Western Australian -1111 Planning Commission

January 2011 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan

Submissions Transcript of Hearings

Shire of Cockburn

GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan

Submissions Transcript of Hearings

City of Cockburn

Western Australian Planning GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Commission

February 2011 © State of Western Australia Internet: http://www.wa.gov.au

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

MRS Amendment 1180/41 Submissions Transcript of Hearings File 809-2-23-13 Pt. 2 & 3 Published February 2011

ISBN 0 7309 9688 3

Internet: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au e-mail: corporate @planning.wa.gov.au Phone: (08) 9264 7777 Fax: (08)92647566 TTY: (08)92647535

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

Submissions

Transcript of Hearings Submissions Submission 1

Government of Western Australia Department of Planning

Our ref: 805/2/1/40P247 Queries: Brianna Sharp (9264 7759)

24th February 2010

Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington St PERTH WA 6000

Dear Mr Evans,

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41: COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AREA

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Metropolitan Scheme Amendmentfor the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. The Proposed MRS Amendment is to rezone the Industrial area of North Coogee to Deferred Urban, and to realign the Primary Regional Road Reservation.

State Strategic Policy previously commented on the Environmental analysis that was undertakenfor the proposed Cockburn Coast Structure Plan, and made a number of recommendations inSeptember 2008. Primarily we advised that a Level 2 fauna survey should be conducted. This wassupported by the environmental analysis where it stated "further assessment should include field surveysto a standard equal to a Level 2 fauna survey as described by the EPA Guidance Statement No. 56".

Furthermore State Strategic Policy previously recommended that Lots 9907 and 9908 befloristically surveyed as the vegetation was perceived to be of a good condition and had the potential tobe an ecological corridor from Bush Forever area 247 to the coastline. It is noted that this area has been identified for proposed Urban Deferred. State Strategic Policy still recommends that a vegetation survey is undertaken as a desktop search has revealed the presence of a Priority 3 DeclaredThreatened Fauna in this location, and has identified both lots as potential Carnabys Black Cockatoobreeding,. feeding and roosting areas.

In the Environmental issues section of the amendment it notes "a further vegetation assessment was undertaken by WAPC in spring 2009 to enable a second scoring event to occur, in conjunctionwith a fauna survey. The survey was undertaken to determine further the presence of priority floraand fauna, more specifically the extent of habitat which may accommodatethe threatened species, Carnabys Black Cockatoo." The amendment report gives no advice as to the outcomes of this survey.State Strategic Policy recommends the preparation and implementation of fauna and vegetation

Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000 Tel: (08) 9264 7777 Fax: (08) 9264 7566 www.planning.wa.gov.au wa. gov. au r*:)' Government of Western Australia Department of Planning

management plans that address the protection of the Carnaby's Black Cockatoo where remnant vegetation to be cleared is considered suitable habitat for the Cockatoo.

As part of the MRS Amendment a Primary Regional Road will be realigned. This will impact on Bush Forever area 247. Previous discussions have taken place regarding the rezoning of the south west corner of Bush Forever area 247. Approximately 1.29ha will be removed from BFA 247 and 6.7ha are proposed to be added to BFA 247. A large portion of the area to be taken out is very degraded or cleared, and although parts of the land to be added to Bush Forever are also degraded, it results in a net environmental gain. State Strategic Policy would, strongly support any moves to revegetate and rehabilitate this land.

State Strategic Policy has no objections to the proposal subject to the following conditions.

Conditions

1. A Level 2 Fauna survey and assessment of the bushlands long term viability meeting the requirements of EPA Guidance Statement No. 56 be undertaken.

2.A flora and vegetation survey for Lots 9907 & 9908 be prepared by a suitably qualified person with emphasis on vegetation suitable for Carnabys Black Cockatoo.

Advice

1. It is noted from internal mapping at DoP that a registered Aboriginal site is situated within the proposed amendment area, and consultation with the Department of Indigenous Affairs may be required regarding the identification and protection of Aboriginal heritage.

Correction

1. Pg 9 (Last Sentence) A copy of the notice from the EPA is included in appendix A. Should read; A copy of the notice from the EPA is included in appendix B.

Please contact Brianna Sharp on 9264 7759 for any queries regarding the above advice. Yours Sincerely,

shley Wilson A/Team Leader State Strategic Policy

Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000 Tel: (08) 9264 7777Fax: (08) 9264 7566 www.planning.wa.gov.au wa.gov.au Submission 2 Government ofWestern Australia . 809-2-23-17 Pt 1 Your ref Department of Education D10/0106968 Our ref Enquiries

Mr Tony Evans Secretary DEPARTMENT OFPLANNING Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 0 5 MAR 2010 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 FILE kicSwd

Dear Mr Evans

Thank you for your letter dated 8 February 2010 regarding the Metropolitan Region Scheme Proposed Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan.

The Department of Education has analysed the proposed future development in the area of the District Structure Plan.It is proposed that 10 800 people will be accommodated in 5 300 dwellings. The Department expects 300 to 400 primary aged students from this development.

A primary school site has been located within the Robb Jetty precinct and adjacent to district open space which will provide opportunities for shared facilities.

The Department therefore has no objection to the proposed amendment.

Yours sincerely

SI ARYN O'NEILL DIRECTOR GENERAL

03 MAR 2010

151 Royal Street, East Perth Western Australia 6004 Submission 3

pvv ye %.v Government of Western Australia Department of Indigenous Affairs e -4viPt--/A. 7a o p '. 0

ENQUIRIES: Ryan Crawford 9235 8117

OUR REF: 08/0687

YOUR REF: 809-2-23-17 Pt 1

DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING

Mr Tony Evans 0 8 MAR Secretary 2010 Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House FILE0/5Vole 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

Dear Mr Evans,

METROPOLITAN REGION PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41 COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN.

I refer to your letter to the Director General, Department of Indigenous Affairs dated 8 February 2010.Thank you for providing the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) with the opportunity to comment on amendment No. 1180/41of the Metropolitan Region Planning Scheme for the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan ("the Proposal") and the Amendment Report ("the Document").

I have reviewed the Proposal and the attached Document. On examination of the Register of Aboriginal Sites I find that there is one known Aboriginal site within the proposed amendment area and a number of registered Aboriginal sites within the broader vicinity, as stated on page 8 of the Document. The registered site within the proposed amendment area is identified as DIA 3707 (Robb Jetty Camp). The sites located in the vicinity of the amendment area are identified as registered site DIA 3776 (Indian Ocean) and DIA 18332 (Clontarf Hill), which is currently on the interim Register. Please be advised however that a consultation with the Register does not provide definitive information on the status of heritage in the area. Given the variety of Aboriginal site types in the area, there is the possibility that development of portions of land subject to the Proposal may impact on currently unidentified Aboriginal sites.

Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA), the obligation is on the proponent to ensure that any work undertaken does not impact on any Aboriginal sites in the area and result in a breach of section 17 of the AHA. The Act protects Aboriginal sites regardless of whether they have been previously recorded and reported. Itis therefore the responsibility of the proponent to inform themselves of the status of heritage in the area in question and assess the risks of potential impacts on heritage values in this area. This ordinarily involves the conduct of heritage surveys across the area to be impacted.

1st Floor, 197 St Georges Terrace, Perth, Western Australia 6000 PO Box 7770, Cloisters Square, Perth, Western Australia 6850 Telephone (08) 9235 8000 Facsimile (08) 9235 8088 www.d ia.wa.gov. au wa.gov.au It is noted on page 85 of the Cockburn Coast Draft District Structure Plan (2008) that an Aboriginal heritage assessment within the Cockburn coast district structure plan project area has been conducted, including research, an archaeological appraisal and a meeting with Aboriginal elders at Robb Jetty.The heritage survey reports detailing the results and outcomes of these investigations have not been forwarded on to the DIA. The DIA therefore cannot make an informed assessment on the scope and adequacy of these investigations and provide definitive advice on the current heritage values and potential heritage impacts within the area.

Page 8 of the Document states that "further development within or adjacent to these sites will require the preparation of a heritage management strategy, including interpretation and approvals mechanisms, at the more detailed stages of planning for the site, to the satisfaction of...the Department of Indigenous Affairs". This heritage management strategy should be to the satisfaction of the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites.

