Western Australian Al Planning Commission January 2011 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1161/41 Parks and Recreation Reservations for Public Lands Transcript of Hearings Cities of Armada le, Bayswater, Belmont, Canning, Cockburn, Fremantle, Gosnells, Joondalup, Rockingham, Stirling, Subiaco, Swan and Wanneroo, Towns of Bassendean and Kwinana and Shires of Kalamunda, Mundaring and Serpentine-Jarrandale GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Transcript
WesternAustralian
Al PlanningCommission
January 2011
Metropolitan RegionScheme Amendment1161/41
Parks and RecreationReservations forPublic Lands
Transcript of Hearings
Cities of Armada le, Bayswater, Belmont, Canning,Cockburn, Fremantle, Gosnells, Joondalup, Rockingham,Stirling, Subiaco, Swan and Wanneroo,Towns of Bassendean and Kwinanaand Shires of Kalamunda, Mundaringand Serpentine-Jarrandale
GOVERNMENT OFWESTERN AUSTRALIA
Recording and Transcription
This transcript is produced from live audio recordings. Whilstevery care is taken in its preparation absolute accuracycannot be guaranteed. No changes are made to grammarand syntax.
Metropolitan Region SchemeAmendment 1161/41
Parks and Recreation Reservations for Public Lands
Transcript of Hearings
Cities of Armada le, Bayswater, Belmont, Canning, Cockburn, Fremantle,Gosnells, Joondalup, Rockingham, Stirling, Subiaco, Swan and Wanneroo
Towns of Bassendean and KwinanaShires of Kalamunda, Mundaring and Serpentine-Jarrandale
Copies of this document are available inalternative formats on application to thedisability services co-ordinator.
Minutes of the Committee hearing submissions on Metropolitan Region SchemeAmendment 1161/41 Parks and Recreation Reservations for Public Lands
Wednesday 19 May 2010, Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth
The composition of the hearings committee was endorsed by the chairman of the WesternAustralian Planning Commission on 10 May 2010, in accordance with the 27 October 2009resolution of the Commission.
Chairperson
Members
In attendance
Cr Corinne MacRae
Cr Henry Zelones
Dr Bruce Hamilton
Ms Vicki Evans
Mr Ross Parker
Mr Steven Rad ley
Member of the Statutory PlanningCommittee
Local government representative
Independent, with environmental expertise
Department of Planning
Department of Planning
Department of Planning
Presentations to the Committee commenced at 10.00am.
The proceedings were recorded by 'Spark & Cannon Pty Ltd'.
The following people made presentations:
1) Mr Paul Stephen and Ms Jasmine Tothill and for submission number 31.Mr Stephen and Ms Tothill represented Swan River Trust.
2) Mr Darren Evans (Greg Rowe & Associates) for submission number 17.Mr Evans represented Cityscape Holdings Pty Ltd
3) Mr Alan Hill for submission numbers 32.Mr Hill represented himself.
4) Mr Murray Casselton (TPG Town Planning and Urban Design) for submission number29.Mr Casselton represented the Water Corporation
5) Mr Tom Grigson for submission number 35Mr Grigson represented the Department of State Development
6) Mr Trevor Moran (Landvision) and Mr Anthony Sorgiovanni for submission number 27Mr Moran and Mr Sorgiovanni represented Mr C Sorgiovanni and Mr I Philp.
Cr Corinne MacRae declared the hearings closed at 12.05pm.
Chairperson:
Date:
"
File No:
WesternI AustralianPlanningCommission
Meeting of the Board held on or
Meeting of the
held on 4./ 5 / c)-en
/ An-Nit-t-Item No.
Committee of the Commission // /AL 1
Matter under consideration:Pcx."2-ce
Page No.
oc.,-&>y-L-c:0 cpcjv ek
Name of Board Member: 0, / r2
Name of Committee Member:
Name of Employee
Nature of the interest in the matter under consideration:3fri-yoctA.-
ce-c-s-ao
cGfrt-%c7e-ar---ey 14-n-P-{,l/fON,
Signature: Date: / 7 7 A-0C9'±ac,e,,s2_ r*Please return completed and signed form to the relevant Committee Secretary.
KASCE\CommitteesDeclarations of interest \interest form impartiality.doc
Mr Paul Stephens and Ms Jasmine Tothillrepresenting Swan River Trust
CR MACRAE: Good morning Paul and Jasmine. You're here representing the Swan RiverTrust.
MR STEPHENS: Yes.
CR MACRAE: So tell us about your submission.
MR STEPHENS: Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you directly aboutit. We just want to talk about I think eight items but some of those very briefly and perhaps,you know, with Ross's advice we can probably skip over some of those quite quickly as well.Do you want me to just jump straight into it?
CR MACRAE: Yes, please.
MR STEPHENS: Yes, sure. Okay. I'm sure you've got a long day ahead of you. Okay.First one is Bayswater number 1 sorry, number 2, which is portion of lot 503 Swan ViewTerrace in Maylands. We've objected to the removal of a portion of lot 13 sorry, it'sprobably lot 503 out of the P and R on the basis that we don't see what the rationale for thatis and it seems to make a non-contiguous or more difficult line to actually achieve a rationalP and R boundary along that portion. I think there are advantages in keeping it straight andfairly simple and straightforward.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR STEPHENS: I guess we're asking is what's the basis for it. It didn't appear to us to beapparent in the report.
CR MACRAE: Well, I could ask Ross. Are there developments on that portion?
MR PARKER: They're private residences. Very quickly, Madam Chair, perhaps if I givethe background to the placement of the P and R reservation in that location. In the 1963scheme the Swan River Drive was proposed all through that area. The rest of the landeither side of the Swan River Drive was urban. So the boundary of the existing P and Rreservation was actually established by the boundary of the primary regional roadreservation. That was the rationale, nothing more than that, simply a line on a map. Thatlittle block down there indicates the subject property and the portion here indicates theportion that we were going to return to the urban zone.
In the 1976 scheme it was transferred from the urban into the P and R and the Swan RiverDrive primary regional road reservation remained. That was subsequently removed and thatleft the current situation as we have it today.
19.5.2010 1 Stephens; Tothill
The reason that we're proposing the transfer of that portion is because we negotiated withthe owner the acquisition of what is now lot 13 and the boundary was proposed for the top ofthe bank. If you look at one of those photos, Madam Chair, you'll see that there's a fence onone of those photos. That fence you will see is actually along the boundary the top of thebank.
We acquired lot 13 because it was already an existing reserve Bath Reserve and wewanted to remove the P and R from the owner's private property so they could haveunfettered enjoyment of their land and we didn't see that retaining it would add anything tothe amenity of the existing reserve or the foreshore reservation in that area. So when wenegotiated the acquisition that's where the boundary was determined and that's why thisproposal was being put forward.
DR HAMILTON: Chair, could I ask a question of Ross? What are the implications forgiven that alignment there, what are the implications for the other blocks on each side?
MR PARKER: Well, the blocks immediately to the west are already part of Bath StreetReserve so there is no
DR HAMILTON: Yes. Yes. No, I'm comfortable with that.
MR PARKER: but on the eastern side there is a possibility that we're establishing aprecedent. However, in our view and in their submission the Swan River Trust did make thisproposal that the whole precinct in that area should be looked at. We intend to do that atsome future date because we believe that that boundary should be adjusted to take intoaccount the residential development and the alignment of the P and R boundary in terms ofnot just the top of the bank but existing residential infrastructure. So in other words, we mayneed practically to adjust it toward the river. So there is, I suppose, some element of aprecedent there but we would again deal with that whole area there on the basis of thecircumstances as they exist. This reflects simply an agreement in good faith with an existingresidential owner.
DR HAMILTON: I mean, my preference would be that that reserve is treated as a wholeand if there's going to be adjustment of the P and R boundary then it's done in partnershiphopefully with the Swan River Trust to get the best result for both the private landowners andthe public. You know, I can see that this is a particular issue but that would sort of be mypreference and I would encourage the WAPC and the Department of Planning to move assoon as practicably possible to looking at the whole situation and working out the best result.
