Amendment No. 1082/33

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER Et RELATED LANDS

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

SUBMISSIONS 91 115

VOLUME 3 OF 6

November 2005

PERTH WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Western Government of Australian Western Planning Australia Commission 500Diu'dm METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVERaRELATED LANDS

SUBMISSIONS 91 115

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

Western ;Australian \IS Planning Commission

VOLUME 3 OF 6

November 2005 © State of Western Australia

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

MRS Amendment No. 1082/33. Submissions 91-115 Volume 3 of 6 File 809-2-1-77 Pt. 2 Published November 2005

ISBN 0 7309 9549 6

Internet: http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (08)92647777 Fax: (08)92647566 TTY: (08)92647535

Copies of this document are available in alternative formats on application to the disability services co-ordinator. FOREWORD

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

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

Amendment proposals are made to change land-use 'reservations' and 'zones' in the MRS when considered necessary. The amendment process is regulated by the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act. That legislation provides for public submissions to be made on proposed amendments.

For a substantial amendment (made under Section 33 of the Act), the WAPC considers all the submissions lodged, and publishes its findings in a Report on Submissions. This report is presented to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and to the Governor. The Amendment is then scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament before it becomes effective.

PUBLICATIONS In the course of each substantial amendment to the MRS, information is published under the following titles:

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

Environmental Review Report The EnvironmentalProtection Authority considers the environmental impactof an amendment to the MRS beforeitisadvertised. Shoulditrequire assessment an Environmental Review is undertaken, and that information is available at the same time as the Amendment Report.

Report on Submissions Documents theplanningrationale,determinationof submissions and the WAPC's recommendations for final approval of the Amendment.

Submissions Comprises a reproduction ofallthe written submissions received on the proposed amendment.

Transcript of Public Hearings A person who has made a written submission may also choose to appear before aHearings Committee to express their views. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The submitter may chose whether this hearing is conducted in 'private' or in'public'. Where the person has chosen a private hearing, materials presented remain confidential. The transcripts of public hearings are published in this volume. Alphabetical Listing of Submissions

MRS Amendment 1082/33

Bush Forever & Related Lands

SubmissionName SubmissionName Number Number 132Activ Foundation Inc, 162D'Orazio, S N, A & M, Urban Focus for Gray & Lewis for 8Armada le, City of 37Danzi, Fortunato & 155Australian Limestone Tindara Resources 1 Danzi, Tullio 110Automotive Holdings 127Dawson, Maxine Group 128De Piazza, Guido & Ugo 88Bafile, Zelinda + Borgogno, Mary 54Ball, Diane 139Di Giuseppe, Antonio 29Barrett, Paul 66Drummond, Regina 36Bayswater, City of 142Eglinton Estates & 116Blackburn, Robert & Landcorp, ATA Bowen, Jacqueline Environmental for 41 Blackmore, Mrs E 137Elvi Pty Ltd 174Borrello, Frank 75Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd, 85Boyle, John MGA Town Planners for 105Bradshaw, Felicity & Don 114Feegate Pty Ltd, Greg 100Brickwood, Joan Rowe & Associates for 65Brookes, Denis & Gwen 176Flinders, Howard 61 Brusa, Carl 131 Foster, K 0 & D G 55Buktenica, Ante & Thelma 31 Franzinelli, Flora 19Bunarak Pty Ltd 17 Fremantle Ports 35Cambridge, Town of 56Fremantle, City of 103Campbell, Christine 135Friends of Forrestdale 111 Capricorn Coastal Village 138Friends of Perth Airport Joint Venture Bushland 23Carbone, Mario 151 Friends of Piney Lakes & 148Carter, Kent & Katherine Winthrop Murdoch 22Catellani, Stephen Community Group, 45Chilvers, William Stevens, John for 182Clark, Paul 3 Frost, Leslie & Linley 161 Cockburn Cement 125Garbin, Robert & Maria Limited, Minter Ellison 40Gardner, Maureen Lawyers for 149Garreffa, Carmelo, 177Cockburn, City of Valerie & Stella 47Colwyn Park, Bailey, 46Gates, Leanne & Kevin & Vicki for Cicholas, Thomas 112Conservation and Land 95Gersch, Patrick Management, Department 164Gosnells, City of of 173Gouges Y, Greg Rowe & 38Cranley, Christopher Associates for 186Creasey-Chapman, P & E 2 Green, Alan & Joanne 69Crofts, Alison 15Grimaldi, Nicia SubmissionName SubmissionName Number Number 52Hall E P 44McElroy, Robyn 7Harry, William 98McKay, J.S 77Heggart, Janet 157McLeods 86Heim, Marie 68McQueen, Sandy 25Henderson, John & 134McWhinney, Nora Heather 101 Melville, City of 130Herlihy, Astrid 79Metropolitan Cemeteries 175Higginson, William & Board Jean 121 Moore, Judy & Barry 147Higham, Chris 97Morald, Tim 27Hilton, Roger 81 Mori, Luciano 24Hipkins, Max 170Multiplex Developments 87Hoareau, Joanne (WA) Pty Ltd, Minter 89Hoskin, Roslyn Ellison 156Jacksonville Holdings Pty 172Mundaring, Shire of Ltd, McLeods for 59Musca, Antonino & 78James, Allan & Beryl Michael 48Jennings, Helga 96Nature Reserves 49Jennings, Isabella Preservation Group (Inc) 82Johnson, Beverley 183Newland, Dennis 99Johnson, Gary & Lee 171 Nield, Christine 57Johnson, Shane 180Nield, Paul 20Joondalup, City of 179Oates, Ken 184Jordan, Paul 72O'Toole, Thomas 108Justice, Department of, 14 Panetta, Giuseppe CCD Australian 53Passarelli, Guglielmo Consulting Engineers for 143Pearson, P & K, McLeods 119Kalamunda, Shire of for 150Kearney, Gerald & Sue 166Peet & Company Limited 104Keelan-Wake, Jacqueline as Trustee for the Burns 93Kwinana, Town of Beach Property Trust, 163Land Information, Hardy Bowen Layers for Department of 70Petrovski, Dimce 115Landcorp 58Phoenix Forest Products 16Lander, G 91 Pirozzi, Domenic & Julia 42Langford, G 152Planning & Infrastructure, 71 Lapham, Huw & Peter Department of 122Lark Hill Landcare Group 124Port Kennedy LCDC Inc. Inc, 185Prestage, Ralph & Lois 80Lea, Pamela 67Pries, Marion 83Liddiard, Todd 4Public Transport Authority 63Lima, Les 113Quinns Rocks 60Lindsay, David Environmental 84Lloyd, Alan Group 158Logan, Philip 181 Rainbow Park 33MacGregor, Stuart & 18 Rechichi, Don & Elisabeth Patricia 102Roberts, T, The Planning 43MacKay, John Group for 26Macri, Antonio & Concetta 169Robertson, Phylis 165Main Roads WA 10 Robeson, KA & PM 94Maze, The 64Rockingham, City of 159McCann, John 62Rose, Valda SubmissionName SubmissionName Number Number 168Rosher Family, Taylor 109Urban Development Burrell Barnett Institute of Australia 90Saggers, Stuart & 118Van Doornum, Maximilian Marriott, Summer & Jennifer 178Satter ley Property Group/ 51 Vicini, Mary Ocean Springs Joint 11 Victoria Park, Town of Venture 117Vincent Nominees Pty Ltd 106Schultz, Beth 9Vincent, Town of 141 Shannon, Beverley 140W R Carpenter 136Skeels, J R & Harrison, P Landholdings Pty Ltd, W, Dykstra & Associates Masterplan Consultants for WA for 32Skroza, Karmela 154WA Building Block 144Sorgiovanni, C, Company Landvision for 39Wakefield, Ashley 21 South Perth, City of 92Wanneroo, City of 5St Mary's Anglican Girls' 123Water Corporation School 126Western Australian Local 28Sterndale, John Government Association 160Stirling, City of 153Wetlands Conservation 76Stockland Trust Group, Society Inc MGA Town Planners for 145Wilbraham, Paul 73Stone, Garry 129Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd 133Stubber, Alice 146Yeliand, Lynn 13Subiaco, City of 12Yozzi, A 50Swan River Trust 34Zencich, Christopher & 74Swan, City of Sandra 30Symons, AT&ME 183Newland, Dennis 6Ten Vaanholt, Mr & Mrs D 184Jordan, Paul 120Tigerhawk Pty Ltd, Corrs 185Prestage, Ralph & Lois Chambers Westgarth for 186Creasey-Chapman 167University of Western LATE Australia, Minter Ellison Waterbird Conservation for Group 107Urban Bushland Council Bassendean, Town of WA Inc. Hine, Terry 109Urban Development Benjamin, Rowland Institute of Australia Kaspy, Michael Price, Marie Mandurah, City of Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH W.A. 6000 Lot 5(101) Pi ivcrzEsi- icy/ Name tOOMENIC f 21,11-04PI golll Nr, N &ARA picit4L: (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) HEM -HTS Address??-roc AVENUE ALS yietNI0E-R_ Postcode6°17

Contact phone number.q3E1-32) ql Email address OfcA'igndjut \ Cc( @QPI-U5 nei-- co M'

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

S 5-.6" A--7.-179-afw

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

2004 1 1 NOV ritliftga0=12-- Hearing of Submissions

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

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

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

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

Please complete the following:

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

YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You will be contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.) 2/ I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours):04/2 9u& 75 I Or MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group) Agent's name: Group name: Agent's telephone number (business hours): Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: on PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.) PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only persons nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature Date ii"1431/

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

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - mrs @wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet - hliplknew.wapc.wa.gov.au Domenic & Julia Pirozzi 88 The Avenue Alexander Heights W.A. 6064

5th November 2004

The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH W.A. 6000

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

Draft Bush land Policy for Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy No.2.8

Bush Forever Protection Area BF5326 Bush Forever Site No 326

As owners of Lot 5 (101) Pinecrest Way, Gnangara we write this submission to inform you that we strongly OPPOSE any re-zoning of our land from what is currently General Rural and we strongly OPPOSE our lot being allocated for Bush Forever under any conditions.

We were not informed about these changes when we purchased our block and we definitely would not have done so had we known. We feel that we were deliberately misled. When we purchased our block we were told that we would be able to use if for any rural pursuits and now we are being told that we cannot, therefore we paid good money for a block of land that we pay hefty rates on that we cannot use as we intended.

We also do not understand why our lot and in fact the entire estate has been allocated for Bush Forever as the area where our estate is was once completely cleared and used for livestock grazing. We have included aerial photos that we obtained from DOLA covering 1979 to present. This area is not in it's original pristine condition and we don't believe there is anything in this area that is not found in abundance elsewhere.

We also do not understand why one property from our estate has been allowed to be excluded from this.

We feel that only government owned land should be allocated for Bush Plan and that if this is what they intended to do (which we now believe was the case), then the developer should never have been allowed to develop and subdivide our estate.

We ask you to consider our submission

Yours faithfully

Domenic & Julia Pirozzi r 0 z

2 di Fil,IliI ,1*,to 2 ng 2a 1 .Irjillfr.; 1,1i Pg g ma PsEiR i ill; S 0',tE iii1 I/ =aF: EQE iii;I i

I° r 40 JI 1 mons n 1.1 Peirivilaff? a 19a '1" ..111111.111.h.e41121.1112.1111111, I a, r ad , II - vi a :1 'I it .111 " ak, 1.. 111 1 ^7 111 I E. 1. grphdliht"P 'a la :shit Tir"Ilkirr.1 r 1 A H. 1 ° 4' 111 lain*400. rcirra je A 11:141. 1 " 1111.17"r : IS .6111 fr " 119 Ai "I n :14,01,1 11. I .v1 1 I ° "21 ate, ek: '11111.71./ 11 ;',69' ies. 3: Ala " j 1 ia 177 .pads PAiir 1,1 jiirI mill- 1 ion 'A, 11,111. III I kVA, 1.91.2-04010:11/1.1 hint! I:I 1 Ii ill,gi"rh; la 1..1.11,a

aro .1.."'L aalk '110: 1--a La.F"'blariIllaria;.."Isargitraja, !au a1/21.7, rum a 0111"'" au I °LS" 4.LH '611d,11.111,1, 1-1 Jam ° L; jag intim " I° L 1111" ya,lezaahrraari '14 j, sk.ms al I 'IL. "Ar: ,01 Id:. 111{frfr ° ° -gra. d Tx, I aai aaciani 10-1.490k.

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH W.A. 6000

Name CITY OF WANNEE.00 Cect> 961q1L-6-) (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address f3AG I kiANNI-e-e_cx-awA Postcode 691V°

Contact phone number.Cit4C5 54773Email address

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

REFS Cal Et INC LetTetZ AN 0 A-TTACE-IED CouNCIL geicb,CT

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION 01-71\l'-.7MFMT FOR PI_ANNwr,

-"4 3ept -11 pa Hearing of Submissions

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

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission can listen to a person should they wish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing Is Intended for listening to points of view and planning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, a spokesperson to represent '0 the group must be appointed.

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

Please complete the following:

Et/ NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.) Or YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You will be contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): Or MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group) Agent's name: Group name: Agent's telephone number (business_ hours): Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.) or PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only persons nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature Date `I 11 04- St L-NJ i F-Crrf FOB Roo. P&A te-E

I NOTE Sdbmissions MUST be-rec'elyea by the advertised closing date; being CioSe ) bmsniessffi ocpm)toti#RIDAY 121November 2004' Cate submissions will NOT be cohstddred:-/-

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9284 7588; Email - [email protected],au; Internet - http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au 7City of Wanneroo File Ref: S27/0068V0 I Your Ref: Enquiries: Silvia Foti Ph 9405 5473

8 November 2004

Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street Reply Paid 80014 PERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir/Madam

Public Submission on MRS Amendment 1082/33 and Draft Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8

Council at its meeting of 2 November 2004 considered the above mentioned items and resolved to advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that:

1. Itsupports the proposals contained within Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33 Bush Forever and Related Lands, subject to

a) In relation to proposals 17, 20, 38 and 45, the Commission notes the potential impact on the City's Trails Master Plan (2003) and agrees to work with the City in determining appropriate locations and management provisions for trail paths through these areas, in progressing Stage 2 of the Trails Master Plan program.

b) In relation to proposal 89, the reservation be limited to that part of Edgar Griffiths Park currently designated as a Bush Forever site.

c) Proposal 39 being modified to exclude the constructed road (Pinjar Road) and any widening required as part of the Neerabup Industnal Area Structure Plan.

d) Proposal 40 being modified to reflect the revised alignment for the Pmjar Road extension.

e) Proposal 72 being modified to exclude the existing constructed portion of Breakwater Drive. -617,47riiertittATPLOW . im,pA.:mweTuRE

1 1 NOV 2004 ::0DMAIPCDOCS1WCCLib136788511 3014- FILE - 4.- Ply 1 0

;;sitti** ft:FA SLOidnaisia Kai; L Oisr-r#sirtarit 4.41,6 Set f) Proposal 88 being modified to reflect the East Wanneroo Arterial Road Land Requirements Plans for Pinjar Road and Caporn Street (Drawing No T1811-66-1).

g) Proposal 91 being modified to reflect the East Wanneroo Arterial Road Land Requirements Plans for Lenore Road and High Road (Drawing No. T1811-40-1 (Al).

h) The Plan entitled, "MRS Amendment 1082/33 Bush Forever, Proposed SCA and Parks and Recreation Reservations North" being modified to reflect the agreement reached between the Bush Forever Office and Council to include a portion of Swan Location 11796 and 12511 Errina Road, Alexander Heights into Bush Forever site 493.

Proposal 90 of the MRS Amendment report being modified to exclude the rear portion of lots facing Amos Road, Wanneroo.

j) The Commission noting that proposals 68, 84 and a portion of 74 and 86 are located within the City of Wanneroo.

2. It is generally supportive of the Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8, subject to:

a) Decision-making under the Metropolitan Region Scheme in relation to Bush Forever Protection Areas resting with the Commission and with the Local Authority acting in a recommending role.

b) ConsiderationofNegotiatedPlanningSolutionsremainingthe responsibility of the Commission.

d) Provision of adequate compensation mechanisms fortheloss of development potential on land which is in freehold ownership and has been designated for regional bushland protection.

e) The construction of Ocean Reef Road through Bush Forever site 463 being recognised as land required for essential regional road infrastructure and therefore being excluded from the requirements of Bush Forever. Local Government not being responsible for land co-ordination, cost sharing or cost contributions associated with regional bushland protection, nor should the cost of regional bushland protection be shared, via

::0DMAIPCDOCSIJVCCLib136788511 infrastructure contributions, amongst other landowners within structure plan areas, and in particular the Neerabup Industrial Area Structure Plan

An appropriate State government agency maintaining responsibility for managing conservation reserves of regional importance.

h) Bush Forever sites not being included in the ten per cent public open space provision for residential subdivision as there is already significant pressure on the use of this land for active/passive recreation and local conservation requirements.

i) StateGovernment assistancetoLocal Governmentinrespectto management of Bush Forever sites under their management responsibility.

j) Local rate adjustments not being considered an appropriate incentive mechanism to fund regional bushland conservation on private land. Attached is a copy of the report prepared for Council's consideration of the MRS Amendment and Draft Bushland Policy that provides further information on the Council's position as outlined above.

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact Silvia Foti, Senior Project Planner on 9405 5473.

Yours sincerely,

ctRodPeake MANAGER, PLANNING SERVICES

::0M4MIPCDOCSIIVCCUM36788511 Submission on- Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33 and Draft Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8.

File Ref: S27/0068V01 Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development Disclosure of Interest: Nil Author: Silvia Foti Meeting Date: 2 November 2004 Attachments: 3 Issue To consider a submission on the Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC) Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment No. 1082/33 (Bush Forever and Related Lands) and the Draft Bush land Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8, which have been released concurrently for public comment. Background

The draft PerthBushplanwas initially released in November 1998 for public comment. Following the comment period the final report, entitledBushForever was endorsed by Cabinet and released by the Government of Western Australia in December 2000.

BushForever is currently a non-statutory regional p olicy under the WAPC policy framework and has been endorsed by the Western Australian Government, the WAPC and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as a whole-of-government policy for the Swan Coastal Plain portion of the Perth Metropolitan Region.

BushForever identifies 51,200 hectares of regionally significant bushland for protection and management in 287 Bush Forever sites. To achieve this aim, the State Government has committed up to $100 million over the next 10 years to ensure the protection of regionally significant bushland.BushForever proposes the reservation of land of high conservation value for eventual acquisition and management by Government. The plan also includes a range of other implementation mechanisms that recognise existing commitments and approvals, provides for development that delivers improved environmental outcomes and encourages private land management.

BushForever proposed the establishment of a Special Control Area, referred to as a Bush Forever Protection Area (BFPA) in the MRS to cover Bush Forever sites and the preparation of a complementary statement of planning policy. In this regard the WAPC has now prepared and released concurrently for public comment MRS Amendment No. 1082/33 (Bush Forever and Related Lands) and a Draft Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) 2.8.

A copy of the MRS Amendment Report and Draft Bushland Policy have been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room. Detail

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment

The Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment proposes to:

i) Establish Bush Forever Protection Area (BFPA) and related provisions in the MRS text to ensure that bushland protection and management is appropriately addressed in planning decisions. ii) Apply the BFPA provisions over all Bush Forever sites. iii) Amend the MRS to reserve a number of Bush Forever sites and related lands for Parks and Recreation.

Twenty eight (28) of the ninety four (94) reservation proposals in the amendment involve land within the City of Wanneroo district. These are proposals 1,17 -20, 35, 38-40, 45-47, 66-68, 72- 76, 78, 84, 86, 88-91 and 93. Of these, the following proposals affect land either owned by, vested in or under the care, control and management of the City:

Proposal 19Depot Site; Proposal 39Pinjar Road Reserve; Proposal 47Park Reserve, Wangara Proposal 88Capom Park Reserve; Proposal 89Edgar Griffiths park; Proposal 90Belgrade Park; and Proposal 91Benmuni Park Reserve and Chicquita Park;

Excerpts from the MRS Amendment Report providing a detailed summary and maps of the proposals for inclusion in the Parks and Recreation reservation are included in Attachment 1. The extent of the proposed BFPA is shown on Attachment 2.

Draft Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region (SPP 2.8)

The purpose of the draft Bushland SPP is to guide and inform agencies, authorities, landowners and the broader community on bushland protection and management issues to be taken into account by the WAPC and local governments when considering a proposal or in undertaking decision-making which is likely to have an adverse impact, direct or indirect, on regionally significant bushland within the Perth Metropolitan Region. The Policy will apply to all bushland within the Perth Metropolitan Region, which has been identified for protection through an endorsed strategy.

The aim of the Policy is to provide a statutory policy and implementation framework that will ensure bushland protection and management issues in the Perth Metropolitan Region are appropriately addressed, and integrated with broader land use planning and decision-making to secure long-term protection of biodiversity and associated environmental values.

The Policy measures identify specific information requirements, issues requiring special consideration, planning assessment and decision-making criteria and processes that are requited to be implemented through this Policy. The Policy measures are separated into those related to Bush Forever Protection Areas with General and Specific Measures and those related to Local Bush land.

The General Policy measures for Bush Forever Protection Areas apply to regionally significant bushland within all Bush Forever Protection Areas. The key measures are to recognise regionally significant bushland protection and its management as a primary purpose and a legitimate land use in its own right as a part of an area's essential environmental infrastructure and ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken to avoid, minimise or mitigate any likely adverse impacts. The Policy also sets out accompanying material required for assessment of such applications including a Statement of Environmental Effects and Environmental Management Plan and the matters to be considered in making a decision.

Specific policy measures apply to Bush Forever Implementation Categories identified as Bush Forever Reserves, Urban Industrial or Resource Development, Government Lands and Public Infrastructure, Rural Lands and Regional Creeklines. These specific measures outline what proposals should incorporate and achieve and what decision making should take into consideration.

Policy Measures for Local Bushland apply to all areas of native vegetation outside of Bush Forever Protection Areas within the PerthMetropolitan Region. The Policy supports the proactive selection of locally significant bushland sites against consistent environmental, social and economic criteria and highlights that Local Government should seek to prepare a local bushland protection strategy with the recommendations incorporated into the Local Town Planning Scheme, policies, zones and special control areas as required. Decision-making should then have regard to the recommendations of this strategy and should support a general presumption against the clearing of significant vegetation as outlined in the Policy. In this regard the City has recently embarked on preparation of a Local Biodiversity Strategy.

Consultation

The MRS Amendment and Statement of Planning Policy are currently being advertised forpublic comment by the WAPC. The means of advertising involved advertisements in the West Australian newspaper, the Sunday Times and the Wanneroo Times community newspaper. The WAPC also informed those landowners whose properties are affected by a proposed change to the MRS. The comment period concludes on 12 November 2004. Comment

The MRS Amendment and draft Statement of Planning Policy are major strategic initiatives in the implementation of Bush Forever and establish a statutory framework for the protection and future management of all bush Forever sites. Once the amendment is finalised, approximately 79% of vegetation within Bush Forever sites will be reserved for Parks and Recreation and 100% ofBush Forever sites will be protected within Bush Forever Protection Areas.

The MRS Amendment and draft Statement of Planning Policy are consistent with the Environmental Sustainability goals of the City's Strategic Plan and complementary to many of its biodiversity related initiatives, such as the Local Biodiversity Strategy which is currently being prepared. The formal reservation of privately owned Bush Forever sites will also provide for a formal process of compensation. The initiatives are generally supported, although a number of issues that need to be addressed in relation to both the proposals are outlined below.

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment

Specific comments in respect to each of the MRS Amendment proposals located within the City of Wanneroo are provided in Attachment 3.

The following key issues have been identified:

Impact on City of Wanneroo Trails Master Plan Additional Land over and above Bush Forever Sites Management and Financial Implications related to COW Parks Road Widenings and Alignment Plan inconsistencies Other matters

These are further discussed below.

Impact on City of Wanneroo Trails Master Plan

The City of Wanneroo Trails Master PlanStage 1 was completed by Ecoscape Australia Pty Ltd in July 2003. The Master Plan identified in broad terms, existing and a number of potential trails within the City of Wanneroo. Stage 2 of the Master Plan is planned to identify and locate the exact alignments for existing and proposed trails and to determine the characteristics of the proposed trails themes. Stage 2 of the Trails Master Plan is programmed to commence in early 2005.

Proposal 17 (Wesco Road), 20 (Gnangara Lake Reserve), 38 (Pinjar Road-Wattle Avenue) and 45 (Wirrega Road) of the MRS Amendment have been identified as potentially impacting on the proposed trail development of the Trails Master Plan. At this stage, as the trails are only proposed and their exact alignment has not been determined, it is recommended that the WAPC be advised of the potential impact on the City's Trails Master Plan and agree to work with the City in progressing Stage 2 of the Trails Master Plan program, by assisting in determining appropriate locations and management provisions for trail paths through these areas.

Additional Land over and above Bush Forever Sites

Proposal 89 (Edgar Griffiths Park) proposes to include land, currently not affected by Bush Forever, in the Parks and Recreation Reservation. The proposed additional land is relatively clear and appears not to present any value to the Bush Forever area, aside from providing an additional buffer area and a reserve boundary which is consistent with the existing lot boundaries. The inclusion of the additional land is considered inappropriate, as it will be likely to impact upon any future proposal to develop or use the land for recreation purposes.

Use and Management Implications related to COW Parks

Proposal 19 (Depot), 47 (Mary Street), 88 (Capon Park) 89 (Edgar Griffiths Park), 90 (Belgrade Park) and 91 (Benmuni Park and Chicquita Park) relate to existing Crown Reserves vested in the City of Wanneroo for recreation purposes, with the exception of the depot site that is vested for the purpose of camping, recreation, quarry and depot. The recreation sites are all reserved under District Planning Scheme No. 2 as Local Scheme Reserves and the vested purpose of the land is consistent with the MRS Parks and Recreation Reservation.

Reservation and identification of City of Wanneroo owned or vested sites will have additional financial and resource implications for the City. Sites identified within Bush Forever Protection Areas, are likely to require preparation of Statements of Environmental Effects and Environmental Management Plans where there is a perceived direct or indirect impact on the Bush Forever site. The City may need to employ consultants to prepare such documents at a substantial cost. In addition, Bush Forever acknowledges that Local Government will be expected to continue to assist in the management of Bush Forever sites. While the City already budgets towards ongoing maintenance of reserves under its management, the maintenance level provided may need to be upgraded to Conservation Category incurring additional costs.

The WAPC should be advised that State Government Assistance to Local Government should be provided in respect to management of reserves of regional significance.

Road Widenings and Alignment

Proposal 39 includes part of Pinjar Road which is a constructed and gazetted road reserve. The proposal should be modified to exclude the constructed road and any widening required as part of the Neerabup Industrial Area Structure Plan. The Structure Plan is at this stage proposing a 35m reserve width for this portion of Pinjar Road, however this is subject of agreement by the WAPC.

Proposal 40 (Carramar/Banksia Grove) should be modified to reflect the revised alignment for the Pinjar Road extension.

Proposal 72 (Portion of State Forest 65) should be modified to exclude the existing constructed portion of Breakwater Drive.

Proposal 88 (Capom Park) appears to make provision for the land required for the East Wanneroo Arterial Road Land Requirement Plans for Pinjar Road and Capon Street, however, the area provided along the Pinjar Road extent is inconsistent with that required on Drawing No T1811- 66-1 and may not allow sufficient road widening to be undertaken to construct Pinjar Road

Proposal 91 (Benmuni Park and Chicquita Park) has not taken into account the East Wanneroo Arterial Road Land Requirement Plans. Drawing No. T1811-40-1 (A1) which identifies road widening to both Lenore Road and High Road. This proposal should be modified to ensure road widening efforts in the future are not hindered.

Plan inconsistencies

The proposed reservation area of Proposal 93 (Errina Road) contained within the MRS Amendment text document is inconsistent with that proposed on the Plan entitled, "MRS Amendment 1082/33 Bush Forever, Proposed SCA and Parks and Recreation Reservations North". The proposed boundaries are also inconsistent with the agreement reached between the Bush Forever Office and Council to include a portion of Swan Location 11796 and 12511 Errina Road, Alexander Heights into Bush Foreyer site 493. The plan for Proposal 90 (Belgrade Park) of the MRS Amendment report is incorrectly shown as overlaying the rear portion of lots facing Amos Road, Wanneroo.

The Amendment Report incorrectly identifies Proposal 68 (Lake Pinj ar) and 84 (Cecil Road) as being located within the City of Swan and fails to recognise a small portion of Proposals 74and 86 (both along Neaves Road) as being located within the City of Wanneroo.

Draft Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region (SPP 2.8)

The key areas of concem are discussed below:

Delegation of Powers

It is the intent of the WAPC to amend the Notice of Delegation under the WAPC Act 1985, following final approval and gazettal of the MRS Amendment and Statement of Planning Policy, to provide Local Government with development control powers for Bush Forever Protection Areas under the MRS.

Under the current notice of delegation, most development control powers under the MRS are delegated to local government, with the WAPC retaining power to determine applications where matters of regional significance exist. With the introduction of Bush Forever Protection Areas, the intent is to delegate power to the Local Authority. However, an application for development on land within or abutting a Bush Forever Protection Area which, in the opinion of the local government is likely to have an adverse impact (direct or indirect) on regionally significant bushland within a Bush Forever Protection Area, shall be referred to the DPI (Bush Forever Office) for comment and recommendation before being determined by the local government. It is only, if the recommendation provided by the DPI is not acceptable to the local government, the application will be referred to the WAPC for determination.

This raises a number of concerns for the City. Primarily, the City will be made responsible for decisions relating to regionally significant vegetation where in-house technical expertise may not be sufficient to make informed decisions on environmental management and practice. Reliance on external environmental agencies, for assessment of Environmental Management Plansand Statements of Environmental Effects, will be required, resulting in further delays in the assessment of such applications.

The City would also be expected to become involved in negotiated planning solutions. This role should remain with the Bush Forever Office as the City should not be expected to expend valuable resources on what remains as regional bushland issues. All proposals that propose a direct or indirect impact on Bush Forever Protection Areas should be forwarded to the WAPC for determination.

