11 attacment 2 NEW SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Byford Area D ...

NEW SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Byford Area D – Briggs/ Larsen Precinct Byford / Local Structure Plan / PA19/1223

Submitter No Submitter Comments Officer Comment Officer

Recommendation

E20/

Government Agencies

Geographic Names – Landgate

IN20/5974

1. Road name incorrectly labelled, San Simeon Boulevard north of Larsen Road is name Indigo Parkway.

Noted Change plan accordingly.

Peel Harvey Catchment Council

IN20/6028

2. Our only comment is that the LSP should demonstrate that the allocation of POS will meet all of the needs that are identified in the LSP study (e.g. water, fire management, services, recreation etc), and not just conform to the ‘Byford District Structure Plan and its reflection in the associated Byford Development Contribution Plan No.4.’ (As stated in Page 21 of the LSP document).

Bushfire management plan, water quality improvement infrastructure developed and revegetation/ landscape management

Likely, these outcomes will come at subdivision stage, measures have been taken to ensure native vegetation is retained.

10.1.7 - attachment 2

Ordinary Council Meeting - 20 July 2020



Recommendation

E20/

With this professional approach, commitments should then be made in the LSP that no clearing of native vegetation in the POS is necessary for any development, unless it is identified as absolutely necessary at this planning stage. I trust that all other components of the LSP are comprehensive and address bushfire management, water quality improvement infrastructure requirements, revegetation and landscaping etc.

plans developed

DPLH

Karen Jackson (Heritage Officer)

IN20/6220

3. Thank you for your email regarding Byford Area D Local Structure Plan. I note that there are no heritage places within the structure plan area. As such we have no comment to make in relation to the proposal.

Noted.

Telstra Plan Services

IN20/6250

4. Re: Byford Area D, Briggs / Larsen Precinct – Proposed Local Structure Plan - PA19/1223 Thank you for your communication dated 17/03/2020 in relation to the location specified above. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Telstra’s plant records indicate that there are Telstra assets located within the area of the proposal. We note that our plant records merely indicate the approximate location of the Telstra assets and may not to be up to date. These records should not be relied upon by you as they may not depict a true and accurate reflection of the exact location of the assets. We suggest that you contact Dial Before You Dig for a detailed site plan (if you haven't already) and engage a Telstra Accredited Plant Locator (APL) to determine the exact location of the asset. To obtain a list of Telstra Accredited Plant Locators (APL) please phone 1100 or visit www.1100.com.au. Once the precise location of the Telstra assets has been established, you can either arrange for the Telstra assets to be relocated or re-align your proposal to ensure they are no longer impacted.

Noted – this will be further investigated at subdivision stages.





Recommendation

E20/

Telstra’s Asset Relocation team can be engaged to obtain a quote to relocate the assets from the location in question. The relocation of the assets are carried at the cost of the disturber. Please phone 1800 810 443 or email [email protected] to arrange for an asset relocation. Alternatively, once your proposal has been re-aligned to eliminate any impact to Telstra’s assets, please contact [email protected] for a re-evaluation of your proposal so that Telstra can be assured that its assets will not be affected by your development. As these assets comprise an essential component of the Telstra network, we take this opportunity to highlight Telstra’s rights and requirements to ensure that they are understood. The following is stated for your information: (1) As you may be aware, Telstra’s existing facilities are grandfathered under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act enables such facilities to legally occupy land in perpetuity for the duration of that facilities’ use. (2) Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) authorises a carrier to enter land and exercise any of the following powers - inspect the land - install a facility - In the case of installation and planned maintenance a notification will be afforded and such work will generally proceed during business hours. However, from time to time, certain activities need to be carried out without delay in order to protect the integrity of the network. Such activities may require access without notice and at any time of the day or night. (3) If you subdivide the land at any time in the future it may become necessary, in the opinion of Telstra to remove, or alter the position of a facility. In these circumstances the carrier may enter the land and do anything necessary or desirable for that purpose. Under clause 53 of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act, the person who proposes to subdivide the land is liable to pay the carrier the reasonable cost of anything reasonably done by the carrier in this regard. (4) There is a requirement that all access to Telstra’s network is facilitated by Telstra, via the normal channels available to all customers Australia wide. Tampering with, or interfering with telecommunications infrastructure or a facility owned or operated by a carrier (being Telstra) is an offence under the





Recommendation

E20/

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Heavy penalties may apply for breach of this prohibition, and any damages suffered, or costs incurred, by Telstra as a result of any such interference may be claimed against you. This means that you are not permitted to interfere with, repair or relocate Telstra’s infrastructure, either personally or through a contractor without approval and authorisation from Telstra. (5) Individuals owe Telstra a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of Telstra’s communication plant or assets. If Telstra’s facilities are damaged as a result of any property development or any interference with such facilities, the person will be liable in tort (negligence) for any loss or damage (including consequential loss) suffered by Telstra and/or any member of the public. Telstra will not hesitate to take action to recover such loss or damage caused by such interference to Telstra’s Network.