On occasions when itis not possible to avoid Aboriginal heritage sites during development within the project area, the identified approvals mechanisms within the heritage management strategy will also need to include procedures for submitting a notice under section 18 of the AHA in order to obtain the Minister for Indigenous Affairs' prior consent to use the land on which the sites are located.DIA cannot provide consent, only the Minister can grant consent to use the land on which Aboriginal sites have been identified. Aboriginal sites subject of a section 18 notice application must be recorded to Site Identification standard prior to notice lodgement. Information on this process can be located on the DIA website through the following link: http://www.dia.wa.qov.au/Section-18-Applications/Application-process/

Itis recommended that any developers undertake heritage surveys with the participation of relevant Traditional Owner groups, past site informants and other Aboriginal people known to have specific cultural knowledge of, or associations with, the area in order to identify heritage sites and the potential impacts to heritage values in the area. These should be conducted in consultation with the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA).

The identification and avoidance of Aboriginal sites in the area and sufficient consultation regarding the general concerns of Aboriginal people and the potential impacts to heritage values and sites through development of the area would ensure that proponents meet their obligations under the AHA and minimise the potential of a section 17 breach of the AHA.

If you have any further queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact Senior Heritage Officer Ryan Crawford on 9235 8117.

Yours sincere

hristine Lewis ManageHeritage Advice Unit 23 Febri ary 2010 SWAN Submission4 GIVER TRUST

809-2-23-17 Pt 1 Your Ref DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Our Ref DEC11231-03/SRTIN21201 Enquiries Lesley Till 0 9 MAR 2010

FILE vsoote Mr Tony Evans Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

ATTENTION: LAUREN AITKEN

Dear Mr Evans METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1180/41 COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN

The Swan River Trust is in receipt your letter dated 8 February 2010 regarding the above proposal. The proposed amendment is remote from the Trust's Development Control Area (DCA) and is unlikely to have an impact on the Swan River system, therefore the Trust has no comment or objection to the development.

The Trust wishes to thank you for the opportunity to comment however please be advised that where a proposed MRS amendment is not injor abuttting the DCA,or will not have an impact on the Swan and/or Canning Rivers, the WAPC does not need to send the Trust notification of the MRS amendment.

Should there be any queries regarding this matter, please contact Lesley Till, Administrative Officer (Statutory Assessments) at the Trust on 9278 0922. Please ensure that the Trust's reference number is quoted in anycorrespondence concerning this proposal.

Yours sincerely

"-Rod Hughes GENERAL MANAGER

5 March 2010

CARING FOR THE SWAN AND CANNING RIVERS

Level 1 Hyatt Centre 20 Terrace Road East Perth Western Australia 6004 PO Box 6740 Hay Street East Perth 6892 Telephone (08) 9278 0900 Fax (08) 9325 7149 www,swanrivertrust.wa.gov.au Submission 5

Government of Western Australia Fire & Emergency Services Authority FESA F,Z1V;:rfgzytosryItz.ii.

Our Ref: 02056-14 480 Hay Street Your Ref: 009-2-23-17 Pt 1 Perth Western Australia 6000 PO Box 1174 Perth WA 6844 Telephone (08) 9323 9300 Facsimile (08) 9323 9384 Email fesa©fesa.wa.gov.au Tony Evans www.fesa.wa.gov.au Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street 1 6 MAR 2010 PERTH WA 6000

FILE OSOM

Dear Mr Evans,

RE: METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1180/41 COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN

FESA (the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia) wishes to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of 8TH February 2010 regarding the above matter.

We also wish to advise that we have no information or comment to provide at this time.

Sincerely

Mark Rose Manager Service Delivery Planning

11 March 2010

Our Vision: A Safer Community Submission 6

WESTERN AUSTRALIA Your Ref: 809-2-23-17 Pt 1 Our Ref: D10/3214 2 Mill Street Tourism WA File: IPD/0910-2 PERTH WA 6000 GPO Box X2261 PERTH WA 6847 Telephone +61 8 9262 1700 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Facsimile+61 8 9262 1702 The Secretary [email protected] WA Planning Commission 1 6 APR 2010 tourism.wa.gov.au Attention of: Lauren Aitken Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street FILE Jl,S OD1? PERTH WA 6000

Dear Lauren

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1180/41 COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN

Thank you for your letter dated 8 February 2010 referring theMRS Proposed Amendment 1180/41 to Tourism Western Australia (Tourism WA) for comment.

Tourism WA has no comments to make at this stage.

Emma-Lee Groser on Itrust this information is of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact 9262 1923 should you wish to discuss any matters further.

Yours sincerely

JAMES HEWITT Director Infrastructure and Investment

9 April 2010 Submission 7

From: Jeff [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 19 April 2010 11:39 AM To: mrs Cc: [email protected] Attachments: MRS Submission Cockburn Coast -19 April 2010..pdf; Submission Cover Page 19 April 2010.pdf

To whom it may concern,

Please find attached herewith a submission prepared in response to the recent advertisement of MRS Amendment # 1880/41.

Attachments include a submission cover page and submission letter with map.

Please contact Peter Goff or myself on 9231 3011 should you wish to discuss in any greater level of detail.

Best Regards, Jeffrey Malcolm

MGA Town Planning Consultants 26 Mayfair St. West Perth WA 6005 PO Box 104 West Perth WA 6872 Ph 08 9321 3011 Fax 08 9324 1961 email [email protected]

19/04/2010 Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Name Majt atAI 16t4/4 rfrolCC,-c. (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address. 12°X 6)Y (0 4i.-- ./Ve44- re/A Postcode

Contact phone number ...... Email address 3effmdaifri0,01.gd(sfr4(diaAr. 4opm Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

f\f'21...... ,......

...... 400400 ...... 40ga ..... 40 ...... 4.1.0401,1.00040 ...... 004 ...... 4414 ...... 0.4411040010409.0

.41.4 ..... 446.0.1.444,44agg4,41,4g4Oggagaggrly,rgglalggge1444-14.11,fflfgaggaggagg ...... yggrgrgaratalgegaggrgagyrygragglatagagageggg

rwAdsa ...... vywgro ...... rggweggagatagg ...... g ...... PP ...... POVI ...... glAg4400,00.00.40.00000110100

...... 00,140.1kag400010414044Atg ...... ga,0044.0gy000gegAgg401,00"004 ...... y0004044...... lemv000...... 0

...... 004/.004p00004,40400/40g0000e ..... g4g00 ...... 400g ...... gwy ...... 1,004400404.4.04 ......

glaik gi 40411"0 alga 4E664" 444a 4646.446.

...... dassgagg01 ...... *404xsAttag"*.440410age014000 ...... 440401,00..01.4 ...... x10,44441.appabgaVg.14 ......

1.14 ,,,,,,, 444444.444140-64064AtE444,A 4 ..... a . 7V4444Atgai.pagg

..... Mg ..... 0,0.1044,1400444.111.004 ..... 00.00000.011Mg4040O ...... 4401.4VV0 ......

.ma ...... pg04,004g44...... 0..40..00 ...... g ...... 4000ge0 ..... 440.0.000 ...... 000 ...... g44.1...... 40 turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally presentthe basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment reportand in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

Et/Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: El Myself My telephone number (business hours):...... or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: ...... Contact telephone number (business hours): ...... Postal address: ...... ,..

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR LJ Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 9992 and as such, submissionsmade to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report onthese submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along withall written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approvethe proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions andtabled in Parliament,

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Signature Date 1?

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date,being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected];Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au 26 Mayfair Street MGATOWN PLANNERS West Perth 6005 Principal - Peter Golf Western Australia

Telephone (08) 9321 3011 Facsimile (08) 9324 1961 Mobile 0408 096 040 Our Ref: 2506 Email mgaOglobal.net.au

Your Ref: 1180/41 Postal Address; PO Box 104 WEST PERTH 6872

ACN 008 867 230 ASH 14 311 076 348 19 April 2010

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

To whom it may concern,

PROPOSED MRS AMENDMENT 1880/41 - COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AREA

We refer to the abovementioned amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme(MRS) and the recent advertisement seeking comment on the proposed amendment. This submission has been prepared on behalf of the following landowners and in respect of lands including the following:

Qube Property Group LtdLot 62 Bennet Avenue. Gosh Leather Pty LtdLot 1 Bennett Avenue. West Cape Property GroupLot 64 Bennett Avenue. Basilia Nominees Pty Ltd Lot 65 Corner of Darkan and Rollinson Road Lot 69, Corner of Bennett Avenue and Rollinson Road - Lot 68 Garston Avenue

The above lands are shown on the attached map.

The proposed MRS amendment will facilitate the progression of structureplanning over lands in the district structure plan area. However, it is considered that a moreefficient process could be set in place; that would alsoresult in progressing orderly planning for the district structure plan area.