CR MACRAE: Ross, what has been acquired in this vicinity in terms of WAPC?
MR PARKER: There is one further small block of land, Madam Chair, a bit to the east ofthat which is right on the foreshore and that's it at this stage. The Commission at this stagethe property the acquisitions branch of property management has no plans in theforeseeable future to make any further acquisitions in that area. That's just simply budgetaryconstraints.
19.5.2010 2 Stephens; Tothill
CR MACRAE: Okay. Paul?
MR STEPHENS: Yes. Look, I think that's the point.I mean, we would maintain that this isan ad hoc approach. It needs to be planned in a holistic way and it's not just a matter ofacquisition. It's about planning what the community needs in terms of access andmanagement of this area and to do it just on a lot by lot basis is really not a particularlyrational approach. That's our view. As Ross alluded to, I think it will set a very strongprecedent and you will expect the rest of those landowners in the area to come knocking onyour door trying to reduce the P and R. I think we've got to think that's a dangerousprecedent to set. I think that's probably enough.
CR MACRAE: Thanks.
MR STEPHENS: The next one is Belmont number 4 which is around Tanunda Drive. Thisis the old Hardy Park area. I mean, basically we agree with the proposal as it stands but wenote that in the report there is some consideration that there be a further reduction in the Pand R and we would object to that. We just wanted to know whether, you know whetherthat's gone now.
CR MACRAE: Ross?
MR PARKER: Essentially what we were going to do is that element of the proposal whichproposes the transfer of that particular reserve we would withdraw for now because theproponents of that development are going to be making an application for an excision of partof the reservation for road widening and that's not something necessarily that is fullysupported within the department but the whole precinct is under review. So we felt that themost advisable course here would be to withdraw that part of the proposal which refers tothat reserve and to leave it for now in the urban until such time as the matter of the excisionwas dealt with which will require a Parliamentary process and public comment.
MR STEPHENS: Yes, because it's a class A reserve.
MR PARKER: Yes.
MR STEPHENS: This has got a huge history to it I think you're probably familiar with it. So,
look, I would support that as far as it goes but I think we will reserve the right to makeanother submission
CR MACRAE: Another submission.
MR STEPHENS: at the time.
DR HAMILTON: Chair, I have a question about this one. I haven't gone in detail throughthe consultant's large document but I've pulled out one of their concept plans and it seems tome and I asked this of Ross earlier they're proposing a carpark inside the building lineadjacent to Tanunda Road or Drive.
19.5.2010 3 Stephens; Tothill
Ross's answer was that was both for private parking and public parking. I agree that it's avery important site. I know it really well. Does the Trust have a view on where the publicparking should go?
MR STEPHENS: Not at this stage, Bruce.
DR HAMILTON: Not at this stage.
MR STEPHENS: I think that that park has been reduced to the absolute minimum and Ithink we have to be fairly careful about the parking. I think the original idea was that therewould be some parking along the street in fact and perhaps not try and use the remaining bitof the area that's the park for parking.
CR MACRAE: In terms of access to that kind of a foreshore for members of the public forparking where is the nearest parking area?
MR STEPHENS: I don't really think there is one.
CR MACRAE: No. I think that's the issue, access to the foreshore could end up beingprivatised if there was no pseudo-privatised.
MR STEPHENS: Yes, sure.
DR HAMILTON: That's the diagram I am referring to and it has got this quite large parkingarea in there.
MR STEPHENS: Yes. Yes.
DR HAMILTON: I am not suggesting that you should take up any more of the reserve forparking but my view that I've held over a long time is this essentially privatises publicparking. I've driven round there. I've ridden round there. I've walked around there. I justthink it's an issue that the Trust could look at as part of that further stage of looking at thewhole proposal.
MR STEPHENS: Thanks.
CR MACRAE: Thanks, Paul.
MR STEPHENS: The next one is Canning number 3 3(i) and 3(iii). This one is a portionof it's a bridge abutment over the Canning River. I mean, basically our
MR PARKER: To save you time, Paul, we withdraw that.
MR STEPHENS: Okay.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
19.5.2010 4 Stephens; Tothill
MR STEPHENS: Our position, I mean, really briefly was that where there's a road at gradeand it's filled that's fine to go to urban but where an abutment was required, there's anissue. The next
DR HAMILTON: I would just like to comment that I am pleased to see that that one andothers like it have been withdrawn.
MR STEPHENS: The next one is Gosnells number 8(i). Again, this is the confluence at theBickley Brook. What we're not clear about is what the basis for the change is. If that can beexplained we would like to know, you know, what the basis of that is.
CR MACRAE: Yes. Ross?
MR PARKER: Again, Madam Chair, that is similar to the Bayswater proposal where theCommission negotiated the acquisition of some of the foreshore area of the privately ownedlots for the P and R. It was subsequently decided that all of that area wasn't required andthat the acquisition was renegotiated so that the boundary of the privately owned propertiesis actually that very heavy black line bordering lots 50 and 801. So those lots were createdas a result of the acquisition and it was agreed that the P and R would not include those lots,or those parts of the lots, enclosed by the heavy line but it has just taken some considerabletime years in fact for that to be in fact actioned. So that's the rationale.
The area of foreshore there, you'll see from both the aerial and the figure that that part of theriver there actually becomes an open drain under the Kenwick Link and Albany Highway sothere's no continuing access to the foreshore. You will see from the large aerial that there isconsiderable P and R all through here. The land itself, which is this stuff down here thereis a couple of large I think rudis there but it is largely very, very degraded. It is not heavilywooded. It doesn't, as it stands today, have any significant environmental values other thanperhaps as a buffer to the river which at that location is very, very narrow. So that was therationale. It was to recognise again an agreement with private landowners at the time ofacquisition but wasn't actioned.
CR MACRAE: Okay. Paul?
MR STEPHENS: Look, yes, that's fine. We don't have a strong objection to this one. It's
just that I guess
CR MACRAE: Just querying the rationale.
MR STEPHENS: Yes, we're querying the rationale and I guess ifI can be so rude as tomake the comment, you need to be cautious about being over practical about these things.Just because land is in private ownership that's not necessarily a reason to lift a P and Rreserve but I appreciate sometimes there's history that we're not aware of at the time.
19.5.2010 5 Stephens; Tothill
DR HAMILTON: I'm prone to making general comments at these hearings. Would it beuseful if the Trust was aware of these agreements, because you're looking in the totality ofthe reserves and the management of those reserves around the whole system
MR STEPHENS: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: then the Trust could take a more proactive view of which bits theywould actually impose?
MR STEPHENS: Yes, sure. That would be helpful and the Trust is not unaware of thecommission's difficulties and the size of the task in acquiring this land. I sort of occasionallyremind the trust that it's not just P and R around the river the Commission has to worryabout. It has got the whole state to worry about and the rest of the metropolitan area.
DR HAMILTON: I am just suggesting in these particular circumstances
MR STEPHENS: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: that where there had been agreement at the time of acquisition withthe private landowner if the trust was aware of all those and then you could have a look atthem as to whether there were any that you really wanted to keep and that's apropos of yourcomment that it should be looked at again and it shouldn't be just taken as a fait accompli.
MR STEPHENS: Yes. The next one is Swan number 11. We support it but make thecomment that to consider widening the foreshore reserve to include the land under thebridge joining the bridge abutment some of the land is the abutment is a constructedabutment in terms of its being filled and then the rest of it is actually on piers so it goes overthe reserve area. We would suggest that the area that is under the bridge itself should bepart of the P and R reserve but the rest can remain go to urban.
CR MACRAE: Okay.