Telstra would also appreciate due confirmation in the event that the applicant contemplates divesting its interest or control of this land, that the information contained here is passed on to the prospective owners. maintain a facility

Department of Water and Environmental Regulations

5. LOT 57, 58 & 70 BRIGGS ROAD AND LOTS 53, 81, 83, 100 & 105 LARSEN ROAD BYFORD - BYFORD AREA D LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN Thank you for providing the Local Structure Plan (LSP) for the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (Department) to assess. The Department has reviewed the LSP including the attached Various Lots Larsen Road and Briggs Road, Byford Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) (revision 2 dated February 2020 and received 17 March 2020) and provides the attached comments for your consideration. These comments should be reviewed and actioned alongside comments from the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahadale. If there are any conflicts between comments from different parties it is expected that document author will mediate an agreed position between the relevant parties. In the event there are modifications to the proposal that may have

Noted – the following comments will be passed to Rowe Group.





Recommendation

E20/

implications on aspects of water management, the Department should be notified to enable the implications to be assessed.





Recommendation

E20/





Recommendation

E20/

Water Corporation Matt Calabro IN20/6043

6. Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2020 inviting comments on the proposed structure plan. The Water Corporation has adopted water and wastewater infrastructure planning for this area. The future development of the land can be serviced with reticulated water and sewerage by the proponents undertaking extensions of water mains and gravity sewers from the surrounding networks at the subdivision stage. It is encouraged that the Shire or any developers liaise with the Water Corporation’s Land Servicing team prior to subdivision regarding a more detailed planning for water and wastewater servicing of the land. Excerpts of the Corporation’s conceptual planning for the area are

Noted – Plans attached The applicant and Shire should remain in contact with the water corporation/ land servicing team prior to subdivision – which has recently been received for the first two stages of the structure plan.





Recommendation

E20/

attached for reference purposes. The Shire is encouraged to forward this information to the any future developers for information.

Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

IN20/6625

7. The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety has determined that this proposal raises no significant issues with respect to mineral and petroleum resources, geothermal energy, and basic raw materials.

Noted.

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development

IN20/6619

8. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) does not object to the proposed Local Structure Plan for Byford Area D as this area is zoned for "Urban" use in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and zoned 'Urban Development' in the Draft Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale Local Planning Scheme No.3.

The area is zoned RR1 & Urban. The Shire has outlined the southern portion of the Structure Plan area is to be maintained as a buffer for the lots south of Larsen road, which abut the Byford Trotting Complex.

Atco

IN20/6761

9. Thank you for providing ATCO Gas Australia (ATCO) the opportunity to comment on the proposed Structure Plan, within the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale (the Shire) to direct future development of those Lots bounded by Larsen Road and Briggs Street Byford. ATCO has considered the documentation provided by the Shire on the Shire’s website. ATCO has no objection to the proposed Structure Plan being formalised and approved by the Shire.

Noted





Recommendation

E20/

Please note the information included in Section 5.9.4 Gas and Telecommunications is consistent with our existing network and also as described within Part 10.2 of the Engineering Aspects Report prepared by the Civil Group and dated 13th November 2019.

Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions

IN20/7104

10. In reference to your correspondence requesting comments on the Revised Structure Plan for Byford Area – Briggs & Larsen Precinct dated 17 March 2020, the Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (the department) provide the following comments. The department notes that the Environmental Assessment Report outlines that thirty three native trees were recorded as having a diameter at breast height of over 500 cm and therefore constitute threatened black cockatoo breeding habitat according to the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC) Referral Guidelines. Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo, Baudin’s Black Cockatoo, and the Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo are listed as ‘Endangered’ and ‘Vulnerable’ respectively under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999). The proponent may wish to discuss the proposal with the Federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to determine if there is a requirement to refer the proposal under the EPBC Act.

This will be explored further at subdivision stage. The Shire advocates to ensure all native and mature vegetation is retained where possible.