Improvement Plan 33Cockburn Coast Precinct

Improvement Plan 33 (1P33) was endorsed in 2006 and preventsthe inappropriate development of land within areas of the Cockburn coast, pending theestablishment of a redevelopment authority and redevelopment scheme. IP33 providedfor the preparation of the Cockburn coast district structure plan, which in turn informedthe MRS and local planning scheme amendment process. This framework willprovide for future local structure planning over the site.

PerdET NO1MlettS as Trustee for the MG UrA Trent T/A MCLA Tom Planners The Secretary Western AustralianPlanning Commission

Proposed MRS Amendment 1880/41 - Cockburn Coast District structure plan area

It is the intention of the land owners represented herein to maintain their development rights over the land and be involved in the preparation of local structure plans in association with other landowners. It is also the intention of the landowners to facilitate development in keeping with the intent of the Cockburn coast district structure plan, reflecting the principles of the Network City strategy.

Urban Deferred Zoning

The WAPC has sought to rezone land in the district structure plan area to 'Urban Deferred'. We believe there is no benefit to be gained through introducing thisintermediate zoning. The subject amendment proposes conditions associated with the lifting of the'Urban Deferred' zoning, which include the following:

Condition 1- Progression of Local Planning Scheme Amendments

The first proposed condition reads as follows:

'Substantially progressed, advertised draft amendments to the LocalPlanning Scheme, whereby the subject land is proposed to be rezoned to 'Development,with Development Area and Development Contribution Area provisionsunder the City of Cockburn's local planning scheme, and more detailed guidance on the developmentof local structure plans are provided through the Schedule to theScheme.'

This condition appears to be unnecessary; as itis a statutory requirement under the Planning and Development Act 2005 that local planning schemesbe amended to reflect the zoning of lands as indicated on the MRS. Furthermore,the rezoning of the City of Cockburn Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) must first occur inorder that structure planning may proceed over lands within the district structure plan area.

There appears to be little justification for incorporatingthe above condition as a requirement for the lifting of the 'Urban Deferred' zoning.

Condition 2District Water Management Strategy

The second proposed condition reads as follows:

prepared to the satisfaction of the 'ADistrict Water Management Strategy being Department of Water.'

This proposed condition also appears to be unnecessary.The requirement for a district, local or urban water management strategy maybe imposed by the Department of Water during local structure planning stages andcertainly in the instance where land is zoned 'Urban' under the MRS.

2 The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission

Proposed MRS Amendment 1880/41- Cockburn Coast District structure plan area

Condition 3Infrastructure Master Plan

The third proposed condition reads as follows:

'An infrastructure master plan being prepared to the satisfaction of the WAPC indicating the necessary provision of major infrastructure, including but not limited to water, wastewater, energy and movement network considerations.'

Our investigations reveal that up front servicing costs are likely to be substantial. Someof these costs will be attributed to head-works and others more substantial upgrades. The first developer may be required to pay significant costs which would benefit all landowners, but for which the developer would not receive reimbursement under the existingpolicy framework.Itis also our understanding that in order to accommodate the level of development envisaged in the district structure plan area, it will be necessary to extend services from the northern periphery to meet identified demand. Furtherinvestigation in relation to the provision of major infrastructure will be managed through thelocal structure planning process.

Indeed, advice received from the Water Corporation quoted in the MRSAmendment text indicates that the Water Corporation has no objection to theamendment, provided that the water and wastewater scheme be replanned prior to subdivisionand development. On this basis,it appears that equitable solutions can be managedwithin a developer contribution scheme affecting the relevant Development Areas,prepared during local structure planning and adopted under TPS3. A developercontribution scheme would also manage the relocation of servicescurrently aligned withina number of existing landholdings.

Alternatively, if the lands were to be zoned 'Urban' under the MRS, acontribution scheme and cost sharing could be included as a requirementunder TPS3 through local planning scheme amendments and managed in associationwith local structure planning for the relevant Development Areas. Cost contributions will berequired at the district and local structure plan levels.

Whilst a district structure plan has been prepared,local structure planning remains to be completed. No development is able to commenceahead of both the district and local structure plans and because the local structureplans have not been completed, there remains time to prepare an infrastructure contributionscheme.

Implications of Planning Processes

The endorsement of IP33 occurred in June2006, following two years of discussion and investigation in relation to future planning over thedistrict structure plan area. It has taken an additional 4 years to reachthis point, where amendments to the Stateand local planning framework are being progressed.

Landowners have been in a state of limbo foraround 6 years. The draft district structure plan promised a rezoning to 'Urban' underthe MRS rather than 'Urban Deferred', which

3 The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission

Proposed MRS Amendment 1880/41- Cockburn Coast District structure plan area was an outcome changed with the release of the final district structureplan in September 2009.

The proposed change from 'Industrial' first to 'Urban Deferred'is disconcerting as businesses are often financed on the back of security provided by property assets.

It is unclear whether a rezoning from 'Industrial' to 'Urban Deferred' maintains property values, however it is likely to erode this existing security under the current'Industrial' zoning and may bring about financial problems, particularly in the tightfinancial market following the GFC.

Since the inception of State level planning investigations, the landownersrepresented have avoided long term lease arrangements with tenants given the uncertainty overfuture development of the land. This has resulted in less than optimal returns. Maintainingthe ownership and upkeep of these lands over the past 5 years hasalso incurred additional expenses. implementing an intermediate 'UrbanDeferred' zoning will only aggravate these sub-optimal conditions currently experienced by land owners.

With regard to the observations made within this submission, there appears tobe no sound basis as to why current commercial conditions should beextended for a period of time greater than necessary. The landowners considerthat government agencies must be more accountable for their decisions. Proposing an 'Urban' zoning in 2008and changing this to 'Urban Deferred' in 2009 without any consultation withlandowners is of considerable concern.

Summary

In summary, we are pleased to see that progress isbeing made in implementing a planning framework that will facilitate more detailed planning overthe Cockburn coast district structure plan area.

It has been demonstrated that the proposed'Urban Deferred' zoning is not the most appropriate choice, given that studies providingthe basis for each of the three conditions associated with the lifting of the 'Urban Deferred'zoning, may be carried out in association with local structure planning exercises.

In addition, the proposed 'UrbanDeferred' zoning will only add unnecessary delay to the completion of detailed planning; further aggravatingthe current unfavourable commercial conditions experienced by private landownersand with the potential to cause financial problems.

The rezoning of the district structureplan area to 'Urban' will provide a moreefficient included process, with structure planningbeing subject to Development Area requirements in TPS3. There appears to be inadequatejustification to burden under-resourced government departments and otherreferral agencies with the need to processanother unnecessary step in the planning system.

4 The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission

Proposed MRS Amendment 1880/41 - Cockburn Coast District structure plan area

We thank the WAPC for its consideration of this submission and look forward to being involved in future planning exercises in respect of the Cockburn coast district structure plan area. Please contact the undersigned should you wish to discuss any matter in any greater level of detail.

Yours faithfully, MGA Planning Consultants

Jeffrey Malcolm

Cc: Qu be Property Group Ltd. Gosh Leather Pty Ltd . West Cape Property Group. Basilia Nominees Pty Ltd. Figure 1.3:Landownership plan

L,>< OA

...--..."-...... /.

, STREET . NAND ..,_;SINEET ilEALY

;FO

, pEuict4. .

ROLL SCN ,

. AVAY T B EnAcathr..

. _

Indian

Ocean

-11"-

1p 290 ap 4C4

tilatte$

Pic4uovlby Piclectt.NpOrg Seth" Mappin2 and GeoSpatal Data Biandb Derartnen1 kt Planniyj And infrastuctre, en behalf of $1*%Membutenn Planning Conti:Am, Nth, VIA Cabot 2C47 nm.mapP,nolocuIrctuktrackbium Y8,ctsoroyislipA4491 - Rase batman E.140tdbyViosNin AtzbAian Land Inlumaton Automy, GL24611g7.2

Legend

local government

private

State government -study boundary

NOTES: i 25mm at scale 'MGA MeresMetres o 375 13 Basilic Nominees Pty Ltd TOWN PLANNERS G Gosh Leather Pty Ltd Ph: (06) 9321 3011 l'itJ Scale 1:15,000 Q Qube Consulting Pty Ltd Fe (08) 9324 1961 COCKBURN COAST LANDHOLDINGS email: [email protected] W West Cape Property Date: 11 September.20013 Consultants Pty Ltd Rd 2506/Fig/1-landowners A4 AN dimensions and areas subject to survey Base from Cockburn Coast DSP, WAPC. Submission 8

Your ref:809-2-23-17 Pt 1 Government of Western Australia Our ref: 2006/004246-8 Department of Environment and Conservation Enquiries: Simon Dobner Phone: 9431 6500 Fax: 9431 6599 Email: [email protected]

Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PLANNING PERTH, WA 6000 DEPARTMENT OF

Attention: Ms Lauren Aitken 06 MAY MO

FILE g 1 s Ct-9166)

Dear Lauren

PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.1180/41 - COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN.