MR PARKER: We're sympathetic to that point of view, Madam Chair. We actually aregoing to propose later on in the submissions for part of that proposal, and that is the areasabutting the now operational Reid Highway, particularly that patch just to the south. Both ofthose patches those pieces of land abutting the primary regional road reservation theycan be withdrawn for now because apparently the road reservation has had to be widenedbecause they've included additional lanes but we take on board what Paul is saying aboutunder the bridge being the same as elsewhere and the trust was also suggesting we mightlook at widening the strip. Thirty-five metres is our standard provision and we're sometimeswary about making the reservation on the foreshore too wide in one area because then itimposes an obligation on us.
CR MACRAE: Perhaps, Ross, we can leave discussion of it to later because there's quite afew items for Paul and Jasmine to get through.
19.5.2010 6 Stephens; Tothill
MR PARKER: Yes.
MR STEPHENS: Okay. Number 6 is the Governor Stirling school site. That's actually thesubject of a rebuilding in fact at the moment. What we're suggesting is that we would likeyou to consider a P and R reserve along the edge of the public reserve high school publicpurpose reserve.
I think we're asking you to be brave in taking on the Department of Education in that butnevertheless I think it is part of a contiguous link that we would like to establish through thatarea.
MR STEPHENS: Yes. Yes, so, you know, thanks if you do consider that. The next oneis
DR HAMILTON: One would hope that the Education Department would be sympathetic tothat as there is quite, I know, a strong environmental stream in Governor Stirling HighSchool's teachers and what they teach.
MR STEPHENS: Yeah.
DR HAMILTON: But that's an off-the-cuff comment.
MR STEPHENS: Yes. The new building is going to be great. Okay. The next one is Swan16. We support that but I think we've got a minor yes, look, it's a minor anomaly on lot 125.
CR MACRAE: Yes, I see what you mean.
MR STEPHENS: If you would just pick that up that would be great.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR STEPHENS: Again, the next one is Swan 21. Again, it's a question of the bridgestructure and where the P and R should go.
CR MACRAE: Yes. We agree with you on that.
MR STEPHENS: I think that's it.
CR MACRAE: Thank you very much, Paul.
MR STEPHENS: Great. Thank you. Thanks for giving us the opportunity.
CR MACRAE: Thanks for bringing all those items to our attention.
19.5.2010 7 Stephens; Tothill
MR STEPHENS: That's all right.
CR MACRAE: Any other questions, Henry?
CR ZELONES: No. Nothing. It has been very thoroughly canvassed.
CR MACRAE: Thanks very much for coming in.
MR STEPHENS: If Ross needs to talk to us about anything we're on the end of the phone.
CR MACRAE: Thank you. Nice to see you again.
19.5.2010 8 Stephens; Tothill
Mr Darren Evansrepresenting Cityscape Holdings Pty Ltd
CR MACRAE: Good morning Darren.
MR EVANS: Hello.
CR MACRAE: I'm Corinne MacRae.
MR EVANS: Pleased to meet you.
CR MACRAE: Bruce Hamilton.
DR HAMILTON: Hi, pleased to meet you.
CR MACRAE: Councillor Henry Zelones.
MR EVANS: Good-day, Henry.
CR MACRAE: You know Ross Parker, do you?
MR EVANS: No.
CR MACRAE: Ross is a Department of Planning officer helping us with this amendment.
MR EVANS: Yes, no worries.
CR MACRAE: So you're to talk to us about the proposal before us.
MR EVANS: Yes.
CR MACRAE: Just because I think we might have a few questions.
MR EVANS: Yes. No problem at all. I have a lot of background in it.
CR MACRAE: Okay.
MR EVANS: So just start?
CR MACRAE: Fire away?
MR EVANS: Yes, okay. So the proposal relates to lot 14,000 well, includes lot 14,000Tanunda Drive, Rivervale. It also includes some other areas on the side.
19.5.2010 9 Evans
We act on behalf of Cityscape Holdings who owns lot 14,004 and 14,005 Tanunda Drivewhich is adjacent to lot 14,000.
Since 1999 these landholdings have been the subject of a land exchange agreement andrelated conditions. A number of matters surrounding the exchange remain unresolved. In
September 2006 with a view of resolving the outstanding matters the City of Belmontadopted the Cityscape comprehensive proposal which was then later supported in part bythe WAPC in June of last year or parts of it, I should say.
We support the proposed parks and recreation zoning of lot 14,000, however ask that it beheld until all tasks comprising the Cityscape comprehensive proposal be finalised. Theproposal includes a number of statutory processes, one of which is the excision of a portionof lot 14,000 and its amalgamation with our client's land. This excision has been supportedby the City of Belmont, the WAPC and the Minister for Lands. The excision is due to beadvertised for public comment shortly.
Another process commenced is the rezoning of the proposed excision under the Belmonttown planning scheme. This amendment, amendment number 60, is now with theDepartment of Planning for recommendation to the Minister. Amendment 60 was widelyadvertised with over 2700 letters sent out to the community, signs on site and adverts in thenewspaper. In total only six objections were received to that amendment which is a 0.2per cent rate of the number of letters sent out.
Other processes which are included in the Cityscape comprehensive proposal include a roadclosure, road widening and there's likely to be a range of agreements regarding the upgradeof lot 14,000 as part of the development. It's not possible at the moment to simply excludethe proposed excision from the parks and recreation amendment as a final land area of theexcision has yet to be determined. A final surveyor's plan was produced last week and iscurrently with the Minister for Land's department for agreement before advertising.
CR MACRAE: Have you got a copy of that, by the way?
MR EVANS: Yes.
CR MACRAE: Okay. Good. Just hold on to it and we'll have a look at it later.
MR EVANS: Until the excision process is complete, which includes parliamentary approval,it is not considered appropriate to finalise the parks and recreation zoning. We request thatthe WAPC hold proposal 4 until all elements of the Cityscape proposal have been finalised.That's it.
CR MACRAE: Good. Thanks. If I could just have a look at the proposal, thank you.
MR EVANS: This is the latest plan that was produced by the surveyor. So lot 14,000 is inthis area here. The hatched area is the proposed excision into the park. That has now beendetermined at 7.13 metres.
19.5.2010 10 Evans
I think in the MRS report it refers to 8.7 metres which was an old delineation.
DR HAMILTON: Seven point what?
MR EVANS: 7.13.
CR MACRAE: That is because Tanunda Drive is proposed to be realigned, widened withwideness to accommodate parking.
MR EVANS: That's right, yes.
CR MACRAE: The parking is to be public parking, not to the development.
MR EVANS: No, that's right.
DR HAMILTON: So in future I will just preface my question with the view that this reservehere is a very important reserve because it's the only place where you can get a decent viewof the vista from up on high.
MR EVANS: That's right.
DR HAMILTON: The other bit along here is very narrow. So the first question is, how willthe public know they've got access there and that the parking is inside the building linerather than in a more obviously position? Is that part of the comprehensive plan to advertisethe public access?
MR EVANS: Well, the public access will be on the roadway
DR HAMILTON: Yes.
MR EVANS: and the link through so the public is clearly going to see the parking. I
mean, in terms of your first point about this being an important link, this land area was givenaway well, not given away. It was exchanged for another area of park. Actually if look atthe MRS amendment I think it's proposal 1 or 2 in your amendment proposal on City ofBelmont the other proposals in the City of Belmont
MR PARKER: I think you're referring to the former John of God site.
MR EVANS: No.
MR PARKER: No.
MR EVANS: No.
CR MACRAE: One proposal 1, City of Belmont?
19.5.2010 11 Evans
MR EVANS: No, proposal 2. That area there hatched is the former Cityscapelandholdings. That's what they owned. That's what they were essentially required to swapfor this land. That land was deemed to be a better park for the city and the community.
The whole premise of the exchange was on that area being a better park which it now is andwhich the community has the benefit of.
DR HAMILTON: Yes, it's really beautiful
MR EVANS: They have had the benefit of for over a decade now.