Department of Fire and Emergency Services – DFES

11. RE: PROPOSED BYFORD AREA D – LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN - LOTS 57, 58 & 70 BRIGGS ROAD AND LOTS 53, 81, 83, 100 &105 LARSEN ROAD, BYFORD I refer to your e-mail dated 17 March 2020, regarding the submission of a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) (Version 2), prepared by Bushfire Safety Consulting, dated 15 November 2019 for the above Local Structure

The Shire to be satisfied with the vegetation exclusions and vegetation management proposed including Public Open Space





Recommendation

E20/

Plan (LSP). It should be noted that this advice relates only to State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7) and the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (Guidelines). It is the responsibility of the proponent to ensure that the proposal complies with all other relevant planning policies and building regulations where necessary. This advice does not exempt the applicant/proponent from obtaining necessary approvals that may apply to the proposal including planning, building, health or any other approvals required by a relevant authority under other written laws. Assessment

1. Policy Measure 6.3 a) (ii) Preparation of a BAL Contour Map Issue Assessment Action Vegetation Exclusion POS – insufficient

information Evidence to support the exclusion of Public Open Space (POS) as managed to low threat in accordance with AS3959:2018 is required. The BMP assumes areas of POS will be managed as low threat post development. This includes areas

The local government to be satisfied with the vegetation exclusions and vegetation management proposed including POS areas and should be confirmed in principle, prior to subsequent planning stages.

areas within the Structure Plan. This should be confirmed in principle, prior to subsequent planning stages and likely to be done at subdivision stage.





Recommendation

E20/

depicted in Figure 4 of the BMP as ‘POS – Detention Basin’. It is unclear how these areas are to be managed to low threat in perpetuity. If unsubstantiated, the vegetation classification should be revised to apply the worst-case scenario as per AS3959:2018.

Recommendation – supported subject to modifications It is critical that the bushfire management measures within the BMP are confirmed, to ensure they are accurate and can be implemented to reduce the vulnerability of the proposal to bushfire. The decision maker should be satisfied that the measures within the BMP can be achieved and confirm the requirements as outlined above, this can be done without further referral to DFES. If the above bushfire management measures cannot be confirmed the outcomes within the BMP may be inaccurate. If you require further information, please contact me on telephone number 6551 4032. Yours sincerely





Recommendation

E20/

Department of Health 12. PROPOSED REVISED LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN - LOT 57, 58 AND 70 BIGGS ROAD AND LOTS 53, 81, 83,100 AND 105 LARSEN ROAD, BYFORD Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2020 requesting comments from the Department of Health (DOH) on the above proposal. The DOH provides the following comment: The plan is to require that development be connected to scheme water and reticulated sewerage and be in accordance with the Government Sewerage Policy (2019). The attached DOH document on ’Evidence supporting the creation of environments that encourage healthy active living’ which may assist you and is available for download from: https:/Iww2.health. wa. gov. auf ArticlesfF _"Health-risk-assessment The structure plan should be consistent with climate change adaption methods to deal with potential health hazards such as extreme heat. The guide Heatwave Guide for Cities is intended to be a basic introduction to this topic and a resource for cities to start planning for extreme heat and is available for download from: https:lfwww.climatecentre.orgfdownloadsffilesfIFRCGenevafRCCC%20Heatwave%20Gui de%2020 19%20A4 %20RR%200N LI N E%20copy. pdf Should you have any queries or require further information please contact Vic Andrich on (08) 9222 2000 or at [email protected]

Noted





Recommendation

E20/

Mainroads WA

(late submission)

13.

Surrounding Residents

Rodney Zuidema 104 Larsen Road A398408

14. To the strategic planning officer, ref PA/1223:0C20/4476

We are writing this letter, as a comment on the proposed Local Structure Plan that has being submitted as to the development behind lot 57,58,& 70 Briggs Road and Lots 53,81,83,100,104,105 Larsen Road. I have included lot 104 as it seems to have been missed of the letter head.

This proposal is utterly ludicrous. My wife and I bought our property (lot 104) for the area it is in and the peace and quietness that we have. Now you are proposing to have a road right behind our block, which goes through our neighbours land, and will be right behind our shed. I do not

The Shire appreciates the time you have taken to make a submission for the following Structure Plan.

The Plan was developed by a number of land owners within the Structure Plan area.