Thank you for your letter dated 8 February 2010 referring the above proposed scheme amendment to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) for comment.

General The amendment area encompasses and affects a part of Beeliar Regional Parkwhich is managed by the City of Cockburn and DEC for conservation and recreation purposes, andwhich forms part of Bush Forever Site No.247 "Manning Lake and Adjacent Bushland, Hamilton Hill/Spearwood". Manning Lake, which is a Conservation Category Wetland, is located a short distance to the east of the amendment area. In this context, the following information is provided.

Remnant Vegetation Management An extensive area of regionally significant remnant vegetation is located to the west of Manning Lake, much of which is contained in Bush Forever Site No.247"Manning Lake and Adjacent Bushland, Hamilton Hill/Spearwoodn. A substantial portion of this bushland area is potentially affected by the proposed scheme amendment. DEC records indicate the potential presenceof declared rare and priority flora within this area, including the Priority 4 Dodonaea hackettiana (Hackets Hopbush). The Beeliar Regional Park Management Plan 2006 indicates that the shallow soils over coastal limestone may support flora not well represented within theRegional Park. This appears to be borne out by the Stage 1 Flora and Vegetation Assessment which indicates that there are three main Floristic Community Types, two of which are Priority3 Ecological Communities (SCP24 and SCP 29a), whilst one is listed as a Vulnerable Threatened Ecological Community. A population of Dodonaea hackettiana was also located within the study area.

DEC therefore recommends that detailed Flora and Vegetation Surveys of all potentially affected bushland areas (not just proposed road reserves) be conducted by a competent environmental consultant, in accordance with the Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA's) Guidance Statement 51 Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. The survey should determine the presence or otherwise of declared rare, priority or other significant flora.If such flora is present on site, appropriate action should be undertaken to protect it, or to mitigate impacts. In accordance with EPA advice, such surveys should be carried out prior to detailed structure planning, as the results may directly influencethis process. Regional Parks Branch Level 1, 4-6 Short Street, Fremantle Phone: (08) 9431 6500 Fax: (08) 9431 6599 Postal Address: PO Box 1535, Fremantle, Western Australia 6959 www.dec.wa.gov.au

T:1251-Regional Parks Unit\Shared Data \ Parks \2006 ABeeliar\Town Planning and Development \ Cockburn Coast Draft District Structure Plan \To WAPC Ref.MRS Ant.118041- May2010.doc It is observed that the Phase 1 Flora and Vegetation Assessment (ENV Australia September 2008) has been confined to the existing and proposed Primary RegionalRoads reserves, as well as an area of coastal vegetation immediately northof McTaggart Cove. In this regard, it is noted that the scheme amendment report states under Section 4 - "Rezoningof Parks and Recreation Land" that the vegetation condition west of the proposed Cockburn CoastDrive is "Completely Degraded" and of "limited environmental value", and hence suitable for development.However, closer inspection of the Flora and Vegetation Assessment indicates that, whilst coverageof this area is very limited, some of this vegetation may wellbe in significantly better condition than stated (see purple dividing lines on Lots 15 and 7, south of EmplacementCrescent).Itis therefore recommended that the Flora and Vegetation Survey be extendedwestward to encompass all bushland areas west of proposedCockburn Coast Drive which are currently reserve for Parks and Recreation, and that this shouldbe done prior to detailed structure planning. The results of this survey should be used to accurately assess theconservation value of this bushland area and assist in determining its future.

There are also several lots (Lot 9907 and 9908 on DP 47038) adjacent to thenorthern boundary of the Port Coogee development (bisected by the Cockburn Road deviation)which appear to support higher quality remnant vegetation, but which are being proposedfor re-zoning to "Urban Deferred". Although currently zoned "Industrial" in the MRS, Flora and VegetationSurveys of these areas should also be conducted and taken into considerationduring detailed structure planning.

Regardless of the outcomes of the above recommended Flora and VegetationSurveys, DEC recommends that remnant vegetation within the amendment area be retainedand incorporated into future development, where possible.

Liaison with DEC's Native Vegetation Conservation Branch is also recommendedregarding the possible need for a Clearing Permit under the provisions of the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1986.

Site Contamination Due to previous industrial land uses over a long period of time, there isconsiderable potential for widespread soil and/or groundwater contamination within the amendment area.A significant number of lots are shown as Reported Contaminated Sites on DEC's ContaminatedSites Database. Of these, a number are "Awaiting Classification", whilst others arelisted as "Possibly ContaminatedInvestigation Required". There may also be evidence of contamination on as yet unreported sites within the amendment area.

Investigations for soil and groundwater contamination will therefore need to becarried out in accordance with DEC's Contaminated Sites Management Series guidelines.Where these investigations identify soil and/or groundwater contamination which requiresremediation to render the site suitable for the proposed use, such remediation (includingvalidation of remediation) will need to be completed to the specifications and satisfactionof DEC's Contaminated Sites Branch, and in accordance with the requirements of theContaminated Sites Act 2003. Given the proposed change in land use from industrial toresidential, these investigations should be carried out prior to detailed structure planning, as recommendedby the EPA in their letter to the WAPC dated 29 September 2009, as the results mayhave a direct bearing upon future allowable land uses.

Fremantle to Rockingham Controlled Access Highway (Cockburn CoastDrive ) DEC notes that realignment of the Primary Regional Roads reservation in awestward direction has thepotential,to add a significant area of bushland to Beeliar Regional Park. Itwould appear from Section 4 -"Bush Forever Area 247" that whilst the excision of 1.29ha from Beeliar Regional Park (and Bush Forever Site No.247) is being proposed near theintersection with Spearwood Avenue (and an additional small area to the north), the proposed realignmentwill result in the addition of a substantial 5.7ha of bushland to the Regional Park,along the proposed 2 highway route. DEC is unclear whether this 5.7ha represents a net addition to theRegional Park, or whether this would amount to 4.41ha (5.7ha minus1.29ha).

Regardless of the above uncertainty; whilst the area proposed for addition toBeeliar Regional Park appears to vary greatly in its reported vegetation condition, it does create awider and more ecologically sustainable bushland area west of Manning Lake, thereby adding to thevalue of the Regional Park. Furthermore, much of the proposed 1.29ha excision from theRegional Park (adjacent to Spearwood Avenue) appears to be completely degraded. Therefore,depending upon the results of necessary flora and fauna surveysalong the proposed highway route, it is considered that the proposed relocation of the Primary Regional Roadsreservation has the potential to result in a net environmental gain, when compared with its existingposition in the MRS.

Fauna Management This part of Bee liar Regional Park and adjoining bushland serves as habitat for avariety of native fauna, which- the proposed scheme amendment has the potential toimpact upon, as development proceeds. Manning Lake and surrounding bushland is known to serve asroosting and foraging habitat for the threatened Carnaby's Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchuslatirostris). In addition, the area is likely to support the common and widespread Lomandramaritima and possibly Lomandra hermaphrodita, either of which can support populationsof the threatened Graceful Sun Moth (Synemon gratiosa). Both Carnaby's Black Cockatoo and theGraceful Sun Moth are declared "Specially Protected Fauna" under the Wildlife ConservationAct 1950. The Priority 3 Lined Skink (Lerista lineata) has also been recorded in the ManningLake bushland. DEC therefore recommends that, prior to structure planning, the proponent undertake adetailed fauna survey in accordance with EPA Guidance Statement No. 56 Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia.

Both Carnaby's Black Cockatoo and the Graceful Sun Moth are alsoprotected by the Commonwealth's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(EPBC Act). It is therefore likely that any proposal to clear a significant portion of this remnantvegetation will need to be referred to the Commonwealth Department of Environment,Water, Heritage and the Arts for assessment under the provisions of the EPBC Act.