CR MACRAE: Yes. So this land this land, it's value is really in the vista which is theportion adjacent to most adjacent to the river. It's in a degraded state. It's proposed to beupgraded significantly. There's proposed to be lookouts proposed stretching over the scarp.
DR HAMILTON: Yes. I've seen your conceptual plan.
MR EVANS: I didn't bring those. Okay.
DR HAMILTON: It's in your big document.
MR EVANS: Okay. There's some more recent ones.
DR HAMILTON: Okay.
MR EVANS: So the parking is proposed in the public domain. In terms of the sort ofuseable, active areas these are the entranceways to the park. This is where the parking wasproposed previously. There's a level issue here. There's a drainage and sort of accessissue down here. It was deemed by the City more appropriate to have them in the roadway.
DR HAMILTON: Okay. Thanks for that. Just to be clear, you're only saying that this bitshould be withdrawn. Could this bit go ahead?
MR EVANS: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: No problem with that?
MR EVANS: We don't have any concerns with that.
DR HAMILTON: Okay. Thank you.
CR MACRAE: Can we have a copy of this?
MR EVANS: You can keep that, yes.
CR MACRAE: Very helpful.
19.5.2010 12 Evans
MR EVANS: It's not approved as yet.
CR MACRAE: Sure.
MR EVANS: It's just a draft plan.
CR MACRAE: Okay.
DR HAMILTON: Yes. Yes. I understand that.
CR MACRAE: What's the stage it's at? It has been
MR EVANS: The Minister for Lands has given in principle approval to the process of theexcision proceeding and we're just agreeing on the plans. We're advertising at the moment.
CR MACRAE: Right.
MR EVANS: A surveyor's plan hadn't been prepared previously and there was some MainRoads road widening that have happened which affect the final land area.
CR MACRAE: Okay. All right. I think we've got a clear picture of that now.
MR EVANS: Okay.
CR MACRAE: Thank you. Bruce, any more questions?
DR HAMILTON: No, no. That's fine.
CR MACRAE: Henry?
CR ZELONES: No, I'm fine.
CR MACRAE: Thank you very much for coming in.
MR EVANS: No problem. Thank you.
CR ZELONES: Sorry, the notes you read from?
MR EVANS: Do you want a copy of those?
CR ZELONES: Yes, if you wouldn't mind. You went through that rather quickly.
MR EVANS: Sorry.
CR ZELONES: I think that would just be helpful
19.5.2010 13 Evans
MR EVANS: Yes, no problems.
CR ZELONES: Thanks.
MR EVANS: Have a good day. Thank you.
19.5.2010 14 Evans
Mr Alan Hillrepresenting himself
CR MACRAE: Hello, I'm Corinne MacRae.
MR HILL: Pleased to meet you, Corinne.
DR HAMILTON: I'm Bruce Hamilton.
MR HILL: Good day, Bruce.
CR ZELONES: Good day. Henry Zelones.
CR MACRAE: Henry Zelones.
MR HILL: Good day, Henry.
CR MACRAE: So, Alan, you're here to talk to us about a couple of proposals, one in theCity of Swan and one in the Shire of Kalamunda or issues in the Shire of Kalamunda.
MR HILL: Yes. Yes, Corinne. Thanks for the opportunity to come in and talk to thecommittee. I've been working with the community for the last 20 years in Kalamunda andthe Helena River catchment. I would like to apologise. I did actually have a neatpresentation that I thought I would give you but it appears to have not been copied onto thedisk properly. I have put together as totally as I can what I was going to say.
I've worked with the Helena River catchment group and the Helena River catchment group afew weeks ago actually gave me permission to actually speak on its behalf but and I'veworked for about 15 years with the Darling Range Regional Park Advisory Committee. Formany, many years I've been the coordinator of the Friends for Quenda Creek reserves inGooseberry Hill.
So the comments and the submissions on two areas that I put into the Commission reallyrelate to the area which I call the ritual catchment which is a complete stream catchmentwhich extends from Gooseberry Hill down to Bellevue on the Helena River. What I wouldlike to communicate to the committee is virtually a request that they include the natural andcultural heritage listed lands of the ritual catchment in the parks and recreation zoning of theBellevue to Gooseberry Hill area.
Now the ritual catchment, which does extend from the Gooseberry Hill national park down tothe Bellevue farm is almost an undeveloped catchment almost a completely undevelopedcatchment on the Swan coastal plain and it extends from the river flood plain at Bellevue upto the springs on the top of the Darling Scarp in Gooseberry Hill. That ritual catchment isremarkably blessed with undisturbed virtually an undisturbed flora and fauna systems.
19.5.2010 15 Hill
The flora of that area the area includes the Bellevue farm, Kadina River, Kadina Brookfloodplains which cross the Helena Valley Road, the Bushmead rifle range and theKadina Brook reserves in Gooseberry Hill and it extends up to Gooseberry Hill national parkand the Quenda Creek reserves.
The Bushmead rifle range has had 350 plant species described. The bushland up alongsidethe Gooseberry Hill national park has had 700 species describes so it's a remarkably richbotanical area. The Bushmead rifle range, which is virtually the core of the catchment, it's270 hectares of land of which 210 hectares of land is included on the federal governmentheritage lists. It actually has a remarkable suite of fauna, including Carnaby black cockatooand carpet python which are rare and endangered.
DR HAMILTON: Could I just interrupt, Alan.
MR HILL: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: I'm struggling to find are you talking about City of Swan proposal 7?That's not
MR HILL: I think it might be City of Swan proposal 4 and Shire of Kalamunda 12.
DR HAMILTON: I think we just need to
CR MACRAE: Kalamunda 12.
DR HAMILTON: we as a committee need to get to the right one. The first one that'slisted is City of Swan proposal 7 but that's down near Belhus, The Vines and that area. I
know the area you're talking about but I just want to be clear that we're on the right map.Can Ross help us there?
MR PARKER: Yes, I think I can. I think I'm sorry, Madam Chair, that is incorrect. It isMundaring 7 and 12. I'm sorry. That is totally incorrect.
CR MACRAE: Right.
MR PARKER: My apologies.
CR MACRAE: So both of them are in Mundaring.
MR HILL: Mundaring 7.
MR PARKER: Mundaring 7 and 12.
MR HILL: Yes. Okay.
DR HAMILTON: Give us a couple of secs to get those ones out.
19.5.2010 16 Hill
MR HILL: It's actually Mundaring 7 and I think it's actually Kalamunda
CR MACRAE: Kalamunda 12.
MR PARKER: Kalamunda 12. Yes, it is. I'm sorry.
CR MACRAE: It's Mundaring 7 that we're talking about you're talking about in terms ofBellevue.
MR HILL: Mundaring 8 is relevant also.
DR HAMILTON: Thank you for that.
MR HILL: Okay. I actually had some quite nice figures in my Powerpoint presentation toyou.
CR MACRAE: Perhaps just to help us all, Alan, if you could tell us in your submission whatyou would like the areas that you were suggesting be included and generally the fact thatyou are supportive of the proposals but you would like to see additional areas included.
MR HILL: Yes.
CR MACRAE: Perhaps if we could start there
MR HILL: Okay.
CR MACRAE: in terms of the areas that you would like to have included.
MR HILL: Okay. The areas I am suggesting actually also be included are the upland areaon Bellevue farm. That's the upland area on the north-west and the north-east. The uplandarea on the north-east actually extends across Katharine Road and includes Elder Park.
CR MACRAE: Right.
MR HILL: Okay. On the south of this area there's actually this area is actually all wetlandthrough here. There's a floodplain wetland that extends down to the Bushmead border andit's a tongue virtually really quite a narrow tongue and the Kadina Brook is actually abraided stream within that floodplain tongue. In the natural environment that actually linksthe confluence of Kadina Brook which happens on the Bellevue wetlands down here with theBush mead.
CR MACRAE: So it's an area down here.
MR HILL: Yes, and it's actually through that block actually across so almost that way,sorry Corinne yes, other way.