Updated Plan with east – west internal road shifting further north to not back on to the Rural Living A lots; to delete the southeast road connection to Larsen Road; to adjust public open space in order to





Recommendation

E20/

have to mention what will happen once you have a road right up close to sheds in a rural area. It will create privacy issues for us also as we had built our house to take in the sites in the back of the yard we have. As a land owner we certainly should not have to build 5 metre high walls, and lose our views, to stop undesirables from attempting to gain access to our land. What guarantee would we have that this is not to happen.

When we bought we were told this is rural living A, and all land on the south side of Thatcher Road was to remain 1 acre blocks, No smaller. Now we have a proposal that will be r 20 to r 60 zoning. It goes totally against what the shire had told us when we moved in.

I also notice that the person who has proposed this, loses nothing of his land but actually gains some so he can develop his whole block. Even his existing driveway is gone.

In closing I would like to say, That we bought here in Byford as it was a town with a very country feel. It was a nice town to bring up a family. We would be utterly disappointed if this proposal was to be approved, and wreck our little piece of what we think is perfect.

Rod and Kerry Zuidema

There is a number of factors in which the Shire is not overly supportive of. The Shire is not supportive of the road running at the back of your property as this will create a surveillance and privacy issue with lots fronting onto the road will be looking into your backyards.

The Shire is also not supportive of the ranging lot sizes which have been proposed for the Structure Plan area.

The Shire although is supportive of developing the area to be urban as this is in line with the Shire Draft Local Planning Scheme No.3 and Draft Local Planning Strategy. Although the Shire feels a graduation of lots should be

widen the MUC to a useable extent. This creates strategic protection to the trotting complex and helps to reinforce the MUC as a key green corridor for the area.

Plan outlined in Council Report.





Recommendation

E20/

considered more in the southern portion of the Structure Plan area, due to the proximity to the Rural Living A area/ Byford Trotting complex.

Mr & Mrs David Allsworth 164 Larsen Road Byford

15. We as the owners of 164 Larsen Road object in the strongest possible terms to the plan for urban development next to our home. Such a plan would ruin the special rural aspect of our property. The close proximity of the planned roads would increase noise and pollution and public foot traffic.

Urban housing in Byford has already shown an increase in crime in the area and noise, and we don’t want it any closer to our property than it already is. In addition, it was our understanding when we purchased this property that it was in the ‘Trotting zone’ and any urban development would involve a bridle trail as buffer the back boundary NOT a road for vehicles. As it is in the proposed plan there is a road/ T-junction down our east and back boundary!! This plan could not be more unacceptable

Noted. WE appreciate your response, have made recommendations to not support the proposed subdivision, and would like to see further exploration for a less intense transition of lot sizes from Rural Living A to Urban.

Sensitive transition of lots sizes in the future subdivision and development of the subject site. The diversity of lots within a space of approximately 250 m changes from Rural Living A to R60, a very intense transition. Include a sub-section for subdivision which states ‘Further explore a less intense transition of lot sizes from Rural Living A to Urban Residential’.





Recommendation

E20/

Martin Hicks 9 Eurythmic Road Byford A404541

16. I don’t believe Byford should have zoning as small as R60. It demeans the country feel.

Noted.

This is only a high level Structure Plan – the Shire is not overly interested with R60 zoning fronting onto San Simeon Boulevard.

This is a very intense density code to be fronting onto a major road which connects to the Shire’s Town Centre and also does not meet the current market needs for the Byford area.

Sensitive transition of lots sizes in the future subdivision and development of the subject site. The diversity of lots within a space of approximately 250 m changes from Rural Living A to R60, a very intense transition. Include a sub-section for subdivision which states ‘Further explore a less intense transition of lot sizes from Rural Living A to Urban Residential’.

Christine Richards 9 Eurythmic Road, Byford A404541

17. I object to the proposed R60 zoning as set out in the mail out provided. I feel the impact of such high density housing and increased population will have huge impact due to increased motor vehicle use and there for impact on air quality. Residents would also be exposed to environmental stressors; such as noise from neighbours and possible problems with increased crime if designated are is poorly designed. The current rural environment in Byford areas is one of the areas valuable attributes.

This is only a high level Structure Plan – the Shire is not overly interested with R60 zoning fronting onto San Simeon Boulevard.

This is a very intense density code to be fronting onto a major





Recommendation

E20/

road which connects to the Shire’s Town Centre and also does not meet the current market needs for the Byford area.