Development Constraints and Compensation

General policy measure 5.1 (vii) makes a general presumption against further development within Bush Forever Protection Areas that would have a direct adverse impact on the regionally significant bushland identified for protection, unless there is an improved environmental outcome. The provision of the Statement of Planning Policy will have significant weight in the exercise of planning and decision making related to development and clearing within Bush Forever Protection Areas. This is likely to have a significant impact in respect to the future provision of district and regional sporting facilities (such as active recreation complexes and public golf courses) within the City. The North West Corridor Structure Plan identified a system of parks and recreation reserves which were intended to provide not only for environmental and landscape protection, but also for regional sporting facilities. The distribution and land requirements for sufficient facilities to serve the City's ultimate population should be specifically identified in consultation with the City and either be excluded from the policy requirements or alternatively the policy should be specifically amended to provide for the clearing of the identified areas sufficient to enable the development of required recreation facilities.

The presumption against further development within Bush Forever Protection Areas is also likely to have a significant impact on many rural and industry landowners within the City of Wanneroo, particularly those, with established rural pursuits ie. market gardening, that wish to expand their operations. Any proposal that deviates from the Statement of Planning Policy is unlikely to be supported without overriding justification. These landowners are expected to enter into a Negotiated Planning Solution, which may not be permit expansion on the subject land, as an improved environmental outcome from such landuses is unlikely. Landowners will then be confronted with reduced development potential as well as diminished earning potential from their land and would not be entitled to compensation. The City will similarly be affected in relation to its freehold land assets that are identified within Bush Forever sites.

Clause 5.2.2 of the Policy states that proposals or decision making should "recognise that for urban and industrial land/s appropriately zoned in the local town planning scheme or in one ownership or able to be developed in isolation, this will generally involve a 'stand alone' Negotiated Planning Solution. A bushland retention target shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, with a retention benchmark of generally not less than 30 per cent, subject to an area's overall planning and environmental opportunities and constraints".

While the Policy, through the Negotiated Planning Solution, identifies one of the primary criteria as recognising existing planning or environmental commitments or approval, and future commitments and approvals that are made through formal planning and environmental processes, the Policy does not recognise future development potential of land, where an application has not been previously made, such as for an extension of an existing market garden. In this circumstance, the landowner would be significantly disadvantaged by having a Bush Forever Protection Area placed over their land.

As compensation is limited to circumstances where land is reserved under a town planning scheme, a landowner who wishes to realise the development potential of their land through a proposal which is consistent with the current zoning of the land or who wishes to extend an existing approved use of land, would not be entitled to compensation. The City has previously expressed its concern regarding the provision of adequate compensation for the loss of development potential on land which is in freehold ownership and has been designated for regional bushland protection. This issue is once again reinforced. Objection is also raised to the principle of entering into Negotiated Planning Solutions for essential infrastructure works, in particular, the construction of Ocean Reef Road through Bush Forever Site 463. Ocean Reef Road is an important regional road that has been recognised in the MRS and should not be made subject to a Negotiated Planning Solution.

Land Coordination and Cost Contribution Clause 5.2.2 (iii) of the Policy would expect the structure planning process to facilitate the strategic coordination of bushland protection and development requirements to set aside regionally significant bushland for protection and management in its entirety, where possible. This would apply to lands where rezoning for development has not occurred in a local government town planning scheme or where an affected area is in fragmented ownership and/or requires land coordination to enable it to be developed. This may also involve cost contributions, or other equitable cost-sharing arrangements towards the protection of regionally significant bushland. This will impact on many undeveloped areas of the City of Wanneroo. This should not be the responsibility of Local Government to coordinate and manage nor should the cost associated with regional bushland protection be passed on to other landowners within a specific structure plan area. This issue has previously been considered in respect to the preparation of the Neerabup Industrial Area Structure Plan and the City should reiterate its previous advice to the WAPC that it is not prepared to coordinate infrastructure contributions for the acquisition of Bush Forever Sites in the Neerabup Industrial Area.

Revesting of Crown Reserves

Clause 5.2.1 (iv) outlines that the WAPC will support the revesting of Crown reserves within Bush Forever sites with a conservation purpose under the Land Administration Act 1997. While a revesting may be sought over existing Parks and Recreation Reserves within the City of Wanneroo, the City is not obliged to accept the revised management order. The revesting of existing Parks and Recreation Reserves that serve an active recreation purpose would be inappropriate.

Clause 5.2.2 (v) seeks to ensure that regionally significant bushland identified for protection and management as part of a Negotiated Planning Solution is set aside for conservation and vested with an appropriate management body under 20A of the Town Planning and Development Act, unless it can be agreed that equivalent protection and management measures can be secured through other statutory controls such as a conservation covenant and management agreement. The City has previously expressed concern regarding accepting responsibility for the management of regionally significant Conservation Parks.

POS Allocation

Clause 5.2.2 (vii) recognises that conservation areas will generally be set aside over and above the normal 10 per cent public open space contribution and will not form part of the developable area for the purpose of calculating the 10 per cent public open space contribution. However, the Policy goes on to state that the WAPC may accept whole or part of the conservation area as a component of the open space contribution where the conservation area or portion thereof serves a local passive recreation function, amongst other things. While the City has generally accepted locally significant conservation areas as part of the 10 per cent POS, it has resisted regionally significant conservation areas being similarly credited. It is difficult enough to accommodate active/passive recreation and local bushland requirements within 10 per cent POS provision as it is. City management of regionally significant conservation areas should also be opposed.

Rate Incentives

Local Rate incentives, as proposed by Bush Forever and the Statement of Planning Policy, need to be compensated for by the State Government. A reduction in one owner's rates will mean an increase in another owner's rates (as the required revenue still needs to be raised) and such an adjustment should not occur on a local basis when the objective is of a regional nature.

Previous calculations have estimated a potential Council revenue loss of $2.4 million with the implementation of local rate concessions. Statutory Compliance

The MRS Amendment has been prepared by the WAPC, in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act. The Draft Statement of Planning Policy has been prepared by the WAPC, in accordance with the provisions of section 5AA of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. Once finalised these initiatives will provide a statutory mechanisms to protect and manage Bush Forever sites. Strategic Implications

The MRS Amendment and Draft Bushland Policy are consistent with the City's Environmental Sustainability goal to value, protect and enhance our natural environment in harmony with the growth and progress of our City. The implementation of the Draft Bushland Statement of Planning Policy will further assist and support the City's initiative in identifying and protecting local areas of biodiversity. Policy Implications

While the MRS Amendment and Draft Bushland Policy do not have a direct policy implication, the initiatives of the Draft Bushland Policy and the City's work currently underway in relation to creation of a local biodiversity strategy may will require the creation of a local planning policy in the future. Financial Implications

The MRS Amendment and Draft Bushland Policy are also likely to have financial implications for the City and its landowners through the reservation of land. This will impact on the Corporate Management and Development of the City, particularly in relation to the provision of rates incentives, additional conservation management of local reserves, potential curbing of development potential of the City's land assets. Voting Requirements

Simple Majority. Recommendation

That Council:

1. ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that it supports the proposals contained within Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33 Bush Forever and Related Lands subject to:

a) In relation to proposals 17, 20, 38 and 45, the Commission notes the potential impact on the City's Trails Master Plan (2003) and agrees to work with the City in determining appropriate locations and management provisions for frail paths through these areas, in progressing Stage 2 of the Trails Master Plan program.

b) In relation to proposal 89, the reservation be limited to that part of Edgar Griffiths Park currently designated as a Bush Forever site.

c) Proposal 39 being modified to exclude the constructed road (Pinjar Road) and any widening required as part of the Neerabup Industrial Area Structure Plan.

d) Proposal 40 being modified to reflect the revised alignment for the Pinjar Road extension.

e) Proposal 72 being modified to exclude the existing constructed portion of Breakwater Drive.

1) Proposal 88 being modified to reflect the East Wanneroo Arterial Road Land Requirements Plans for Pinjar Road and Caporn Street (Drawing No T1811 -66- 1).

g) Proposal 91 being modified to reflect the East Wanneroo Arterial Road Land Requirements Plans for Lenore Road and High Road (Drawing No. T1811-40-1 (A1).

i) Proposal 90 of the MRS Amendment report being modified to exclude the rear portion of lots facing Amos Road, Wanneroo.

j) The Commission noting that proposals 68, 84 and a portion of 74 and 86 are located within the City of Wanneroo.

2. ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that itisgenerally supportive of the Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8, subject to:

a) Decision-making under the Metropolitan Region Scheme in relation to Bush Forever Protection Areas resting with the Commission and with the Local Authority acting in a recommending role.

b) Consideration of Negotiated Planning Solutions remaining the responsibility of the Commission.

c) The distribution and land requirements for sufficient regional recreation facilities to serve the City's ultimate population being specifically identified, in consultation with the City, and either being excluded from the policy requirements or alternatively the policy being specifically amended to provide for the clearing of the identified areas sufficient to enable the development of required recreation facilities. d) Provision of adequate compensation mechanisms for the loss of development potential on land which is in freehold ownership and has been designated for regional bushland protection. e) The construction of Ocean Reef Road through Bush Forever site 463 being recognised as land required for essential regional road infrastructure and therefore being excluded from the requirements of Bush Forever. f) Local Government not being responsible for land co-ordination, cost sharing or cost contributions associated with regional bushland protection, nor should the cost of regional bushland protection be shared, via infrastructure contributions, amongst other landowners within structure plan areas, and in particular the Neerabup Industrial Area Structure Plan. g) An appropriate State government agency maintaining responsibility for managing conservation reserves of regional importance. h) Bush Forever sites not being included in the ten per cent public open space provision for residential subdivision as there is already significant pressure on the use of this land for active/passive recreation and local conservation requirements. i) State Government assistance to Local Government in respect to management of Bush Forever sites under their management responsibility. j) Local rate adjustments not being considered an appropriate incentive mechanism to fund regional bushland conservation bii private land private land. Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082133

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street 93 PERTH W.A. 6000

Name TO or Keiu ( 1,14-N14 (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) rJ fiNi,4 6,3,4 AddressPO 80c 2/ Kct3 Postcode6 ? Contact phone number.94 3(1°2-34Email address 2.-)Gaci °5ml-ilk kcxm-inG-elc, de-3-1,1-00c)q.

Submission (Please attach additional pages If required. It Is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound) (5-e2 0AC/601

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

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

Please complete the following:

NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.) or YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You will be contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by: [q- MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): or MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group) Agent's name: Group name: Agent's telephone number (business hours): Mailing address:

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature Date/1/1

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

Contacts: Telephone(08) 9264 7777; Fax - (OE) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - httplimaiv.wapc.wa.gov.au TownofKwinana

5th November 2004 Our Ref: DAS He Number: K508 8 364 Doc Number: 86911

Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House i 1F 469 Wellington Street (cnr Forrest Place) Perth 600 dE Western Australia

Dear sir

PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS &

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY 2.8 BUSHLAND POLICY Corner Gilmore Avenue and Sulphur Road, FOR PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION Kw Inane WA 6167 PO Box 21 Council considered the above proposed Amendment to the Metropolitan Kwinana WA 6966 Hours 8.00am - 5.00pm Region Scheme at its Ordinary Meeting of 13th October 2004. Council at that

Telephone (08) 9439 0200 same meeting considered the draft Environmental ProtectionPolicy (Wetlands) Facsimile (08) 9439 0222 since in the case of the Town of Kwinana there are significant overlaps [email protected] between the two ptoposed conservation areas. www.kwinana.wa.gov.au There are clear benefits in considering conservation values of both of these elements in the same analysis given that Council is also dealing with potential urbanisation of areas in the vicinity consistent with the proposals contained in the Jandakot Structure Plan.

Council at its meeting resolved (in part):

"648 MOVED CR PATTlAISON SECONDED CR KEARNEY

1.0ThatCouncil recommendtotheWesternAustralian Planning Commissionthat proposed Amendment No 1082/33 (Bush Forever & Related Lands) is supported LIEHA \ TmEIN ;Toil P(.7-NNit frt:t; subject to the following modifications:

1 2 NOV 2004 1.1 MRS Proposal 32 (Bush Forever Area 270 between -oci ca. Thomas Road and Anketell Roads Anketelabe idnodified to reflect a boundary contained in Option 4 ALE teal:Cr- / oio

ace \ QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Working together to build the best possible future for the people of Kwinana isowww4CLIMIIE0 Attachment F(2)which represents a balance between conservation, urban development and transit related residential development This should include a review of thenorthernportionoftheexistingParks and Recreationreservationwithin800 metres of the proposed Anketell Road Station reflected in the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan and in the Draft Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment should they be confirmed. It should also include a review of WRC wetland mapping which demonstrates that conservation category wetland would not be destroyed.

1.2 That Bush Forever Area 393 comprising the Sayer Road Swamp,isalsoReservedforParks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

1.3 MRS Proposal 34 (Bush Forever Area 272 Orelia and Bertram) is modified to reflect: 1.3.1 The formal park area inside the loop of Nottingham Parkway being excluded from the Amendment 1.3.2 The existing local road reservation in the vicinity of the Colchester Ave and Thomas Road intersection is reflected accurately in the amendment 1.3.3 The proposed Parks and Recreation Reservation being adjusted, to accurately reflect the northern edge of the road reservation of proposed link between Sulphur Road and Johnson Road. 1.3.4 Deletion of the thin sliver of proposed Parks and Recreation Reserve on the eastern side of the Railway Purposes Reservationinthe Bertram area. 1.3.5 The Reservation for Parks and Recreation of the Resource Enhancement category wetland, adjacent to the Railway Purposes Reserve in the Bertram Area, abutting the central Parks and Recreation Reservation. 1.3.6 The amendment reflecting a Parks and Recreation Reservationlinkagebetweenthe Wildflower Reserve and the proposed Sicklemore Road Escarpment Reservation. 1.3.7 Design solutions being investigated to introduce passive surveillance along theview corridors between the levee banks adjacent to the Peel MainDrainandtheproposedParksand Recreation Reservation reflecting these design solutions prior to finalisation of the amendment.

1.5 MRS Proposal 10 (Bush Forever Area 67) being deleted fromtheamendment as perCouncil'sprevious resolutionof 28 April1999.Should theWestern Australian Planning Commission not agree with this recommendation then the proposal should be modified todeletetheproposedParksandRecreation Reservation over the existing Challenger Avenue Road Reserve.

1.6 Bollard Bullrush Swamp being included in the Bush Forever Amendment"

I enclose a copy of extracts from the report considered by Council (Attachment A).

Council is also currently in the process of refining the Structure Plan proposal reflected in the Jandakot Structure Plan and is developing a District level Structure Plan for these purposes. While the proposed Bush Forever areas as defined in the proposed Amendment,in the main can be accommodated in this context there are a number of locations where a review of the portions of the areas are warranted.

The need for a review of some of the Bush Forever areas is brought about by: The need to provide a "sustainable balance" between conservation areas, urban development (including community infrastructureand access to facilities) and maximised public transport infrastructure usage. The need to accurately reflect bushland in relation to actual use and development of land. The need to enable design solutions at the interface with future urban development which enables passive surveillance of bush forever areas where local topography warrants such an approach.

As the report considered both Bush Forever MRS Amendment proposals and EPP Wetlands proposals (some of which are not relevant to the Amendment), I enclose extracts of relevant sections of the report considered by Council which relate to proposed Bush Forever areas. Numbering of areas and attachments reflects those contained in the Council report (Attached) and as such may not be sequential

Council recommends an approach in relation to a number of areas which reflects a sustainability approach where environmental, social and economic objectives are balanced so as to achieve the best outcome.This applies particularly to the proposed Bush Forever (and Wetlands) area located in the Anketell locality, between Thomas Road and Anketell Road, on the eastern side of the Kwinana Freeway. The recommended approach seeks to increase the size of the urban cell immediately to the north of Thomas Road (reflected in the Jandakot Structure Plan) to a sustainable level and provide linkages to community infrastructure proposed for the northern residential cell

Further to the above Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 10th November 2004 considered a report on the mechanics of the proposed Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 associated with Amendment 1082/33 and resolved:

ThatCounciladvise the WesternAustralian Planning Commission that it generally supports the Draft Statement of Planning Policy No 2.8 Bushland PolicyforthePerth Metropolitan Region, subject to the following:

1. Clause 5.10) should be amended to read "Recognise regionallysignificantbushlandprotectionandits management as a primary purpose as part of an area's essential environmental structure.";

2. The State Government is to make resources available to Local Government or landowners when the preparation of a StatementofEnvironmentalEffects andan Environmental Management Plan is required as part of the planning application process.If assistance in the preparation of the Environmental Management Plan is not possible than an example of a Statement of Environmental Management Plan is to be made available for low impact development proposals, this will allow private landowners to satisfy the SPP's requirements without major financial burden;

3. As the Town of Kwinana has adopted a Draft Local Planning Strategy includes vegetation protection provisions Council request the Commission to enable Council to complete a full bushland protection Strategy independent of the Local Planning Strategy; and

4. Provision (ii) (g) (Memorial on Title) of Schedule 2 should be included in Schedule 1 also. CARRIED

I enclose a copy of the report considered by Council on the matter (Attachment B).

In respect of resolution 1 above, Council takes the view that this is inconsistent with the current framework for development control, whereby development proposals are assessed in the light of zonings, scheme provisions and environmental factors. Bush Forever designation should represent one of these factors against which development should be assessed.It should not be considered a land use in its own right as land uses are subject to approval or refusal under Town Planning Schemes and no circumstances would arise where Bushland would be the subject of an Application to Commence Development as a land use in its own right.

In respect of resolution 2 above Council takes the view that the requirements of the SPP create a significant impost to Council and owners of smaller landholdings and that the State Government should provide resources to ensure that associated environmental management and reporting costs are able to be met.

In respect of Resolution 3 above please note that Council has completed its Local Planning Strategy which is currently with the Commission for consent to advertise. Council is concerned that the requirement to include a Local Bush land Protection Strategy in the LPS may un-necessarily delay approval of the Local Planning Strategy. Council requests acknowledgement from the Commission that the LPS approval will not be delayed, given that it includes considerable vegetation retention provisions. Council proposes to undertake the Local Bushland Strategy and include it as an amendment to the LPS at a later date. Given the development pressures evident in sections of the municipality there is a clear need to progress the LPS and new Town Planning Scheme preparation. That is the LPS as submitted to the Commission represents a substantial component of Council's progress to the preparation of a new Town Planning Scheme.

Thank you for your consideration of the matter.

Yours faithfully

Doug Smith Manager Planning Building Services

Attachments: A Extracts from Council Report on MRS Amendment 1082/33 B Council Report on SPP No. 2.8 Submission on Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1082/33

Attachment A

Extracts from Council Report Considered at Ordinary Council Meeting le October 2004 Dealing with Proposed Amendment to Metropolitan Region Scheme (Bush Forever) 1082/33

& Draft Environmental Protection Policy (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands)

Page 1 SUMMARY: Proposals to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme and introduce a Statement of Planning Policy pursuant to 5M of the Town Planning and Development Act have been advertised for public comment in order to implement the State Government's "Bush Forever" strategic report. At the same time, a draft Environmental Protection Policy has been advertised, which proposes to include a significant additional number of wetlands to the existing Environmental Protection Policy.

The proposals are generally supported subject to number of modifications to reflect sustainability principles, structure plan initiatives, existing land use and development and site specific environmental qualities.

DISCUSSION: Council is in receipt of three proposed statutory instruments dealing with designation and protection of the areas of conservation value as follows:

Proposed Amendment toEnvironmental Protection Policy (EPP) (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands) (Submissions Close 22/09/04) Attachment A 2 Proposed Amendment to Metropolitan Region Scheme (Bush Forever) (Submissions Close 12/11/04). This includes: Reservation of some areas for Parks and Recreation under the MRS (with acquisition of land being the objective) Attachment B Introduction of Special Control Area (SCA) provisions into the MRS via Amendment to the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act and the Metropolitan Region Scheme (made pursuant to the Act) and their application to specific areas. 3 Statement of Planning Policy2.8 (SPP 2.8) "Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region" (Submissions Close 12/11/04)

While the EPP and the Bush Forever proposals are dealt with under separate Legislation (Environment Protection Act and the Planning Legislation, respectively) and would ordinarily be dealt with under separate agenda items, within Kwinana there are numerous areas of overlap between the two proposals. Accordingly for ease of dealing with areas of overlap, this report deals with both legislative proposals.

The intention behind the proposals is to protect and preserve environmental assets of bushland (within the Metropolitan Region) and wetlands within the Swan Coastal Plain.

Page 2 Bush land

The majority of the proposals contained under the proposed MRS Amendment, have been the subject of Council resolutions in support of the Bush Forever Report. Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 28th April 1999 in consideration of the advertising of the Bush Plan Strategy (now Bush Forever), resolved:

That Council submit a submission to the Ministry for Planning concerning Perth's Bushplan stating that:-

a)the present Bushplan sites are supported with the following modifications: 0alteration of the Northern boundary of site 349 (Leda-IP14) and ii)inclusion of Long Swamp and Bollard Bullrush Swamp as Bushplan sites which should be given priority over sites 393 (Wattleup Lake), 67 (Parmelia ex-school site) and the addition to the Cadastral boundary in western site 349 (Leda Nature Reserve).

b)the Ministry for Planning commit to 0provisionof resources required by local government forthe management and protection of locally significant bushland ii)inclusion of local government as a signatory to the inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding. iii)Improvement of Bushplan text and maps to reflect importance of locally significant bushland. iv) aformalconsultation and negotiation process between local government, and the Ministry for Planning. v) concurrent operation with the WAMA (WA Municipal Association) framework for managing Locally Significant Bushland, which could be incorporated into bushplan or a Statement of Planning Policy.

2. That Council explore complementary mechanisms to identify and conserve Locally Significant Bushland through TPS2 and the Environmental Strategy."

Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8

The new Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy (Bushland SPP) partially addresses some of these submission points (such as v). It partially addresses locally significant bushland by requiring local government to produce Local Biodiversity Strategies which would cover such areas. The Bushland SPP recognises bushland protection as a land use in its own right and shows how bushland protection can be integrated with broader land use planning and decision making to protect biodiversity values.It also establishes a Planning Assessment

Page 3 process to be followedif assessment is not undertaken by the Department of Environment.

Alterations to bush plan sites suggested as part of the Council decision were not acted on by the DPI. This reflected the DPI preference for land in government ownership, regardless of environmental value.

The new Bush land SPP advocates reservation of some Bush Forever Sites as Parks and Recreation. The reservation of bushland, followed by government acquisition when available, is the preferred planning option which recognises the conservation value of these sites. However, this was not undertaken on all sites because the Bush Forever Office has insufficient funding to acquire all sites. For sites not yet proposed for reservation, some protection is provided through creating Bush Forever Protection Areas and the SPP which establishes a policy, implementation Framework and guidelines for the Bush Forever Protection Area. Within this framework, Negotiated Planning Solutions are also suggested. These include negotiations with developers for bushland retention or private conservation.

Proposed Amendment to Metropolitan Region Scheme (Bush Forever) The Proposed Amendment to Metropolitan Region Scheme (Bush Forever) is the instrument for reserving some areas for Parks and Recreation under the MRS prior to acquisition of land by the government.

It also creates a Special Control Area (SCA) called a Bush Forever Protection Area in the Metropolitan Region Scheme over all Bush Forever Sites. Special Control Areas are advocated in the Model Scheme Text and apply in addition to the requirements of the existing zone or reserve. Where there are inconsistencies, Special Control Area provisions override local TPS zoning provisions. An example of another SCA already used under TPS 2 is Landscape Protection Areas.

Implications for District Structure Plan Council(inwork beingundertakenat theDistrictStructure Planlevel),is endeavouring, consistent with sustainability principles, to achieve a balance between environmental, social and economic considerations. Consideration of Bush Forever and Wetland proposals inisolation of social and economic factors may have consequences, in social and economic cost and benefits. For example where environmental protection controls are contemplated which undermines wider community social and economic benefits, then a greater level of scrutiny of the environmental benefits of the proposal is warranted. It should be recognised however that environmental protection can have social and economic impacts on specific individuals. Given the economic values of some areas, review of boundaries is appropriate to determine that it is only the most valuable areas that are being so highly protected.

Page 4 Specific Proposals

Areal Attachment B) comprising: MRS Proposal 32 (Bush Forever Area 270 between Thomas Road and Anketell Roads Anketell), The area is affected by both the draft Bush Forever MRS Amendment and Wetlands EPP proposals, although the defined boundaries of each do not exactly coincide. The area (Attachments C, C(1) , C (2)) represents an east to west aligned series of landholdings, from the Kwinana Freeway (near the Spectacles Wetlands)and extending eastwards. The Bush Forever (2000) Report, definesit as a linkage between bush land to the east and west.

It is proposed to Rezone land in the eastern half (Sub Area 1 Attachment C) of the area from Rural and Water Conservation Zone, to Parks and Recreation under the MRS, while retaining the Water Catchment Policy Reservation. It is not proposed to rezone the middle section (Sub Area 2, Attachment C) to Parks and Recreation Reserve at this stage, rather the land will be included within a Special Control Area (SCA).It should be noted this area was subject to a "Negotiated Settlement' between the landowner and the DPI'Bush Forever Office", in order to define an agreed development edge. Council has not been party to these negotiations, which have lapsed and as such the issue is not yet finalised. It is proposed to overlay a SCA over the western section of the area (Area 3 Attachment C). This portion is already Reserved for Parks Recreation and under the MRS.

The Bush Forever proposal for this area was included within the Council report the subject of the above (28 April 1999) resolution. The Council report emphasised the need to preserve Sandy Lake and strike a balance between future urbanisation and Conservation.

Wetlands EPP Sandy Lake is already defined as an EPP Wetland, and it is proposed to expand the delineated area to include damplands corresponding with the Conservation Category Wetland defined by the WRC. (Attachments A & C(1)).

Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report defined the environmental qualities of the site as follows:

"Environmental Value

Page 5 Landscape features include open water, vegetated wetland and vegetated uplands. 201.4 ha out of 228.4ha is bushland with 63.4 ha of conservation wetland. Greater than 80 % of the area is in very good to excellent condition and less than 20 % is good to degraded, with areas of severe local disturbance and clearing."

Previous Council Resolutions on Matter Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 23 January 2002 in consideration of the advertising of the Jandakot Structure Plan, resolved (in part) in respect of the land as follows:

"10.Support the re-evaluation of the boundaries of Bush Forever sites on the eastern side of the Kwinana Freeway between Thomas Road and Anketell Road (Area 4)- Attachment 10), in order to define its interface of the proposed conservation areas and future urban based on environmental, rather than old cadastral boundaries." This referred to the existing Parks and Recreation Reservation under the MRS adjacent and to the east of the Kwinana Freeway, which is defined based on cadastral boundaries (Attachment C, Sub Area 3).

District Structure Plan & Sustainability Implications It is appropriate to analyse the conservation proposals in the contextof potential urbanisation of portions of the locality. The objective from a sustainabilityperspective should be to strike a balance which achieves the best outcome afterconsidering environmental, social and economic factors.

For the purposes of a sustainability analysis the subject area is definedas the land bounded by the Kwinana Freeway, Anketell Road, Thomas Road, and theedge of the MRS Groundwater Conservation Zone. (Attachment D).

The following Goals are suggested in relation to the subject area to aid consideration of environmental, social and economic factors in making a decision.

Page 6 Environment Social Economic

Flora & Fauna conservation Access to local & district urbanMaximise benefit of facilities & betweenregional transport neighbourhoods infrastructure investment (vehicular/pedestrian/cyclist) MinimiseEncroachmentintoSafe pedestrian environment Residential area of Wetlands sufficientsizetotake advantages of "Economies of Scale"in provisionofcommunity facilities

Linkages betweenMinimise bushfire hazard Minimise Unit environmental areas Development Costs and Maximised use of facilities Consolidated conservationConsolidated residential area Minimise per Capita area (minimising edge effect) of sufficient size to support viableMaintenance Cost of sense of community Public Facilities and Infrastructure

A comparison of four alternative configurations of Conservation and Urban areas based on a simplified approach to Sustainability Principles is reflected in a Goals Achievement Matrix (AttachmentE).Equal weightingisgiveninthisto Environmental, Social and Economic factors The Comparison is based on rankings only and scoring cannot be considered absolute.

Three alternative configurations were initially tested in the analysis as follows:

Option 1 Maximum Conservation Area (Attachment F1) representing a Composite of Bush Forever and EPP proposals. This assumes no road linkage between the north and south urban cells. This represents a 63% and 37% split of conservation and urban areas respectively, of the area defined in Attachment D. Option 2 Jandakot Structure Plan (Attachment Fl) Urban/Conservation proposals (Assumes One North- South Road Linkage). This represents a 51% and 49% split of conservation and urban areas respectively, of the area defined in Attachment D. Option 3Maximum Urban Area with Urban Development of southern area extending to Rural Water Protection Zone (Attachment Fl and Urbanisation to the north west of area (currently Parks and Recreation Reserve). This represents a 27% and 73% split of conservation and urban areas respectively, of the area defined in Attachment D.

Subsequently a fourth option was explored as follows:

Option 4 A refinement of Option 3 where an area approximately within the 800 metre walkable catchment of the proposed Anketell Road Station isidentified for urban purposes. This represents a 37% and 63% split of conservation and urban area respectively of the area defined in Attachment D.

Page 7 The initialGoals Achievement Matrix suggested that the Maximum Urban scenario (Option 3) produces the most favourable outcome based on the equal weighting and resultant ranking of goals listed.It should be noted that the comparisons are based on rankings rather that using absolute values.

A fourth altemative was then tested based on a refined Option 3 where only that area of Bush Forever land within an 800 metre walkable catchment of the proposed future Anketell Road Station. This offered further sustainability benefits.

Goal parameters used in the Goals Achievement Matrix (Attachment E) are as follows:

Environment Flora and Fauna Conservation The key objective is to retain an east to west environmental linkage of a sufficient size to maintain a viable habitat. Each of the Options provides an east to west linkage, however there are differences in the area of the conservation reserve. This was measured for the purposes of ranking.