Boundary Interface Treatment (with Beeliar Regional Park) It is envisaged that proposed Cockburn Coast Drive will represent the future westernboundary of Beeliar Regional Park at this location. If this road is to proceed, DEC considers itimportant that a high standard of visual amenity is created and maintained along this parklandinterface. In this reaard, the design of this road should minimise its visual impact as far aspossible, and an emphasis should be placed on vegetating road batters and rehabilitatingexisting degraded areas with appropriate native plant species of local provenance.Itis also recommended that construction of a dual use pathway along/adjacent to Cockburn Coast Drive beconsidered. DEC would prefer to see such a pathway located on the eastern side of this road(adjacent to Beeliar Regional Park), but recognises that further planning will be required to determinethe best possible location from a community perspective, and whether pedestrianunderpasses or overpasses across the proposed highway are necessary ordesirable.

Drainage Management In planning for future subdivision, it should be noted that no drainage infrastructureis to be placed within the adjoining Beeliar Regional Park, nor is there to be any direct dischargeof drainage waters (including road drainage) into the Regional Park. This requirement isparticularly relevant in relation to the possible future design and construction of proposed CockburnCoast Drive.

Fire Management Necessary fire management requirements should be provided for within the amendment area,in accordance with Planning for Bush Fire Protection document (Fire and EmergencyServices (FESA) 2001), and on the advice of FESA.

3 Noise and Vibration Management It is noted future development is proposed against the freight rail line which passes through the amendment area, linking to Fremantle Port. DEC generally concurs with the advice provided in Section 4 under "Environmental Issues", particularly regarding the need to comply with WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (September 2009). Draft EPA Guidance Statement No.14 Road and Rail Transportation Noise (1998) may also be of assistance.

Industry Buffer Requirements As stated in Section 4 of the scheme amendment report; where residential/other development is being proposed adjacent to existing industrial uses, there may be a requirement for the establishment of appropriate industrial buffers in the structure planning process. In this regard, guidance should be sought from EPA Guidance Statement No.3Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses (June 2005).

If you have any questions in relation to the above, please don't hesitate to contact Simon Dobner of this office on telephone number 9431 6500.

Yours sincerely

Brendan Dooley Manager, Regional Parks Branch

4 May 2010

4 Submission 9

Our Ref:216/012 Contact:Sham Meekel - 9432 9964

7 May 2010 City of Fremantle ABN: 74 680 272 485

Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street Fremantle WA 6 160 Western Australian Planning Commission PO Box 807, Fremantle WA 6959 469-489 Wellington Street 1 08 9432 9999 F 08 9430 4634 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ITY 08 9432 9777 PERTH WA 6000 E [email protected]

07 MAY 2010 Attn: Lauren Aitken FILE e LSCOZ S Dear Sir

PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41 - COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN - CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION

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

Council at its Ordinary Meeting 28 April 2010 made the following resolution:

That the following comments be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission as the City of Fremantle's submission on Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 'Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area': 1. The City supports the proposed rezoning of land currently zoned Industrial to Urban Deferred. This is considered the most appropriate zoning at this stage, given the need for various environmental, infrastructure and strategic planning issues to be addressed in more detail prior to the land being zoned Urban to facilitate development for more intensive urban uses in the longer term, as envisaged in the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. 2. The City supports the proposed rezoning of the site of the former South Fremantle Power Station and adjacent land to the south to Public Purposes Special Use Reservation in recognition that this will facilitate the retention and future adaptive reuse of this important 'landmark' building for appropriate community-orientated uses as envisaged in the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. Although not directly related to the Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment process, the City also wishes to take this opportunity to reiterate its previous recommendation that the Western Australian Planning Commission should pursue reinstatement of the listing of the power station on the State Register of Heritage Places. 3. The City acknowledges that the proposed realignment of the Primary Regional Roads reservation is an improvement upon the current alignment insofar as it reduces the potential visual impact of any future road 2

constructed within the reservation upon the ridgeline of the Bee liar Regional Park, potentially enables more land to be retained within the Regional Park, and avoids the severance of land within the western edge of the Parks and Recreation reservation from the main part of the Regional Park which is caused by the current alignment. However, the City considers that the justification in the MRS Amendment documentation for the retention and configuration of the Primary Regional Road reservation is premature and unproven, given that the Department of Planning's 'South Metropolitan and Peel Region Integrated Land Use and Transport StudyStrategic Assessment of the Regional Transport Requirements' which will include an assessment of the transport needs of the South West corridor and a review of the status of existing and reserved Primary Regional Roads has not yet been completed. 4. The City reiterates its position as previously stated in its submission on the draft Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan in August 2008 that the strategic planning framework for the area should include provision for a dedicated public transport corridor with an alignment mutually agreed upon by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the City of Fremantle and the City of Cockburn to link the structure plan area with Fremantle. Further investigation of alignment options, taking into account the full range of potential public transport modes, should be progressed as a matter of priority prior to conclusion of the MRS amendment process so that any appropriate reservation provisions for this purpose can be incorporated into Amendment 1180/41 if required.

If the Commission has any questions or requires further information on the City's submission, please do not hesitate to contact Sharn Meekel on 94329964 or planningfremantle.wa.dov.au.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Garbett Manager Planning Projects and Policy Page 1 of 2 Addition to Submission 9

From: Aitken, Lauren Sent: Friday, 27 August 2010 2:13 PM To: Bubanic, Marija Subject: FW: MRS Amendment 1180/41Cockburn Coast

Hi Marija,

Another updated submission for you records.

Thanks

Lauren

From: Paul Garbett [mailto:PAULG©fremantle.wa.goy.au] Sent: Friday, 27 August 2010 2:05 PM To:Temov, Nicholas; Aitken,Lauren Subject: MRS Amendment 1180/41Cockburn Coast

Hi Lauren and Nic,

In response to the Commission's letter dated 4 August 2010 inviting comments on the proposed revisions to the above MRS Amendment in relation to the alignment of the PRR reservation, at a City of Fremantle Council meeting on 25 August the Council passed the following resolution: That the following comments be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission as the City of Fremantle's response to the proposed revisions (revised alignment of Primary Regional Roads reservation) to amendment no. 1180/41 to the Metropolitan Region Scheme:

1. The City acknowledges that the proposed realignment of the Primary Regional Roads reservation is an improvement upon the originally proposed alignment insofar as it reduces the potential impact of any future road constructed within the reservation upon the Randwick Stables, which is listed on the State Register of Heritage Places. However the City still considers, as stated in its original submission on MRS amendment no. 1180/41, that the justification in the MRS amendment documentation for the retention and configuration of the Primary Regional Road reservation is premature and unproven, given that the Department of Planning's 'South Metropolitan and Peel region Integrated Land Use and Transport StudyStrategic Assessment of the Regional Transport Requirements' which includes an assessment of the transport needs of the South West corridor and a review of the status of existing and reserved Primary Regional Roads has not yet been completed.

2.The proposed revisions do not alter the views previously expressed by the City on other aspects of amendment no. 1180/41, including its contention that the strategic planning framework for the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan area should include provision for a dedicated public transport corridor with an alignment mutually agreed upon by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the City of Fremantle and the City of Cockburn to link the structure plan area with Fremantle. Further investigation of alignment options, taking into account the full range of potential public transport modes, should be progressed as a matter of priority prior to conclusion of the MRS amendment

27/08/2010 Page 2 of 2

process.

I would be grateful if you could take the above comments into consideration along with the City of Fremantle's original submission. If you require a copy of the comments in a more formal hard copy letter format please let me know and I will supply it to you on Monday.

In relation to the hearings meeting on 16 September, I received a phone call a few weeks ago but we have not received any written confirmation of the hearing arrangements or a time for the City's appearance should we have?

Regards

Paul Garbett Manager Planning Projects & Policy City of Fremantle T (08) 9432 9973 F (08) 9432 9842 [email protected]

Town Hall Centre, 8 William St, Fremantle WA 6160 PO Box 807, Fremantle WA 6959 T (08) 9432 9999 FAX (08) 9430 4634 TTY (08) 9432 9777 www.freofocus.com.au

WARNING: This email, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. Only the intended recipient may access or use it. If sent to the wrong email address or otherwise received in error, please immediately contact the City of Fremantle and delete or destroy all copies. You must also not disclose, copy or disseminate any of the information. We use virus-scanning software but before opening or using any attachments to this email you should check them for viruses or similar. Our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments.