Trevor Tobia 138 Larsen Road BYFORD IN20/6269 IN20/6393

18. This letter is written in comment to the Proposed Local Structure Plan - Lot 57,58 & 70 Briggs Road and Lots 53,81,83,100 & 105 Larsen Road, Byford - Byford Area D. As the owner of 138 Larsen Road Byford I wish to comment that I am not in favour of the proposed layout and division of this proposed local structure plan. The proposed access street shown directly behind the larger Rural Living A lots is not a good design as these properties are quite large and have sheds etc. already established on them and so having a road directly behind and next to these will create trouble and privacy issues for these properties. It should be proposed that this access road be pushed back further into the development so that another row of larger blocks as proposed in the plan can back onto the existing Rural Living A blocks and then have the access road in front of them so that it prevents a road going through the back to two sets of larger blocks. This will create good privacy for both existing and new proposed lots. This needs to be addressed as this access road will create a lot of problems for these larger blocks that are already existing and to maintain the existing privacy of these larger blocks with the higher density living proposed in the plan then the location of a road directly behind these properties will adversely affect these existing properties, which should not be allowed considering that these properties have been established in place for many years already and the new proposed plan needs to provide minimal disruption and changes to these existing properties. Please see attached marked up drawing of proposed road and location.

Noted. Updated Plan with east – west internal road shifting further north to not back on to the Rural Living A lots; to delete the southeast road connection to Larsen Road; to adjust public open space in order to widen the MUC to a useable extent. This creates strategic protection to the trotting complex and helps to reinforce the MUC as a key green corridor for the area.






Recommendation

E20/

Bortolino and Elena Tobia 144 Larsen Road BYFORD IN20/6272 IN20/6391

19. This letter is written in comment to the Proposed Local Structure Plan - Lot 57,58 & 70 Briggs Road and Lots 53,81,83,100 & 105 Larsen Road, Byford - Byford Area D. As the owners of Lot 103, 144 Larsen Road Byford we wish to comment that we are not in favour of the proposed layout and division of this proposed local structure plan. The proposed access street shown directly behind the larger Rural Living A lots is not a good design as these properties are quite large and have sheds etc. already established on them and so having a road directly behind and next to these will create trouble and privacy issues for these properties. It should be proposed that this access road be pushed back further

Noted. Updated Plan with east – west internal road shifting further north to not back on to the Rural Living A lots; to delete the southeast road connection to Larsen Road; to adjust public





Recommendation

E20/

into the development so that another row of larger blocks as proposed in the plan can back onto the existing Rural Living A blocks and then have the access road in front of them so that it prevents a road going through the back to two sets of larger blocks. This will create good privacy for both existing and new proposed lots. This needs to be addressed as this access road will create a lot of problems for these larger blocks that are already existing and to maintain the existing privacy of these larger blocks with the higher density living proposed in the plan then the location of a road directly behind these properties will adversely affect these existing properties, which should not be allowed considering that these properties have been established in place for many years already and the new proposed plan needs to provide minimal disruption and changes to these existing properties. Please see attached marked up drawing of proposed road and location.

open space in order to widen the MUC to a useable extent. This creates strategic protection to the trotting complex and helps to reinforce the MUC as a key green corridor for the area.


Bortolino and Elena Tobia 20.

This letter is written in comment to the Proposed Local Structure Plan - Lot 57,58 & 70 Briggs Road and Lots 53,81,83,100 & 105 Larsen Road, Byford -

Noted Updated Plan with





Recommendation

E20/

144 Larsen Road BYFORD IN20/6291 IN20/6392

Byford Area D. As the owners of Lot 105, 158 Larsen Road Byford we wish to comment that we are not in favor of the prosed layout and division of this proposed local structure plan that directly relates to land owned by us i.e Lot 105. The proposed access street shown directly behind the larger Rural Living A lots and running through our property, L105, is not a good design as these properties are quite large and have sheds etc already established on them and so having a road directly behind and next to these will create trouble and privacy issues for these properties. It should be proposed that this access road be pushed back further into the development so that another row of larger blocks as proposed in the plan can back onto the existing Rural Living A blocks and then have the access road in front of them or somewhere else. This will create good privacy for both existing and new proposed lots. This needs to be addressed as this access road will create a lot of problems for these larger blocks that are already existing and to maintain the existing privacy of these larger blocks with the higher density living proposed in the plan then the location of a road directly behind these properties will adversely affect these existing properties, which should not be allowed considering that these properties have been established in place for many years already and the new proposed plan needs to provide minimal disruption and changes to these existing properties. Please see attached marked up drawing of proposed road and location.

east – west internal road shifting further north to not back on to the Rural Living A lots; to delete the southeast road connection to Larsen Road; to adjust public open space in order to widen the MUC to a useable extent. This creates strategic protection to the trotting complex and helps to reinforce the MUC as a key green corridor for the area.