Minimise Encroachment into Wetlands The key objective is to prevent/minimise encroachment into wetland areas. A qualitatative indicator of encroachment of each of the options is reflected in the Matrix.

Maintain Linkages between Environmental Areas As each alternative reflects a continuous east-west conservation linkage, the Matrix reflects the likely number of north-south road linkages, which will interfere with the east to west connectivity of the linkage. The Kwinana Freeway (and future railway line) already severs the link to the Spectacles Wetlands and each option considered reflects different north to south road connectivity. A north to south road linkage could not be justified in Option 1, given the distances involved between the northern and southern residential cells (670 m).

Option 2 warrants a single north-south connection. Option 3 could justify the introduction of a second linkage. Option 4 warrants a single connection Consolidated Conservation Area This issue is consistent with an accepted conservation principle, which dictates that the greatest impact occurs at the edge of conservation areas and accordingly the less the "edge" (boundary) distance, relative to the area of the conservation area, the less the impact.. The "Edge Effect" ratio is therefore reflected in the Matrix.

Page 8 Social Access to Local and District Facilities and Connections between Neighbourhoods Linkages between the northern and southern cells are desirable to enable access from the southern cell to facilities to the north (Primary School, High School, Anketell Road Station Neighbourhood Centre and District Centre). Demand will also exist for access from the northern cell to the southern cellto the Neighbourhood Centre, employment in the Mixed Business Area to the south of Thomas Road and the Thomas Road Station. Such access should be facilitated without forcing local traffic onto regional roads (Kwinana Freeway) for local trips.

Liveable Neighbourhoods seeks to maximise connectivity between neighbourhoods in order to foster a sense of community and facilitate interaction between neighbourhoods.

The number of local linkages likely arising from the four options likely to be used for these trip purposes, are reflected in the Matrix. In the case of Option 'Ino linkages are assumed. In the Case of Options 2 & 4 only one linkage is likely to serve these purposes whereas Option 3 assumes two (2) linkages.

Safe Pedestrian Environment Liveable Neighbourhood promotes passive surveillance of pedestrian routes by pedestrian routes being fronted by dwelling on both sides of the road.Under Option 1 as no link to the Schools to the north are reflected, then no such potential problem exists.

Option 'Ihowever, would require pedestrians to cross Thomas Road to access school facilities to the south of Thomas Road. Given that this is regional road reserve and carries considerable freight traffic, this represents a hazard to pedestrian movement.

Options 2, 3 and 4 would require road linkages passing through the conservation area. This creates a problem for pedestrians (particularly children) with little passive surveillance on these routes. The number of roads affected by these factors are therefore reflected in the Matrix.

Minimise Bushfire Hazard Risk reduction at the interface of urban areas and bushfire prone areas is largely achieved through design of the residential cell and the provision of access that is both multidirectional and direct (for emergency vehicles and escape routes). The Matrix reflects the number of road routes likely to serve this purpose.

Consolidated (Southern) Residential Area "Liveable Neighbourhoods" defines an optimum Neighbourhood size comprising an approximate 400-450 radiusarc.This defines an area of 50-63 ha

Page 9 (representing between 650- 830 dwelling units (dus)) at a residential density of R20 (13 dus/ha). This produces a population of 1950 -2450 (3 person/du.). This facilitates a "sense of community". The proposed conservation area separates two future urban areas defined under the Jandakot Structure Plan (JSP).This is currently being refined by "in house" District Structure Planning by Council officers. The northern residential cell is of sufficient size to accommodate a neighbourhood of 400-450m "walkable radius".

The southern cell as a result of Bush Forever and Wetland constraints, does not have sufficient size to constitute a Neighbourhood in the context of Liveable Neighbourhoods. In terms of the "Sustainability Principle" an argument can be put to increase the size of this future urban cell, to at least a neighbourhood size. The southern residential cell includes 4.4 ha of area affected by powerline easement which cannot be developed.

Option 1 willproduce apopulationrepresenting 17% ofaviable neighbourhood size for the southern residential cell. Option2willproduce apopulationrepresenting 49% of aviable neighbourhood size for the southern residential cell. Options 3 & 4 will produce a population representing 80% of a viable neighbourhood size for the southern residential cell.

Economic Maximise benefit of regional transport infrastructure investment

The State Government has committed considerable capital to the development of the Kwinana Freeway and the South West Metropolitan Railway and a Station will be constructed at Thomas Road within 2 years. A further station is planned at the intersection of the Kwinana Freeway and Anketell Road. WAPC Policy promotes the development of station precincts (higher residential densities) in order to maximise usage of public transport, thereby producing wider environmental benefits.

This includes the promotion of higher residential densities within a walkable are of 800 metres from stations. The Thomas Road Station site is beyond the 800 metre walkable catchment and is therefore not included in this analysis. The Anketell Road Station is however included in the evaluation. Options 1 and 2 do not reflect urbanisation of land (currently reserved for Parks and Recreation Purposes) south of Anketell Road and abutting the Kwinana Freeway (east of) some of which is within 800 m of the proposed station.

This represents an opportunity cost on public investment in the transport system. Options 3 & 4 reflect urbanisation of this area to varying degrees, seeking to maximise the potential public transport patronage.

Page 10 Residential Area of Sufficient Size to Take Advantage of Economies of Scale.

In order for communities to have access to community facilities (able to be provided in an economic manner) in a convenient and accessible location, it is necessary that threshold populations are attained. For example the Department of Education defines on optimum catchment size for Primary Schools at 1,500 lots. The Department will provide Schools at less than this optimum size however it is economically less efficient to do so. The Department's minimum catchment size is 700 lots. Without the provision of a Primary School in the residential cell, students will be forced to travel to future Primary Schools to the north of Anketell Road and south to Casuarina. Both Thomas Road and Anketell Roads are important linkages to the Kwinana Industrial Area and futureportproposals. Accordinglyitis inappropriate to force students (particularly Primary School) to cross these roads to access schools.

The lot numbers produced by the four alternative urban options are therefore used as a means of determining rankings in the Matrix. Options 2, 3 and 4 produce sufficient lots to meet optimum size while option 1 produces less than optimum size, albeit that the provision of a School, is still warranted.

Minimise unit development costs and maximise use of local infrastructure

The greater the lot yield, the lesser the unit development costs of an area. For example, the cost of provision of essential services infrastructure (sewer, water, energy, communications, transportation etc) is passed onto the consumer.

While drainage and fill costs will be greater in Options 2, 3 and 4 (as a result of the low laying nature of the land) this will be more than offset by the benefits of lower unit costs of other infrastructure items

Reduced Maintenance Costs Similar to unit development costs above, the per capita maintenance costs of public facilities and infrastructure, of an urban area will reduce as lot yields increase.

Area 2 (Attachment B comprising) MRS Proposal 30 (Bush Forever Area 267, (Lot 614) located to the west of Mandogalup Road, abutting and north of Alcoa's residue disposal area)

Page 11 It is proposed to Rezone land from Rural Zone, to Parks and Recreation under the MRS and include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

As the land is elevated itis not affected by the proposed amendments to the Wetlands EPP.

Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report defined the environmental qualities of the site as follows: "The site incorporates vegetated uplands, with most of the site (15.7ha out of 15.9ha) bushland. The vegetation condition includes >50 % classified as very good and >40 % excellent, with areas of severe localised disturbance."and

"The listing of this area as a Bushplan site is supported. However, its main value appears to be that of a link between Bushplan sites 268 and 393, rather than its intrinsic conservation value,with areas such as Long Swamp and Bollard Bufirush swamp of greater regional significance" Structure Plan Implications The subject land is remote form future urban areas defined in the Jandakot Structure Plan and therefore has no implications in this regard, although itis adjacent to the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Area (HVWRA). The Draft Master Plan for the reflects landholdings to the north of the subject land as "Industry Ecological",with the inference being that this will include low impact "Eco" industries. This area is designated as the "Eastern Gateway" with the emphasis being on high quality "built form.

Conclusion Based on the above the proposed MRS amendment in respect of the land should be supported

Area 3 (Attachment B comprising the Sayer Road Swamp and Surrounding Land) MRS (Bush Forever Area 393)

It is proposed to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

Wetlands EPP The Sayer Road Swamp has been identified and protected under the Wetlands EPP, since its inception.

Page 12 Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report defined the environmental qualities of the site as follows:

"Environmental Value Landscape features include open water, vegetated wetland and vegetated uplands. 18.9 ha out of the total 22.2ha are vegetated. 25% of the area is in good condition and 75% is degraded to completely degraded."

Conclusion The Amendment does not propose to include the Bollard Bullrush Swamp within the Parks and Recreation Reserve of the MRS, although this is not explained in the Amendment documentation. Itis believed to be because of the multiple private owners of the wetland area and the presence of the Draft Wetlands EPP which is intended to provide protection to Wetlands.

Based on the above, the proposed MRS amendment in respect of the land should be supported. The Amendment should however also Reserve the Sayer Road and BollardBullrush Swamps and surrounding vegetation as Parks and Recreation Reserve, with the ultimate intention of acquisition and vesting in the Department of Conservation and Land Management

Area *4 MRS Proposal 31 (Bush Forever Area 268) Attachment B comprising land at the perimeter of Alcoa's Residue disposal facilityin Hope Valley, including Council Reserve 41646 and privately owned land between Norkett Road and Mandogalup Road). It is proposed to Rezone land from Rural Zone, to Parks and Recreation under the MRS and to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report defined the environmental qualifies of the site as follows:

"Environmental Value The vegetated uplands overlying this site include 95.9ha of bushland over a 99.6ha area. The majority of bushland (>75%) is in excellent condition, and >20 % in good condition with areas of severe localised disturbance. The area forms an important linkage with adjacent bushland and provides habitat for Quenda"

District Structure Plan Implications The majority of the private landholdings between Mandogalup Road and Norkett Road are located within the 1 km notional dust lift off buffer defined under

Page 13 the Jandakot Structure Plan. The dust lift off buffer (attributable to Alcoa's residue disposal operations)isnotionallydefinedatpresent.Alcoaishowever undertaking dust monitoring and modelling, which once completed and verified by the EPA and WAPC, will form the basis of a scientifically defined edge for future urban development, in the Mandogalup area.

A small section of the proposed Bush Forever site (approximately 2 ha) is beyond the notional 1 km dust lift off buffer and would, (if not for the Bush Forever proposal) have potential for future urban development.If this 2 ha portion however, were urbanised (approximately 26 lots) it would be surrounded by Bush Forever land to the west (with resultant fire risk), Western Power High Voltage Transmission lines to the north and the future Frank land Avenue extension to the east (already reserved under the MRS and a regional road reservation (Attachment G).This would be an undesirable situation.

The reservation as proposed under the Amendment therefore represents a logical edge to the Bush Forever area.

The proposed amendment land also abutts the Tramway Reserve currently reserved for Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. (Attachment G). The tramway is intended to provide a link between the Bee liar Wetlands. If the MRS Amendment (Proposal 31) is implemented, it will duplicate the functions of the Tramway Reserve in the vicinity and there may be a case for removal of the Parks and Recreation Reservation over a short length of properties fronting Norkett Road.

Recognising however that portion of the Bush Forever proposal involves reservation at the base of Alcoa's Residue Disposal Area (RDA) there may be constraints to public access until the RDA is rehabilitated. It is appropriate that the WAPC examine the option in this regard prior to finalisation of the proposed Amendment, in consultation with Tramway Nature Trail Community Committee.

Inclusion of this site under Bush Forever is supported, largely becauseit constitutes an important linkage between the Beeliar wetlands. Conclusion Based on the above, the proposed MRS amendment in respect of the land should be supported although the WAPC should examine the relevance of the small segment of the existing tramway reserve fronting Norkett Road in the light that the Bush Forever proposal will duplicate this link.

Page 14 Area 5 MRS (Bush Forever Area 269) Attachment B comprising land including and surrounding the Spectacles Wetlands. It is proposed to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

The subject land is already Reserved under the Parks and Recreation Reserve of the MRS and is environmental qualities are widely recognised.

Wetlands EPP The Spectacles Wetlands have been identified and protected under the Wetlands EPP since its inception.

Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report defined the environmental qualities of the site as follows:

"Environmental Value Landscape features include fresh open water, vegetated wetland and vegetated uplands. 349.7ha out of 422.4ha is bushland. The vegetation condition includes >60 % classified as excellent to very good and <40 % good to degraded with areas of severe localised disturbance. The habitat value of the site is high with 33 species of water bird and 22 breeding waterfowl. The site also contains 1 species of significant flora."

Structure Plan Indications The proposal is not affected by the proposals of the Jandakot Structure Plan.

Conclusion Based on the above the proposed MRS amendment in respect of the land should be supported

Area 6 MRS Proposal 34 (Bush Forever Area 272) -Attachment B comprising various land parcels, on land already Reserved under the land Act and Council's local Town Planning Scheme and land reserved for Drainage Purposes under the Land Act. It is proposed to Rezone land from the Urban Zone, to Parks and Recreation under the MRS and include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

Page 15 Bush land Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report dealt with defined the environmental qualities of the sites as follows:

"Environmental Value Landscape features include vegetated wetland and vegetated uplands. 84.8ha out of the total 103.7ha are vegetated. The vegetation condition includes 40% excellent, >30% very good and >30% good to degraded, with areas of severe localised disturbance. Three species of significant flora occur in this site which forms an important linkage between the Spectacles and Bollard Bullrush Swamp." Structure Plan and Subdivision Implications The subject land involves a number of land parcels affected by preliminary subdivision proposals, future road alignments and portions that are the subject of a Local Structure Plan lodged with Council (Attachment H). This will be the subject of a report to Council at its second meeting of October 2004.

Sub Area 1 of Attachment I comprises all of the land between Sicklemore Road and the future railway line.This land is currently zoned Urban under the MRS and Local Parks Recreation and Drainage under Town Planning Scheme No. 2 and the boundary of the proposed MRS appears to match the current boundary of the Local Parks Recreation and Drainage.

Council's Local Town Planning Scheme No 2 reflects a linking of the Wild Flower Reserve and the Sicklemore Road escarpment as Local Parks Recreation and Drainage. The Summary MRS Amendment Plan (Attachment B) appears to reflectthislinkage as Bush Forever SCA, however theDetailedPlan (Attachment I) does not reflectits Reservation as Parks Recreation and Drainage.

While not stated in the Amendment Report it is assumed that the link is not to be reserved under the MRS as the detailed subdivision issues have yet to be resolved, and accordingly the land is reflected only as a Special Control Area.

The Draft Bertram (north) Structure Plan similarly does not reflect the connection and preliminary discussions with consultants for the DH&W, indicate that they oppose such a link as it present urban design issues.

Conclusion The Reservation of Sub-Area 1 (Attachment I) as proposed in the Amendment is appropriate and should be supported although thelinkage between the Wildflower Reserve and the escarpment should be reserved.

Page 16 Sub Area 2 Attachment I comprises a sliver of land immediately to the east of the Railway line and matches the current Local Parks Recreation and Drainage Reserve under Town Planning Scheme No 2. This represents an anomaly under Town Planning Scheme No 2 which resulted from the introduction of the Railway Reserve into the MRS, which automatically is reflected under the local scheme.

The sliver of land represents the residual land at the base of the Sicklemore Road escarpment with little or no environmental qualities, except for that area adjacent to the Resource Enhancement Wetland. This abutts the existing Parks and Recreation Reserve of the MRS which covers the Peel Main Drain and land either side. The MRS currently reflects the Resource Enhancement Wetland as Urban Zone and itis not proposed to modify this under the amendment. Given that the Wetland abutts an existing Parks and Recreation Reserve which will be managed by CALM, there would be clear benefits to Reserving the Wetland as Parks Recreation and under the MRS to be managed by CALM as part of the conservation estate.

The northern portion of Sub Area 2 (Attachment I) has little or no environmental value and is sandwiched between the urban zone of the DH&W landholding and the MRS Railway Purposes Reserve and should be retained as Urban Zone. It should similarly be rezoned under the Local Scheme from Local Parks Recreation and Drainage to Residential Zone. This could be included as part of local Scheme Amendments, necessary for the DH&W Structure Plan for the Bertram (north) Area.

Wetlands EPP The Wetland is not included in the proposed Wetlands EPP, since is not recognised as a Conservation Category Wetland and is instead classified as a Resource Enhancement Wetland.

Conclusion The Reservation of the southern portion of Sub Area 2 (Attachment I) adjacent to the Resource Enhancement Wetlands is appropriate provided that the Resource Enhancement Wetland,isalso Reserved under the MRS for Parks and Recreation and vested in CALM. If Reservation of the Wetland under the MRS is not supported by the WAPC, then all of the land should remain in the Urban Zone and be reserved under the Local Scheme for Parks Recreation and Drainage.

Irrespective of the above, the northern portion of Sub Area 2 (Attachment I) should not be included in the Parks and Recreation Reserve of the MRS and should instead remain in the Urban Zone.

Page 17 Sub Area 3 (Attachment I) comprises land coinciding with the Peel Main Drain channel and the adjacent levees (spoil from excavation) which is currently Zoned Urban under the MRS. Some of these levees rise up to 6 metres above the adjacent DH&W landholding.

(Attachment J) The drainisin underground pipes for approximately 680 metres south of Thomas Road and beyond this distance is an open channel.

These areartificiallandforms and would not normally be considered as environmentally valuable. As a generality theland would under normal circumstances remain in the Urban Zone. The levees however accommodate significant re-growth of good quality and create a unique local environment adjacent to an existing CALM Reserve. This would create a valuable landscape "backdrop" to residential development in Bertram (north).

Itis known that the northern portions of the existing Parks and Recreation Reserve to the east of Sub Area 3 support Declared Rare Flora (DRF). The risk of disturbance to DRF is too great and as such modification of the landform in the eastern areas could not be supported. There may however be some concerns in relation to security and public safety given the steepness of the embankments and the secluded nature or the corridor between the embankments. This area is adjacent to future urban areas of Bertram (north) and is likely to be used for passive recreation by significant numbers of local residents.

Given the unique landform, it is also likely that the area may be used by trail bike riders. There is some evidence that this occurs already.

It may be appropriate in the context of the Regional Parks and Recreation Reserve to selectively modify the landform in the western and southern areas to alleviate public safety concerns in consultation with CALM.

Structure Plan and Subdivision Implications One option available may be to remove the western most levee and enable development of the adjacent DH&W area to expand eastwards by 50 metres towards the underground pipe route and retain the eastern levee. This would make available approximately 2.5 ha of land forresidential development consistent with its current zoning under the MRS and Local Scheme and could produce an additional 32 lots. The eastern embankment could be retained under this scenario.

Alternatively one or two sections of the levee could be removed where vegetation is at its sparsest and residential development permitted. In these areas dwellings

Page 18 would have view corridors north and south along the space between the embankments. This would provide passive surveillance along the secluded corridor between the two embankments. This would be relatively easy where the drain is piped underground. An example of this is reflected in (Attachment K).

The proposed Amendment does not, but should, make provision for the proposed Sulphur to Johnson Road connection.

Conclusion The principle of Rezoning the Drainage Reserve from Urban Zone to Parks and Recreation Reserve is supported as a means of preserving the unique (albeit artificial) environment. Additional work in the context of Structure Planning of the Bertram (north) area should be undertaken, to ensure increased passive surveillance along the secluded corridor between the two drainage embankments and ensure public safety in the context of the steep embankments.

The amendment prior to granting of Final Approval should reflect should reflect these agreed measures. The Amendment should be modified to reflect the proposed Sulphur to Johnson Road connection including the existing area of Parks and Recreation Reserve to the east.

Sub Area 4 (Attachment I) Comprises Land Act Reserve 38747 (Wild Flower Reserve) to the south of Thomas Road, which is reserved under Town Planning Scheme No 2 for Parks Recreation and Drainage.

The southern edge of the proposed MRS Amendment only approximates the boundary of the proposed link from Sulphur Road over the proposed railway bridge south of the Thomas Road Station and linking with Johnson Road. It does not appear to match the northern boundary of the road link as proposed (Attachment I & H). This has been subject to engineering design and is likely to represent the final land requirement for the road.

Conclusion The southern boundary of the proposed MRS Parks and Recreation Reserve for the Wildflower Reserve should be adjusted to match the northern edge of the designed road reserve for the Sulphur Road to Johnson Road link.

Sub Area 5 (Attachment I) This area comprises the local (formal) park inside the Nottingham Parkway loop. Approximately 60% of this is developed as a formal park and drainage area and reservation for the purposes of bush land protection is inappropriate given this use.

Page 19 Sub Area 6 (Attachment I) This area comprises the existing parkland buffer reserve between Windsor Hills and Thomas Road. .Along with the proposed reservation of the Nottingham Parkway Reserve itis difficult to understand the regional significance of the vegetation given its actual function.

Nevertheless the Reservation as proposed does not recognise the existing Colchester Avenue connection with Thomas Road and instead reflects a historic unmade road reservation that has since been superseded.

Conclusion The amendment should be modified to correct these two anomalies (Sub Areas 5 & 6 above).

Area 7 MRS Proposal 10 (Bush Forever Area 67)Attachments B & L comprising land in Parmelia, fronting Parmelia Avenue between Sutherland Parade and the new St Vincents School in Parmelia. It is proposed to Rezone land from the Urban Zone, to Parks and Recreation under the MRS and include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

Bushland Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report dealt with defined the environmental qualities of the sites as follows:

"Environmental Value Landscape features present are tall dune vegetated uplands. 11.2 ha of the 12.1ha are vegetated including >90 % in good to degraded condition, with areas of severe localised disturbance. Future development will likely remove current linkages."

Council therefore took the view that there was little conservation value in the area (Attachment L) and resolved (in part):

"1)a)iii) Exclusion of site 67 (Parmelia Avenue ex school site) and that portion of land in the south east portion of Leda, currently zoned Urban under the MRS and Rural a under Town Planning Scheme No. 2 from Bushplan."

Structure Plan and Subdivision Implications Not withstanding Council's position this site has been included in the proposed amendment. The proposed Parks and Recreation Reservation conflicts with the existing Challenger Avenue road reserve.

Page 20 Since the original Bush Plan, the size of this site has increased, making it more viable. Linkages remain a problem. However, it is unlikely that other uses be found for the site and its retention as bushland is supported.

Conclusion The area, as a result of the previous Council position, should be excluded from the amendment. In the event that the WAPC opts to retain the site in the amendment, the amendment should be modified to correct the anomaly in relation to existing Challenger Avenue Road Reserve.

Area 8 (Attachment B) MRS (Bush Forever Area 349) - comprises the existing Leda Conservation Reserve, including the planned addition of an area between the southern area of Homestead Ridge and the future conventional residential development. It is proposed to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 28 April 1999 resolved (in part): "1)a)iii) Exclusion of site 67 (Parmelia Avenue ex school site) and that portion of land in the south east portion of Leda, currently zoned Urban under the MRS and Rural a under Town Planning Scheme No 2 from Bush plan."

Subsequent to this Council's position on the issue changed, to accept the inclusion of the land adjacent to the south eastern portion of Homestead Ridge as Bush Forever.

Structure Plan and Subdivision Implications The proposal is consistent with the most recent version of the Welllard Village Structure Plan, although the Structure Plan for the area to the south of the Railway has yet to be finalised.

Conclusion The Amendment as proposed for Area 8 (Bush Forever Site 349) is acceptable in its current form and should be supported.

Area 9 (Attachment B) MRS (Bush Forever Area 273) - comprises the surrounds of the Casuarina Prison site on Orton Road Casuarina. It is proposed to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

The subject land is already Reserved for Parks and Recreation under the MRS and was first identified and accepted has having high conservation qualities.

Page 21 Environmental Qualities The28April1999Council report dealt with defined the environmental qualities of the sites as follows: "Environmental Value Landscape features include vegetated wetland and vegetated uplands. 116.9ha out of the total 118.2ha are vegetated and 1.3ha is a conservation wetland. The vegetation includes >90% in excellent to pristine condition and <10% in very good to good condition. Quenda and three species of significant flora are present"

Structure Plan Implications The proposal abuts the Jandakot Structure Plan future urban area and the opportunity exists under Local Structure Planning, to link the Bush Forever Area with Conservation Category Wetlands to the west, via Local Open Space linkages in an urban context.

Conclusion The Amendment as proposed for Area9(Bush Forever Site273)is acceptable in its current form and should be supported.

Area 10 (Attachment B) MRS (Bush Forever Area347)-comprises the Wandi Reserve and the Wandi Equestrian Centre in addition to the Oakford area within the Shire of Serpentine Ja rrand ale.

It is proposed to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP2.8.

Environmental Qualities The28April1999Council report dealt with defined the environmental qualities of the sites as follows:

"Environmental Value Landscape features include open water, vegetated wetland and vegetated uplands. 412.3ha out of the total 558.1ha are vegetated. The majority of vegetation is in very good condition with >75% of the area excellent to very good and <25% very good to degraded. Quenda and three species of significant flora are present"

Structure Plan Implications The proposal is not affected by the proposals of the Jandakot Structure Plan.

Area 11 (Attachment B) MRS Proposal 54 (Bush Forever Area349)- comprises land in the south

Page 22 western courner of the Bollard Bullrush Swamp and represents A Recreation Reserve (25684) vested in Council.

It is proposed to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

Environmental Qualities This site was an additional Bush Forever Site included as part of Bush Forever site 349 in March 2003. The reasoning was that the vegetation complexes of this reserve were considered as poorly represented. TheBasendean complex has 13% representation in reserves and the Serpentine River complex has only 4% reserved. This latter is below the 10% retention target set out in Bush Forever and is thus considered important. Also the site consolidates an existing reserve and acts to help link Leda Nature Reserve and Bollard Bulrush Swamp. Structure Plan Implications The proposal is reflected in the Jandakot Structure Plan as Local Open Space and is Reserved under the Land Act as a Reserve for Recreation vested in Council. The Reserve was created to serve the original Wel lard Townsite in the 1930's. While there might be value in urbanisation of the land as a logical extension to the Wel lard Village development, the current reservation of the Land Act and the quality of vegetation as a representative area of Bassendean Sands/Spearwood Dunes vegetation community warrants protection. This is an adjunct to the Leda Conservation Reserve, which isitself a representative example of the transition between three vegetation communities.

Conclusion The Amendment as proposed for Area 11 (Bush Forever Site 349) is acceptable in its current form and should be supported.

Area 12(Attachment B) MRS Proposal 54 (Bush Forever Area 349) Comprises Mount Brown situated at the northern end of the Kwinana Industrial Area. It forms the southern most portion of wider conservation area, which extends into the City of Cockburn and includes the Brownman Swamps.

It is proposed to include the land within a Special Control Area under the MRS to be subject to SPP 2.8.

Environmental Qualities The 28 April 1999 Council report dealt with defined the environmental qualities of the sites as follows:

Page 23 "Environmental value The landscape features include the limestone ridge, tall dune, limestone cliff- ocean, vegetated upland, and overlooks areas of open water and vegetated wetland in the City of Cockburn. 557.8ha out of 616.2ha is bushland. The vegetation condition includes > 80% of vegetation classified as very good and < 20% classified as good to degraded, with areas of severe localised disturbance.

The site includes 13 species of significant flora and the significant mammal species; the Quenda or Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus). The site forms a bushland corridor linking with Beeliar Regional Park to the North and has the potential to link south east to Long Swamp and the southern West Beeliar wetlands."

Structure Plan Implications The proposal represented in the Fremantle Rockingham Industry Area Regional Strategy (FRIARS) for Conservation purposes. There may however be some implications in relation to the proposed Rowley Road extension around the southern edge of Mt Brown leading to the future Naval Base Port Outer Harbour. As the precise land requirement for the route are not finalised at this stage, it is appropriate that the proposed amendment is adjusted to reflect this alignment prior to the granting of Final Approval.

Conclusion The Amendment as proposed for Area 12 (Bush Forever Site 346) is acceptable in its current form and should be supported, subject to final adjustment to reflect the final alignment of the proposed Rowley Road extension.

LEGAL/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Following finalisation of the MRS Amendment, Local Government Town Planning Schemes will automatically be amended where land is proposed to be reserved under the MRS. Local Authorities will be required to amend local Town Planning Schemes to introduce Special Control Areas for Bush Forever proposals to provide direction for the integration of development and bushland protection.

The approval of the Environmental Protection Policy (Wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain) will not require amendments to Local Government Town Planning Schemes. Instead protection of the Wetlands will be exercised under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act.The Policy will however have a bearing on future amendments to Town Planning Schemes, which much necessarily have regard for the Policy. The EPA may require modifications to proposed Town Planning Scheme Amendment in order to implement the Policy.

Page 24 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Nil

STRATEGIC/SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The majority of proposals are consistent with the Councils 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. Wetlands and bushland are frequently of high social value to the community for reasons of passive recreation, aesthetics and sustainability. This should be considered in conjunction with the goals achievement matrix. COUNCIL DECISION 648 MOVED CR PATTINSON SECONDED CR KEARNEY

1.0That Council recommend tothe Western AustralianPlanning Commission that proposed Amendment No 1082/33 (Bush Forever & Related Lands) is supported subject to the following modifications:

1.1 MRS Proposal 32 (Bush Forever Area 270 between Thomas Road and Anketell Roads Anketell), be modified to reflect a boundary contained in Option 4 Attachment F(2)which represents a balance between conservation, urban development and transitrelatedresidential development. This should include a review of the northern portion of the existing Parks and Recreation reservation within 800 metres of the proposed Anketell Road Stationreflectedinthe South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan and in the Draft Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment should they be confirmed. It should also include areviewof WRC wetland mapping which demonstratesthat conservation category wetland would not be destroyed.