19.5.2010 17 Hill
CR MACRAE: Okay.
MR HILL: So include that area.
CR MACRAE: Okay.
MR HILL: That's virtually just at the north of this property there's a railway line and therailway line extends all up through Mundaring and there's a network of walk trails. Along thetop of Bushmead here there's that's actually reserve along there too. So I'm actuallysuggesting that that area actually be included.
CR MACRAE: Right.
MR HILL: So, Corinne, you might have to identify there.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR HILL: Virtually that the reserve the network of walk tracks that go up to Kalamundaand that's on the old railway reserves.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR HILL: This is the zigzag railway too. That network of walk tracks be actually broughtdown through and included on that. Then we've actually got a lovely
CR MACRAE: Connected.
MR HILL: lovely connected and it would actually make sense on the scheme. That'son the Bellevue property.
CR MACRAE: Okay. Good.
MR HILL: I've actually done recently the Federal government through a real estate agent,Knight Frank, had Bushmead rifle range up for sale and that included the 270 hectares and210 hectares of heritage listed land. The land was up for sale for only six weeks. The landactually does have it has both natural heritage value and indigenous heritage value.There's a little bit of a problem that because the land was only up for sale for six weeks itwas almost impossible to invoke purchase by bodies like the Indigenous Land Corporationbecause their processes take about four months to actually put through.
I had discussions with them and they suggested that the land, even as the submissionsfinished, that the land that they thought there wasn't a lot of interest in the purchase of theland because of the heritage land encumbrances. They thought that if somebody actuallyoffered them the Federal government the order of 12 to 13 million dollars then they stillare likely to actually
19.5.2010 18 Hill
CR MACRAE: I think we're getting away from the scope of the amendment process.
MR HILL: No. That's that's fine.
CR MACRAE: It's interesting background.
MR HILL: The vendor actually pointed out that the heritage lands, which have beenheritage listed for a long time, it's likely that there will be like a desire for those heritage landsto be separated in the next year or so and actually go to an appropriate management body.If there was actually an opportunity to protect those heritage lands through this P and Rprocess
CR MACRAE: That would be at a later stage.
MR HILL: Yes.
CR ZELONES: Protecting of the I guess I'm curious. What's the status of the heritage? I
mean, under what heritage the local MI or
MR HILL: Well, it's actually the national heritage list and the commonwealth heritage list.So it's actually federal government heritage listing. Also in the whole of the areas they've gotindicative listing on the register of the national estate.
CR ZELONES: Yes, but it hasn't at the state one.
MR HILL: No, Bushmead doesn't but the Bellevue does. The whole of Bellevue is stateheritage listed.
CR MACRAE: Lovely homes there.
MR HILL: That's right.
CR MACRAE: Okay. So, Alan, moving on to Kalamunda proposal 12.
MR HILL: Okay.
CR MACRAE: That, if I'm not mistaken, is Xanthorrhoea nursery.
MR HILL: That's correct, yes.
CR MACRAE: I'm very familiar with the site and the one next door.
MR HILL: Okay.
CR MACRAE: There's a reserve there.
19.5.2010 19 Hill
MR HILL: I'm suggesting Maida Vale reserve be included because of its natural heritagevalues. This is Bee Eater Creek down here and this area that strip there and that areathere is the Kadina Brook reserves.
CR MACRAE: Right.
MR HILL: So that one and, yes, that one.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR HILL: Now
DR HAMILTON: So, Alan, are these listed in the town planning scheme as local reservesKalamunda planning scheme? You're saying they're reserves but Ross tells us he couldn'tfind them on the GIS in planning.
MR HILL: No, they're reserves. Years ago they were vested in the Shire of Kalamunda butthey were created when the Farrant estate was developed about 15 years ago. The KadinaBrook Reserve, they're actually a network. They're both they're all on the streams of thearea, both Bee Eater Creek and Kadina Brook. They end up being the link the missing linkat the moment between the Gooseberry Hill national park and Gooseberry Hill regionalopen space and Bushmead. So they're actually they're wide reserves and well, KadinaBrook is actually quite a wide reserve and it acts like a wildlife corridor at the moment.
CR MACRAE: All right.
MR HILL: So my suggestion is actually including Bee Eater
CR MACRAE: Absolutely.
MR HILL: Kadina and Maida Vale Reserve has got very high value bushland. It's aBush Forever site. The third and the last suggested addition is at the top of we're lookingat a ritual catchment right at the top of the ritual catchment. The creek goes right up intothe Quenda Creek Reserves which are already regional open space. There's a smallreserve system called the Huntley Street reserves which actually go from which areKalamunda reserves which actually link the regional open space of the railway reserve inKalamunda with the bushland associated with the Kalamunda national park. So it actuallythat's actually almost like the missing link in the regional open space which links the walktracks.
CR MACRAE: Yes. I think with those ones, if you don't mind me suggesting, that perhaps ifthe Shire of Kalamunda were to develop some sort of comprehensive P and R rezoningproposal and all in one, so we're not dealing with bits and pieces. I mean, if the Shire wereproactive in that respect and I'm sure they are proactive in the regional open spaceacquisition that it could be done as a future omnibus amendment.
19.5.2010 20 Hill
MR HILL: I could possibly table that. That's about 10 or 15 years ago the Shire did exactlythat
CR MACRAE: Sure. Yes.
MR HILL: as part of the and suggested as part of the Darling Range regional parkamendments. That's at the moment my suggestions at the moment. I just modestly
CR MACRAE: Yes, absolutely.
MR HILL: the Ridge Hill catchment but the what the Shire did proactively about adecade ago I think was actually suggested that almost consistent with the foothills structureplan of 15 years ago.
CR MACRAE: Yes, I remember that.
MR HILL: Virtually the identification of the major creeks across the coastal plain. The Shireactually suggested and listed the creek reserves
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR HILL: and actually asked if the Commission would actually support that.
CR MACRAE: Yes. Okay. Well, that was some time ago and we might probably need torevisit that. I'm not sure of the status of all of that but I think we're probably exhausting theopportunities for adding more land into reserves at this point in time. We've confinedourselves to the proposals that have been advertised but we're very interested to hear thesuggestions that you've made in the vicinity of the proposals that have been advertised.
MR HILL: Corinne, in terms of and members of the committee in terms of thesignificance of the additions to the P and R, I think the Kadina Brook reserves in GooseberryHill are really a very important strategic addition to the reserves.
CR MACRAE: Okay.
MR HILL: At the moment if you look at the P and R zoning across that area there's almostthere's no feedback from the pattern of P and R that there's actually a major creek systemgoing through there. We're actually lucky that the creek system has actually been protectedin the reserves. There has actually been and I've been part of the committee group thathas actually looked after that reserve system for the last 15 years.
CR MACRAE: Well, thank you, Alan. I think unless we have any more questions?
CR ZELONES: In all of the areas referred because some of them are off the map hereare they in private ownership crown land, multiple ownerships, do we know because I
imagine the drainage reserves and all of that will be
19.5.2010 21 Hill
MR HILL: They're all in crown all in crown.
CR ZELONES: Yes.
MR HILL: The Kadina Brook floodplain and wetland that is between Bellevue andBushmead is currently I think that area was amended to urban recently and I think that thesubdivision is subject to an appropriate drainage strategy. The important thing there I thinkis the protection of the Conservation Category Wetland which is actually part of the mainBellevue wetland system. I think so that area at the moment, my understanding is that'sprobably still private property but the other drainage reserves are in public land and therailway reserves would all be public land.
CR ZELONES: The private land, if that's urban, that will all come out in the structureplanning stages, I suppose. Yes. I was just curious as to I guess in terms of managing thatprivate land to what's common.