Recommendation

E20/

Amandeep Singh IN20/6296

21. I am writing this letter regarding the Proposed Local Structure Plan – Lot 57, 58 & 70 Briggs Road and Lots 53, 81, 83, 100 & 105 Larsen Road, Byford – Byford Area D. As the owners of 132 Larsen Road Byford we would like to express that we are not in favour of the proposed layout and division of this proposed local structure plan. The access street shown in the proposed plan is directly behind the larger Rural Living A lots which is not a great design. These properties are quite large and

Noted Updated Plan with east – west internal road shifting further north to not back on to the Rural Living A lots; to delete the southeast road connection to Larsen Road; to adjust public





Recommendation

E20/

have sheds etc already established on them. Therefore, having the road directly behind and next to these properties will create trouble regarding privacy issues. It should be proposed that this access road be pushed back further into the development so that another row of larger blocks as proposed in the plan can back onto the existing Rural Living A blocks and then have the access road in front of them so that it prevents a road going through the back to two sets of larger blocks. This should create much better privacy for both existing and new proposed lots. Our concern needs to be addressed as this access road will create a lot of problems for the already existing larger blocks. If the road is not created behind the existing blocks this will in return maintain the existing privacy. With the higher density living proposed in the shires plan the location of a road directly behind these properties will adversely affect these existing properties, which should not be allowed considering that these properties have been established in place for many years already. Any new plan should provide minimal disruption and changes to the existing properties. Please refer to the attached marked up drawing of proposed road and location.







Recommendation

E20/

Mario Condipodero IN20/6415

22. I fully support the proposal and suggest extending the re-zoning to Binshaw avenue.

Noted.

David Woo G & G Corp Pty Ltd IN20/6696 Pino Gangemi

23. G & G Corp Pty Ltd acts for Pino Gangemi, the registered proprietor of Lot 9505 Briggs Road, Byford. The property is also known as the Byford Meadows Estate located immediately on the western side of Briggs Road. We have reviewed the Proposed Local Structure Plan and are not opposed to the proposal. However, we would like to bring to the Shire’s attention the importance of ensuring the proposed LSP is consistent with and in alignment with our approved Byford Meadows Local Structure Plan on the western side of Briggs Road. We raise the following issues:

1. The Public Open Space A area as shown on the Local Structure Plan (8902-

1. San Simeon / Indigo Parkway Drive do not align, this will need to be altered in the proposed round-about.

2. Noted





Recommendation

E20/

LSP-01-C) appears to extend into the San Simeon Boulevard road reserve area, when compared with the Concept Plan – Figure 11. The Shire is advised to ensure that the road reserve for San Simeon Boulevard extension (approved as Indigo Parkway) should be excluded from the Public Open Space A area.

2. The Shire should ensure that the extension San Simeon Boulevard (Indigo Parkway) at Briggs Road and the centreline of the four-way intersection are all in alignment. The attached plan indicates DVC’s roundabout desing at this location to be misaligned and does not tie in with Indigo Parkway on the western side of Briggs Road. This creates asymmetry at this four-way intersection that will undermine a possible future roundabout at this location.

3. It is our understanding that the T-junction at Thomas Road and Briggs Road is restricted to a left-in and left-out movement only, as required by Main Roads Western Australia. The full movement at this location as indicated in Figure 3.3 of DVC Donal Veal Consultatn’s Traffic Impact Assessment report is not realistic or correct.

3. Noted – will alter.





Recommendation

E20/

James Abraham & Achamma James IN20/6918 A402136

24. We are writing this letter in comments to the proposed Local Structure Plan Lot 57,58 & 70 Briggs Road and Lots 53,81,83,100 & 105 Larsen Road, Byford - Area D. As the owners of 190 Larsen Road Byford, we are not in favor of the layout and division of this proposed local structure Plan. This will create our privacy as it directly behind the properties of Larsen Road. So we highly oppose this project and should be propose that this access road be pushed back further into the development.

Noted. Updated Plan with east – west internal road shifting further north to not back on to the Rural Living A lots; to delete the southeast road connection to Larsen Road; to adjust public





Recommendation

E20/

Hope that these comments will be taken into consideration and not dismissed as it should be the right of us to make comments and changes made accordingly if necessary





Date post:	27-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

11 attacment 2 NEW SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Byford Area D ...

Documents