1.2 That Bush Forever Area 393 comprising the Sayer Road Swamp, is also Reserved for Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

Page 25 1.3.4 Deletion of the thin sliver of proposed Parks and Recreation Reserve on the eastern side of the Railway Purposes Reservation in the Bertram area. 1.3.5 The Reservation for Parks and Recreation of the Resource Enhancementcategorywetland,adjacenttotheRailway Purposes Reserve in the Bertram Area, abutting the central Parks and Recreation Reservation. 1.3.6 The amendment reflecting a Parks and Recreation Reservation linkage between the Wildflower Reserve and the proposed Sicklemore Road Escarpment Reservation. 1.3.7 Designsolutionsbeinginvestigatedtointroducepassive surveillance along the view corridors between the levee banks adjacent to the Peel Main Drain and the proposed Parks and Recreation Reservation reflecting these design solutions prior to finalisation of the amendment.

1.4 MRS Proposal 31 (Bush Forever Area 268) is modified to delete that small sectionof theexisting Tramway Parks and Recreation Reservation, adjacent to Norkett Road, provided that the amendment proposal will duplicate the link to the satisfaction of the Tramway Nature Trail Community Committee, 1.5 MRS Proposal 10 (Bush Forever Area 67) being deleted from the amendment as per Council's previous resolution of 28 April 1999. Should the Western Australian Planning Commission not agree with this recommendation then the proposal should be modified to delete the proposed Parks and Recreation Reservation over the existing Challenger Avenue Road Reserve.

1.6 BollardBullrush Swamp beingincludedinthe Bush Forever Amendment.

Page 26 ;;.,

4 43.1883/

: -reaKWINAITA-c

1 r ) , ) 1/1)

L,:-.., 1 ;:i;y1.1582 ,N4- 207 '.. ''!1-- I 'Ai (LE li lir Ag

4*;14:0-P91(--:1- \.-

wakrtc.AR.b.,_ . 4 E'il 1 .> J ' ' 1 1 ' J --7----J 27, 1'1\,-Hi 1 i }--I 1 r i 1

!so Ni; -/-; WONG

III 1r 1- .71 Hjj__

9-.4-1;t77::41

N - 18 114 . an ctq ltf.,473 :

VEY .._ 268 . 1886 1603.

A Z.

,-^-,

. cctr-

,,,,,,.""'"`,,,,

tatio* N Road \- jr---17-7----r----__41-CflAI I ,

! '

69,1 -7

(4 1

i; I 1 1 I U. \ gial--)<;cII__--- A -121/

Area of Sustainability Assessment

Attachment D Attachment E Raw Score Ranking Environment Goals Sustainability Goals Achievement Matrix Objectives Assessable/Measurable Indicators ConservationMaximisedOption 1 Jandokot Structure Plan Proposal Option 2 UrbanisationMaximizedOption a noted OptionOption 4 Option l Option 2 Kay Option 3RankingHighest Option 4 Flora A Fauna conservation (tranainonProtection betweenof representative Speanyood sample Dunes of vegetaaonand Bassendean community Sands) areasEast/west of existing aligned transition landholding vegetation (single (Area area) of Conservationwhich landform M2) transition in 2338930 2018012 1400018 1852405 1 2 3 LinkagesPrevont onvIronmental between environmental damage to areas wetland Prevent Encroachment Into Wetland Areas Extent of Encroachment Encroachment No Encroachment Slight Encroachment Moderate Encroachment Moderate 2 b pp(I ItF h SandyPreserve Lake and east Spectacles to west linkage Wetlands between bush forever site to west, KwinonaNo. of crossings Frizzy of east to west natural (vegetative) link, Including 2 3 2 1 2 i 2 Consolidated conservation area Effect"Ensure impacts. that configuration of Conservation area minimises 'Edge Edge Effect Ratio 2546230115 208.7310718 188.3321849 189.0191052 1 2 3 SocialTotal Ranking Score Environment 4 8 A! 12 communitiesAccess to district and local urban facilities and between (PrimaryEnsure vehicular, School, Neighbourhood cyclist and podestlan Centre) access using tolocal local links facilities No. of road anti dual use path links from Urban areas to Schools and 0 1 1 4 i Safe pedentrian environment communityEnsure passive facilities surveilance of pedestrian linkages to local reserveNo.accessNeighbourhood of road S No. linkages of Centres regional with without noroad dwellings to reliance cross fronting on use at of least regional one side roads of forroad 2 2 rb/ 2 v 1 cc 2 Minimise bushfire hazard Ensure risk minimization measures are able to be Implemented evacuation.Ensure road multiple connections direction allow escape rapid accessroutes, tolow emrgency intensity vehiclesdevelopment and 0 1 2 1 1( Consolidated southern residental area neighbourhoodEnsure southern and realdential sense of area community of suffice size to support vlaDle approximatelyNeighbourhoods"Ensure(parks etc) that 880 on defined fringedwelling minimum southern of bushiand.(No.units neighbourhood (du)l,residential -No. of diesarea N-S sire meetsRoad (400m Links)'Liveable radius or 113 318 521 521 2 2 Emnomir.Total Ranking Score Social h./ 8 7 6 trweetmentMaximise benefit of regional transport Infrastructure transportEnsure sufficient nodes to residential produce thresholdareas Identified catchment adjacent population to public ThomasNo Eloarclings Road Station of Transit sites within walkable catchment of Anketell and 533 533 552 852 v 244 MinimiseeconomiesResidential unit ofarea scaledevelopment of sufficientfor cornmunitY coots slze andto facilities take maximise advantage use of EnsureSchoolResidential andsufficient oresother ofresidential community sufficient lots size fadiltles to and ensure lot No.s viability to Justify of essontall provision of No.Population lots/sewor Threshold pump station, for Primary Amount School of RH (.1 Required,SOO du) Water, 1138.7E44 1552.0414 2290.8158 1978.1879 CVO' li la 2 Reducedlocal infrastructure per capita Maintenance Cost Ensureservices longProVLSIon- term maintenance cost for public infrastructure per Communisations, Energy Drainage (Qualitative Unit Costs) High Moderate Low Moderate to Lo Li 0,4 ) 2 Total Ranking Score Social capita are low Qualitative Unit Cost High Moderate Low Moderate to Low ProtI DO 13 4 72 Total RankIng Score 'F F41 29 27 25 1G o Attachment F(1) Urban Not to Scale

Attachment F2 BUSHFOREVER - PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS ADVERTISED BUSHFOREVER SITE 268

PARKS AND RECREATION RESERVATION

WESTERN AUSTRALJAN PLANNINO SCALE 1:16000 ah/e Mopptng Section, COMMISSION M.PpIng end Spar.' tens

, LT 11LiU. 11LI a a Lt Lti LIia Ailk1BULIU LIU111AULtUILALIPAI

vv1.0,5 Res eg%4 E ptzbb gcsEoNE Wic-bri_cyt.Ara_ Lb yoremme,rkear rPe.e osab ae -

GPI C-F LMN riAIREC5fIla eh-WNW* ttyll 1ft-a MMTAag tellet,PMEIT Cr IMECO4C-7 C UtaM MIR25e5..

rack\ SatreluRTo Yastfasse,t0 kArk

L- P;LlP6 \1 1\\ DRAFT" c. +I A PrS L- I- + LA M $E t. T PEK KAMSTKIEVEPLAN 310 a72. C1/4-(Er lb GThoS LIDffke't. C6epact ts s

AP A Awnirr T ztscr;ar%;a'--w a - RRRRRRR ' Ameita-wasio, St iatts c-*-ar. 1.60. rettars RRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRIn :Urns. s Woe RRR ...... RRRRtst, Ia*. Swan Fa 2: 21.1 22Ni41 Wst4... min. sin: al pl 'S ,..44. RRRR 44r, IIIIIIkm 1. n a Po %fa itStse.. ba4. ;min ...... pi0,re*'Pr ie. 1101 to.** .-4,..0...... *see .4 dun: -.,k1kg 4 Ireorot 4fre***Y" a RRRR to:v. i. um. a4 00,Ass in" amtr. 4 *. 4 maps ia tear felors Oil ra Not um . % 3: 1114, % tati -e, ) -4Se*e --w, rot st 4'sismitt 40thill %., *toe Pisas reles ,a011110 tramalb 1G rft. ...j. lib do, * S 4. itingit.La401711 *t di NIVon: et N Sante WI* 1114,1/41.._-ilaniiiiiir 4 Irb arninamai '4. 1 x A.1/4, tee4 4rttaziale. :loot 4.1e111111111b115Ille. =Nix 0, 1 1 it 4 ' 4 te sn, 44'. 4 arg12 se t". gra nig a sit,IIII ereiliksSa Ole Att. %nita V: ... re alar Imorioter MUM - 0 %IV Stine*bin il-Se wilIIIIIIIIII.it 4 to MoimpaHRH . PROPOSAL 34 111810.: im111110"In ti !<*t St Part& tell t 4 gainla itormionlamp..aer 119frain . 0 ' ... 02 sap ; 4 .0 if ' to atpithnt. UP -0 * %we ," "lintfra.odor again ii ' *Ms '0. ..** 11111 / I at, *ft 01 VII* 04. 0 b Aints LA. .41 gr' .. la4110#° 4. .0. I b 4.461-arres. Arr. 11101/4, OHOWI, I 1111* &nit a 472 Sites, "kr al unit% toms nutigtoser.:b.f S Iti Iiiiiittit seisram. 12 b, .t nunon Stfr Willj illitria 141, artsf envPe41...4, a 40. ea4.4a _as_as_ asattingsbar44/1" 444 ,p PI,sari-ars midmmassw. no Clio ali :IILb tr.... OA ! e A. to, --44mput wad,RRRR r. ..*"AilkliMMIA11111111111.111 '11Pre, L''..2 MgIsm 0 1t. lambimr sapinsert re, rip= Pu ea -- mow 41 es--eg _. , at 44441P/ Amin0+1 is seaSrR 1. r a**In - e I st ars .TWSW.ill el0 ail w se0 eiri6 00 I4 4 1 nestra /. a4* Ill V*it41./ itt 4 1, soh.n 4410, % , 4.* 11 a it :, in. 4.0 111 Ilya s set. et .4 4, owono vs wm1111//1 ramp% OT ty...-: a gresumil a b. " it 14.:so. VI RRRRRRRRRR I'' e* earts Vain C eN I enipt 4taunts X11111111/ /rya A 0 be --ttostfrlia sat it...s..0 " flip... I

A I

I I

___

ilIMT.R914.12,1.7Am.10 Nit A7T uhipaz c aizsumb ()Itoe ..baArr-s LEVEE Ern e A r4K nalTS

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH W.A. 6000

Name (1 A crertoP1 (PLEAS PRIM CLEAR Y) Address I Lo, Nc-ev.,a9., Postcode 7C, 1\30271-- , A0 Contact phone number.qS12 i:ViSEmail address tA

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

pk. O 0 s L L \-Th czo

:4117.7.9NP'.,AtiNKIC: .111.4

2 6. NOV NO4

eec t--n PO_ TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

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

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

Please complete the following:

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

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

I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): °I L3-1 or MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group) Agent's name: Group name: Agent's telephone number (business hours): Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.) Or PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only persons nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Sign Dateat.° " o`-+

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

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - mrs @wapc.wa.gov.au; Internet - httpffiniww.viapc.wa.gov.au Submission94

THE Sequoia Park, 1625 Neaves Road, Bullsbrook WA 6084 HZE GUNGELL PTY LTDVas Telephone: (08) 9571 1375The MazMaze, Sequoia Park, Facsimile: (08) 9571 1040 Bullsbrook. ABN 61 009 089 918

Ian Patterson Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Dear Sir,

My submission in relation to Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no.1082/33 Bush Forever and Related Lands Draft Bushland policy for Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy no.2.8

On behalf of D.E and P. Kennedy,Lot 4 Neaves Road Bullsbrook and D E Kennedy and CO. PTY.LTD Lot 1 Neaves Road Bullsbrook. Postal address 1625 Neaves Road Bullsbrook.

Interest: Owners and Business Proprietors of Lot 1 and 4 Neaves road Bullsbrook.

Attached is a plan of the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor and Easement as it traverses both Lots. Both areas have been altered, the lower vegetation has been introduced on Lot 4 and Lot 1. When the corridor was Cleared for the pipeline project, the canopy was retained where possible but is still on the corridor.

There is also a nine metre Fire Break on the adjoining property boundary and a three metre fire break inside our west boundary. In total a twelve metre clearing between these two lots. That's the adjoining property to the west and our own two Lots. Lot 1 Was also cleared in 1988 after an extensive fire and a re vegetation program was put in place to provide eucalypts for Koala feed. With this in mind, I also personally object to any Bush Forever site on our properties as it is only a small area and in appropriate to have additional restrictions imposed on our titles. I believe as a property owner in Freehold Property Title Rights and not in the Government Imposition of accessing Freehold Land and feel very strongly about this issue. For and on Behalf of D.E and P.Kennedy and D.E Kennedy PTY.LTD 6/11/04 D.E Kennedy Vol 1806 Fol518 D8970 08970 1 4.9299 ha 4.9282 ha

fair

1; 1

-Tea Blet

D55386.

Scale : 13027 (Orographical) Printed : 16:54 Wed 30/Oct/2002 MGA SW=400944.4E,6497112.3N Zone 50 NE0401544,2E,6496047.2N Zone 50 Crown Copyright Reserved May 1997 Latitong :115°.5718.700,-31°3925.066" / 11 5°5741.808":31°1954.893"263* 201

This product is for information purposes only and is not guaranteed, The information may be out of date and should not be reliedupon without further verification from the original documents, Where the Information is being used for legalpurposes then the original documents must be searched for all legal requirements. Submission 95

Patrick Gersch 26/27 Piccadilly Circle Joondalup WA 6027 MOB: 0403 196 336

Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

10 November 2004

ATT: Ian Patterson

PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS & DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE METROPOLITAN REGION STATEMENTOF PLANNING POLICY NO. 2.8 - LOT 125 - FRASER ROAD, BANJUP

Irefer to the Commissions letter (attached) dated 25 August 2004 with regard to the above matter.

I act on behalf of the landowner, Fortcom Pty Ltd, and thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the Metropolitan Region Scheme (herein referred to as 'MRS') Amendment and draft Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.8 (herein referred to as 'SPP').

In terms of a brief background, the landowner purchased the subject site in the mid 1980's with a long term view of developing the land. At that point it was the landowners understanding that the land had some form of development potential.

The landowner has recently requested me to seek advice with regard to the current development potential of the land. Verbal advice from the City of Cockburn (herein referred to as 'LG') appears to indicate that the subject site is now unzoned at LG Town Planning Scheme level, but is reserved for various purposes under the MRS. We are in the process of obtaining written advice confirming this in a separate exercise from both the LG and the Commission. Ultimately, it is the landowner's intention to proceed with some form of residential development and that is the fact of this matter.

The Commissions letter indicates that the proposed SPP affects the landowner and accordingly comments areinvited.Itis acknowledged that the explanatory text accompanying the SPP indicates that the proposed policy measures do no prevent development where itis consistent with the Draft Bush land State Planning Policy.

Df.'::!:,k7MENT FOR PLANM!'!13

1 1 NOV 2004 go:4" - FILE Sch - t P'F)1)0 Notwithstanding this, the implications of the proposed SPP and itslink with the landowner's intentions to develop the land need to be explored prior to this matter being finalised.

Accordingly, it is the landowner's view that the proposed inclusion of the subject site with regard to the above matter is not supported. It is respectfully requested that a mutually convenient meeting to discuss the development potential of the land be scheduled so that those options as well as the implications of the proposed SPP can be explored. It is requested that senior staff of both the LG and the Commission contribute to any such discussions.

I trust you will confirm receipt of this correspondence in due course. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0403 196 336.

Yours faithfully,

PATRICK GERSCH TOWN PLANNER FORTCOM PTI Iii) ACN tlog 152 452 ABN 30 009 152 452

11 October 2004

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

RE: LOT 125 FRASER ROAD, BANJUP

We advise the bearer of this letter. Patrick Gersch of 26/27 Piccadilly Circle, Joondalup WA 6027 is authorised to make enquiries on behalf of Fortcom Pty Ltd, in relation to the above property.

We further advise Fortcom Pty Ltd is the owner of abovementioned property.

Should you wish to discuss above authority, please contact Ms L H Chee on 0403 288 022 or on 08 9221 8098.

Yours faithfully Fortcom Pty Ltd /(4(-tA' Lee Hoonhee Director

100 Murray Street, Perth WA 6000 Tel: 08-9221 8098 Fax: 08-9221 8808 GPO Box 51316 Perth WA 6001 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN OUll 809.2-1-77 Pt 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ENQUIRIES: Hula Colliver (9284 7923) Bush Forever She 389

Fortcom Pty Ltd GPO Box S 1316 PERTH WA 6001

Dear Sir/Madam

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33 Bush Forever And Related Lands Draft Bushland Policy For Perth Metropolitan Region Statement Of Planning Policy No.2.8

I am writing to advise you of proposals to protect regionally significant bushland identified in BUsh Forever sites. As a landowner these proposals affect you, and the Western AustralianPlanning Commission invites you to comment.

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment No.1982/33

Firstly, it Is proposed to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme to introduce a number of changes to the reservations and zones In the Perth Metropolitan Region, Including the reservation of some properties for Parks and Recreation and the creation of a Bush Forever Protection Area.

If you are unfamiliar with the Metropolitan Region Scheme, an explanation of what it is and how amendments are conducted is contained in the enclosed Amendment Report. The report also explains the amendment proposal which,if approved, may affect or change the regional zoning or reservation, where applicable, of your property,

Draft Statyment of Planning Policy (SPP) NP. 2.8:

. Secondly, a draft Statement of Planning Policy No.2.8 has been prepared and is released for public comment prior to finalisation,

The policy will provide a decision-making framework to assess future planning proposals taking into consideration bushland protection Issues.It does not Interfere with the right of existing land uses to be continued at their existing approved levels, or prevent the consideration of development that is consistent with the policy provisions in the draft SPP,

Bush forever Protection Areas may include cleared areas for administrative boundary purposes. However, cleared areas are not intended to be protected through this poky, If your land Is already reserved for Parks and Recreation In the MRS, this policy and the proposed MRS amendment does not change your current right to compensation.

tOMCy 6.4.21Vgb Albert ram House, 169 Wellington Strout (6nr rurrest Mace), Per th, Western Australia 6000 °ZANY Tel; (08) 9264 7777;Fax: (08) 9264 7566; TV; (08) 9264 7535;Infullne: 1800 626 477 egnalt: ceiporateizmapc.wa.gov.au; web address: http://www.wapcmaigoviau AUN 35 482 341 493

4.6' A

El? Id : T T 2661 TE"611t1 LTELOTE6: 'ON BNONd RI PileA ma :WOeid

tit El/III/21P P2110 aat 11243 td Ire It22711//8 Information and Submissions

Notices will appear in 77w West Australian, The Sunday Times andyour local suburban newspaper over the coming three months. The MRSamending plans and draft SPP will be on display over the same period at the offices of the Departmentfor Planning and Infrastructure in Wellington Street, Perth, the municipal offices of localgovernment and the State Reference Library.Documents can be accessedon the Western Australian Planning Commission websitewwwwapc.wagov.au, would also draw your attention to the enclosed Newsletter andCommunity Guide, which provides further advice and discussessome options and contact numbers for information, further

The procedure for amending the Metropolitan Region Schemerequires that the Western Australian Planning Commission run advertisements about the amendment,display plans and documentation and invitepeople to make submissions.

Most Importantly,you may wish to write a submission on-either -the Draft SPP. Your views the MRS Anieriiinentor and comments can be madethrough this submission and we welcome them. Please process use the MRS submission form (Form6A) that Is printed in the back of the AmendmentReport for comment on the MRS amendment, andthe submission form accompanyingthe Draft SPP for comment correctly matoh your on the SPP, so that we can comments to the appropriate planningprocess and Issue. The closing date forsubmissions is Friday 12 November on the submission form. 2004, The address Is shown

If you would likemore information about this amendment thedisplay or policy statement please visit locations,websiteortelephonethe Infrastructure. DepartmentforPlanning and

For further Informationon anything you have read please 9264 7923. contact Miss Hula Colliveron

If you require an extracopy of a plan please contact Mr Trevor Servaas on 92647825. If you requirean extra copy of any of the 9264 7645, documents please contact MsJulie Davey on

Yours faithfully

did At, etweirot"..

Ian Patterson . Secretary Western Australia PlanningCommission 25 AUgust 2004 Eno.

Zed klte17:IT 2E81 TZ '6n13 LIELOTEG: ON ENONd R Ithed fro143:WOHA

tit MEW nalTiahtlalt td 9:c tatZ/B1/3 WIGISTUP.MBO:IR 12'5/DE226040 DIEMISN111 DATE DIPIJCAT11 ISSUID

WESTERN AUSTRALIA N/A N/A

V(IUMIL RECORD OF CERTIFICATE E OF TITLE 1734 70 UNDER THE TRANSFER OF LAND ACT 1893

The person described in the first schedule Is the TegiStried proprietor or an estate in fee simple in the land described below suirixt to the teServallons, conditions and depth limit contained in the original grant Of a grant issued) and to the limitations, interests, encumbrances and notifications shown In the second schedule. (71( REGISTRAR OF TITLES

LAND DESCRIPTION: LOT 125 ON DEPOS1 t ED PLAN 226040

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR: (FIRST SCHEDULE)

4' FORTCOM PTY LTD OF LEVEL 3, 104 NIURRAY STREET, PERTH (T D336342) REGISTERED 7 OCTOBER 19E6 41 LIMITATIONS, INTERESTS, ENCUMBRANCES AND NOTIFICATIONS: (SECOND SCHEDULE) 4) THE LAND THE SUBJECT OF THIS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE EXCLUDES ALL PORTIONS OP THE LOT I) DESCRIBED ABOVE EXCEPT THAT PORTION SHOWN IN THE SKETCH OF THE SUPERSEDED PAPER VERSION OF THIS TITLE. 4) 2. I-1148621 MORTGAGE TO NATIONAL AUSTRALIA DANK LTD REGISTERED 28.6.1999.

4) Wandng: A current search of the sketch of the land should be obtained where detail of position, dimensions or area of the tot is requitd. Any entries preceded by an asterisk may not appear on the current edition of the duplicate certificate of title. Lot as described in the and description may be a lot or location.

END OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE 411 STATEMENTS: The statements :Let out below arse not intended to be nor shontd they be relied on as substitutes for lbspeetiou of tha .und and the relevant documents or for local govempaent, legal, surveyingorother professional advice; I) SKETCH OF LAND; 1734-70. PREVIOUS TITLE; 1666-198. 1) PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS; LOT 125 FRASER RD, BANIUF. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA; CITY OF COCKBURN. 1) NOTE 1: A00000IA LAND PARCEL IDENTIFIER OF JANDAKOT AGRICULTURAL AREA LOT 128 (OR THE PART THEREOF) ON SUPERSEDED PAPER CERDFICATE OF TITLE CHANGED TO LOT 125 ON DEPOSITED PLAN 226040 ON 02-AUC-02 TO ENABLE ISSUE OF A DI orrAL, CERTIFICATE. OF TITLE. NOT13 2; THE ABOVE NOTE MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THE SUPERSEDED PAPER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OR ON THE CURRENT EDITION OF DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.

4 4 I a

nATTrrmv ncnoTtlimnr mnm mn omit, ms. Oran 11 .110.1q.14 1ring Inn 14.1All WERRifigerillfil

CT 1734 0070 F A ORIGINAL-. NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE OF Milllull l'II II 11(1

AlbilltpplicatioaB280189 VOL, Fot. Main WESTERN AUSTRALIA p II Volume 1666Folio 198 173,14 070 )Antk611.11. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE UNDER THE "TRANSFER OF LAND ACT, 1893" AS AMENDED Ighat, b 17-1 I certify chat the person dc Lb d Ith eerirstScheduleheretolstheshwninoeccndsregistered pr proprietor cgeduleherat of the u nderm:n don ld mace in -iI I the undermentioned land LbIec tothe 1 O

) -14 11:11/ Dated 1.6kh Julys 1986 REGISTRAR OF TITLES S '1111*11,(

1,11) MATE AND LARD REFERRED TQ ) rill tali* Estate in feesimple in portion ofJandskotAgriculture'Area Lot in, delineated on i-4githe map in the ThSrd Schedulehereto. , .EIRST SCHEDULE (continued overleaf) d!,Dim SIsAtesa .4f15s Grey' Nere traHighwAskr-eiLedlA-WeeteU-At ear.re- EtcompSCHEDULE (continued overleaf)

4CI 61--82--92113 n geneste41-141 ae-9,413-er 14111.1.1-1-r-KRTGAGH-D2-40.11 Discharged D33604867.10. Ce'/ ) :2°1% REGISTRAR OF TITLES

THIRD SCHEDULE Ott" II '11g1

LI% ) C thin' NOT 7 SCALE WC% PLAN PERTH 5000 06.03 ) PERTH WO 07 C13 ) tin

(CIO"

NOTE: RULING THROUGH AND SEALING WITH THE OFFICE SEAL INDICATES THAT AN ENTRY NO LONGER HAS EFFSCT. J ENTRIES NOT RULED THROUGH MAY BE AFFECTED BY SUBSEQUENT ENDORSEMENTS.

1111111irivr"""1"' plE111111112JEI nnvh rnav nm nmtnTmAT mnm mn orrom Pb, one 11 (101A1/1 onm inn Iciniq DEPARTMENTFOR:FLAVINEG '4D INFPA8TRUCTURE Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A 12 NOV 2004

SUBMISSION 097.2 7-77r1 METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER I To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH W.A. 6000 Submission 96

Name Y.A.1114CRoSeaVE-c PaeSe2LY4n gRamPfr4AIRPc. 4104J. 4114)(g (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Pa1cibpAf r Address Po. Bo(6C6gA-LrgivibitiTh A Postcode...6:9Fr bei.26 Contact phone number.92Q 3.2243Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required.It is preferred that any additional information he loose rather than bound) +i7je, riliatiDttcnord of Bus/-fFagovek 94apom/fri-E4S oVeg 414. gugH Og-g SITSm17-le 146-nzotakrritiv ggqIPA1 Sti-leimc IS w540,1e-b thiab cGIPPoirreP CY TH6- 4 PfriCtaltlarr 10stdiascr-rox-r 114 1j&i bSitvg-s..2-1/-1...gigtraaPC i7/ ag,Si+ KolegYa P,-orsnoo 00-6PAS.?FFA. c) AS gegv1614 tfgo.5gaVg hwb Faorffer 771797 s A (0) fi/vb S.779-IES 77-hrr: "Wo P12-4.041 t014018fic-e OR.cA-CAV..04r...b.E.V.C.-boe.441617-?Pi ntt gtisit AnzEVeR94PTECnail bS Ike CRDOCIPAIS,140WEVAC44SIP.APPLY TO 4^IUllaanYlis4 7owt o

SFlotAd--11 171-14-rc , el-E4CW IN 045H-,ig.e-vEk sn-c-Of- Fgeviten-b winkiki 4SrPA, sciedEe4-- 17 weiv gEgu...44nEws on/bER THE- EVRav MENT)9_ PrZora -Don'fi-c_,T. TURNOVERTO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION 0 4 iiiimAturiA REQuiaEmEwrSE A-E712114,41. ENViipkirlao imPc--yS773-1r-A1th..11, ts./bS2 THE C-1V20,VAIEN/p41: Peep_ TctT7arsJ ;k- 4L.L Ef---(2A ei_E-aauvq`P)20006.ts'41-2 0)144en26e04"4-- Hearing ofSubmissions made a opportunity forpeople who have Act 1959 alsoprovides the Region TownPlanning Scheme submission to aHearings Committee. The Metropolitan present the basisof their written submissionto personally should they Commission canlisten to a person Australian Planning of view and arranged so thatthe Western intended forlistening to points These hearings are A hearing is spokesperson torepresent expand upon theirwritten submission. group, a wish to explain or public debate.In the case of a and is not aforum of general planning rationale, be appointed. the group must along with allwritten submissions, transcripts of anypublic hearings, transcribed. The also publishedin a Report on All hearings arerecorded and recommendations are records. The Commission's are publishedas public Submissions. submission will betaken into presented by you inthis written hearing. Thecomments have to attend a amendment. You do not recommendation forthe proposed account indetermining the

Please completethe following: form and sign.) (Please go to thebottom of the wish to speak atthe hearings. NO, I do not You will complete thefollowing details. or theMearings. (Please time for your hearingi) YES, I do wish tospeak at 'be contactedto arrange a

I will berepresented by: numbet (businesshours):' MYSELF Mytelephone local group) or (an agent maybe from a MY AGENTor5POKESPERSON Agent's name; Group'name: (business hours): Agent's telephonenumber Mailing address: hearing, to beconducted in: I wouldprefer my, media, mayattend.) other persons,including the PUBLIC (with apublic hearing doors and onlypersons, is conductedbehind closed PRIVATE (aprivate hearing Committee mayattend.) nominated by youand theHearings

MAKING THESUBMISSION TO BESIGNED BYPERSON(S)

Date/9-11-01 Signature

closing date,being close of by the advertised considered Submissions MUSTbe received submissions willNOT be NOTE: 12 November2004, Late business (6.00pm)on FRIDAY CDrapc.vm.gov.au; Internet -http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au 7566; Email - mrs Fax - (08) 9264 Contacts: Telephone -(06) 9264 7777; 2-

Suemsson1(Como/ ttCb) Macikevbmets.i7- Num6E2 /013.2. /33

leP)M! NA-7142C 2E-Sat2Ygg ?RESEW/9-770Vcgoup(ink) IOAIY roWA,E22R.E.SIE r r

S 2 43) 77.*E- RE--04 112etlEArr To 11... 14-41S- esciael

Tn sPP S SE--&-MS /144-bsemaTE,sitycE 171E- Pen-ICY IS nori-,E44LLyeinibmicS-PP 2.3 ,VEAS rogic-144-Isc l'Eq,41-1-Y a/1)+1/415-Tv4 /yE er-Facro745ci_stuss Nt S : e(E-47ptiacs pray 77/61-7" 7-74.6-- coo/mignon/ NAY rlivy PiS2Soi1/4/ 02 o2cAlvic,4-77,0At - t w 174C-/MPE244 T1VE SHouki SI Sues-nr4--rs2 p,2 "miew" /1---b -a :

CSO-e4-Li CoNsut,r ifivYPr-reSorl orz oacelAtign--natv, WISNitJC TO ogdarro THC-bEVELOPNE-XirAreLicel-rion/." msick-marri. RThileR E.N/E-1,00,118,1--rt.in/ 77-1E evivSEr2v4-nordmalvii4emeivr glioul-h es- ST7ee- g6QtAiaikrc -TO mgiviekic SrP,4 whew-the k Mcia. WILL PeESSeve tetahmefrivnel-mt Con issev14n oAl Vieku ES

/0 3 S'1443ce)oklCrum S friEwtNo 002/33

NfirsitE 26serzva Page/aR-7'44v492014PQA,c)

idat/E1Afrialr RE-1201Zr. NRPC Sidt?Porertn-i-e- C.CErZ Inci-r7 on/ of Rkc ,3l4 aCoeei/Sie sots' ,4S `242g8 firN,b2G--cleeel-Tiomic esTer-zost-nem, S1ASW 6,207E21 14-743A3 rig P10 -IA) agdermv-G, -THE- poo-irconi OF agioliV %lay gtiatIcorn meSTOW ci._41/ nl Cer-r7 Thlr PT74 Ma r2026-c/0 gas pee-eree:S17-55 r4im, nig 70 PeorEe-r G Mr-leg"-/ 70 or7-116--oa141avi4L VLt r70IUeovacchc---771-0-116.0VESEanow Itimsr IA/ Awviaoilnom; gptcni9-mi6git -"Da6re RESao Arc gz_rioc-r- Sot Of itt----56---7n-y-Ligivis W)77Wru L.4,Cte ibizatEre R isloatc lb w& 660ohoor goverzEvrie-an---owAye str&---S i&frug,r4 01.4.7r/be jeSES29--r) 0 /1/4/arsib or- 6-6- 6usht IrEs own/et ei covrv-gmnoivr-kave, Es e6- 2 Ei fs-16 PCoiais---roe_R6z-an n 14 SP- g lr-eswirwit.1 c_2 inct4-Lat2)eets---7-E- VE-4 El-74i-101JComaseE-S &MC 9ReirAa__)3 C14 I 2140141:b g6 giver./Patelziry 2,Er-44.2In1 c _g/ Tr -77-S. cPac.)c es 3 & .--1,11-N I V iNCBSDAJAMAI. 77-76 ePasit-c--715 ONLYP4ars or-- 6i4sH- l=3aevE2 sTes . iV2Pc bigJECVS TO V fn /44Ob c ElVSIA CE ir musr gE skeuer--7-- ToPaoPec eivo coil-164N Ag, Ezen g.47 gitibnW -re' ScauTIAIYgy IstrEan

111,1974. 7Ny /-1,14/4,5e 1 0111104 Submission 97

12 November 2004

IRDTINIEFNELF917-RtiTPCLARYRNE6611 Please send your submission to: 1 2 NOV2004 Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 0?-77 Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PERTH'S BUSHLAND

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment 1082/33: Bush Forever & Related Lands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tvtoy-ot-tq Name ,1 Signature.