CR MACRAE: The reservation plan is difficult to achieve as anyway
DR HAMILTON: I had a general comment. I know Alan really well and Alan has done a lotof investigations into the condition of these areas, particularly the creeks. Alan, thecomment I make is that it has become clear and you've said it clearly that most of theseareas are existing reserves but managed by the local government. What and this iswearing another hat I am making this comment what Perth region NRM is trying to do islooking at something that we call the green map that looks at all of these bits that we want toretain and then how you would link them and represent them and then who would managethem. So whether or not these areas that you're suggesting become MRS P and R I thinkthe key issue that you're raising is that they should be recognised and managed accordinglyas a concept of linked open space that has natural area and biodiversity values.
MR HILL: Of regional significance, Bruce, and so that's the
CR MACRAE: Right.
DR HAMILTON: But it might you know, that might take a long time to get these moved toP and R MRS P and R. In the meantime my view would be that you should be working, asCorinne said, with the Shire of Kalamunda to get these links recognised as important andmanaged as important links. I think there's different ways of approaching this issue andwhile through the P and R reservation might be one way, you don't want to hang around andwait. You want to be working with the local authority. I mean I'm doing that wearing anotherhat.
MR HILL: I am in the position, Bruce, where the Shire actually has an all-encompassingstrategy a district conservation strategy that was written probably 19 years ago which isstill a really wonderful document. The Shire has also got an approved wildlife corridor policywhich was prepared in 1998.
19.5.2010 22 Hill
DR HAMILTON: I don't want to be rude and interrupting but it has also recently released abiodiversity strategy and I just there's other avenues for you to push for this. Weappreciate you presenting it to us but I think there are other avenues that you can usethrough the Shire of Kalamunda and I would encourage you to do so.
MR HILL: If I could, just one rejoinder to that. The ritual catchment is probably one level ithas actually been lucky because it has probably actually helped to protect it but it actuallygoes across three local authority boundaries so it goes from Kalamunda into Swan and theninto Mundaring. That's actually
DR HAMILTON: I will talk to you out of session about some of these things.
MR HILL: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: I'll come and have a cup of coffee.
MR HILL: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: There are processes to deal with across local government boundaries andthey are available and again I would encourage you to use those cross boundary pathways,particularly through the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council which we know is looking atjoining up the biodiversity strategies.
CR MACRAE: Okay. Good. Thanks very much, Alan. Thanks for coming in.
MR HILL: Thank you. If it's okay with you I might when I do
CR MACRAE: Yes. Please forward it.
MR HILL: I will email it.
CR MACRAE: Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much.
19.5.2010 23 Hill
Mr Murray Casseltonrepresenting Water Corporation
CR MACRAE: Murray, come forward. How are you?
MR CASSELTON: Good, thank you. How are you?
CR MACRAE: Do you know Bruce Hamilton?
MR CASSELTON: No, I don't think I've met Bruce.
DR HAMILTON: No. Bruce Hamilton.
MR CASSELTON: Nice to meet you.
CR MACRAE: Councillor Henry Zelones.
MR CASSELTON: We have been at meetings before where I've given presentations ordiscussed things where you've been there.
CR ZELONES: Yes, indeed.
CR MACRAE: So, proposal 5(iii).
MR CASSELTON: That's right, yes. I'll just
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR CASSELTON: thanks for the opportunity to present today. We, TPG have beenappointed by the Water Corporation and we've been working on their behalf to prepare andlodge a submission on this amendment. The amendment this was the actual submissionthat was lodged which is quite detailed and you've probably seen a copy of that, or if notcertainly a summary of it. The submission relates to the Shire of Mundaring proposal 5 part(iii).
DR HAMILTON: Which is the full submissions.
MR CASSELTON: Yes, no problems. It essentially seeks the withdrawal of part of lot 1,Allen Road and lot 376 Mundaring Weir Road from the amendment proposal. Thesubmission was prepared and launched following discussions with the relevant Departmentof Planning officers and that included Ross who we understand are generally supportive ofthe withdrawal request in recognition of the proposed future use of the land and to allow theremainder of the amendment to advance unimpeded.
19.5.2010 24 Casselton
The land is currently managed as an extension of the adjoining state forest and contains aproportion of the Department of Environment and Conservation Perth Hills district office anddepot facility with the remainder being undeveloped and containing remnant native and non-native vegetation.
The amendment proposed as it stands seeks to extend the state forest reservation to includeall the land and recognise its current use and status in the Metropolitan Region Scheme.The request for withdrawal relates to the future intention to use this land as part of a newWater Corporation water treatment plan associated with the Goldfields and agricultural watersupply. By way of background because I don't know how familiar you are with that projectthe Goldfields and agricultural water supply in the sole water source for the Goldfields andagricultural region of Western Australia.
There have been a number of recent concerns regarding the quality of the water and thenature of the treatment facilities that are dispersed along the pipeline which has led to theWater Corp investigating opportunities for creating a consolidated water treatment plant inclose proximity to the actual water source. The land that is the subject of this process wasidentified following a lengthy site selection and consultative process which wasn't without itsown issues, I think, with certain members of the local community. It's a very importantproject and it's the subject of a current expression of interest and is going to be one of thefirst examples of a public, private partnership in Western Australia.
CR MACRAE: Right. Okay.
MR CASSELTON: It has an approximate value of 200 to 300 million dollars and site worksand construction are expected to commence next year, so it's imminent very muchimminent.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR CASSELTON: In fact, it's the first project in the state government's current list of public,private partnerships that they wish to progress with. Now, the project will also require a landrationalisation strategy to be implemented because it's a bit of a mess up there at themoment as we pointed out to Ross at the meeting that we had with him. That is intended tocreate consolidated lots for development sites, both for the Water Corporation and also theDepartment of Environment and Conservation. That's a matter that is being addressedseparately but concurrently with these other processes.
Now, the land is intended to be included as a future stand alone Metropolitan RegionScheme that will appropriately designate both that land and the adjoining lot 375 Allen Road,that forms part of the water treatment plant site as a public purposes Water Authority of WAreservation under the MRS. So it is a matter that will be addressed in due course.
We believe, and the Water Corporation certainly believes, that on this basis the state forestreservation as proposed for the land under the current amendment is not the appropriatereservation purpose for its intended future use and development.
19.5.2010 25 Casselton
We also understand the Department of Environment and Conservation have lodged aseparate submission seeking to withdraw this land, the remainder of lot 1 Allen Road, andother DEC landholdings in the locality from the proposed scheme amendment or MRSamendment on the basis that it's unnecessary because the current rural zoning adequatelyreflects their current management of the land.
Now, we believe that's a matter to be resolved with the Department of Environment andConservation and doesn't form part of our submission. However, we do note that thesouthern portion of lot 1 Allen Road is intended to accommodate the relocation of theexisting Department of Environment and Conservation Perth Hills district office andassociated depot facility. That proposal is the subject of a current development applicationthat is before the Western Australian Planning Commission.
That in a nutshell is it.
CR MACRAE: Yes, very clear. Thank you, Murray. I think we all concur with the actionthat's required.
CR ZELONES: There were some heritage issues that were drawn up during the course ofthis as well. I believe there was some buildings and structures and so on but I think that hasnow been resolved, hasn't it?
MR CASSELTON: It was the site of a settlement which was part of the original facility thatwas there. I think certainly with the DEC depot relocation proposal there was an initialsuggestion from the Heritage Council than an archaeological survey should take place overthe proposed depot site but my understanding is that that has now been resolved and theyhave withdrawn that request.
CR ZELONES: Yes, I think so. It came up only just recently but I remember I don't thinkwe had a deputation on that but I know it was fairly well covered as well. I think what theywere suggesting was a different location altogether that wasn't particularly practical, but
MR CASSELTON: Yes. There was a couple of issues that came up. A second was to dowith the public water source protection areas and we've sort of been working through thoseissues with the Department of Water as well. If you look at it on a risk management basis therelocation of a very old facility to a very contemporary, new facility with very good facilities isactually going to, in terms of residual risk, is actually going to be a better outcome. I thinkthe Department of Water has essentially accepted that that is the case.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: You're absolutely right that there needs to be a rationalisation of landtenure and land use in that area. I am very familiar with it.
