may be brought forwardfor consideration ...."

However in addition to continued use of the land unhindered do I receivecompensation for the adverse affect on my property value due to the encumbrancethat inclusion in Bush Forever brings?

CONCLUSION

As the landowner of this property and the consultation process identified by you in theDec 2000 Report to take into consideration the `...needs of the landowner...' I objectto the current proposal.

Due to the existing condition of both properties I cannot understand the need toprotect them and include them in the Bush Forever scheme as they are not of 'highconservation value'. Better alternatives are available with the preferred outcomebeing change of use to 'commercial' which will allow the land to be cleaned up andbetter utilised by both the government and myself. Failing this then I would seekcompensation for sale of the property to you as outlined in this paper so that I canrelocate and continue to derive an income for myself and my family as the schemeyou outline would severely impede my business proceedings.

As I stated earlier in the paper I am supportive of the Bush Forever scheme howeverin this instance I think that it is not in the best interest of all concerned. I look forwardto hearing from you in the near future and hope that we can come to an amicablearrangement.

Q

Pc,

I

P

gI

bLfisIA

tt,F

it[t

rrh:;o1r

'FfrN

II,Mr

[:17

If

I

Ef if

FE

lfrIm

F

Itthr

nn

yr"

',''R1414rr"

-T

IT,

r'r

"

ittr I,419,

WIrE

,'`rIr

rfrF',[1',14E'', 19,

EE

'

'

fLf f1

r

fifiI

Fr

if,F

r,r

[r

ilt,r,frifd^rg

r,41,T

il[r

14' [}III

1-1-C[rtrt

rI

[

I,In

44,414,

Irr

IIt

4!,grt[,frrir rcE)+

4,,r,

Ljf

,kirir,

[999

r

r,

[I'

pi,'I

'

,1 'tI

r rt

'

0440040 rr-

4T7'0 '74

1°1110ffr rE

1'r

'1e

1,f TO

't

1,,it

10P'

krr:4

''Ve

Oa

I al'[;71:1(`

T

114/I[fI

I'

1 'A

al

111 , din,I '

11 ,,,

I S.

H1111

L

Presence of noxious weed

--zt-Sitraati-

_ -TM- -

_ "..ags ,_ _ _

- _ -g-44- =

-"EilrL:21r- rjr-

- 4-.

Sir

-qp_ 4.r-

Vat-

r I

HO II I I. i

i 1. iiiIVI lj9 , Iiiiii

,L119111:

IPA1

0 . Li :to i i

,-. 9109 . ,

11!:,11,1, ..., .4,

et ...: '..0t> i

I. oh

9

liOlLy:111,111"

r '

mum zhIj'i

Appendix 5 Estimated Compensation Costs

Estimated Market ValueLand Value $250,000ImprovementsShed and Fit Out $ 50,000Bores $ 8,000Water Storage $ 2,500Reticulated Areas $10,000Shade House $ 5,000Power $ 10,000Drive Way Improvement $ 10,000Relocation and DisruptionMoving costs $ 30,000Business interniption and

loss of income in time tore-establish business $100,000

Stamp Duty on new property(est $350,000) $ 15,000

Assume no selling costs $ nilOther Purchasing Costs eg legal,stamp duty etc $ 5,000Opportunity CostAdditional funds required to

secure appropriateproperty due to pricemovements over last2 years $ 50,000

TOTAL COMPENSATION $545,500

The above are estimates only, further verification would be required by both parties.