Organisation.Fri ev'si9 ckbleP bvrn 49) F".taire°BVAnL"141

Address. Ct C1'0%5 low,ji Pree1/4-

111.11 5 gOZS

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 or the Urban Bush/and Council WA on 9420 7207. Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 98 PERTH W.A. 6000

Name S "AscAts'-- (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) MA: 6) Address. Sullt Qfi ED:), R4I RDELLA Postcode

Contact phone number.`4.515.f)7.1... 4Email address

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

2-3k-Q-C

Li -TRIENITCSR1t4,i:L. PiZIMMAIRileilltIE

1 2 NOV2004 2. Fl 207r2-1- 77

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

The Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 also provides theopportunity for people who have madea written submission to personally present the basis of their submissionto a Hearings Committee.

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian PlanningCommission can listen to a person should they wish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing is intendedfor listening to points of view and planning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In thecase of a group, a spokesperson to represent the group must be appointed.

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

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented byyou in this written submission will be taken into account in determining the recommendationfor the proposed amendment.

Please complete the following:

LbJ NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the formand sign.) YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details.You will be contacted to arrange a time foryour hearing.) I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (businesshours): Or

MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON(an agent may be froma local group) Agent's name: Group name: Agent's telephone number (businesshours): Mailing address:

I would prefer my hearingto be conducted in: PUBLIC (with a public hearing other Or persons, including the media, may attend.) PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and onlypersons nominated by You and the HearingsCommittee may attend.)

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S)MAKING THE SUBMISSION

5,5 eAt Signature Date 1Q-1.1.7 Cif

NOTE: Submissions MUST bereceived by the advertised closing date,being close of business (5.00pm) on FRIDAY 12 November 2004. Late submissionswill NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax- (08) 9264 7566; Email - mrsthvapc.wa.gov.au; Internet http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au Lot 69 Summer field Road, Mardella WA 6125

Dear Sir,

Re: Bush Forever Planning

It has brought to my attention that a portion of my land (Lot 6 Sununerfield Road, Mardella) has been included in the Bush Forever planning. I also have other land, namely Lots 167, 114, 69 & 1 which I assume, due to the fact that I have NOT been notified by your department that will also be affected.

This land, Lot 6, It been grazing land for 13 years and the other lots for over N years by the one family. We do not overgraze the land and therefore do not overstock, because in turn this would affect our stock and as we take real pride in the care of our animals and what they produce.

I have major concerns with the weed build up and the fire hazards if this land is nor properly maintained. A submission from my daughter, Roslyn Hoskin has photographs depicting the areas concerned.

If I am unable to use this land then why should I be responsible for the maintenance of it? I have maintained this land in a responsible manner for all these years and taking control out of my hands will not achieve anything constructive.

Yours truly,

IS 7 (7`," J.S. McKay Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

I SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 99 PERTH W.A. 6000

Name (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address 3,63 SEP-tPeitin rie Postcode 61' 2C

Contact phone number.PM .... Email address ...... CCM- chcikv 0017

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

...... 1-.ND INFRA7WMUI,E I 2NO Ng .?.P

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

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

Please complete the following:

NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.) Or YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You will be contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): Or MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group) Agent's name: Group name. Agent's telephone number (business hours): Mailing address:

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature Date ic °`f

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

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - mrs Owapc.wa.gov.au; Internet - httplimniv.wapc.wa.gov.au Mr Ian Patterson Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington St Perth. WA 6000

10th November, 2004

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

Dear Sir,

We live on 25 acres which is well established for grazing of sheep and competition ponies.

The first major concern we have is fire, three years ago a life threatening fire swept through our and neighbouring properties causing significant damage. This was devastating physically, emotionally and financially, a situation that you would never want to endure again. In the relevant area of our property we control the amount of fuel by grazing it for one month prior to summer, we constantly monitor the situation and supervise the livestock.

Secondly arises the major problem of weed control, we hand pick Cotton Bush, Deadly Nightshade, Double Gee and Castor Oil plants, since the fire the Wattle and Watsonia on the river banks has escalated. Nothing seems to be done about controlling weeds on road and railway verges.

Thirdly, is there the possibly of the related land sites being opened up to the public for walk trails as it is in other local areas, this would certainly increase the damage to the river, fauna, vegetation and adjoining private property.

We have invested in a lifestyle for our children, they respect and enjoy the environment and as responsible property owners we oppose having our lnd resumed.

Thankyou

Gar 7& Lee Johnson 303 Summerfield Rd Serpentine WA 6125 'tierni- J NT FOT:jEu 1,40 INVRASTRUCTv:L Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) 1 2 NOV2004 FORM 6A

SUBMISSION FILY094-7-770 -2 METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY SUMMER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 100 PERTH W.A. 6000

Name IBArrackpa (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Addressa7/Yniva-A-ur Roo St--4,4,--Art,twA---- Postcode 6/12.5` Contact phone number.75-Z,-23 30.Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound) e/-ei-." 7 C) 5e 72C/te /ige/2"o/14-ei /a/eta/ 4.(12, /0.152 (J/L8, (pie 17,eir S 49A fat! 6-7'n cri5 22,ey Alce,_," /AI e:e/v e 71-1

/37 /71 -eza. it' ...... 'ere- te--5 .717 A 67 ,,,y/ 44 ja live/11 57:1 "kW 77-6. r en" ( 77;3 iJ r-17--,t/fe e% 2s 4icS f iz 1i-1/7 2-r-dee /47e/AA

/Le-Attire6 7/a cs 773Ars,t 14_

"te Zehe? P2 ...... C -1 (Th

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

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

Please complete the following:

EXI NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.) or YES, I do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You will be contacted to arrange a time for your hearing.)

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSONS) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature 41(e_c 41, ; Date /0

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

Contacts: Telephone(08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - http://www.scapc.sca.gov.au Submission101

City of Melville

Enquiries: Kym Davis9364 0223 Your Ref 809-2-1-77Pt I Our Ref: 977210

11 November 2004

DEPART ENT EORPLANN Iric The Secretary AND INFRASTRUCTURE Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street 1 2 NOV 2004 Perth WA 6000

02 77P-2

Dear Sir,

SUBMISSION: METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

I refer to the various documents distributed to the City of Melville in mid August 2004 relating to the Bush Forever and Related Lands Amendment.

As a landowner, the City of Melville has assessed the details of the Amendment documents and considered the implications of the draft Statement for Planning Policy No. 2.8 (Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region). A report on the proposal was presented to the November meeting of the Development and Neighbourhood Amenity Committee where it recommended to advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that:

2.The City of Melville supports the proposals to reserve Bush Forever site No.'s 228, 337, 338A and 338B for Parks and Recreation in the Metropolitan Region Scheme;

3.The City of Melville owns two (2) sites proposed for Reservation as Parks and Recreation in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (BF Site No. 226 (Harry Sandon Park) and BF Site No.245 (Ken Hurst Park)), and that negotiations be initiated for the future acquisition of the Reserves or other suitable compensatory solution prior to progression of the amendment incorporating these reserves i.e. land exchange;

4.The proposed 'Bush Forever Protection Area' only apply to part or parts of Reserved land that support significant native bushland or remnant bushland and not over open grassed recreational areas or other activity corridors as exists on the following reserves:

10 Almondbury Road Booragoon I Locked Bag 1 Booragoon I Western Australia 6954 I Ph: (08) 9364 0666 I Fax: (08) 9364 0285 [email protected] I Web: www.melville.wa.gov.au I ABN 81 152 433 900 a.Piney Lakes Reserve (BF Site No. 339) b.Wireless Hill Park (BF Site No. 336) c.Section of the Bicton to Applecross Foreshore (BF Site No. 331) d.Pedestrian Access way located between Lots 104 and 105 Curedale Mews, Bull Creek (BF Site No. 338Proposal 50)

5.The City of Melville does not support the impediment placed on the future management of its reserves where open grassed recreational areas or other activity corridors exist through the BFPA classification and its consequent statutory mechanism, and that the City of Melville will investigate with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (Bush Forever office) the appropriate allocation of areas on these reserves to which the BFPA can reasonably apply.

Notwithstanding this, the City of Melville would suggest that planning powers be delegated to local government where an approved management plan/environmental plan exists.

6.The City of Melville has adopted operative management plans for the majority of reserves listed in the proposal and that the "Bush Forever and Related Lands" Amendment place no encumbrance on the future management of these reserves.

The City of Melville acknowledges that the Western Australian Planning Commission should endorse its management plans if delegated authority occurs.

The Development and Neighbourhood Amenity Committee further requested the Department for Planning and Infrastructure consider Wal Hughes Reserve, Attadale (between Loyola Way and Campion Crescent) as a Bush Forever site.

The Council will consider the recommendation of the Development and Neighbourhood Amenity Committee at its meeting on Tuesday 16 November 2004. Subsequent to that meeting, I will inform the Commission of any alteration to the above recommendation.

Should you wish to clarify the contents of this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact Kym Davis of this office on 9364 0223.

Yours sincerely

CRAIG MCCLURE DIRECTOR STRATEGIC URBAN PLANNING 11Nov. 2004 14:44 No,0002 P. 2/3

City of Melville

Enquiries: Kyrn Davis9364 0223 Your Ref: 809-2-1-77Pt 1 Our Ref 977210

1 I November 2004

The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Dear Sir,

SUBMISSION: METROPOLITAN REGIONSCHEME AMENDMENT NO.1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

I refer to the various documents distributed to the City of Melville in mid August 2004relating to the Bush Forever and Related LandsAmendment.

As a landowner, the City of Melville has assessed the details of the Amendmentdocuments and considered the implications of the draftStatement for Planning Policy No. 2.8(Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region).A report on the proposalwas presented to the November meeting of the Development and Neighbourhood Amenity Committee where it recommendedto advise the Western Australian PlanningCommission that:

1.The City of Melville generally supports the purpose and intent of the Bush Foreverand Related Lands Amendment No.1082/33and draft Statement of Planning PolicyNo.2.8 Bushland Policy for the Perth MetropolitanRegion subject to Clause 3; 2. The City of Melville supports the proposalsto reserve Bush Forever site No.'s 228, 337, 338A and 338B for Parks and Recreation in theMetropolitan Region Scheme; 3. The City of Melville owns two (2) sitesproposed for Reservationas Parks and Recreation in the Metropolitan Region Scheme(BF Site No. 226 (Harry Sandon Park) and BF Site No.245 (Ken Hurst Park)), and that negotiations be initiated for thefuture acquisition of the Reservesor other suitable compensatory solution priorto progression of the amendment incorporating thesereserves i.e. land exchange; 4. The proposed 'Bush Forever ProtectionArea' only apply to partor parts of Reserved land that support significant native bushland or remnant bushland andnot over open grassed recreational areas or other activity corridors as exists on the followingreserves:

10 Almondbury Road Booragoon ILocked Bag 1 Booragoon 1 Western Australia 0951 I Ph: (05) 9364 0666IFax: (08) 9304 0285 Emalkmelinfothimelville.wa.gov.au I Web:wvvw.melvillo.wa.govinu I ABN 81 152 433 900 11Nov. 2004 14:44 A No.0008 P. 3/3

a.Piney Lakes Reserve (BF Site No. 339) b.Wireless Hill Park (BF Site No. 336) c.Section of the Bicton to Applecross Foreshore(BF Site No. 331) d.Pedestrian Access way located betweenLots 104 and 105 Curedale Mews, Bull Creek (BF Site No. 338Proposal 50)

5. The City of Melville does not support theimpediment placed on the futuremanagement of its reserves where open grassed recreationalareas or other activity corridors exist through the BFPA classification and itsconsequent statutory mechanism, and that the City of Melville will investigate with theDepartment for Planning and Infrastructure (Bush Forever office) the appropriate allocation of areas on these reserves to whichthe BFPA can reasonably apply.

Notwithstanding this, the City of Melville wouldsuggest that planning powers be delegated to local government wherean approved management plan/environmental plan exists.

6.The City of Melville has adopted operativemanagement plans for the majority of reserves listed in the proposal and that the "BushForever and Related Lands" Amendment place no encumbranceon the future management of thesereserves.

The City of Melville acknowledges thatthe Western Australian Planning Commission should endorse its management plans ifdelegated authority occurs.

The Development and NeighbourhoodAmenity Committee further requested theDepartment for Planning and Infrastructure consider Wal Hughes Reserve, Attadale (betweenLoyola Way and Campion Crescent)as a Bush Forever site.

The Council will consider the recommendationof the Development and Neighbourhood Amenity Committee at its meetingon Tuesday 16 November 2004. Subsequent to that meeting, I will inform the Commission ofany alteration to the above recommendation.

Should you wish to clarify the contents of thiscorrespondence, please do not hesitateto contact Kym Davis of this office on 9364 0223.

Yours sincerely

CRAIG MCCLURE DIRECTOR STRATEGIC URBAN PLANNING Submission101 City of Melville

Enquiries: Kym Davis9364 0223 Your Ref: 809-2-1-77Pt 1 Our Ref: 980686

16 November 2004

The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Dear Sir,

SUBMISSION: METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

I refer to my previous correspondence dated 11 November 2004 in which I forwarded the recommendation of the Development and Neighbourhood Amenity Committee in relation to the Bush Forever and Related Lands Amendment to your office. Please be advised that the Council atitsmeeting of 16 November 2004 considered the amendment and Committee recommendation and resolved to ratify the recommendation without alteration.

For the information of the Commission, I have attached copy of that correspondence.

Should you wish to discuss any aspects of this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact Kym Davis of this office on 9364 0223.

Yours sincerely

CRAIG MCCLURE DIRECTOR STRATEGIC URBAN PLANNING

Cc: Correspondence dated 11 November 2004

10 Almondbury Road Booragoon I Locked Bag 1 Booragoon I Western Australia 6954 I Ph: (08) 9364 0666 I Fax: (08) 9364 0285 Email:[email protected] Web: www.melville.wa.gov.au I ABN 81 152 433 900 Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 1 2 NOV 2004 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH W.A. 6000 Submission 102

Name A-N171204 RvvdE FLAro4 ch16 4Rour WA- Pry urb (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) f,b. 00( 7375 CloI5Te.12.5 Set NACE, Address Postcode 685°

Contact phone number. DB 9289'13" Email addressacirew show e @4 intm, eor .a1.4

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

ttASz Set AM 1.eljer..

,AD INFRASTRUCTURE

1 2..N.U.

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

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

Please complete the following:

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature Date /02 //° y-

------riattrEf EssEtttl Li kali kali:1.'1 bk-t:Ire-eiltte:tt-bsr bin -4th-arittEid etrta krt. rlestf-StmtriLtsk ;AL_ - -- __ trues-tetra -t- re..- re.%. rigsftt:riklt 'Lst KY" Or-r--elr_ 21-44 East native min set rer.3 .7. Eisk =ES:LI:trrad: Z.-- - . Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected],au; Internet - htlp://www.wapc.vra.gov.au T H E'PLANNING IGR OUP

Perth PO Box 7375 Cloisters Square Perth Western Australia 6850

Our ref: 704.192 Your ref: MRS Amendment No.1082/33 Level 7 182 St Georges Terrace Perth Western Australia 6000 12 November 2004

Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington St PERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir/Madam

MRS AMENDMENT NO.1082/33

We make this submission on behalf of Mr T Roberts, the owner of Lot 20, 33B Saunders Street, Mosman Park. It is our understanding that a portion of the subject land is currently affected by an MRS Parks and Recreation Reserve and that Amendment No. 1082/33 will add a further layer of constraint over the land by its inclusion within Bush Forever Protection Area BF334.

To our knowledge, no detailed site assessment of the bush on the subject site has been made and accordingly we submit that the boundaries of BFS 334 not extend beyond the existing MRS reserve boundary.

A further concern relates to the process by which development applications on the unaffected land are dealt with and in what time frame. It is our understanding that current practice for an application for subdivision or development on land encumbered by a BFS is that it be referred to the Bush Forever Branch for comment, a step in the process that can take an additional 8 or more weeks. Accordingly we submit that the development approval process be streamlined so that applications that clearly have no impact on the BFS portion of the site need not be referred to the Bush Forever branch for comment. Several attempts were made to speak to the appropriate officer within the Department of Planning and Infrastructure regarding the acquisition value of the land and on each occasion, the calls were not returned in time to make this submission. Accordingly, we also seek clarification as to whether the additional BFS status would reduce the value of the land should the reserved portion be acquired by the Government in accordance with its reserved status.

We would welcome a response to the above concerns and queries.

Yours sincerely THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD

Andrew Howe Director

Telephone +61 8 9289 8300 Facsimile +61 8 9321 4786 [email protected] www.planninggroup.conhau Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM GA ;I 2 NOV Mg SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

DEPAMTAENTROR -Pik((III' OFFICE USE ONLY /AO INF FOOT RUCTUP1 SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 1 2 NOV 2004 469 Wellington Street Submission 103 PERTH W.A. 6000 FILE609,02.1,77pt:z

Name C-14 (LI 61-1^3 zik-e12.7.-H-CArip bCLL- (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address.1-.),c1Rota- 6n- Aar.T-1-- $t- 5QVit1tzag) 0 if:12 Postcode 61PD

Contact phone number.°14-4A0 '1°1 c;t9 Email address

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required.It Is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound) Uo to() r f0 Rail. co. Go pp()RI- Ti-tra... PoLl cd Fog, 6,)861_FoA r_ 2E vt- 1-to..91.4D D&. .. coIC., (90Qrs. ANFir; NT' 0 La nnal 1.)/.and0 /4/..) o (I=ri-frcv (A)A-kyr-To TA v-,(2- Jo 0 it+ 3 0 ,q- EL_ Lti Ai ; 14 o R ): VA LUC= A-53H-ooLo ioor 60- to.51-Rocri co13,v TH

14)A" PC. (On) VaL0 Tfrica LAUD g (LEA_To 11-1,-1:Mr 640 ktS-j 01- Cv1-6:: (90).; RICO u,)ig- PC' 1/45H0Q Do P-1- ALL_ -04-c-....,,kraco titicrubn-roolth5 PARricu4-r-4P,Lq 3 pFT(+ _ bril--ID INSG Co r-t/rrrr.el c 1- LitC9i s Lart or Couto cl LA,..).00L3,,ra. vs. 6H0 uor Loost= 190,0r 80 Lk) 14-F: ;-\) 1_1(A to D ; v2o-LeL E: Ok Po 61,..1 c_ usr, TA-E_ co51- or Ai 6, koaAio le SoLlad r;Conn (.31 r Co ST- r5_0 4i0ouani 11;11-=Sc-n-In t n-T-at c9 fri to6r sLott' Oro cor0T-Prin)fr4i5 CLARI ria-T-ra (LE 1_t_Nf-QTO rir- kiNic Lci to t cYr- Ln-foo R-R_Qotari 0r-Q P-Oo 1-14F kfr_ Sf-tooko 6E N30 eilo cz_sri Or.) R5 Tv .5 1.4-farzsi.ALL Laid ot_,),,.) ?Cs Spa-r -L.) IWO ALL ro oe_ gaeoL_ALEr 1Efeaxi sHoot,i7ALT- foo65z 1,64g&r: 'bust+ ARP. kJRcL-6/ DR- f\-n-i kg- L. A-6c.., R-5 0--640 cp of DAA9C9EA rbriii-C2Co hninuN1 p o 6t-I-Fl RES e9od c1/4-5C, crlic A o G t + 413--- -r (-1-E Coo 0 F±P,A)e: A) TS P 0K) Si6c A-R I-ku Kr OK -4:%u-r-,10

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

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

Please complete the following:

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

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature ai-f;akirS' DateIQ- f A" L{,

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

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au Submission 104 Jacqueline Kee lan-Wake 18 Starts Road, Quinns Rocks WA 6030. Ph: 08 9305 9575, 0411 449 642

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1082/33 Bush Forever and Related Lands.

I write in support of the Government's initiative to secure a number of significant bushlands for conservation. I support the introduction of Bush Forever Protection Areas over all Bush Forever sites in the MRS and support the reservation of all proposed Bush Forever sites as Parks and Recreation. I am also in support of adding sites.

However, I have some concerns with the document as outlined below.

Is s27C(2) contrary to s27C(1)? Is it open to selective interpretation? I think so and feel s27C(2) should be deleted. The Western Australian Planning Commission should scrutinise all developments in Bush Forever Protection Areas. S27C should state that all proposals in Bush Forever Protection Areas that involve clearing be subject to new clearing regulations under the Environmental Protection Act and clearing in Bush Forever sites should be prohibited. If this is not possible, then all proposals to clear in Bush Forever Protection Areas should have to obtain formal ElA under the Enviromnental Protection Act.

Conservation Management should be the focus for Management, not Development, in Bush Forever Protection Areas. There should be a requirement that all Bush Forever Protection Areas be managed to preserve and maintain the conservation values of the area by the land owner.

Section 27C(3) seems to leave discretion to the decision maker about the extent of provision in the planning policy that are considered. I feel SPP2.8 needs to be legally binding.

The MRS amendment report states to "achieve a sustainable balance behveen the conservation of bushland and development within the Perth Metropolitan Region" as being the primary objective of Bush Forever. I understood it was in fact the protection of regionally significant bushland. It is important to protect Bush Forever sites in line with the environmental component of sustainability.

It is disappointing that many of the Government owned sites have not been secured for conservation and that of the 55 Bush Forever sites that are owned by government agencies only 14 and segments of 5 others are proposed for rezoning. This is very disappointing.

It should be a priority to secure sites with vegetation communities that have the lowest percentage of area within Parks and Recreation Reserves. Eg Dardanup, Coonambidgee, Regan, Serpentine River, Guildford, Beermulah, Forrestfield and Yanga vegetation complexes.

Negotiated Planniug Solutions do not protect whole Bush Forever sites. These deals are made with developers behind closed doors and I don't believe they are subject to proper environmental assessment.I don't think conservation of Bush Forever sites was intended to be implemented by fragmenting and partially conserving.

It is great that there is suggestion of adding sites, such as 443 (Little Coogee Flat, Pinjar), 470 (Garden Park Bushland, Wanneroo), 465 (Passmore St Bushland, Southern River) or 495 (Baldivis Swamp, Baldivis). However some sites (such as sites 418 and 419) have cleared land that will need revegetation and iutensive management.

It is disappointing that there is suggestion of reduction of some Bush Forever sites, such as 97 (Kirby Road Bushland, Bullsbrook), 381 (Ridges and adjacent bushland, Yanchep) and 469 (Caporn Street Bushland, Mariginup).

Yours faithful y.

Jacqueline Keelan-Wake DEFATaENT Concerned Citizen '11') 12 November 2004 1 2 NOV 2004

FLL 9°-,2--T-712 Submission 105

12 November 2004

1,AotipairregaRinn. Please send your submission to: INFFIAETRUG'ME Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 1 2NOV 2004 Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PERTH'S BUSHLAND

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment 1082/33: Bush Forever & Related Lands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NameFla/Le-A.4 istl-b311-414) Signature:

Organisation:...K..3

Address: 4 YhAilt's

4NetA-4A-4

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 or the Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207. Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street 103 PERTH W.A. 6000

t CoectICS ce) Name ?i &12A-0S7H114 (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

AddressC2mc>rjCiliTh./ er_tier4-77-44%.77C Creilit °jig 127."4"/"P6 MIC.--16.11"/ Postcodetel

C.4-44.1-Cc Contact phone number. 73Nr Email address:A9-^ gdadr esj

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

My- concern relates to the proposed clearing of University endowment bushlandsouth of Underwood Avenue that is owned by the University of Western Australia. Thisbush contains at least 3 distinct ecological communities of jarrah, tuart and banksia woodland. The proposed subdivision will retain only part of the high qualityjarrah and some tuart in the parkland cleared area. Some of the jarrahwoodland to be cleared is of excellent quality. The remaining tuart and all of the banksia is to bedestroyed. The bush to be retained will be a remnant of a remnant. There are grave concerns as to its continuing viability as quality bush and as an ecosystem. With only one ofthe three ecological communities to be retained, the ability of the remnant to support a diversity of plants and wildlife will thus be destroyed.

The bushland is cited in Perth Bushplan as being of regional significance. Itis an important and substantial part of the vital wildlife (bird) corridor betweenBold Park and Kings Park. Any loss of this bush will put more pressure on the ability ofthese areas to support flora and wildlife, causing the whole region to suffer. It should be noted there is also development pressure on Perry Lakes and surrounding areas.

This bush is of the vegetation type Karrakatta Complex, Central and South. The aimof Perth Bushplan is to follow the International Union for Conservation of Nature (I.U.C.N) guidelines of 10% retention of each vegetation type. If most of the University owned land is cleared then less than 8% of this bushland type can be protected. Thereality of higher density housing within inner suburbs means that very few treesremain in these areas. For a sense of wellbeing and associated quality of lifeitis vital that people have easy access to bushland in close proximity to their homes. Thebush is what gives us our Australian "sense of place" and connection with the land.

Universities should be leaders in environmental conservation and, although one can understand their need to raise funds to maintain existing teaching and research activities, it should not be at the expense of one of the last bushland areasclose to the CB D.

PLANO ..:1`2M;TUE,L TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION

2 9 NOV 2004

FILE Zcie(- )-7 Hearing of Submissions

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

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

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

Please complete the following:

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

rot Signature Datec2-e..?

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

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au Submission 106 12 November 2004

0:Pis,Ti kittiu r Please send your submission to: ,ThAD IidKti 'Ai 1 RUCi

Secretary NOV Mg Western Australian Planning Commission 1 2 Albert Facey Hotise 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PERTH'S BUSHLAND

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment 1082/33 Bush Forever & Related Lands

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name 13thk sck,1-1-z. Signature:

Organisation

Address: Gt. I fr,I2Efle NedcAskc b ooct

For more information please contact the Conservation Council of WA on 9420 7266 or the Urban Bushland Council WA on 9420 7207. Submission107

12 November 2004

Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House DEPARTMENT FOR fThANIttl; 469 Wellington Street p,RD INFRAnRUCalilE PERTH WA 6000 1 2 NOV 2004

SUBMISSION FILE 27-77P.

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment 1082/33: Bush Forever & Related Lands

Attached is the submission by the Conservation Council of WA Inc and the Urban Bush land Council WA Inc.

The Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA) has been the state's foremost non- government, non-profit, voluntary conservation organisation since 1967. We are an umbrella organisation for almost 70 affiliated conservation-focused groups throughout WA, who share our passion and vision for protecting WA's unique environment. A credible advocate for conservation and a sustainable society in WA, we have long campaigned for the protection of the State's wildlife and natural areas.

The Urban Bushland Council is the peak community organisation for the recognition and protection of urban bushland in WA. It comprises over 55 community groups dedicated to protecting and managing urban bushland. The Council is involved in lobbying for protection and managing urban bushland, raising public awareness of the values and problems facing urban bushland, contributing to policy development and acting as a network for the sharing of ideas, information and expertise.

Both organisations have come together to prepare the submission. The combined membership represents a significant portion of the community that share the concerns over the Perth's unique bio diversity.