MR CASSELTON: It's a bit of a mess.
19.5.2010 26 Casselton
CR MACRAE: Very fragmented.
MR CASSELTON: Well, the Shire weren't even aware that the current alignment ofMundaring Weir Road doesn't actually run along gazetted road reserves. They were quitesurprised when we pointed that out to them so I think there's an opportunity to do a fairly bigland rationalisation in that area.
CR MACRAE: Excellent. Okay. Thanks for coming in. We appreciate that.
MR CASSELTON: Not a problem at all. Okay. Bye bye.
CR ZELONES: Thank you.
19.5.2010 27 Casselton
Mr Tom Grigsonrepresenting Department of State Development
MR GRIGSON: Good morning.
CR MACRAE: Good morning Tom.
MR GRIGSON: Good morning.
CR MACRAE: Hi, I'm Corinne MacRae.
MR GRIGSON: Hello.
CR MACRAE: This is
DR HAMILTON: Bruce Hamilton.
CR MACRAE: Bruce Hamilton.
MR GRIGSON: Bruce, how are you?
CR ZELONES: Henry Zelones.
CR MACRAE: Henry Zelones.
CR ZELONES: How are you?
MR GRIGSON: Good day.
CR MACRAE: Do you know Ross Parker, do you?
MR GRIGSON: Hello, Ross.
CR MACRAE: From Department of Planning. So, Tom, this is a fairly straightforward issueso if you would just give us a bit of background or just
MR GRIGSON: Sure. Sure. Well, I think where the Department is coming from in this oneis that this is the purple area as per the region scheme is industry and back in the earlynineties certain parts of that were given over to bush to parkland buffer particularly thisarea here next to Wells Park and this area here in the parkland buffer eastern parklandbuffer and more recently a 78-hectare piece of land here is going to become most likelybush conservation park. So we feel that quite a substantial amount of industrial area thisRockingham industry zone has already been given, or is being given over, to bush. Sowe're trying to if possible preserve the rest of the industry land. Industry land, particularlyheavy industry land
19.5.2010 28 Grigson
DR HAMILTON: Would you mind tabling that for us, please, so we can have a look at it?
MR GRIGSON: Yes, indeed.
DR HAMILTON: Thank you.
MR GRIGSON: industry land, particularly heavy industry land, is becoming very scarein the metropolitan and Peel regions. We've got some industry land here. We've got stillsome in Kwinana and we've got Kemerton but beyond that we haven't got any heavyindustrial land in the south of the state really that's port-related. Now, this particular piecewe're talking about is not really heavy industry land but it is connected to the heavy industrialarea and it is adjacent to a railway. It's quite a strategic little corner. This was in the WAPCpublication.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR GRIGSON: This was a photograph from Google Earth showing the actual site. Youcan see it's a little bit different in what it looks like to this. It is already sort of cross-crossedwith infrastructure, roads and railway. The actual bush on it part of it isn't really very up tomuch. So I had a drive past recently and it doesn't look really high value type bush. TheDepartment feels that it would be better to keep it as industry because in the future it's verylikely to be needed for some railway or industry purpose. That was sort of the rationale forour putting in that submission.
CR MACRAE: Good.
MR GRIGSON: That's really what it is.
CR MACRAE: That's about it, I think. Bruce, any questions?
DR HAMILTON: Are you representing State Development?
MR GRIGSON: I am on this occasion, yes.
DR HAMILTON: I think it's a very clear submission. The broader question I wanted to askif I may, Chair, is that I'm aware over many years of the proposed buffer zone aroundKwinana industry and this would be a small part of it.
MR GRIGSON: It is, yes.
DR HAMILTON: Recently there were some other proposed developments down that waywhich could interfere with the buffer zone. Are you aware of the status of the buffer zone?
19.5.2010 29 Grigson
MR GRIGSON: Yes. The buffer review committee, David Saunders, Director of Departmentof Planning, is the chairman of that buffer review committee and they are currentlyconsidering a submission by City of Rockingham and Department of Planning about thisother corner here
DR HAMILTON: Corner of Dixon and Ennis, yes.
MR GRIGSON: which is being sought by City of Rockingham/Department of Planningfor city centre purposes with Dixon Road being a major transport corridor to the waterfrontarea and for this part to be residential/commercial. We're as an agency are stronglyopposed to that because the Rockingham industry zone is not fully developed yet amongother things. There are a number of industrial proposals of a fairly heavy nature for thisarea, port-related type activities which would actually need the buffer as well as the existingindustries such as the nickel refinery, the CBH terminal, existing industrial activities thatreally need that buffer. There are already complaints from residents in north Rockinghamabout noise from the industries and so we feel that it wouldn't be good planning to reducethe buffer or reduce that part of the industrial area.
DR HAMILTON: Thank you for that. That's really clear. It hasn't got anything to do withthis specific issue but I believe it's a really important issue and thank you for clarifying thatfor me.
CR MACRAE: Thanks.
MR GRIGSON: Thank you.
CR MACRAE: Thank you very much, Tom, for coming in.
MR GRIGSON: Pleasure. Thank you for hearing me. If you want to I'll just leave thosepapers there. That one's showing the corner a bit better.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
DR HAMILTON: I reckon it will be very useful to table those. Thank you.
MR GRIGSON: Thank you.
19.5.2010 30 Grigson
Mr Trevor Moran and Mr Anthony Sorgiovannirepresenting Mr C Sorgiovanni and Mr I Philp
CR MACRAE: Trevor Moran.
DR HAMILTON: Bruce Hamilton.
CR MACRAE: Bruce Hamilton.
MR MORAN: Hello, Bruce. How do you do?
CR MACRAE: Henry Zelones.
MR SORGIOVANNI: Anthony Sorgiovanni.
CR MACRAE: Hello, Anthony.
MR SORGIOVANNI: How are you going?
CR MACRAE: Anthony, correct me if I'm wrong but many years ago when I was chairingthe Bush Forever hearings I think you came along and I heard all the concerns then withTrevor.
MR MORAN: Except that we're five years older now, all of us.
CR MACRAE: And a little bit wiser, perhaps.
MR MORAN: We understand that our submission doesn't relate to land affected by theamendment but we hadn't heard or had a result from the previous submission on theamendment and we're still trying to seek some rationalisation of the MRS boundary there.As this amendment dealt with rationalisation of boundary in the general area we thought itwas an opportunity to bring it to your attention and also the correspondence that we've hadover the last five years trying to get somebody to have a look at it and see if we canrationalise the boundary there.
The purpose of seeking a hearing was really to, if we could, ask this committee torecommend to the department to look at the boundary there with a view to rationalising it andperhaps give a recommendation to that effect. We don't expect this amendment to bemodified or delayed or readvertised or anything like that but basically just use it as a vehicleto alert the department to this situation. Mr Sorgiovanni's land and his neighbour form apocket a discrete pocket of land which is subject just had the urban deferment lifted onit.
So when the boundary is rationalised then he and his neighbour who we also represent canactually plan to subdivide and develop the land in accordance with its zoning.
19.5.2010 31 Moran; Sorgiovanni
I think the key point about it is this sketch here or this photo, which is in your notes no doubt,but it shows the current boundary which is a 50-metre offset to the river going through MrSorgiovanni's orchard and the valley the river valley in that area is very steep and verynarrow.
CR MACRAE: Yes, been through there.
MR MORAN: The Bush Forever we raised it at the Bush Forever hearing and so theboundary actually as it currently stands goes through his orchard. Also the reserve includesa house that is occupied.
CR MACRAE: It would be useful to keep this if you wouldn't mind, Trevor?
MR MORAN: Yes, sure. Yes. That's that one and there's
CR MACRAE: That's your
MR MORAN: That's the same one without the aerial photo background.