27/08/2010 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 07 MAY 2010

Submission FILE'US00Tr Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary I I Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000 Submission 10

Name Crry0Eco(xsoczKi

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address _PO. g.0 K 121 S Bi.... LAKE Postcode 66/65

Contact phone number `14P 565-7 Email address ddir-emoo()COO/C-h1402./.6.(4.1014 61'M

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

...... t u ..... e9 = L......

turn over to complete your submission 1 Inquiries: Donna Di Renzo - 9411 3657 Our Ref: 9006 Your Ref:

3 May 2010

Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission, 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

CITY OF COCKBURN SUBMISSION PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1180/41 (COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN)

I refer to the proposed Metropolitan Scheme Amendment No. 1180/41 that was recently released for public comment by the Western Australian Planning Commission ("WAPC").

Council at their Ordinary Meeting on 8 April 2010 resolved to make a submission to the WAPC as follows:

1.Itis requested that the railway crossing points identified on the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan be rezoned from 'Railway' reserve to 'Urban Deferred' to ensure that some form of grade separated access is both acknowledged and permitted at these strategic points along the railway line.

2.Council supports the remaining proposals contained within Metropolitan Region Scheme 1180/41.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed MRS Amendment, and should you have any specific questions regarding this matter please contact the undersigned on 9411 3657.

DONNA DI RENZO SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICER

9 Coleville Crescent, Spearwood WA 6163. PO Box 1215, Bibra Lake DC WA 6965. P (08) 9411 3444 F (08) 9411 3333. ABN 27 471341 209. Addition to Submission 10

From: Carol Catherwood [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 26 August 2010 5:10 PM To: mrs Subject: MRS Amendment 1180/41submission from City of Cockburn Attachments: cockburn coast amendment mrs comment.pdf

Please find attached submission on proposed revision to MRS Amendment1180/41.

Regards

Carol Catherwood Coordinator Strategic Planning City of Cockburn

PO Box 1215 BIBRA LAKE DC WA 6965 Direct line: 9411 3598 Mobile: 0419 910 655 Fax: 9411 3333

27/08/2010 Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Name City of Cockburn (Contact person: Carol Catherwood, Coordinator Strategic Planning) (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) PO Box 1215 BIBRA LAKE DC WA 6163 Address Postcode [email protected] Contact phone number9411 3598 Email address

Submission(Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose ratherthan bound) Further to the City's submission on the advertised proposal dated 3 May 2010, wehave now reviewed the proposed amended plan (labelled 'Proposal 1' dated 26 October 2010). It isnoted the proposed changes are minor in nature and are intended to ensure there is no adverseimpact on the site containing the 'Randwick Stables' which are included in the State Registerof Heritage Places. These proposed minor modifications do not change the City's original submission,which was resolved at the ordinary meeting of Council held 8 April 2010 and read as follows: 1. It is requested that the railway crossing points identified on the Cockburn CoastDistrict Structure Plan be rezoned from 'Railway' reserve to 'Urban Deferred' to ensure that someform of grade separated access is both acknowledged and permitted at these strategic points alongthe railway

line. 2. Council supports the remaining proposals contained within Metropolitan RegionScheme 1180/41

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendmenthas the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of theWAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing.The comments presented by you in this written submissionwill be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process,please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

0 No, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom ofthe form and sign) OR

Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the followingdetails) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): 9411 3598 or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend yourpresentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearingscommittee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and assuch, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or makingits report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed tothird parties.

® All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of allhearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should theGovernor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report onsubmissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Date 26/08/2010 Signature

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closingdate, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT beconsidered.

Contacts: Telephone(08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; [email protected]; Website http://wvvw.planning.wa.gov.au DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 1 1 MAY 2010

Submission FILE/e/ 00ZS" Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure PlanArea

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Submission 11 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

NameNI5 IVA-INP1/4fR/6/-i-7° (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Postcode 6 t3 Address16 CAP DiciAN 3T-f 1141 L-ToN

Contact phone number04-33 534816.: Email address

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

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions personally present the Anyone who has made a written submission onthe amendment has the opportunity to attend a hearing. The basis of their submission to a sub-committeeof the WAPC. You do not have to comments presented by you in thiswritten submission will be consideredin determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment. to the amendment report and in For information about the submissionand hearings process, please refer particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

jal Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Pleasecomplete the following details) I will be represented by: 7' 3.534-8 I (z) MyselfMy telephone number (businesshours): or [71 A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (businesshours): Postal address:

-;.W0iiiii prefer ray hearing to.1.13.conc.ffic.,te.1 :n: ,e2r Public (members from the generalpublic may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you orthe hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: made to the WAPC may be The WAPC is subject to the Freedom ofInformation Act 1992 and as such, submissions subject to applications for access under the act. submissions, copies of your In the course of the WAPC assessingsubmissions, or making its report on these submission or the substance of that submission, maybe disclosed to third parties. all written submissions, are All hearings are recorded and transcribed.The transcripts of all hearings, along with amendment. The tabled in Parliament and published as public recordsshould the Governor approve the proposed in Parliament. WAPC recommendations are similarly publishedin a report on submissions and tabled

To be signed by person(s) makingthe submission

Date Signature 8-5 -20(

Note: Submissions MUST be receivedby the advertised closing date, beingclose of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Latesubmissions will NOT be considered.

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566;Email - [email protected]; Website - in S /G Ce.9-A..01a4-7v sr. 14/ arni 1-1/ 1,47 61 6 3 5--ZctO, kJfLPC 2- SEcicz±-7-79 A S-r- C7-Y-1 (_ce--)--1 ce-at.-r-c2-42-,- 0 ccp C0/ Q. ' e_,6 4--/-/)-1/ 4-7-0 ,-/ ___/id_ A..) Ai 7il /ve-lcz_,---h

(.",71 t-, (>6-6f) -&-LA--e, o--4-L-,-t.44 a,;e-A-1tc-z-e-- cte-r" 1_,0,.... 7 4.,

4/2 . _ Cr).- 1 el-t-e 71,1-y

cLya-r---c-1-24 Xert.e. // tC cir1c /-0_6-ezkl

6-1z; a7-z-/-y- rr? y//p_e,c, _01-0 cc, c.._e__ /?/ce //ce4-7../J 771-erfot,.) CL- Aact-r-r,L 6-/Le_ ;6/ 0 07--

rte,9 o- aZL -/)

/72 fa--c-(_,-/-i-z-e-4A-tx7)--7' z.6_ -z)_,t-i-cr /--_,./ 77-2 /.-, /-eA ai-- ci /... /-k_.e.__ c-<_,A c,-(_z__ ci_e_p_i_i r / o cull-4/(Acc._)6z./6 /te-49 a-r-t_.."-e-c-- -j1---, r-6-4--/1 4--- F,-,e---i-,i c-.. /gioct4-3 e.:,,e__-/--( c--)--t r-L_ 0-6,-e_ c-/-e--4-4 oKi--L /-)c) /c3.-2---?5,,-- /-__7

,-- -1-) C-1/7-7Ce_ -.,.. -e-, 6,t,'''= "" c-4,-1.-6,-1d-A et, co-)--7 -e--/L6;J67-e-t--. .cLr-e-6__cL icz. ,7v tix_e-0,c, ced,e____ ra--,

1",/.D z /VGI

/- l_.) . _C-e- C._ /c-1i,-, (c,...z.Z-A CI- (_c,,,,,,c/__cyr-

Cz--;17--P-/)--?- 6,,- 4.--;;--, -iltz.:6/. e) ,zd-e-e_.- _t-711-e-;5 r-oi_40-9c-(_(24,9-y-)e-----, c61--Le_4-7-6 c4 c.,)/--i_o.--e/i CAe IP. , C-G'Y- C-I--:,e---09;,_e.Le..... cci--;_z- c4,---1 02-1 cc._ce,-,..-t,z.._ /07- cz.te._ IL

'-_e_,,_e___ cc.1 c._ _ct._ --ex_e_i- -2_2y-e_vez.! _c_c_ A ,72-7 "IR-- $ ,-1-,1 --,---)a6-).--t e--)-L.-6 c-L....r ez---6 7 ,/4D , ,.- &z_A -.-0/cc,c_e_ e74 i-

_(...t.1c7z-(_/-cL_

/1 ..4--, -(-:12e-'-e... ' CP-v-1 ZAZ" J-C-4--Z"--/-0--O( ( Z-4-e-i--/--:e -_ 1--6-4--1 Ci---

, -7.---n -7- .s/r1 Ce-i-vta--C- ; ef--e.- Z4C) 0-Y-1 C?"Z.A..-r- il-,0:- C' ec,f,1-1 1 00et.',6 ev-7) ct 4L

° 0,6cr.-, cL 7- /2 s'a1pf2_c-LC2--1 t 79 ce 10Y) __LAL-4,"--e__ CLC)-e;-6 e_r-CL!Lj

e-c) e4,4-1 cLe_e--0 Zo-h to:,) t>,11c-L-6'

c3Lic-c/ /-ce-c_e

cr_4---e/A

SI-1E1 1-,=) tA/R. ci City of Cockburn ABN: 27 471 341 209 PO Box 1215, Bibra Lake DC, Inquiries: Daniel Arndt Western Australia 6965 Our Ref: 1070 (07/22147) Your Ref: 9 Coleville Crescent, Spearwood, Western Australia 6163

Telephone (08) 9411 3444 Facsimile (08) 9347 1730 24 August 2007

Ms Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan Street Hamilton Hill WA 6163

Dear Ms Wain Wright

QUERY IN RELATION TO REZONING 16 CARDIGAN STREET, HAMILTON HILL

I refer to your correspondence dated 15 August 2007 regarding thepotential rezoning of your property at No. 16 Cardigan Street, Hamilton Hill.In answer to your questions I wish to advise the following:

1. There have been no recent rezonings in the area bounded byRockingham Road, Healy Road, Cardigan Street and Hardy Road Hamilton Hill.