For your consideration

Yours sincerely

C Mary Gra Chris Tallentire President Coordinator Urban Bushland Council WA Inc Conservation Council WA Inc rban Bush land Conservation Council of Western Australia (Inc) Council WA Inc

SUBMISSION

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

The Conservation Council of WA and the Urban Bush land Council WA welcome the long overdue step towards introduction of measures that would give statutory effect to the protection of regionally significant bushland identified in Bush Forever (Government of Western Australia, 2000). Bush Forever sites are a very substantial natural asset of the Perth region. A region that is part of an internationally recognised biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al, 2000). With less then 28% of the original vegetation cover remaining, it is crucial that sites recognised as being regionally significant are protected and managed for future generations.

We strongly support the introduction of Bush Forever Protection Areas and the rezoning of the number of Bush Forever sites as Parks and Recreation. However, we are concerned about some aspects of the proposed changes and the following comments are provided:

AMENDMENT TO SCHEME TEXT

It is of great concern that the proposed provisions will not prevent development within regionally significant bushland in Bush Forever sites. The proposed Section 27C (1) in the Metropolitan Region Scheme Text states that no development is allowed in the Bush Forever Protection Area except with the prior written approval of the Commission. In addition, Section 27C(2) considers exemptions where no approval is needed for development within Bush Forever Protection Areas. The Planning Bulletin No 69 explains that "overriding justification" may be considered in cases where development proposals deviate from the Statement of Planning Policy 2.8, which is part of this new amendment. This is unacceptable.

The community has always maintained a view that all Bush Forever sites need to be protected and no development shall be allowed within them. We recommend clearing inBush Foreversites be expressly prohibited.

Amendment to Scheme Text, Section 27B(2) states that the provisions of Part 3A of the Metropolitan Region Scheme Text applying to the Bush Forever Protection Area (BFPA) apply in addition to the provisions applying to any underlying zone or reserve and any general provisions of the scheme. This seems to correspond with the purpose and intent of using Special Control Areas as explained in the Planning Bulletin No 66 (May 2004). It describes Special Control Areas (SCA) as "appropriate to deal with issues that overlap zones and reserves where the requirements of the SCA apply in addition to the requirements of the zone or reserve. A SCA would not typically designate the intended use of land," (page 1).

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 Furthermore it states, "If the use or development of land needs to be restricted or controlled, then the zoning and reservation of land can usually provide the appropriate mechanism." However, both the MRS Amendment Report on page 38 and Planning Bulletin No 69 on page 2 go further and state that where there are inconsistencies, BFPA provisions override underlying zoning provisions. This needs to be clarified and the statements should be uniform in all related documents. We recommend that the role of Special Control Areas be clarified and presented the same way in all relevant documents. Do SCA provisions apply in addition to or override the current zoning provisions?

Future nominations and areas not included on the Scheme Map According to the Planning Bulletin No 69, other bushland areas of significance identified for protection in local or regional strategies within the Perth Metropolitan Region can receive the same treatment as BFPA. However, it is not clear what mechanism will be used to include them in the future as the amendment to the Scheme Text only provides for BFPA shown on the Scheme Map in Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.8 (Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region). We recommend a provision be included to ensure that the proposed provisions will apply to all additional sites nominated in the future.

It is also not clear, how or when Bush Forever site 275 (for more comments see section "Individual sites" below) and all additional sites nominated for further consideration in an Information Sheet published by the WA Planning Commission in July 2002 will be included as Bush Forever Protection Areas. Only one of the 17 nominated sites appears on the Scheme Map, only Blue Heeler Swamp in Baldivis, an extension to Bush Forever site 495, is included in this MRS Amendment, as Proposal 94.

Long Term Management The emphasis should be on 'conservation management'. We recommend a section be inserted to require that all BFPA be managed by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values regardless its current underlying zoning.

Interim management of all Bush Forever sites for conservation is essential considering the 10- year time frame set for its implementation. The Urban Bushland Council has always maintained that Bush Forever should be implemented within 3 to 4 years to be effective. When Bushplan was released for public comment, we voiced our concerns that a number of sites could be lost during the 10 year implementation period or could become degraded.

Now, nearly four years after the endorsement of the Bush Forever, our concems are proving to be justified. Regionally significant bushland will be or has been already cleared at Burns Beach (BFS 322), at Neerabup National Park (BFS 383), Decourcey Way Bushland, Marangaroo (BFS 328), Perth Airport (BFS 386) and Southern River (BFS 125).

There is a constant pressure from development encroaching into coastal reserves. For example, a proposal for Capricorn Coastal Village at Yanchep could encroach on BFS 397, development at Jindalee on BFS 397 or development at Burns Beach on BFS 322. In addition, as a number of unreserved sites are not actively managed for conservation, and many are not managed at all. They are under increasing pressure from degrading activities. Degradation caused by four-wheel-drive vehicles is a common problem. Rubbish dumping, no weed control and non-existent fire management are major factors that need to be addressed by active management.

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 2 We support any additions of good quality regionally significant bushland to existing sites, and there are few additions included in this Amendment. However, we have always maintained that biodiversity values of a site are irreplaceable. Once cleared, biodiversity of that area is lost forever. Therefore it is crucial that Bush Forever sites are protected in their entirety.

Consultation Section 27D of the Scheme Text provides that the Commission may consult with any person or organization. So it is left to the discretion of the Commission or the Local Government whether any consultation will take place. Considering the high interest of the public in ensuring that Bush Forever sites are protected and managed in the long term, we recommend that the community and relevant agencies have an opportunity to comment on all proposals with a potential to have an impact on a Bush Forever site through the EPA's formal EIA process.

We recommend Section 27D clearly prescribes the need for consultation, so the may should be changed to shall.This will allow for better scrutiny and a failure to follow the requirement for public consultation may provide an opportunity for the decision to be overturned in the courts.

AMENDMENT REPORT General comments The Conservation Council WA and the Urban Bush land Council WA strongly support the introduction of Bush Forever Protection Areas and the reservation of 94 Bush Forever sites as Parks and Recreation in this Amendment. We agree with the statement on the first page of the Amendment Report that "reservation for Parks and Recreation within the MRS is the most appropriate course of action to provide for acquisition and management by government agencies..." However, the community always requested that all Bush Forever sites, not only those of highest conservation value, are reserved as Parks and Recreation as it gives them greater planning recognition of their conservation values.

The Report should not present the Bush Forever as an implementation plan designed to "achieve a sustainable balance between the conservation of bushland and development within the Perth Metropolitan Region"(page 2). Protection of Bush Forever sites, that aim to protect only 18% of the original vegetation cover on the Swan Coastal Plain portion of the PMR, is an imperative to providing the environmental component of sustainability in Perth Region. In 2000, Bush Forever recognised that bushland conservation not only protects habitats from destruction and saves species from extinction, it also provides invaluable resources for better urban living, education, science, tourism and waterways protection, microclimate control, biological control of pests and diseases. Natural spaces are invaluable and impossible to replace once lost.

We support the moves to consolidate some of the sites by modifying the boundary to reduce the edge effect and assist better management. However, as a result areas with no vegetation or severely disturbed vegetation have been included within the new Bush Forever Protection boundary. For example, Bush Forever site 136 included 13.06 hectares of bushland, now after the proposed changes the area of the BFPA 136 is 56.94 hectares. Similarly, substantial cleared areas have been added to Bush Forever site 418 and 419. In fact, the Amendment Report states that an additional 1, 201 hectares have been included to ensure an appropriate boundary (page 43). It is crucial that the management of these sites is funded properly and

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 - 3 steps are taken to ensure immediate active management according to an approved management plan. More comments on management requirements follow.

Specific comments

Page 38: Part A: Special Control areasBush Forever Protection Areas As already mentioned above, it should be clarified whether Special Control Areas provisions apply in addition to the existing zone requirements or they override them where inconsistencies occur.

We strongly oppose the exclusion of Bush Forever Site 275 from the current amendment process. There are two other sites listed on page 48 of the Amendment Report that will be subject to their own MRS Amendment process, yet they are on Map 1 marked as Bush Forever Protection Areas. Bush Forever site 275 is not marked on Map 1 at all.

As already discussed above, the proposed changes to the Scheme Text refer only to Bush Forever Protection Areas marked on Map 1, which forms part of the Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.8. It is not clear what mechanism will be used to add sites to this map, therefore the future of the Bush Forever site 275 seems to be uncertain. This is not acceptable.

We recommend that Bush Forever site 275 be included on Map 1 and marked as a Bush Forever Protection Area immediately. Bush Forever site 275, Stakehill Swamp, Baldivis contains Conservation Category Wetlands and includes Karrakatta, Central and South vegetation and as such should have a priority in implementation as this is one of the vegetation complexes that will not achieve the 10% target set in Bush Forever. In addition, according to Appendix 2 in the Amendment Report, the Planning Commission has already acquired 35.22 hectares of Bush Forever site 275. We recommend that the site be marked on Map 1 as it appears in the original Bush Forever document (Volume 1, map sheet 75).

Page 40: Reservation of some Bush Forever sites for Parks and Recreation. We support the reservation of all Bush Forever sites proposed in Bush Forever Volume 1 Policies, Principles and Processes (2000) as Parks and Recreation Reserves. However, it is disappointing that some sites are included in separate Amendments awaiting outcomes of other zoning. There certainly seem to be examples of "how bushland fits in with development" rather then "how development fits in with bushland" which is promoted in the Planning Bulletin No 69 as one of the key measures for BFPAs (see comments on specific sites below).

Page 41: Other Government Lands It is disappointing that substantial areas of land in this category are not being considered for rezoning as Parks and Recreation in this amendment. This is contrary to the objectives set out in the Bush Forever document (Government of Western Australia, 2000). In Table 2 in Bush Forever. Volume 1, the objective for the "Other Government Land" implementation category is:

"The protection of State-owned Bush Forever Sites as a priority as a demonstration of the Governments commitment to the implementation of Bush Forever and the whole-of- government approach, while recognising existing planning and environmental commitments and approvals."

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 - 4 - We do not believe that reservation of 14 BushForeversites and partial reservation of 5 Bush Foreversites out of 55 sites in this implementation category demonstrates sufficient commitment. This is in addition to 14 BushForeversites that are not being rezoned in the Local Government Town Planning Scheme Reserves category. A number of those sites that are not proposed for rezoning in this Amendment include Threatened Ecological Communities and vegetation complexes where the 10% target will not be achieved. They include BushForeversites 6, 43B, 50, 53, 86, 88, 196, 213, 294, 360, 386, 387, 306, 321, 365. We recommend that these sites be included for P&R reservation in this amendment as a priority.

We would also like to point out the very unsatisfactory developments and management of natural heritage listed (Register of the National Estate) BushForeversite 386 at Perth Airport. The State Government needs to step up its pressure on the Commonwealth to ensure that comments and advice provided by the state environmental agencies and the local community are reflected in the planning processes at Perth Airport. Past experience is such that the MOU between the State Government and the current lessee Westralia Airports Corporation is not effective and clearly the current management practices (of zero management) are not appropriate.

The Urban Bushland Council urges the Government to consider major changes to secure protection of Perth Airport's wetland heritage in perpetuity. The call is for the land owner, the Commonwealth Government, to excise what remains of the over 600 hectares of Bush Foreversite from the Airport lease and to hand it over to the State Government to manage solely as a nature conservation reserve and for it to remain as an Airport buffer zone.

There are precedents where the Commonwealth has handed back land to a State for the purpose of heritage conservation. Also there are examples like Garden Island, where Commonwealth Department land is managed by CALM for nature conservation.

Furthermore we call upon the State Government to establish as an urgent priority a Foothills Regional Park. This would link the Swan and Canning River systems via the eastern side of the Swan Coastal Plain by including significant wetlands and bushland at Perth Airport, Hadfield Park (BushForeversite 320), Brixton Street wetlands (BushForeversite 387), Dundas Road bushland (BushForeversite 319) and other smaller regionally significant sites. We recommend the Regional Park be managed as a nature conservation reserve by the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Page 41: Urban, urban deferred and industrial Negotiated Planning Solutions. The community has always maintained a view that Negotiated Planning Solutions is not an appropriate mechanism for securing BushForeversites. Public scrutiny of such decisions is denied and BushForeversites are not protected in their entirety.

This section should clearly define what is meant by"reasonable outcome".The definition should be consistent with the SPP No 2.8 and with the Department of Environment's Guidance Statement No 10.

Rural Complementary We support the rezoning of a number of sites in tins implementation category as Parks and Recreation even though they do not cover the whole area of respective sites.

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 - 5 - Page 42: Acquisition and Compensation We support the practice of Bush Forever sites being purchased at the current market value determined by an independent valuation on the basis that the property has not been affected by the reservations.

The statement in the second paragraph of this section is alarming: "Bush Forever sites not proposed for reservation in this amendment but included within the Bush Forever Protection Area will generally not be considered for acquisition by the WAPC." We recommend this statement be deleted.

Shall this be interpreted that the WAPC is not considering any further acquisitions? This is contrary to statements on page 44 of the Amendment Report.

There appear to be a few minor errors in Appendix 2, which is on page 52 of the Amendment Report and not on page 14 as suggested: Reservation of 3.2 ha in Mandogalup in 2000/2001 is listed as "New Reservation" when actually it appears to be part of Bush Forever site 392A. Lot 3 Crabtree St, Alexander Heights is listed as Bush Forever site 327 and Lot 2 Crabtree St, Alexander Heights is listed as Bush Forever site 372. Yet, there does not seems to be Lot 3 at Crabtree St, Alexander Heights. Bush Forever site 493 runs along Crabtree St and the lot numbers are 617 and 690. We recommend Appendix 2 on page 52 be revised considering the comments above.

Future Management Issues The need for adequate management of all Bush Forever sites for conservation cannot be stressed enough. As already mentioned above, a number of sites are under pressure from activities that contribute to degradation due to inadequate funding but mostly because the purpose of the reserves might be different to conservation.

We strongly support the proposition that the purpose of the reserves should be revised to include "conservation" and this should apply to all Bush Forever Protection Areas.

We support the vesting of significant sites containing threatened communities or populations of rare and endangered species with an agency that is able to provide the specialist management these sites require.

We strongly support the need for an assistance scheme, including the Urban Nature Office, to provide assistance with management of sites, whether dealing with an interim manager or the long term. To motivate private land owners to manage their Bush Forever sites, rate relief, exemption from land tax and other incentives should apply. We recommend technical and financial assistance be guaranteed to ensure that the best practice methods are used for bushland management.

Outcomes of the Bush Forever and Related LandsParks and Recreation Reservation Even though this Amendment represents a considerable outcome in Bush Forever implementation it is disappointing that sites with vegetation complexes where the 10% target will not be achieved were not a priority. Vegetation complexes that are poorly represented in reserves proposed in this Amendment include Forrestfield complex (target 5%), Guildford complex (target 3%), Serpentine River complex (target 4%), Beermulah complex (target 5%), Yanga complex (target 9%).

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 6 Mogumber vegetation complex had no protection when the Bush Forever was released in 2000. After this Amendment only 8% of sites with this vegetation complex included in Bush Forever will be reserved for Parks and Recreation. Bush Forever sites with Mogumber complex cover 287 hectares. However, 138 hectares or 48% of these sites are within a "Basic Raw Materials and Titanium Minerals" implementation category (Table 3 and 4 in Government of WA, Bush Forever Volume 1: Policies, Principles and Procedures, 2000). Implication of this is that there might be extensive losses of this vegetation complex resulting in fragmentation of the relevant Bush Forever sites. We recommend all sites with vegetation complexes where the 10% target will not be achieved, and are not included in this Amendment, be added to this amendment as a priority.

When evaluating the overall conservation outcomes, a list of vegetation complexes where the 10% target will not be achieved after gazetting the proposed amendments is needed.

Bush Forever Sites not Proposed for Reservation within this Amendment As already mentioned above, we strongly oppose the omission of Bush Forever site 275 from the Bush Forever Protection Area mapping. Stakehill Swamp, Baldivis (BFS 275) includes a Conservation category wetland and is representative of Karrakatta complexcentral and south, Cottesloe complexcentral and south and Herdsman vegetation complex. Also considering that the government already acquired several lots, we cannot see why this Bush Forever site should not be protected as Bush Forever Protection Area in this Amendment so that it has some interim protection while the relevant MRS Amendment is finalised.

Conclusion The claim that 100% of Bush Forever Sites will be protected within Bush Forever Protection Areas is misleading as Bush Forever site 275, Stakehill Swamp is not identified and marked on the Scheme Map 1.

Also a statement that "The amendment will adequately protect wetlands", (page 49) should include the word "some" as not all wetlands are included in Bush Forever sites. For example, there are Conservation Category Wetlands just outside Bush Forever site 382 or Lake Adams that are not included in Bush Forever and more examples are mentioned below.

Site specific comments

We strongly support the reservation of proposed Bush Forever sites as this is considered to be the most suitable mechanism to ensure long-term protection of these sites.

BFS 50 This is an example where the Government commitment to reserve Government land as priority failed. Part A, 1.99 hectares of this site is a government land, but only part of part B of BFS 50 is being rezoned from Rural to Parks and Recreation. Threatened Ecological Community and Declared Rare Flora are present at Part A of the site. We recommend the government rezones the whole BFS 50 immediately in this Amendment to Parks and Recreation.

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 7 BFS 62 There seem to be a confusion about the size if the site. Appendix 2 shows that the government acquired 18.7 hectares but the Amendment Report states that 20.44 hectares are being rezoned.

BFS 74 We support the change to the boundary as the new one reduces the edge effect and this way management can be more effective. However, substantial funding will be needed to rehabilitate the degraded areas now forming part of the Bush Forever site.

BFS 136 The same applies as to BFS 74

BFS 245 It is disappointing to see the Roe Highway reservation to be excluded from this site. We believe this area should remain part of the BFPA.

BFS 356A Another fragmentation of regionally significant bushland caused by a road. We strongly oppose this trend. More of Lot 785 should be added to this site. Preferably the road should be realigned to avoid fragmentation of the site.

BFS 362 The original BFS boundary extended to the other side of Roman Road. We request a justification why it is not included in this Amendment.

BFS 396 Yet another example where bits of Bush Forever sites are taken out because of road extension. The North West corner of this Bush Forever site is being separated by the proposed Freeway extension. There is an opportunity to compensate for the loss by extending the area of this site to north east, including Lots 1,781 and 2817. This would not only improve the boundary of this site, which is very narrow and elongated, but also provide added protection to a Conservation Category Wetland that occurs there.

BFS 398 Even though the provisions protecting Conservation Category Wetlands should protect the part of the wetland that is being cut off on the southeastern side of this site, its inclusion would provide for better management. Vesting under the same authority as the remaining part of this wetland, which runs through the central part of Bush Forever site 398, would enable better coordinated management to the standard required for long term conservation. Inclusion of this Conservation category Wetland would be supported.

BFS 399 Similarly to BFS 398, a Conservation Category Wetland is being divided by the western boundary of this site, excising most of this wetland from the Bush Forever site. This is not acceptable. The wetland should be included to this site with adequate buffer so that coordinated management for conservation is used within the whole site.

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 - 8 - BFS 413 The Amendment Report claims, "the boundary for the amendment will be over and above the Bush Forever site boundary." However, the plan in Figure 77 and also on Scheme Map 1 excludes a bit of wetland within the northern corner of Lot 1627.

We oppose the proposed boundary and request to return it into the same extent as it appears on Map Sheet 60 in Bush Forever. Volume 1: Policies, Principles and Procedures (Government of WA, 2000).

BFS 418 and 419 We support the addition of buffers to these Bush Forever sites, as they are representative of the Serpentine River vegetation complex, of which only 4% will be protected after full implementation of Bush Forever.

However, long-term commitment, financial and technical support is required to help regenerate these areas with plants sourced from local provenance.

BFS 443 We request a proper justification for the addition of Lot 2130 to the existing Bush Forever site 443, as it appears to be very degraded and include very limited natural vegetation. We appreciate the positives at it will provide a link between regionally significant vegetation in Neerabup National Park and Melaleuca Park.

However, we recommend that' the boundary is reviewed and the connection between Lot 1706 and Lot 2130 is wider, removing the narrow incursion from Lot 5607.

Please note that the addition of the Lot 2130 is not reflected on the Scheme Map 1, we recommend that it be added to the original Bush Forever site if justified.

BFS 449 We support the rezoning of the Bush Forever site 449 as it includes vegetation complexes that will not achieve the 10% target after full implementation of Bush Forever. However, large part of the rezoned lot would not comply with the criteria used for the selection of regionally significant bushland sites. An explanation needs to be provided as to why the proposed change is not recorded on the Scheme Map 1. We recommend that the whole extended site be shown on the Scheme Map 1 as a Bush Forever Protection Area as in BFS 418 and 419.

BFS 465 We support the extension of this site, as it will improve the management possibilities for the Conservation Category Wetland within the site.

BFS 469 We do not support the excision of the parts of the reserve for road widening. The vegetation complex on this site is representative of Karrakatta Central and South, which will not achieve the 10% target after full implementation of Bush Forever. There is cleared land available for the future extension of the road.

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 - 9 - BFS 470 We request a proper justification for the addition to the existing Bush Forever site 470, as the added southern part is a parkland with no understorey and infested with Veldt Grass. If justified the addition should be reflected on the Scheme Map 1.

BFS 471A and B We support the rezoning of the two parts of this site but request an explanation why a section of Lot 2 was not included in this amendment. The site includes Karrakatta complex, Central and South and therefore should be a priority when securing Bush Forever sites.

In addition, Scheme Map 1 does not identify the links between individual parts of this site as part of the Bush Forever Protection Area. Provision of a link will enhance the long-term viability of the area.

BFS 492 We support the extension of the site, as it will enable better management and protection of the Conservation Category Wetland.

BFS 495 We support the extension of this site as now it protects the wetland in its entirety.

References

Robertsday (2003) Capricorn Coastal Village Structure Plan Volume 1 & 2 (Amended Version) Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd

Government of Western Australia (2000) Bush Forever Volume 1: Policies, Principles and Procedures. Western Australian Planning Commission

Myers et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities Nature Vol 403 24 February 2000 pp 853-858

Western Australian Planning Commission (May 2004) Planning Bulletin No 66 Draft Use of Special Control Areas in Town Planning Schemes

Western Australian Planning Commission (July 2004) Planning Bulletin No 69 Proposed Bush Forever Protection Areas (for comment)

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 10 - SUBMISSION

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend

AMENDMENT TO SCHEME TEXT

1 Clearing in Bush Forever sites be expressly prohibited.

2 The role of Special Control Areas be clarified and presented the same way in all relevant documents. Do SCA provisions apply in addition to or override the current zoning provisions?

3 A provision be included to ensure that the proposed provisions will apply to all additional sites nominated in the future.

4 A section be inserted to require that all BFPA be managed by the landholder to preserve and maintain conservation values regardless its current underlying zoning.

5 The community and relevant agencies have an opportunity to comment on all proposals with a potential to have an impact on a Bush Forever site through the EPA's formal EIA process.

6 Section 27D clearly prescribes the need for consultation, so the may be changed to shall

AMENDMENT REPORT

7 Bush Forever site 275 be included on Map 1 and marked as a Bush Forever Protection Area immediately as it appears in the original Bush Forever document (Volume 1, map sheet 75).

8 Bush Forever sites 6, 43B, 50, 53, 86, 88, 196, 213, 294, 360, 386, 387, 306, 321, 365 be included for P&R reservation in this amendment as a priority.

9 The Government to consider major changes to secure protection of Perth Airport's wetland heritage in perpetuity.

10 The State Government to establish as an urgent priority a Foothills Regional Park.

11 The Foothills Regional Park be managed as a nature conservation reserve by the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 -11- 12 Statement "Bush Forever sites not proposed for reservation in this amendment but included within the Bush Forever Protection Area will generally not be considered for acquisition by the WAPC." be deleted.

13 Appendix 2 on page 52 be revised considering the comments in the submission.

14 We strongly support the proposition that the purpose of the reserves should be revised to include "conservation" and this should apply to all Bush Forever Protection Areas.

15 An adequately assistance scheme, including the Urban Nature Office, to provide assistance with management of sites, whether dealing with an interim manager or the long term.

16 Technical and financial assistance be guaranteed to ensure that the best practice methods are used for bushland management.

17 All sites with vegetation complexes where the 10% target will not be achieved, and are not included in this Amendment, be added to this amendment as a priority.

18 Also a statement that "The amendment will adequately protect wetlands", page 49) includes the word "some" as not all wetlands are included in Bush Forever sites.

19 For specific site recommendations refer to the main submission

HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS

Yes, we do wish to speak at the hearings. Please note that due to the very extensive and significant nature of the Amendment we request more than the standard 15 minutes time.

We will be represented by:

Chris Tallentire and C Mary Gray (President) Coordinator And Renata Zelinova Conservation Council Urban Bushland Council WA Inc Of Western Australia Inc Ph (08) 9271 5707 Ph (08) 9420 7266

City West Lotteries House PO Box 326 2 Delhi Street WEST PERTH WA 6872 WEST PERTH WA 6005

Email: Email: chris.tallentire( servation [email protected] 12 November 2004

Submission by the Conservation Council WA and Urban Bushland Council WA November 2004 -12- Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSIONNUMBEA I To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission ±08 PERTH W.A. 6000

Name-17c, EI F--uticck. Gel)AtTKkL1A (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address600 /1 L)U eifirl 1, 1111-7

Contact phone number. . i e,°C;ID Email address e Cc al ait-Sk.' C°+^' 214-

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

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

These hearings are arranged so that the Western Australian Planning Commission canlisten to a person shoutd they wish to explain or expand upon their written submission. A hearing Is intendedfor listening to points of view and planning rationale, and is not a forum of general public debate. In the case of a group, aspokesperson to represent # the group must be appointed.

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

You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you In this written submissionwill betaken Into account in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

Please complete the following:

NO, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign.) or 21 YES, 1 do wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details. You will be contacted to arrange a lime for your hearing.)

I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): or 21 MY AGENT or SPOKESPERSON (an agent may be from a local group) Agents name: PE fES-co-NrEP-- Group name: CC.D 41/44Y1,(41-1 A Agent's telephone number (businessours): alL5 BOO° Mailing address: tic- of.34-t-- ,A4^-,

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.) Or RI/ PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only persons nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Signature Date12 14

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax(00) 92647566; Email mrswapc.wa.gov.au; Internet htlp://www.wapc.wa.gov,au tr.

From: JohnFung_ ) Sent: Friday, 12 November 2004 4:03 PM To: mrs Subject: Submission to Amendment No. 1082/33

Importance: High

Submission to imendment No 108., Dear Sir / Madam,

Re: Submission to Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1082/33. Bush Forever & Related Lands.

Please find attached our Submission on behalf of The Department of Justice. The original Submission and Letter had been faxed and posted in the mail.

If there are further queries please do not hesitate to contact our office on 9215-5000.

Thank you, regards

CCD Australia Pty Ltd

John Fung Civil Engineer

Level 4, 600 Murray St, West Perth WA 6005. PO Box 124 West Perth WA 6872. tel:0892155000 fax:0893221431 http://www.ccdaust.com.au ************************************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately.

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses *************************************************************************************

1 consultingengineers

12 November 2004

Our Ref: WASC04076_C_LET_O2WAPC_JF.DOC

Secretary Western Autralian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

Attention: The Secretary

Dear Sir / Madam,

RE: SUBMISSION: Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No: 1082/33 Amendment to Bush Forever & Related Lands around Casuarina Prison.

CCD Australia Consulting Engineers, on behalf of the Department of Justice, hereby put forward the Submission to the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33, to amend the existing Bush Forever Land / Boundary around Casuarina Prison, Orton Road, Casuarina WA.

The main objective is that Casuarina Prison, categorised as the State's only maximum-

I I security prison, requires an external buffer zone of light vegetation, the purpose is that Prison I Security and Bush-Fire Protection can be improved.

Background I I I I When Casuarina Prison was first commissioned in 1991, categorised as the State's only maximum-security prison, the external perimeter of the prison was originally cleared of all vegetation, the area is defined as a sterile/buffer zone of approximately 50m measured from the perimeter fence, and covers the full 2.4km perimeter of the prison's perimeter. The 50m buffer zone Is a security features, designed to prohibit persons or machineries from hiding behind vegetations for whom may attempt to breach the prison's perimeter, or smuggle drugs or contrabands by means of hurling the items over the perimeter fence. Pole mounted cameras and patrolling officers are able to identify any un-authorization activities within the 50m buffer zone.

With the exception of various small fire-breaks provided by the Fire Authority (FESA), the buffer zone was left to regrow in its natural state, since 1991. CCD Australia conducted a full investigation of the prison's physical security systems' condition in February 2003, the security state of the external buffer zone was identified as unacceptable with the re-growth of larger vegetations.

PERTH OFFICE: Level 4, 600 Murray Street, West Perth WA 6005 AUSTRALIA DUBAI PO Box 124, West Perth WA 6872 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE Tel: +81 8 9215 5000Fax: -1-61 8 9322 1431 PERTH Email: [email protected]: vAvvi.ccdaustralia.com SINGAPORE CCD Australia Pty Ltd as Trustee for CCD Consulting Trust ABN 38 628 906 050 In Spring 2003, under the recommendation of the Department ofConservation and Land Management and the Department of Environment the buffer zone was allowed tobe slashed to 30m at various heights from 100mm to 300mm, due to thepossible presence of declared rare flora. CALM advised that a DRF Surveyshall be completed In 2004 to ensure that rare flora are identified. In Spring 2004, our environmental consultant, Ecoscape,conducted a full DRF survey. No rare flora was identified.

Ob active CCD Australia, on behalf of The Department of Justice is currently seekingto amend the Boundary of Bush Forever around Casuarina from approximately 30m to50m from the Prison's Perimeter. And after amending the Bush Forever Boundary, to carry outslashing, clearing and mulching annually, with the aid of the Department of Environment's Application for a Clearing Permit (Purpose Type Permit), as to maintain the security ofthe Prison Complex.

If there are any queries please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely, Kind regards

CCD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

John Fung Civil Engineer

c.c: Peter Cotter, Associate, CCD Australia Pty Ltd. Neville Moyle, Manager Operations, Casuarina Prison, Dept of Justice. Peter Naylor, Manager Assets, Department of Justice.