CR MACRAE: Lovely.
MR MORAN: It shows the existing boundary, the green line and our proposed boundarywhich is the purple line but obviously, you know, we want to discuss that. I think, Anthony, ifI'm correct is that the owner of this lot has actually fenced that area there, hasn't he, that
MR SORGIOVANNI: Yes, this particular one here. The MRS is actually down up herewhere the white line is. They've fenced down meeting our red line that we're proposingthrough there.
DR HAMILTON: So the red line is proposed.
MR MORAN: Yes, that's what we've proposed.
DR HAMILTON: What is the "W" there for?
MR SORGIOVANNI: For access.
MR MORAN: This is another issue regarding the foreshore road reserve. Currently theselots here back on to the reserve. So if a foreshore road was put in, which is the customarydesign, it would only go around these two lots here and then back out through a suburbanroad. So there's no opportunity to create it any further. So we've suggested two further cul-de-sacs to add to the existing one and so that little "W" is really an opening from the end ofthat cul-de-sac
DR HAMILTON: Into the reserve.
19.5.2010 32 Moran; Sorgiovanni
MR MORAN: and then we're suggesting a walk trail and so on around there. There'squite a bit, Bruce, from that edge there down to the river there's about a seven or eight metredrop.
DR HAMILTON: No. I had a close look at the submission we got and I noted the contours.I'm pretty familiar with the area but also with the issues that apply to these sorts of areaswhere you've got the floodway the flood plain and then the embankment.
MR MORAN: It's a very attractive section of the river.
CR MACRAE: It is lovely.
MR MORAN: Secluded, so we don't think a through road that effectively doesn't goanywhere would be the way to go but certainly we think paths or dual use paths perhapswould be very nice.
CR MACRAE: Yes, definitely. Trevor, let me just ask you this: What is your understandingof the Bush Forever amendment process at the moment and what communication have youhad
MR MORAN: We've had none. We've had none.
CR MACRAE: Have you approached the Minister for Planning or your local member ortaken it to that level?
MR MORAN: No, we haven't. We took it to the City of Gosnells and I think basically theirattitude was, "Well, leave it to the WAPC. It's too hard for us."
DR HAMILTON: This property is being lived in at the moment?
MR SORGIOVANNI: It's currently a residence, yes.
MR MORAN: So really, since that previous hearing we've had had no correspondence. I'mpretty sure that's right.
MR SORGIOVANNI: No. Yes, that's right.
MR MORAN: At the time
CR MACRAE: The amendment is in Parliament at the moment. It has made it that far.
MR MORAN: Right. Okay.
CR MACRAE: It is due to be presented, we understand, in this coming session if not thecurrent session.
19.5.2010 33 Moran; Sorgiovanni
MR MORAN: I mean, this has been sort of a history of planning changes, if you like. Whenwe started there was going to be a the City of Gosnells were bringing in a town planningscheme to guide and develop.
CR MACRAE: Yes.
MR MORAN: Then they changed it to an ODP arrangement which we've madesubmissions on. Whenever we've talked about the MRS boundary really the City ofGosnells has said, "Well, it's too hard for us. Leave it to the WAPC." So that's what we'vetried to do.
CR MACRAE: Right.
MR MORAN: We've had the urban deferment lifted, you know, and if we could we've saidto the City of Gosnells that we would like to go out we had been out on site with him. I
think we've been offered a site visit by the WAPC or DPI officers to see if we can sort thisboundary out. We're happy to do a development that, you know, makes a good interfacewith the open space. You know, we just really need the boundary rationalised, or at least adetermination made. If the determination is that it stays where it is, well, then it stays whereit is.
CR MACRAE: You've got the lines over the floodway and the flood plain.
MR MORAN: Yes. You can see that it's very narrow through there, the valley, and you cansee Mr Sorgiovanni's orchard goes down here. When you're out on site and you're backhere at this MRS reserve boundary yet you can't see the river and you can't see the riparianvegetation, you know, you are sort of removed from it.
CR MACRAE: It starts to slope down there.
MR MORAN: Yes.
CR MACRAE: All right, Trevor. Well, I think you probably appreciate that there's very littlethat this committee can do in terms of progressing any change to the reserve line. I
understand that Ross has agreed to meet you on site and discuss it further, perhaps takeBush Forever people with you.
MR MORAN: Yes.
CR MACRAE: In terms of the Bush Forever amendment it's a question of maybe a letter tothe Minister for Planning
MR MORAN: Right.
19.5.2010 34 Moran; Sorgiovanni
CR MACRAE: just pointing out the importance and the fact that people have beenwaiting for a long time for a resolution on this matter, that is affecting future planning for thearea, Mr Sorgiovanni's desire to develop his land, et cetera, et cetera. Is your father is ityour father who lives here?
MR SORGIOVANNI: Yes.
CR MACRAE: So, you know, all those sorts of issues need to be I'm sure the Minister hasa stack of correspondence with respect to all the other Bush Forever sites in themetropolitan region but, you know, it is important to keep on track with that.
MR MORAN: Your recommendation on that previous amendment, are they publiclyavailable yet? You're saying they're before Parliament.
CR MACRAE: No. As soon as they're tabled in Parliament they're public.
MR MORAN: Right. Okay.
CR MACRAE: I don't think they've been tabled in parliament yet. No.
MR MORAN: You know, we didn't want to take up too much of your time but we just didwant to, you know, record that we would like to see a bit of action on this Departmentalaction just to sort it out.
DR HAMILTON: You've made your point really clearly.
CR ZELONES: Have you taken this to your local member as well?
MR MORAN: We took it to the mayor.
MR SORGIOVANNI: Took it to the mayor.
CR ZELONES: If it's gone to Parliament
CR MACRAE: Who's your member who is your member?
MR SORGIOVANNI: Is it Waddell.
MR MORAN: It might be.
MR SORGIOVANNI: I have taken it to him but he's been in discussion with obviously he
just took it to the mayor and the mayor is obviously trying to do something but she justadvised us that we need to sort of go a little bit further to the WAPC.
19.5.2010 35 Moran; Sorgiovanni
CR ZELONES: I don't think that's strong enough. I mean, I would be going in and seeingthe local member and asking him to take it to I mean, whilst they're on opposite sides of theParliament they do talk to each other and they do resolve some of these issues amongstthemselves before it ever gets too far, ie, the cliffs. I would say there's some benefit but togo back to the city, I can see where the city is in a slightly different position on that. They willmake the same representations. You know, they may end up going with you, but I would dothat and still maybe see if you can get in to see the planning Minister.
CR MACRAE: Resolving the Bush Forever issue is one thing. The next process is theshrinking of that P and R reserve. Now, that is the subject of another amendment. In futureMRS you will need the city support.
CR ZELONES: Absolutely, yes.
CR MACRAE: So you may want to progress that whenever the next lot of omnibusamendments or the next amendments come along and they happen every three to four tosix months. You know, the Bush Forever amendment doesn't mean the end of your effortsto shrink the P and R reserve. So you would need the city's support to progress.
DR HAMILTON: Trevor, if you're acting on behalf of both clients the landowners I
suggest to you if you haven't already touched base with the Swan River Trust because theylook very carefully at all these P and R boundary changes and hopefully they would bereasonable about it. I know that they are a key player and you need to touch base withthem.
MR MORAN: Well, it may be that when we go out on site we could bring somebody fromthe Swan River Trust with us.
CR MACRAE: Absolutely. I think that would be a good idea.
MR MORAN: Maybe somebody from the City of Gosnells so they're seeing it at the sametime.
DR HAMILTON: Yes, have a joint look at it. So if there's some sort of agreement on howthe boundary might be changed that's going to make it easier when it hits the amendmentprocess.
MR MORAN: Sure. Okay.
DR HAMILTON: Thank you for your time.
CR MACRAE: Thank you, Trevor.
MR MORAN: Hopefully we don't come back in another five years.