2. The former Westwood timber yard property (No.9 Healy Road, HamiltonHill) has not been rezoned. The property is currently zoned 'MixedBusiness' in Council's Town Planning Scheme No. 3, under a 'Mixed Business' zone residential development is permitted in accordance with an R60density coding (effectively 180sqm per dwelling).

3. As previously advised Council has yet to prepare a Local HousingStrategy for the area, although the need for such a strategy is currentlybeing assessed.

It should be noted that your property currently falls within a 'RegionalReserve Primary Regional Road' reservation under the Metropolitan RegionSCheme, as such, any change to the zoning of the land would have tobe instigated by the Western Australian Planning Commission as part of a review of the regional roadreservations. I am not aware of any plans by the Commission to review these roadreservations at this stage.

I hope that this information answers your queries in respect to thismatter if, however, you have any further questions do nothesitate to contact Council's Strategic Planning. Services.

Yo rs sincerely

aniel Arndt DIRECTOR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Mr Stephen Cain 15th August 2007 Chief Executive Officer City of Cockburn PO Box 1215 BIBRA LAKE DC- 6965 Dear Mr. Cain Thank you-for the response in reference to my letter29th April 2007. In reference to your answers of my questiont 1-and 4. 1. Does'the City ofCockburn have any current or proposedplansto rezone the land area located within theboundaries of Rockingham Road, Healy Road, Cardigan Street and Hardy Road, Hathilton A. The city does not have any current plansfor rezoning or changing the residential density for this area 4. What options are available to the, landownersif they wish to progress

the rezoning of the area? 1 A. The rezoning or density change applied to theentire area and not just a single property or properties.

My questions-are: Has the rezoning-Of my area already taken place? , Am I right in saying that "If the rezoning of the old Westwoodtimber yard property was approved, the density change wouldhaveo_ccurred to the whole area at this time, Which includes my property. If so,_when _did _the _rezoning change, to accommodatethe Belvista development of over 30 townhouses at the end of mystreet? formerly the Old Westwood timber yard property. Did Council undertake a Local Housing Strategy? Did the WAPC implement-this? Was extensive public consultation involved? Who Was consulted? When did it take place? ThAik you, looking forward-to your earliest reply.

Yours faithfully

Ms Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan Street HAMILTON HILL- WA 6163 PH: 08-93351931 City of Cockburn ABN:27 471 341,Z0 PO Box 1215, Bibra Iake Western Australia-6965

9 Coleville Crescent, Spearwood, Western,Australia 6163

Telephone (08) 9411 3444 Facsimile (08) 9411 3416

Enquiries: Ms V Viljoen Our File: CTR 07/.

5 June 2007

Ms Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan Street HAMILTON HILL WA 6163

Dear Ms Wainwright

Public Question Time.Ordinary Council Meeting - 10May 2007

It was not possible to provide a responseto the issues raised in yourwritten quest ons-forthe -OrdinaryGouncil-Meeting of 10-May 2007.

Accordingly, please find attached a copyof the response that hadbeen prepared to be read out to you atthe meeting. We apologisefor the delay in replying to you, however wehave been experiencinglogistical difficulties in that we have had to moveoffices and the process hashindered our response time.

Yours sincerely

STEPHEN CAIN Chief Executive Officer sc:vv

Enclosure:

c spONSI; TO QU STION ON NOTICE FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS QUgSTION/S ... . 01$1.'''.7k`, NAME AND ADDRESS ADDRESS DATE MEETING AGENDA ITEM NO. AND HEADING **:l.s,,AwD.P40.k:'OINILYLr0 ... A ATITI. Y TIR,QUE ST IONS 'NOT .,iNcrA.71*E5TOE'ISIthi: U ST*TEDO/NUFfiC " T R E! SHEILA16 CARDIGAN WAINWRIGHT STREET 10 MAY 2007 N/A .SEE-TT;Acti.LPsiC401*4k114.6RMA*101N! BELOW. tiONN -,-,,ANTL.$;..M..v ) HAMILTONRESPONSE HILL PREPARED WA 6163 BY DANIEL ARNDT have any current or proposed plans to rezone the land area located within the Al. TheboundariesDoes City the does City, of not Rockingham of have Cockburn any current Road, to be used by the City plans forHealy rezoning Road, or changingCardigan of Cockburn if there is a Street and Hardy Road, the residential density for proposed change to theHamilton zoning Hill? of t this area. A2.Q2. WhatThearea?Housing isfirst the step Strategy,process in considering requiredin accordance a change to the zoning withor the requirements pf residential densities wouldthe be Western Australian issues. The Strategy would Planning Commission. The for Council to undertake arecommend set of principles to Strategy Local Scheme.Councilchangesguideessentially future would to would residential provision then provide either of density housing a instigategeneral a would occur in future.and residential lots, assessoverview of housing-relatedreview of its Town Planning Following on from any the role of supporting services Scheme or undertake a series recommendations arising from the and indicate where any of amendments to the Strategy future Q3. What rights do tjhe. landowners/residents have in the running process and when do they get consulted? A3. wouldThealsoadoption. process involvesinvolve Similaily for extensivea statutory the processpublic advertising consultation for undertakingperiod, during both a rezoning s Implementing a Local Housing Strategy is; which the publicduring are he consulted preparation on any and prospective prior to CoUncil's set out by the Westernset out Australian in the Planning Planning Act and Town Planning final determinationchanges. and Commission. This Regulations, it A4.Q4. AWhat landowner options or are landowners available could to the submit landowners a if they proposal to the City to increase the density wish to progress the rezoning of the area? of their land providing that: ) TheTheresidential rezoninglandowner(s) forrnal density planningor density provide of documentationthe change area;detailed applied planning is toprepared the entire area and//justification not just a single as to why Council shouldby consider a suitably a qualified consultant and is property or properties; submitted to the City along with change to the zoning or timeAscontext. indicated as Council however has finalised any application a Localpaymentof for a the relevant application fee. Housing Strategy, in order to ensure that any c rezoning or change in residential density is unlike! 'angges were undertaken in a wicleri, to be supported until sudiiiyt Western Australian Commission atialplanring

-Enquiries: Rosa Rigati (9264 7612) 'OW= Ref: Your Ref:

Ms Sheila Wainwright' 16 Cardigan Street; HAMILTON HILL WA 6163.

Dear Ms Wainwright

REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION

Irefer,-to your letter,dated 27 October 2006 andopologise for the delay in replying: -I have attached-the, Western-Australian' :Planning COmmission's guidelines for subdivision application and application Form' 1A which outlines the requirements for formal application 7 of subdivision.

Should you require any further inforrnatiorri-rpleaSe do :hothesitate to -contact one of -our- Planning-Support Officers_on 9264 7777.=

'YOUrs--Sinterely

Moshe Gilovitz

Secretary z WesternAustraliab Plarfrling COnimission:-

=

Aat;ert- Far tiouse-4694Nellin-Rtbrf=Streetlenr-Torrat PlacerPertIVWestenAustralia-6000 L6 -

HIVad (Nfi V OCKY, /S -70 -73i /1\ta a,2 No

/ 0 1/1/0-Hryl WF711717--7-7 /1\1?"ErONCTO

S --*-7 1=17-1 reirw/vi-YA1 Lt

90-11-r'

11.1 ood 0

0,1 t 1 NNiSioN OF Lo-T° 3 366. AA-1-t-rtyV

'1\10T A t_c_E 5).6, 4.-QT PPA0)( ;470(55. re;), tr5) SCALE.) Vi 4 ES i S-rtG PARzy ROAp.