WASC04076 C LET 02VIAPC cloc Page 2 I. -- -

S Submission 109 s I

Ref 12 1 5

11 November 2004 TMENTTOR.PIAMING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1 2 NOV 2004 Mr Jeremy Dawkins Chairman Western Australian Planning Commission FILE8D 7e..2 Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street eps---,2-f-sc2pa(0 PERTH WA 6000

Dear Jeremy

Draft Bushland policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region statement of planning policy 2.8 and Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No.1082/33Bush Forever and Related lands

As the peak body representing the development industry in Western Australia, the Urban Development Instituteof Australia (UDIA) values Western Australia'sunique natural environment and appreciates the contribution of the state'snativeflora,fauna and ecosystems to our urban and non-urban landscapes.In this regard UDIA maintains a vital interest in the development of conservation policy by government, and has an ongoing practice of making contributions to conservation policy development.

On this basis we make the following key comments regarding Perth Metropolitan Region statement of planning policy 2.8 and Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No.1082/33 Bush Forever and Related lands:

UDIA does not believe that the reservation of small, fragmented areas of urban bushland is an effective mechanism to achieve real conservation outcomes.

There is currently an imbalanced focus on bushiand reservation in the metropolitan region which is being applied to the detriment of conservation in regional areas and the draft SPP and MRS Amendment will further increase this imbalance.

The lack of effective management of Bush Forever reserves has limited the potential foreffective conservation outcomes arising from the policy and without very substantial further funding for management this problem is likely to be exacerbated by proposed SPP 2.8 and MRS Bush Forever Amendment.

Whilst this is a document which purports to be a planning outcome all reference to the assessments is heavily skewed to the environment. We believe that all planning policy should provide balanced consideration of social, economic and environmental issues and have as a primary focus an aim to ensure proper spatial land use outcomes.

The existing Bush Forever process to date has been cumbersome and costly for land owners and the draft SPP does not resolve many of the serious problems for landowners that have been identified by UDIA.

Level 11, 111 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000 Telephone: (08) 9321 1101Facsimile: (08) 9321 1102 Email: [email protected] www.udiawa.com.au ABN 63221168944 The draft SPP does not allow for the proper compensation of affected land owners or developers.

The draft SPP and MRS Amendment will place very high, ongoing management costs on individual land owners for limited private and public benefit. We do not believe that this is acceptable.

The proposed SPP does not adequately consider opportunities for bushland to be incorporated into Public Open Space and better add to the amenity of residential estates.

The 'taking' of additional private land for a public purpose that is proposed in the SPP is legally questionable as it is above the 10% that is already provided by developers (as a minimum) free of cost for Public Open Space and which legal principle has established as the 'reasonable amount of land' that can be ceded by government from a private party at the time of subdivision.

UDIA would not support the imposition of local biodiversity strategies which do not provide compensation to landowners at fair market value or which require landowners to pay for the management of bushland reserves.

We request that opportunities further consultation and debate on conservation in urban areas and proper compensation for landowners prior to the finalisation of this policy.

UDIA suggests that government reconsider its current conservation policy focus on the preservation of urban bushland.We also call for a whole of government approach to resolving the issue of compensation for landowners impacted by planning and environmental policy, particularly in regards to conservation which we note is influenced by a wide range of government agencies in this state.

In this regard, we believe that the draft SPP and MRS Amendment requires redrafting to properly consider the need for balanced social, economic and environmental outcomes, to provide adequate opportunities for the fair and proper compensation ofall impacted landowners and to ensure that there is adequate funding available for the long term effective management of all urban bushland reserves by government.

The Effectiveness of Urban Reserves

The growth of Perth has placed pressure on the natural environment in and around the city and today only approximately 28% of the original extent of native vegetation on the Swan Coastal Plain remains. Although most of the vegetation complexes still exist, the majority are poorly represented on small, generally isolated remnants throughout the city. The long term viability of these areas as habitats for native species is limited by a number of factors, including,size,fragmentation,disturbance,pollutionstress and the need foractive management.

Research undertaken in the Perth metropolitan area shows that native species, particularly native fauna are disadvantaged in urban remnants, with few species of native mammal surviving the effects of long term fragmentation. This suggests that these types of reserves do not contain adequate resources to support viable populations.

In addition, a study of mammals, passerine birds and lizards in native vegetation reserves in Western Australia, found that some species are only found in undisturbed reserves, while others also occupied fields and roadsides. The study found that as a parcel of habitat becomes smaller,it contains disproportionately more species characteristic of disturbed habitats.Small remnants were found to be primarily effective in conserving reptile species, but only where there is active management to exclude fire and predation. Pollution stress has also been found to decrease the number of rare or moderately abundant species, decreasing species richness.

UDIAistherefore concerned that urban reserves have limitedpotentialtoachieve conservation outcomes which are sustainable in the long term in respect of protecting ecological processes, environmental quality, natural habitats and species diversity and abundance. UDIA's research leads to the conclusion that improved conservation outcomes would be achieved by focusing on the reservation of larger, less fragmented and less disturbed areas of native vegetation located outside urban areas.

Imbalanced Focus on Conservation in Urban Areas

The Perth Metropolitan Region is located within the Swan Coastal Plain Bioregion, province SWA2. According to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, 11.15% of the area is currently within formal reserves. This will increase to 13.31% following the inclusion of old growth forest policy areas.

This level of reservation is substantially higher than the current average level of reservation for provinces in the state (6.6%) and is a greater level of reservation than is provided in 67% of bioregional provincesin Western Australia.Itisalso a significantly higher level of reservation than is currently provided in areas of greater species diversity than the Swan Coastal Plain. For example just 1.62% and 1.52% of the provinces in the Avon Wheatbelt Bioregion are currently in reserves, despite the region having among the greatest species richness in Australia.

In this regard we question the imbalanced focus of the current and preceding government on conservation in urban areas, which can achieve limited conservation outcomes at best, while conservationinregional areas, where there are opportunities to achieve high quality conservation outcomes, is being substantially neglected.

Proper Management of Bush land Sites

One of the primary concerns of UDIA developer members regarding the current Bush Forever process is that sites are not being properly managed by either state or local government after they have been surrendered by land owners.

UDIA has received ongoing complaints regarding that the lack of effective management of bushland areas leading to the sites becoming illegal rubbish dumps, being susceptible to vandalism and fire, suffering serious problems with weed invasion and being unusable for recreation and achieving no or severely limited conservation outcomes.This type of mismanagement can have negative impacts on the surrounding community.

The implementation of local biodiversity strategies as proposed in draft SPP 2.8 will lead to the identification of even more bushland sites which require ongoing management and will exacerbate this problem.

UDIA believes that if sites have been recognised for protection there is a need to ensure that adequate funds are available to enable their proper management.

Achieving Balanced Outcomes

UDIA believes that the proposed SPP and MRS Amendment provide an excellent opportunity to provide for the balanced assessment of new proposals against economic, social and environmental outcomes.

In this regard, we believe that the WAPC as a planning agency is best placed to ensure a balanced outcome in regards to environmental issues. One of our primary concerns with the draft SPP and proposed MRS amendment is that whilst thisis a document which purports to be a planning outcome -allreference to the assessments is heavily skewed to the environment. For example in SPP No2.8 in Schedule No 1 outlines a planning assessment process for NPS is totally dominated by environmental criteria despite previous wordage about balanced outcomes and triple bottom line.We believe that it is entirely inappropriate for a Planning document to pay such scant regard to other land issues such as;

Location of the site and proximity to infrastructure The suite of other planning policies in operation Urban infill objectives Triple Bottom Line Zoning of the land in TPS and MRS Reasonable development expectations.

We therefore suggest that the policy is redrafted to provide for more balanced consideration of economic, social and environmental outcomes.

Overcoming Current Bush Forever Implementation Problems

The existing Bush Forever process to date has been cumbersome and costly for land owners and we are disappointed that the draft SPP does not resolve many of the serious implementation problems for landowners that have been identified by UDIA and have been previously presented to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

UDIA has serious concerns that the Negotiated Planning Solution process will become even more difficult for landowners under the proposed SPP and that opportunities for true negotiated or balanced outcomes willbe reduced through the implementation of the Negotiated Planning Solution Criteria, which as previously noted, are totally dominated by environmental outcomes.

A survey undertaken by UDIA in late 2002 identified a number of problems confronting developer members whose land was impacted by Bush Forever. This primarily related to the timeliness, simplicity and transparency of the negotiated planning solution process.

A summary of the findings of our member survey is provided below:

Developers find the process extremely time consuming. 86% of respondents said that it had taken over 12 months to reach a negotiated planning solution for a site. 50% of respondents said that they find the process complex and requires developers to liaise with a wide range of stakeholders. Lack of a statutory framework for implementation. Significant uncertainty among developers regarding the application of Bush Forever principles and justification for the inclusion of an area in Bush Forever estate. Developers are uncertain about their rights in negotiation or what they are able to achieve through the negotiation process. There is virtually no advice provided on steps to be followed or the way forward to successfully negotiate or conclude outstanding issues. Officers are not able to make commitments. As a result, the negotiated outcomes are often changed by the final decision making body. Monetary compensation is not being offered in the negotiation process.

While a statutory framework has been favoured by industry to provide a clear and accountable framework for the implementation of Negotiated Planning Solutions we do not believe the proposed SPP will achieve this goal.

As such we urge the WAPC to further develop the Negotiated Planning Solution process to provide real opportunities for the compensation of land owners and developers impacted by Bush Forever and to achieve balanced planning outcomes. In this regard we suggest that, as a minimum, the proposed SPP and MRS Amendment be amended to provide a statutory basis for Negotiated Planning Solutions which would include:

Time limits must be set for negotiation of outcomes, agreement on value of land, payment of monetary compensation, and ratification of arrangements. Procedural steps in the negotiation process must be clearly identified and documented. Nominated flatrate/hafor land, which would remove some subjectiveness from negotiation. Clearly identified and communicated trade-offs open to developers to create justification for NPS outcomes. Greater opportunity for the application of POS credits for Bush Forever reservation. Improved processes and funding for the management of Bush Forever reserves after they are surrendered by landowners.

Furthermore it is evident that to be successful, Negotiated Planning Solutions require trade- offs and the DPI officers who are involved in the negotiation process would therefore need to have sufficient authority to reach a binding agreement.

In addition to these measures, we believe that there needs to be a comprehensive review of the monetary funding available to compensate landowners impacted by Bush Forever. We therefore urge- the WAPC to review the funding requirements fOr Bush Forever to ensure more effective and efficient outcomes.

Fair Compensation for Impacted Landowners

UDIA acknowledges that there are values derived from the preservation of urban bushland with conservation values and that there is strong community desire to preserve more bushland in urban areas.

However we strongly believe that if sites are to be protected for the benefit of all Western Australians, the cost of conservation should be equally borne by all and should not place and unfair or inequitable burden on individual landowners.

Despite this,itis clear that the wider community is reluctant to pay for these types of initiatives and we believe that unless mechanisms are found that provide for palatable community funding of conservation, government must recognise that community aspirations may not be realistic or implementable.

We note that one local authority recently surveyed rate payers and found that while 95% of people would like more bushland areas preserved, only 5% were willing to pay. UDIA recognises that this presents a fundamental problem for government, but we do not believe that this provides a right or mandate for state of local government to simply pass this cost on to individual land owners and companies.

UDIA, with the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia and the Property Council of Australia (WA Division) has formed the 'Coalition for Property Rights' and, fundamental to the aims of this group is to ensure proper compensation for all land owners whose land is 'sterlilised' by planning policy.

Policies such as the existing WAPC Bush Forever policy and draft SPP 2.8 are key examples of policies that impact on the use and value of private land without providing appropriate avenues for compensation.

In this regard, we are concerned that the proposed SPP and MRS will legitimise the ability for the state government to undertake 'defacto acquisition' of private land for public purposes without providing any avenues for compensation and potentially imposing long term costs and uncertainty on individual land owners who will be forced to manage urban bushland for conservation purposes. It has been suggested by UDIA Members that this type of 'defacto acquisition' may be unconstitutional and should be tested in the High or Supreme Courts.

In this regard there is legal opinion that the 'taking' of additional private land for a public purpose that is proposed in the SPP is legally questionable as it is above the 10% that is already provided by developers (as a minimum) free of cost for Public Open Space and which legal principle has established as the 'reasonable amount of land' that can be ceded by government from a private party at the time of subdivision.

There is also a legal view that this type of 'acquisition' could give rise to claims for compensation under common law, however it is our understanding that this would potentially require land owners to determine before the High or Supreme Court that the inclusion of private property within a Bush Forever Protection Area constitutes the taking of land (where the measures result in diminished economic value or constrain the use of the land) and therefore give rise to a right for compensation.

However, even if successful for property owners, this type of response would be very costly and time consuming for both land owners and for government. We believe that it would be far more effective for the State Government to develop a whole of government approach to resolving the issue of compensation for property owners impacted by planning and environmental policy before the SPP and MRS Amendment become law.

Management Cost to Land Owners and Local Authorities

As well as the very high cost burden of the defacto acquisition of valuable urban land without compensation, UDIA has serious concerns that the policy will place significant ongoing cost burdens on small landowners who have a BFPA on their site which is earmarked for 'private conservation'. Furthermore, we have serious concerns that the development of local biodiversity strategies will increase the cost burden on landowners for the preservation of sites that do not have recognised scientific conservation values.

Research statistics compiled by consultants BSD and provided to UDIA show that the cost of managing urban bushland reserves is extremely high. For example, statistics from 3 major Perth local authorities show that, on average, it costs $1,000 per hectare per year to manage urban bushland reserves. This provides for basic management, such as weed control, labour and some revegetation. Furthermore, current evidence shows that the cost of management of urban reserves increases as the size of the reserve decreases.

It would be completely unreasonable to expect an individual land owner to bear these types of costs for a public benefit (however, if these sites remain in private ownership and therefore outside public access, the level of benefit obtained by the public would be very limited). Despite this,itis evident that without at least some basic level of management urban bushland reserves do not retain any scientific value.

This clearly begs the question as to how local authoritieswill pay for the ongoing management of any sites identified within local strategies.

UDIA will strongly resist any requirements through local biodiversity strategies for individual landowners to pay for the preservation and/or maintenance of local bushland without access to fair compensation.

Conflicting Goals of Urban Consolidation vs Urban Bush land Preservation

There has recently been extensive debate about the future growth patterns of our city and the need to reduce urban sprawl by better consolidating urban growth within existing urban areas. It is recognised by the State Government that in order to achieve this there will need for significant infill development. UDIA has concerns that the ever increasing focus of reserving urban bushland is in direct contradiction with the strategic direction of more consolidated growth patterns in Perth as advocated by the Network City Strategy.

As previously outlined UDIA believes that as planning agencies the WAPC as well as individual local authorities have a responsibility to consider the economic and social impacts of the proposed policy as well as the potential impact that such policies will have on the spatial development of the metropolitan region.

Consultation with Industry and Landowners

UDIA is concerned that the proposed policy will provide a basis for both BFPA sites and for sites identified by local biodiversity strategies to be reserved at the cost of the individual landowner without the opportunity for broad consultation with either industry or landowners.

Whilst we thank the WAPC for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposal, we believe that, considering the potential for far reaching impacts, not only on landowners with identified BFPA sites on their land, but potentially on a very large number of property owners whose land could be identified by local biodiversity strategies, there is a need for increased public consultation and debate regarding compensation and funding for compensation on the policy.

In particular, we strongly believe that, if local biodiversity strategies are to be prepared by local authorities, clear guidance should be provided by the state government to ensure that the methodology for preparing the strategies is technically veracious and scientifically valid and industry and local landowners should have the opportunity to participate in determining this methodology.

We acknowledge that the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) has prepared guidelines for the preparation of biodiversity strategies, however there has been no formal opportunity for industry or the community to provide input into or comment on the guidelines prior to implementation. We believe that proper consultationis absolutely necessary for such an important document if it is to form the basis for the preparation of local biodiversity strategies and that the WAPC should by the lead agency in this process.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on draft SPP 2.8 and proposed MRS Amendment No.1082/33 Bush Forever and Related Lands.Please contact me on 9321 1101 if you would like to discuss any of the issues identified above.

Yours sincerely

MARION FULKER Executive Director Submission 110

AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS GROUP

11 November 2004 DttOWKIETLITNTPTAIML) ILAD INFRAC;IfithiTURE

1 2 NOV2004

FILE c24-771 The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission fps P to Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir

SUBMISSION BY AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS GROUP: MRS AMENDMENT NO 1082133BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS DRAFT STATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION (BUSH FOREVER SITE 481 LOTS 20 AND 145 STIRLING CRESCENT AND TALBOT ROAD, HAZELMERE)

Thank you for providing the opportunity to make submissions on MRS Amendment 1082/99 and Draft Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 (SPP 2.8). Automotive Holdings Group (AHG), makes this submission as the owner of land within Lots 20 and 145 Stirling Crescent and Talbot Road Hazelmere, which form part of Bush Forever Site 481.

Subject Land

AHG is the owner of approximately 10 ha land parcel at Hazelmere, comprising three lots: Lot 1, 20 and 145 Stirling Crescent and Talbot Road. Figure 1 shows the location and land use, and ownership context of the land parcel.

Portions of Lot 20 and 145 were included in Bush Forever Site No. 481 Stirling Crescent Bushland, Hazelmere (Government of Western Australia, 2000). Figure 2 shows the extent of the. Bush Forever site in relation to the AHG land.

21 Old Aberdeen Place, West Perth, Western Australia6005 Tel:(08)94227676Fax:(08)94227686 Email: [email protected] Automotive Holdings Group Pty LtdABN 30 943 864 880 The land to the immediate north and east of AHG's land is road reserve in the ownership of Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA). The land has been held by MRWA for many years with the long term plan that a major interchange would need to be constructed over it at some future time, as the metropolitan area grows and the road system requires expansion. This land is naturally vegetated and was also included in Bush Forever site 481. 1. At the time of purchasing these three titles AHG was not aware of the inclusion of part of the land parcel within Bush Forever. At all times AHG had planned to develop and use the land for depot for heavy haulage transport. The land parcel had been selected because of its proximity to existing major heavy haulage routs and because of the long term plan by Main Roads to construct a major interchange, when such a depot would have a strategic advantage with excellent exposure.

The well documented Main Roads expansion plans are in direct conflict with the proposed Bush Forever annexation of land. This is another example of why it is not unreasonable for AHG to have been unaware of the Bush Forever impediment.

The use of the depot as a destination point for heavy haulage vehicles would have had a beneficial effect in reducing such traffic within heavily urbanised highways by encouraging the use of heavy haulage perimeter highways.

AHG's plans have been severely compromised by inclusion of part of the land parcel within Bush Forever site 481. It is apparent that the MRS Amendment in conjunction with SPP 2.87 will extinguish any opportunity to develop the land concerned as planned by AHG.

As part of the MRS Amendment 1082/33, a Special Control Area, called a Bush Forever Protection Area (BFPA), is proposed for Bush Forever Site No. 481.However,itis not proposed to be reserved for Parks and Recreation.

The draft SPP proposes that Bush Forever sites not identified for reservation in the MRS Amendment but included within a BFPA will generally not be considered for acquisition by the WAPC and as a result, compensation is unlikely to be available to the private landowner.It is mentioned that the individual owner bear the burden of restrictions on their land, and the burden of managing the bushland for a public benefit.It is considered particularly unfair that AHG, had purchased the properties without being aware of its inclusion in Bush Forever, where it had no opportunity to make representations at the time of formulation of Bush Forever and will find its plans wholly frustrated by the MRS Amendment and SPP 2.8.

BFPA sites will be subject to the land use and management controls specified in the relevant implementation category, which in this case for Lots 20 and 145 is "Rural Lands" and will be protected for conservation and managed through the policy measures highlighted in SPP 2.8. It is considered that AHG will not be able to use any of the land holdings for a truck depot, and will sustain serious financial loss as a result.

2. AHG objects in the strongest terms to the proposals contained within MRS Amendment and draft SPP 2.8 in that:

gazettal of MRS Amendment and draft SPP 2.8 will preclude AHG from making use of the land the subject of this submission for any economically viable use which amounts to a taking of their rights to enjoy use of our land in accordance with fundamental rights as owners, without any compensation for this takingwe submit that this is in violation of their rights as property owners

the policy measures highlighted in Section 5.2.4 and Schedule 2 of the SPP for "Rural Lands" will result in AHG being forced to bear the long-term costs of managing and reserving the remnant vegetation identified on our land for a public benefit, without any compensation or funding of these costs from the state,.

the relative size of Bush Forever site within AHG Land Holdings is such that the bushland on this site cannot be economically managed.The outcome would be a complete loss of AHG's investment and inequitable financial burden that cannot be recovered. Management of the bushland cannot be sustained on this basis in the long term.

We submit that this is both unreasonable and inequitable as AHG will be forced to bear the costs of the state meeting its conservation aspirations in addition to the loss of rights to use our land to its highest and best use.

It is inequitable and improper to expect a select group of private landowners to individually bear the cost of the State meeting its conservation objectives.

The implementation of SPP 2.8 will amount to the state government being able to legally undertake 'defacto acquisition' of private land for public use and benefit, without providing adequate avenues for compensation for the private landowner.

The only avenue available for compensation for BFPA areas within Rural Lands is identified in Schedule 2 of the SPP, which states that where "...agreement cannot be reached, or where it is considered the most appropriate option, the Commission may opt (in agreement with the landowner and subject to the availability of funds) to purchase the land and covenant and on- sell it to a landowner who is willing to manage the land for conservation."

This policy measure is considered to be unrealistic. Due to the location and relatively small size of the BFPA site in question, it is considered highly unlikely that there would be a landowner willing to buy the site for future conservation, let alone fund its ongoing management.

3. Conclusion

It is submitted that given the severe and unjust burden that would be imposed on affected landowners generally and AHG in particular, neither MRS Amendment 1082 of SPP2.8 should be proceeded with.

It is the AHG's submission that if the WAPC intends to proceed with MRS Amendment 1082/33 and SPP2.8 that the area within AHG's landholdings forming part of Bush Forever site 481 should not be included within the Special Control Area (Bush Forever Protection Area).It is submitted that this is fair and equitable given AHG's particular circumstances and is supported by proper planning considerations.

In the alternative if the WAPC is resolved to proceed with measures to preserve bushland under the MRS Amendment 1082/33 and SPP 2.8, then AHG submits that the proper and equitable approach is to place the land within an appropriate Reservation under the MRS, which is the appropriate mechanism for imposing a public requirement on privately owned land.

Yours sincerely AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS GROUP

Mielle Wheatley Harris D' tor

rIDATATROPERTY \Hazelmere.cloc

4. , wi T

'sr 141113111VISOnt 7 zzi 1 z :11114 r ssi - ,a, ir i, i11 $1 z r 10 I INAS ll. yil 11 Skil" ars did, 'maid , s4s 1 1 CV 03 4,2,111114, , aswoolat oln frit .1111 CO ' CO , d' LL

1.1.611% H alOGOPP40000010a ii91A7911mt

" 'j 14;I. , , ua XlIa HP naith Tim 1N T.1 H 0 C7 0

iz a 0 'iliii ,tletiri 7 Plilillj Ifi'llial111fran" d gilitigAll 07 ? uIN zzizzz1.' zz-1.17. d '',.. C 3 zolzzz,z t,'Ii'l .!""lr "" 0 z 1 zzlzzl ""'" " ' 05 co . n' I' uultit hulp.,9d,lid,..,,, z ''fi :',7 :; z z z mill 1.....16 m''99 C z zzz l'"ialiii:: 11 " 0 11: .1 1 1'9 '""1:::;" b ,,,,I. 1 Thu1 ii iill'ilii,""rhul:rl21:" CO O ., in 0 i,, ,'41y -J 1,, 'r' .1 , , Illt . ',. ,I. .6 I km! 1 X41od : I,,'14 ' 1 i" 10. io,dilii i I.i 81. ..p

.. 00,

'11 4111 1111, iii:111129 h idirr: lizz H." ff....101..1 ° a,n1paffil'Itgre .1Ai'if III' :91 - ErPalit Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 Section 33 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 6A

SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER & RELATED LANDS

OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER I To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA. 6000 Submission 114

Name AnclreN1-ta3 (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address P (3 ib5 o isA tv pe-c-- Postcode iiC 61c)

Contact phone number. (OS) 't4230600Email address an cic eAu @ c.q anChe p oet au(

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

...44wsof _

1 2 NoV 2004

TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions

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

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

Please complete the following:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted In PUBLIC (with a public hearing other persons, including the media, may attend.) or PRIVATE (a private hearing is conducted behind closed doors and only persons nominated by you and the Hearings Committee may attend.)

TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE SUBMISSION

Pp Signature Date ia.(Il /04

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

Contacts: Telephone(08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Internet - hilpi/www.wapc.wa.gov.au 12 November 2004

Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street Reply Paid 80014 PERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir/Madam

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

Please accept this submission from the Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture that includes comments on the Western Australian Planning Commission's Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33 Bush Forever & Related Lands which was released for comment in August 2004. The submission also includes comments on the draft Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 released for comment in July 2004.

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

The Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture has some significant concerns about the Special Control Areas along the coastline in the Yanchep-Two Rocks area.The Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture is concerned that the boundaries of the Bush Forever site are not exactly the same as the Parks & Recreation boundary in the current Metropolitan Region Scheme. In several sections the Bush Forever boundary encroaches significantly into the Urban zoned land while in a few instances the Bush Forever boundary is on the coastal side of the P&R boundary. Altogether there is a net loss of developable land for.Therefore, the Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture objects to the Bush Forever Protection Area and the Special Control Area over the area shown in the MRS Amendment report.

Draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) No. 2.8

The Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture is planning to develop two large parcels of coastal land in the North-West Corridor for urban purposes. The western portion of this land along the coastlineis reserved for Parks and Recreation in the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The future urban development of this land will require the consideration of management of this coastline.Such consideration will include the appropriate location of recreational services such as carparks, paths, grassed areas and commercial facilities such as kiosks and cafés and possibly a surf club.The Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture supports the proposed process of decision making for Bush Forever Protection Areas that are within the Bush Forever Reserve (Proposed and Existing) category that requires the consideration of the overall purpose and intent of an existing reserve and the requirement to consider proposals in terms of the wider environmental, social, economic or recreational needs.This is particularly applicable to coastal foreshore reserves where the provision of facilities within foreshore reserves usually requires the clearing of some native vegetation.

The Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture supports the intent of including Local Bush land in the SPP as we have previously experienced delays in approvals resulting from decisions on whether certain areas of vegetation should be protected in public open space. However, in the absence of a local bushland protection strategy, The Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture endorses the statement in the Policy that decision-making should not be refused because a local bushland protection strategy has not been produced. The Policy contains an interim measure for decision-making prior to the endorsement of a local bushland protection strategy. The wording for the proposed interim measure is unclear and should be reworded and sent out for further comment. The issue of locally significant bushland has already affected planning approvals in the Yanchep-Two Rocks area and needs to be tightened so that decision- making authorities can make clear decisions without being held up by local bush issues.

Please do not hesitate to contact Andrew Hagen on 9483 0600 to discuss comments made in this submission.

Yours sincerel

ANDREW GEN Capricorn Coastal Village JV Message Submission 112

From: Owens, Shani .1] Sent: Friday, 12 November 2004 5:15 PM To: mrs Cc: Mitchell, Dave; Gepp, Teresa Subject: WAPC MRS amendment and draft Statement of Planning Policy for Bush Importance: High Please find attached CALM's submission on the MRS amendment and draft Statement of Planning Policy for Bush Forever.

5hani Owens Personal Assistant to the A/Director of Nature Conservation Department of Conservation and Land Management Locked Bag 104 Bentley Delivery CentreWA6983 Ph:(08) 9442 0302 Fax: (08) 9386 1286 Email: shanioecalm.wcogov.au

This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the addressee only. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender, delete the email and attachments from your system and destroy any copies you may have taken of the email and its attachments. Duplication or further distribution by hardcopy, by electronic means or verbally is not permitted without permission.

OEPAR1MUNt tiMTOSJICil / INPRA:Tt ROCTUPC:

1 2 NOV 2004

since--(-3.2,pa(0

15/11/2004 809-2-1-77 Pt1 SWN2003F655V02 Gordon Wyre (08) 9442 0302 (08) 9386 1286 [email protected]

Secretary Western Australia Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION STATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY NO.2.8

The Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) has been an active participant in the Perth's Bushplan and Bush Forever programs. CALM recognises the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) and the WA Planning Commission (WAPC) have made important advances in the preparation of the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment and Draft Bush land Policy as further progress towards adequate protection and management of Bush Forever sites.

The Department previously provided comment to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure on an early draft of the Amendment and Bush land Policy, and notes that some of those comments have not been included in this recent draft. Some of these outstanding issues have been repeated here.

CALM's comments fall into the following areas:

concern that the MRS Amendment and Bush land Policy could be interpreted as including a requirement for CALM to obtain WAPC approval for common management works on CALM managed land that are within Bush Forever Protection Areas. discussion on the rezoning of areas of State forest from the State Forest Reservation to a Parks and Recreation Reservation. comments relating to some of the specific proposals within the Amendment. comments relating to the text of the Draft Bush land Policy. clarification regarding the role of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in relation to management on lands not vested with the Conservation Commission of WA.

SPECIAL CONTROL AREAS BUSH FOREVER PROTECTION AREAS

CALM supports the concept of Bush Forever Protection Areas (BFPAs) but has significant concerns over the subsequent administrative and approvals process suggested by the Amendment to Scheme Text, Amendment Report and Draft Bush land Policy for CALM management on lands vested with the Conservation Commission of WA. 2

This concern relates particularly to the possibility that standard reserve management practices undertaken in accordance with the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 may require development approval from the WAPC and interpretation of the terms 'development' and 'adverse impact' in the Draft Bush land Policy.

The basis of the concern is the following proposed amendment to the Scheme text:

"(1) No person shall commence or carry out development in the Bush Forever Protection Area except with the prior written approval of the Commission to do so."

It appears that the proposed MRS Text Amendment as stated will apply to any development proposals that are within the BFPA rather than only development proposals that involve clearing of regionally significant vegetation within the BFPA.

The text of the Draft Bush land Policy (Section 5. Policy Measures and interpretation of Adverse Impact and Significant Adverse Impact) infers that WAPC or local government approval is required for any action that involves the clearing of any bushland in a Bush Forever Reserve.This definition would include many common reserve management activities carried out by CALM, such as walk trail, track, firebreak and fence maintenance and construction, and fire management (including wildfire suppression and fuel reduction burns and other fire protection works). The General Policy Measures (Section 5.100)a) requires the preparation of a Statement of Environmental Effects and Environmental Management Plan for a planning assessment.

While the Specific Policy Measures for Bush Forever Reserves do allow for exceptions under Section 5.2.10) that permit clearing of bushland, it is noted that the Draft Bush land Policy states (page 4) that Specific Policy Measures apply in addition to the General Policy Measures. Therefore it appears that the planning assessment under 5.1(iii)a is required regardless of an exception under 5.2.1(i).

The need to obtain written approval for all development on a case-by-case fails to recognise that under the CALM Act, CALM, the Conservation Commission of WA and the Minister for the Environment, through statutory planning and community consultation processes are both required and able to address complex planning, management and visitor use issues to achieve balanced environmental outcomes.

Any requirement to gain written approval of the WAPC to undertake development works also fails to recognise the inherent expertise within CALM and the Conservation Commission of WA in managing and protecting conservation areas. CALM is Western Australia's lead agency in protecting and managing conservation reserves (including urban bushland) and has statutory functions in this regard. As such CALM should be treated differently from private developers or infrastructure providers who are seeking to utilise Bush Forever Sites for purposes other than conservation or passive recreation.It should also be noted that the CALM Act imposes clear management constraints on Conservation Commission of WA land, including restrictions on leases, licences and permits issued.

In addition the CALM Act, and policy and procedures of the Conservation Commission of WA and CALM already require a planning, assessment and approvals process for works on CALM managed lands. Requiring a second assessment process through the WAPC would be applying an unnecessary duplication and could be unnecessarily and unreasonably restrictive on CALM in managing the significant areas of land under its control that are included within Bush Forever Sites.

If this is to be applied to the many works that CALM undertakes in managing and protecting conservation areas in BFPAs, and the definition of 'development' remains ambiguous, then it is likely the WAPC and local government will be assessing many applications which have little or no impact on, and may improve, the protection and management of these areas. 3

CALM notes that there are exceptions from the requirement for WAPC approval identified in the Amendment to Scheme Text (27C(2)) which apply to two specific scenarios. A possible means to address the above issues is to add a third point of exemption under the proposed Amendment to Scheme Text 27C(2) as follows:

(c) is located on land managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management in accordance with a Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 management plan, or where there is no management plan has been through a Compatible Operations or Necessary Operations approvals process.

Alternative means to prevent duplication and unnecessary assessment processes may be possible. For example the WAPC could formally recognise the Conservation Commission of WA and CALM as decision making authorities.

RESERVATION OF SOME BUSH FOREVER SITES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION

CALM notes that there is likely to be confusion regarding terminology on reserves and reservation.For example, between State forest as a tenure and State Forest as a reservation under the MRS, and between the concept of reservation or reserve under the MRS and Crown Reserves.

CALM acknowledges that planning reservation for Parks and Recreation is the most appropriate course of action to provide for acquisition and management of new Bush Forever areas and can provide forincreased planning protection. This is appropriate where it provides genuine protection for bushland thatwould otherwise not be available due to zoning that allows clearing of vegetation. Such clearing is not an issue in formal conservation reserves, which are fully protected under the CALM Act.

Proposals Affecting State Forest

There are a number of proposals that involve the change of MRS reservation over parts of State forest, from "State Forest" to "Parks and Recreation". CALM has previously advised the DPI of its concerns over this concept. The Department's current concerns are:

1. The rationale for changing portions of land with the tenure of State forest and an MRS reservation of State Forest to an MRS reservation of Parks and Recreation when the tenure is to remain as State forest.

2.The redundancy of changing MRS reservation from State Forest to Parks and Recreation on Bush Forever sites where they will already be BFPAs, which have a suite of controls and requirements under the Bush land Policy that override the reservation category of the land.

The text includes the statement "Due to the size of many areas of State forest, these areas are important conservation reservations within Bush Forever as they provide some of the largest bushland areas within the metropolitan region.It is important to conserve and protect these areas formally through the Parks and Recreation reservation to provide planning security and add recognition of their intent. Their inclusion in Parks and Recreation reservation does not atter their current management by DCLM or change their tenure in any way."

All areas of State forest included in this amendment are managed for multiple use including conservation, recreation, and natural resources under the Forest Management Plan.Recognition of the conservation values of these areas and planning security are provided through existing CALM Act processes. Given the existing statutory protection and control of these areas, and that the change to reservation does not change the security or management of the sites, the necessity for any change in reservation is questioned. 4

CALM queries the need for Parks and Recreation zoning for areas of State forest tenure as greater planning protection is provided through the BFPAs. The change of zoning under the MRS to Parks and Recreation is unnecessary and is likely to create confusion by having areas with the tenure of State forest having a Parks and Recreation zoning rather than the State Forest zoning. The change would also appear to add another layer of administrative process.

It should also be acknowledged that State forest is a category of land under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 and that State forest in the Bush Forever study area is managed in accordance with the Forest Management Plan (FMP) 20042013. This is a CALM Act management plan that has been the subject of formal environmental impact assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority and is subject to conditions set by the Minister for the Environment. The FMP contains proposals for change in tenure from State forest to other CALM Act categories including national parks, nature reserves and conservation parks. Changes to State forest tenure require Parliamentary concurrence.

The Department has indicated in the past an in principle agreement to the inclusion of Bush Forever sites in State forest with areas greater than 100ha in a Parks and Recreation zoning, on the basis that many of these have long-standing support for inclusion into national parks, conservation parks or nature reserves.In the PMA other CALM managed reserves of these classifications are similarly shown as MRS reservations for Parks and Recreation.In addition the Department did not previously anticipate the extent of the requirement for development approvals now proposed for BFPAs and the implications for this to impede CALM's management activities.

The MRS Amendment Report states the following: "DCLM-managed land reserved as State forest has been included within this amendment where the areas of bushland are larger than 100ha and where there are no current mining tenements or extraction licences within sites... The proposed MRS reservation does not have any implications for the current vesting or management arrangements of Bush Forever sites that currently occur within the State Forest reservation."

The Department therefore must query proposals in this amendment that affect areas of State forest less than 100ha in size and those that are not the subject of a change in CALM Act status under the FMP.

There should be no change in MRS reservation of areas of State forest that is proposed to remain as State forest under the FMP.It may be appropriate that areas of State forest >100ha proposed as national park, nature reserves or conservation park reservation altered to Parks and Recreation, on the basis that this will make them consistent with the remainder of these areas within the PMA.

COMMENT ON SPECIFIC PROPOSALS

Comment on specific proposals affecting State forest follow (Proposals 1, 17, 18, 20, 35, 38, 45, 66, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 84):

Proposal 1 This area of State forest is less than 100ha and this section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State forest.

Proposal 17 This area of State forest is less than 100ha and this section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of purpose and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.This site also contains areas of pine plantation and will be subject to harvesting operations. 5

Proposal 18 This area of State forest is less than 100ha and this section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 20 This area of State forest is less than 100ha and this section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 35 This area of State forest is less than 100ha and this section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 38 This section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 45 This area of State forest is less than 100ha and this section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 66 This site is part Unallocated Crown Land (UCL), part State forest and part nature reserve (reserve 42450). Part of the UCL is recommended as CALM 5(g) under the FMP, the section of State forest is indicated in the FMP as remaining State forest and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 67 This site is proposed national park under the FMP and consequently reservation as Parks and Recreation is acceptable.

Proposal 72 This section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 73 This section of State forest was not Identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 74 Some but not all of this Bush Forever site is proposed Nature Reserve under the FMP and reservation as Parks and Recreation is acceptable.

Proposal 75 This section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 76 CALM's records indicate that Proposal 76 is part State forest and includes Reserve 39414, which is a CALM Act 5(g) reserve, vested with the Conservation Commission of WA for the purpose of Quarry (Limestone). This reserve has an area of 101.13 ha. The remaining 30.39 ha of the area proposed for Parks and Recreation is State forest 65. Neither this section of State forest nor the 5(g) reserve 6

were identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and reservation underthe MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 78 This area of State forest is less than 100ha and this section of State forest was not identified in the Forest Management Plan for a change of tenure and its reservation under the MRS should remain as State Forest.

Proposal 84 This proposal includes the reservation of an extremely small area of State forest (between 1 2 ha) that falls outside the criteria for areas of State forest being subject to reservation proposals being more than 100ha. CALM objects to the reservation of this section of State forest as Parks and Recreation.

It is also noted that Lot 2130 was not previously included in Bush Forever site 443 and it is queried if the site contains regionally significant vegetation.

Other Proposals Affecting CALM Managed Lands

Proposal 13 CALM has purchased part of Location 1546 and has requested that the land be set aside as an A Class Reserve for the purpose of Conservation of Flora and Fauna with automatic vesting with the Conservation Commission of WA. As a nature reserve reservation as Parks and Recreation under the MRS is consistent with other metropolitan nature reserves.

Proposal 24 CALM records show that Reserve 31138 is vested with the City of Melville (and not the WA Wildlife Authority) for the purpose of drainage.

Proposal 29 Reserve 42044 is vested with the Conservation Commission of WA for the Conservation of Flora and Fauna. CALM does not agree that the Parks and Recreation reservation ensures the protection of this area -its tenure as a nature reserve ensures its protection.However, as a nature reserve reservation as Parks and Recreation under the MRS is consistent with other metropolitan nature reserves.

Proposal 58 Itis noted that this proposal includes reference to the area's inclusion in the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park. The Department has no objection to this proposal.

Proposal 61 Please note that the reserve is now vested with the Conservation Commission of WA and not the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority.

Proposal 64 Please note that Reserve 44077 is now vested with the Conservation Commission of WA and not the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority.

The following additions are proposed to the Rockingham Lakes and Jandakot Regional Parks, and should be considered by the WAPC for inclusion in this MRS Amendment. 7

Bush Forever Site 335Cockburn Location 02056

In previous comments CALM has requested that Cockburn Location 02056 also be included in Bush Forever Site 335.Cockburn Location 02056 is to be vested in the Conservation Commission of Western Australia as part of Rockingham Lakes Regional Park and contains some regionally significant vegetation. Its current reservation as Special Use in the MRS isnot considered appropriate.

Bush Forever Site No. 344Transfer Part Lot 38 Taylor Road

The proposal is to include Part Lot 38 (the north-east portion) Taylor Road, within the City of Armada le, in the Parks and Recreation reservation. The lot is owned freehold by the WAPC. The majority of the lot is reserved for "Parks and Recreation" and is currently managed by CALM as part of Jandakot Regional Park. The vegetation complex on this land is Bassendean Complex, Central and South, and Southern River Complex. This proposal will consolidate the Jandakot Regional Park estate in the area and rationalise the Park boundary and is supported by CALM.

Bush Forever Site No. 344Transfer Pan' Lot 33 Nicholson Road

The proposal is to include Part Lot 33 (the south-east portion) Nicholson Road, within the City of Armada le, in the Parks and Recreation reservation. The lot is owned freehold by the WAPC. The western portion of the lot is reserved for "Parks and Recreation" and is currently managed by CALM as part of Jandakot Regional Park. The vegetation complex on this land is Bassendean Complex, Central and South, and Southern River Complex. This proposal will rationalise the Jandakot Regional Park boundary and increase the buffer to the wetland and is supported by CALM.

DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION

CALM supports the development of a bushland policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region (PMR), and has the following comments on the Draft Policy.

Page 4 The Department questions the advisability of referring to a category of BFPAs as "Bush Forever Reserves". This is likely to cause confusion due to the number of different 'titles' areas will have Bush Forever site, Bush Forever Protection Area, parks and recreation reservation, and confusion with Crown reserves including nature reserves, and probably also with areas that are also Regional Park. There are legal implications related to this also as MRS reservations and CALM managed reserves are created and administered under different legislation.

5.1 Bush Forever Protection AreasGeneral Policy Measures

As discussed above, there is a need to recognise the statutory responsibilities of the Conservation Commission of WA and CALM for management of areas vested with the Conservation Commission of WA. This would include a recognition of the Conservation Commission of WA as a decision-making body in relation to vested lands.

5.2.1 Bush Forever Reserves (Proposed and Existing)

Similarly the planning processes of the Conservation Commission of WA and CALM should be recognised within 5.2.1(i)b to include CALM Act Management Plans, and approved CALM Act Necessary Operations and Compatible Operations processes. 8

Section 5.3 Local Bush land

This section defines 'Local Bush land' as all areas of native vegetation outside BFPAs within the PMR, and therefore includes:

bushland that meets criteria for regional significance (regionally significant bushland) on the swan coastal plain portion of the PMR that are not included in BFPAs; large numbers and areas of bushland that meets criteria for regional significance (regionally significant bushland) outside the SCP portion of the PMR (ie above the scarp); locally significant bushland throughout the whole PMR; Other bushland that does not meet criteria for regional or local significance.

This range of bushland values is not well reflected in the Policy Measures in that most of the measures then refer to only bushland that meet criteria for local significance.For example, a local bushland protection strategy (under 5.3(i)) cannot effectively be developed without the identification of regionally significant bushland (5.3(i)d.). Similarly it would be incorrect to exclude the consideration of 'Conservation Commission of WA-managed conservation estate and Parks and Recreation reserves in the MRS' (5.3(i)g) as this consideration is necessary to provide context, and because many Parks and Recreation reserves would constitute locally significant bushland and may be managed by local government.

The policy measures under section 5,3 only apply to local government, however State government should also have responsibilities for protection of significant bushland.

The first dot point under 5.3(v) should be replaced with:

threatened species or ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); an ecological community that has been determined by the Ministerfor the Environment to be a threatened ecological community, and is referred to in thelist of threatened ecological communities maintained by the chief executive officer of the Department principally assisting in the administration of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984.'

While the Department fully supports the general presumption against clearing of the environmental values listedin5.3(v),itshould be noted that several of these are subject to State and Commonwealth legislation and therefore the power to approve development that impacts on these features does not lie with local government and similarly does not lie with the WAPC.

Schedule 1 Page 18The first dot point under (viii)(c) should be replaced with:

threatened species or ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); an ecological community that has been determined by the Minister for theEnvironment to be a threatened ecological community, and is referred to in the list ofthreatened ecological communities maintained by the chief executive officer of the Department principally assisting in the administration of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984.'

ROLE OF THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The Department queries what is the intent of the text in part (vi) where it refers to '...support the coordinated management of regionally significant bushland within Bush Forever reserves in government ownership through the Conservation Commission of WA'. The Conservation Commission of WA has 9

no statutory power or responsibilities for any lands not vested with it, and so has no power to delegate management responsibilities for non-vested land.

Regardless of the lack of any statutory ability for the Conservation Commission of WA to assume any management responsibility over land not vested with it, CALM is not aware that any such proposal has been actually put to the Conservation Commission of WA.

PLANNING BULLETIN NO 69

CALM would note that the text of Planning Bulletin No.69 would need to be modified in line with the discussion and comments above.

SUMMARY

CALM supports the introduction of BFPAs and the rezoning of areas to Parks and Recreation where there is no conservation purpose already included in a site's reserve purpose, or where it genuinely provides protection for bushland that would otherwise not be available

CALM objects to the proposed MRS Text Amendment pending satisfactory clarification and agreement on what constitutes development, what approvals are required, and therefore the implications for CALM in carrying out its statutory functions in managing the conservation estate. CALM requires a outcome that does not create duplication and anonerous,imposition on CALM's management of land.Alternatively CALM should be exempted from these requirements by way of recognising Conservation Commission of WA's and CALM's statutory responsibilities.

The Department objects to the rezoning of areas of State forest to Parks and Recreation, except for where they are >100ha in size and are identified for a change in tenure to a conservation reserve.

CALM is likely to require discussion with the DPI and WAPC to progress this Amendment and will attend hearings committee of the WAPC if this is the most appropriate way for these issues to be resolved.

Keiran McNamara EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

12 November 2004 Submission 113

From: David Wake Sent: Friday, 12 November 2004 5:01 PM To: mrs Subject: MRS Amendment 1082/33

QREGBushForever. doc Please find submission for the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group attached.

Regards, David Wake

ISEPAljfkiEliTFOR PLANrif-

An ;NM 1 RUC I Oz

1 2 NOV 2004

FILE80.2-1;77P 3.21, X10 Quinns Rocks Environmental Group Post Office Box 27, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030\

12 November 2004

Secretary WA Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

Bush Forever: MRS Amendment 1082/33 and Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.8

The Quirms Rocks Environmental Group strongly supports the protection of bushland in metropolitan Perth. We offer the following comments on the Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment for Bush Forever and the associated Statement of Planning Policy 2.8.

Bush Forever areas represent a portion of the remaining native vegetation on the extensively cleared Swan Coastal Plain portion of the metropolitan region. The retention of all remaining vegetation is important to conserve biodiversity, ecological services and associated social values. The WA Planning Commission should act to secure Bush Forever areas for conservation and actively support protectionof other remnant vegetation.

The proposal for a Special Control Area (Bush Forever Protection Area) in the Metropolitan Region Scheme Text and the inclusion of all Bush Forever sites under this Special Control Area is strongly supported.

The amendment does not preclude development of Bush Forever areas and does not require public consultation where development is being considered. We oppose development that would remove or degrade habitat in Bush Forever areasthe scheme text should be amended to expressly prohibit clearing in these areas.

Management is needed to maintain the conservation values of Bush Forever areas. The scheme text should include a clause recognising the need to maintain conservation values of these areas.

The Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.8 sets a policy framework for planning and managing Bush Forever areas. This policy should be legally binding and not merely be a matter that the WA Planning Commission or local authorities may consider inmaking decisions affecting Bush Forever areas. We support the comments made by the Urban Bush land Council WA regarding the draft Statement of Planning Policy (see attached). In particular, we think the policy should be strengthened to prevent clearing of Bush Forever areas, require the preparation of local bushland management plans by local authorities and extend conservation measures so that all remaining native vegetation is afforded protection.

The reservation of Bush Forever areas as Parks and Recreation is supported, however this broad reservation does not explicitly acknowledge its conservation purpose. As we have argued previously, a conservation overlay should be introduced. Adequate resources must be allocated to allow timely acquisition of reserved land. We are concerned that important areas have not been secured well ahead of adjacent development and that the process has been drawn out, for example the acquisition of land off Burns Beach Road/Joondalup Drive for inclusion in Neerabup Nation al Park.

We do not support the process of Negotiated Planning Solutions. Our experience of negotiated planning for regionally significant bushland on Lot 2 Burns Beach demonstrated the flaws in this approach. The lack of commitment to conservation by government agencies, biased process with an apparently predetermined outcome and inadequate resources delivered a poor compromise that will see valuable bushland lost to urban development and a small conservation area than is warranted.

Yours sincerely,

David Wake for Quinns Rocks Environmental Group Inc Submission 114

GREG ROWE J& associates Our Ref: 4515

12 November 2004

Western Australian Planning Commis Sion 469 Wellington Street DEPARTAAEN f PON PLANNit4a PERTH WA 6000 MD INFTIRucithu::RA 1 2 NOV 2004 Attention: The Secretary FierzgOic? 2,0,61- (0

Dear Sid Madam

RE: DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION STATEMENT OF PLANNING POLICY 2,8 AND MRS AMENDMENT NO.1082/33 LOTS 12 AND 14 TREEBY ROAD, ANKETELL

0 We refer to the Western Australian Planning Commission's proposed draft Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region, Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 and Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment Noo.1082/33, whichis currently undergoing a formal advertising period, concluding on the 12th November, 2004. N N

Greg Rowe and Associates has been recently engaged by the landowner of Lots 12 and 14 Treeby Road, Wandi (herein referred to as the "subject site"), to prepare the following submission.

This submission objects to the proposed "Parks and Recreation" zone as stipulated under MRS Amendment No.1082/33, which potentially limits any development on the subject site. Given the Wandi/ Anketell locality has been identified for future residential development under the Jandakot Structure Plan, the rezoning of the subject site to "Parks and Recreation" is considered to potentially impact upon the redevelopment the subject site. On this basis we have been instructed by our Client to lodge the following submission objecting to the proposed rezoning of the subject site to "Parks and Recreation" under the MRS.

The subject site is located within the locality of Anketell and is currently zoned "Rural" and "Water Protection Zone" under the MRS. The subject site has previously been identified under Bushplan (1998) and the subsequent Bush Forever (December 2000), as Site No.270 (B) for proposed "Parksand Recreation", this classification being translated to the draft SPP and MRS Amendment. Itis our understanding, the proposed register of Sites was initially developed through the compilation of a number of data sources, including System 6 (Department of Environmental Protection), aerial mapping fromthe Perth Environment Project (Ministry for Planning) and wetland classification and evaluation work undertaken by the Water and Rivers Commission.

It is suggested this method does not provide an accurate account of the situation "on the ground" given the ramifications which inclusion of bushland may have on future development potential. These inaccuracies arrived at from aerial mapping and wetland classifications, were acknowledged in the recently release Revised Draft Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plains Wetlands) Policy (draft

4515_spp2 TOWNE LANNINGP ROJECTMANAGEMENT GREGROTVE PTY LTD ABN 41 093 302 715 2

EPP), whereby numerous wetlands including those located on the subject site, were removed from the draft EPP Register. These wetlands will be subject to further investigation and review.

Under the draft SPP and MRS Amendment, the subject site (excluding the portion of the site zoned "Water Protection Zone" under the MRS) is subject to the proposed "Parks and Recreation" Reserve. It is our understanding from prior environmental investigation work that has been undertaken,that a significant portion of the site is not considered to be of regional significance and has at certain times, been degraded by clearing and other rural activities. Some portions of the site may be of value and require conservation measures, however the inclusion of the entire site for "Parks and Recreation" does not accurately reflect the quality and location of bushland found within the subject site.

Furthermore, the application of the "Parks and Recreation" Reserve over those portions of the subject site that do not retain regionally significant bushland is further considered inappropriate given the significant implications of this reservation upon redevelopment opportunities. Although provisions are made under the draft SPP for clearing of regionally significant bushland or rationalization and reconfiguration of boundaries within areas reserved "Parks and Recreation" as stipulated under Clause 5.2.1, it is considered inappropriate that the cost and responsibility for such rationalization is placed upon the landowner.

A similar arrangement to that achieved under the draft EPP represents an appropriate outcome, whereby Site areas of concern regarding bushland boundaries and overall quality are subject to further investigation. Individual site assessment for all Bush Forever Sites should be carried out prior to the finalisation of the SPP and MRS Amendment, to ensure accurate representation of bushland boundaries and classifications. Furthermore, this task should be carried out as part of the draft SPP process rather than left as the responsibility of the individual landowner, often at a significant cost.

It should be noted the Town of Kwinana submissions regarding the draft SPP and the MRS Amendment, have identified Site No.270, (specifically Part B) for further review. Council's Report dated 13th October 2004 supported "the re-evaluation of the boundaries of the Bush Forever sites on the eastern side of Kwinana Freeway between Thomas and Anketell Road, in order to define its interface of the proposed conservation area and future urban based on environmental, rather than old cadastral boundaries". The Town's submission further commented on the environmental, social and economic impacts in which the Bush Forever Sites, as currently defined, will have upon the future community and the viable provision of services within the locality: It is understood, the Town considers the retention of non-significant bushland to detrimentally impact upon the future residential population of the locality, and although Council supports the objectives and principles of the draft SPP and the MRS Amendment, it does not consider the current boundaries to be sustainable.

In light of the above, it is suggested the draft SPP and MRS Amendment should require, or include, further investigation and editing of the Sites to accurately reflect the extent of regionally significant bushland. Furthermore, site investigations should consider the local context of the site with relation to other Bush Forever sites (and potential outcomes of negotiations) as well as surrounding development (proposed and existing). Specifically, Bush Forever Site No.270 should be studied as a comprehensive ecological system, with regard to the implications for the development of the wider locality, and should include discussion with all landowners to arrive at a sustainable and viable outcome.

Given the limited timeframe since our Office. was appointed to provide this submission, we advise-that this letter forms the preliminary basis for our submission on the draft SPP and the MRS Amendment to meet the closing date for comment. A detailed study addressing the aforementioned in further detail, will be provided as a supplementary component to our submission. 3

We trust that our submission will be given due consideration and the changes recommended to the draft Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 and the MRS Amendment, will be adopted.

We request that our Office is updated of any progress regarding the above matters.

Should you have any queries or require any clarification regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on 9221-1991

Yours faithfully GREG ROWE AND ASSOCIATES

Encl:

Cc: Client

4515_04nov01kk Submission 115

The Secretary ii.t.W3/41-44:14-f rut

Western Australian Planning Commission A14[) INt,5 . ficiL. I I.Sitr. Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street 1 2 NOV 2004 PERTH WA 6000 FILE2D 7 7 go (0 Dear Sir/Madam

PUBLIC SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER AND RELATED LANDS

Please accept this submission from LandCorp that includes comments on the Western Australian Planning Commission's draft Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 released for comment in July 2004. The submission also includes comments on the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1082/33 Bush Forever & Related Lands which was released for comment in August 2004, as we believe the two documents are inextricably linked.

LandCorp supports the protection of regionally significant bushland in the Perth Metropolitan Region and therefore generally supports the formalisation of the Bush Forever report into a statutory framework. LandCorp has the following comments to make with regards to the draft SPP 2.8 and the MRS Amendment for Bush Forever & Related Lands.

Draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) No. 2.8

LandCorp supports the proposed process of decision making for Bush Forever Protection Areas that are within the Bush Forever Reserve (Proposed and Existing) category that requires the consideration of the overall purpose and intent of an existing reserve and the requirement to consider proposals in terms of the wider environmental, social, economic or recreational needs. This is particularly applicable to coastal foreshore reserves where beach nodes adjacent to urban areas are often required to cater for carparks, beach access tracks, grassed areas, kiosks, surfclubs etc. which usually requires the clearing of some native vegetation.

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

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LAND AUTHORITY ABN 34 868 192 835 T (o8) 9481 7499 Level 3 Wesfarmers House F (o8) 9481 o861 4o The Esplanade Perth Western Australia 6000 [email protected] Locked Bag 5 Perth Business Centre Perth Western Australia 6849 www.landcorp.com.au - 2 -

Land Corp does agree that in some circumstances an offset for the loss of regionally significant bushland may be appropriate. However, the SPP does not provide details on criteria to determine the acceptability of offset proposals. We suggest that the SPP refer to the EPA's recent draft Position Statement on Environmental Offsets (EPA Position Statement No. 9) as a guide to determining offsets.

Land Corp supports the concept that existing cleared areas within Bush Forever Protection Areas are not intended to be protected and may be suitable for some kind of development.Further information on the form that such development might include would be appreciated in the SPP.

Land Corp endorses the process of Negotiated Planning Solutions for Urban and Industrial zoned lands. We particularly would support the statement in the SPP (5.2.2(iii)(b) that allows for landowners with a number of land assets to seek strategic outcomes. This ishighly relevant to Land Corp with our variety of landholdings, one of which has yet to have its Bush Forever Negotiated Planning Solution agreed (Forrestdale Industrial Area - Bush Forever Site 342c).

The SPP does not contain a process to deal with the approval of Negotiated Planning Solutions. Which decision-makingauthorityorauthoritieswillbe responsible for approving an NPS? The SPP should also contain a right of appeal for landowners if an agreement on a negotiated solution cannot be reached.

Land Corp supports the proposition in the SPP in section 5.2.2 (vii) that the Bush Forever site may be used as a component of the public open space contribution subject to those requirements listed under this section.

Land Corp does not support the inclusion of Local Bush land in the SPP for the following reason. The identification of locally significant bushland will be undertaken by local authorities through the preparation of a local bushland protection strategy. The document that provides guidance to local authorities for the preparation of the local bushland protection strategy is the Local Government Biodiversity Planning Guidelines for the Perth Metropolitan Region published in June 2004 by the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA). The WALGA report was not advertised for public or industry comment and therefore has no general acceptance in the industry. It should not be used as a guide to prepare local bushland protection strategies until it has been peer reviewed and advertised by comment to the public and industry. Local bushland areas should not be included in the SPP 2.8 until such time as the process for identifying locally significant bushland has been endorsed by the industry.

A further comment on the local bushland section in the SPP refers to. paragraph 5.3 (iv).The wording for the proposed interim measure is unclear and should be reworded and sent out for further comment. The issue of locally significant bushland has already held up planning approvals in some government authorities. The process needs to be clear and without ambiguity so that decision-making authorities can progress with structure plans and subdivisions in a timely manner. - 3 -

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

Land Corp does not agree to the designation of a Special Control Area over sites in its ownership that are currently undergoing an MRS Amendment (such as sites 289 and 397 in the Alkimos-Eglinton area) or have not had a Negotiated Planning Solution agreed. The MRS Amendment refers to a similar situation for Bush Forever site 275 (Stakehill Swamp) in which the Site 275 was not included as a Special Control Area over as the site is subject to its own MRS amendment currently underway. The same rationale should be given to the Bush Forever sites in the Alkimos-Eglinton area which are under review through their own MRS Amendment currently in progress.

Land Corp recognises the rights of the landowner in being compensated for the loss of future development potential for all Bush Forever sites.In this regard, Land Corp has concerns about the statement on page 42 that "Bush Forever sites not proposed for reservation in this amendment but included within the Bush Forever Protection Area will generally not be considered for acquisition by the WAPC".

Please do not hesitate to contact Graeme Watt (9482 7431) to discuss comments made in this submission.

Yours sincerely /////7.,,/

John Clif on MANAGER BUSINESS STRATEGY

12 November 2004