A cc...--ss pikoNT Lo-1- (" "Ppfkox n r 5 5 ; I C AN/ 5 -riz-E-1. Department for PlanningaKLInfrastrUctur_e Government ofWestern Australia

Urban Innovation Your ref: Our ref: 801/2/23/43PV2 Enquiries: John Halleen 9264 7777 18 September 2006

Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan Street Hamilton Hill WA 6163

Dear Sheila Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan As you may be aware the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is currently preparing a district structure plan that will guide the futuredevelopment of the Cockburn coast. The need for a district structure plan was identified as an outcome of the .Vision for the Cockburn Coast Dialogue, which was held in 2005. The dialogue process indicated that there is broad community support for a change in direction of the Cockburn coast away from an industrialfocus, with a view towards the creation of a vibrant mixed use residential and commercial community. We are currently at the beginning of the district structure planning process. This will include landowner and stakeholder consultation, which is likely to continue for the next seven monthS.IAs a local resident your vision for the Cockburn coast is valuable and we are interested inobtaining ------your-viewS:Attachedto -this-letter-is-al estiorin- eite-fo ryou -to-co mpleteAny-iriformatio n-provicied will,be confidential, and will only appear in public clOcumenth/fortirns as a general summaryof all informatiOn received. Please return the questionnaire, using the reply paid envelope beforeFriday 13 October. The structure plan area incorporates Clontarf Hill, including all government-owried landlocated_ between Newmarket Street,Clontarf Road,the southern extension of Mather Road and Healy Road. Please note that future planning for. Clontarf Hill is to be initially addressed underthe City of Fremantle's City Planning Scheme No.4.

However, this Clontarf Hill area -has been included in the district structure plan toexplore the opportunity for improving north - south and east - west road networks to the Cockburncoast utilising, primarily, the existing` Primary Regional Road Reserve.

We willkeep you updated throughout thedistrictstructureplanproceSs withfurther correspondence:-You can also Vitit the-Cockburn Coast website atwvvw.wao-c-.w-a-.-crov:am-Should you wish to discuss any other issues, please contact John Halleen atthe Department for Planning and Infrastructure on 9264 7777 or e-mail [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Dr Mike Mouritz Executive Director, Urban Innovation Western Australian Planning OUR REF: 819-2-23-4 Commission ENQS: Mr Tim Hillyard (9264 7508) 50)p51, planning

Ms Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan Street HAMILION_H ILL WA 6163

Dear Ms Wainwright

_ Improvement Plan No 33 Cockburn Coast Precinct

I am writing to advise you, as the owner of land located within the proposed Cockburn Coast. District Structure Plan, that the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has received the consent of His Excellency the Governor to bring down an improvement plan for land generally bounded by Port Coogee, South Beach and Beeliar Regional Open Space.

The purpose of the improvement planisto resolve current and future planning and development conflicts. In light of the proposed future rezoning of industrial land to urban an Improvement Plan will be ,placed over the north Coogee area This means development applications will be assessed by the WAPC with an emphasis on creating planning and development certainty for existing landowners. The WAPC when considering applications will be mindful of future plans for the area. -

A notice of His. Excellency the Governors decision to accept the improvement plan, known as Improvement Plan No.33 Cockburn Coast 'Precinct, will be published in the Government Gazette on Tuesday, 13 June 2006. Improvement Plan No 33 takes effect on and from this date.

A copy of WAPC .plan number 1.5545, which Shows the extent of the improvement plan, is attached.

If you require further information regarding the improvement plan, please contact the Department for Planning and Infrastructilre, Mr Tim Hillyard on 9264 7508.

I have also included a brochure that Outlines the structure planning process for your information.

Yours sincerely (/

Lindsay Preece Acting Sec_retary Western Australian Planning Commission

13 June 2006

Eno: st;!\17._ 2 fr-friA

FTA 434_ c1 4 3

Mr Stephen Cain 29th April 2007 Chief EXecutive Officer City of Cockburn PO Box 1215 BIBRA LAKE DC 6965

Dear Mr. Cain

Being a ratepayer of the City of Cockburn,I reside at 16 Cardigan Street, Hamilton Hill, I would like thefollowing questions to be addressed during the next council meetingThursday 10th May 2007

1. Does the City of Cockburnhave any current or proposed plans to rezone the land arealocated within the boundaries of Rockingham Road, HealyRoad, Cardigan Street and Hardy Road, Hamilton Hill?

2. What is the processrequired to be used by theCity of Cockburn-if-there-is-a-proposed change tothe zoning of the area?

3. What rights do thelandowners/residents have in the running process and whendo they get consulted?

4. What options are availableto the landowners if theywish to progress the rezoningof the area?

Thank you

Yours faithfu

OA,

Ms Sheila_Wainwright 16 Cardigan Street HAMILTON HILL WA 6163 PH: 08 93351931

/9&747-4,y E/ 5 ENT k El M,TufvE- 07 City ofCockburn ABN: 27 471 341 209 PO Box 1215, Bibra Lake DC, Ph: 9411 3572 Inquiries: Mike Ross Western Australia 6965 OUr Ref: 2204251 Your Ref: 9 Coleville Crescent, Spearwood, Western Australia 6163

Telephone (08) 9411 3444 Facsimile (08) 9347 1730

9 January 2007 Ms Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan Street Hamilton Hill WA 6163

SUBDIVISION ENQUIRY- NO 16CARDIGAN STREET, HAMILTON HILL.

Thank you for your letter of 23 December 2006 seeking advise in relation to a proposal to subdivide the abovementioned property.

The land is currently classified as a RegionalReserve Primary Regional Road in the City's Town Planning SchemeNo. 3 has a corresponding reservation. Despite the State Government'sintention not to proceed with Roe HighwayStage 8 the regional road reservation has notbeen removed from the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Accordinglyit is unlikely that the City would support an application to subdivide the subjectland. It is also understood that Main Roads WA are also reviewing theFremantle to Rockingham Road Reservation. Planning for primary regional roadsis the responsibility of Main Roads WA and the Department for Planningand Infrastructure,not`-the Council.

Notwithstanding the above if it is your intention toproceed with an application for subdivision, .this must be lodged on theprescribed form attached with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure.

Mike Ross Principal Planner City of Cockburn P.0,, Box -1215 BIBRALAKE DC. WA 6965 Planning Dept Residential Land Sub-Division Dept. 23.12.06

To whom it may concern:

Dear Sir/Madam-,= property, which I would like to obtainapproval-for a proposed sub-division on my LOcation 5, Lot IS in 16 Cardigan Street, HamiltonHill.Being: -Cockburn Sound 35 on plan 2654; A sketch (not to scale)proposal idea is attached,highlighted and self explanatory,-with the potentiaLofdeveloping asingle double story &fellingat-the at the front of rear and two double storytovvnhouseismall house type dwellings information that I Along with your guidance including,regulations and any useful looking forward to your -may need, beforemaking a formal application, -I am earliest reply on this matter, Please note: this is an informalpraposal.

Yours faithfully

Ms Sheila Wainwright

fas CjeDZ7-(2-06 &ley- 1:)i\I Fi oN C4 LOT' 36 3 3p4, t.; R cretv -41-44

NOT TO Tt5 Ai-T.0,0 y; v 40( tritr5 A s-rt G H A Rtfy

A C.CE,f.S. :TO tzlor\-117 LOT P pfkoy 41 co rvd-r-L,. A s1:5 r 5 1-FLuz Lz-r-L

"

L

FAOPCI 511,e;- Di V( ,c; rcl

(APPIRcy N-4 LptAbk-I REG ISTER: .9'1:- 1151 Marr alib Art, 1893 .i;(56 V e4:14) .Zrartatr LI eace. White of 14 ,Lit tie HOward a:treeti PreMht tle,,;''Engine.: Dr iver, isi;;J,nsw 'thepti.,pPri,et , 1 ,, , 1,- of ''Eta : a ea.pop,14.i,pri,,.,of,,,Cookbur fee simple siiiajedt, t ColOared ,Eilteen);ri tho map': hereon. the' ea6,erifein.t6--eind encumber *. .and., t ontaining (cesil`:(twerity-43iX-. #otified: herewid.e.r3;':':in. arid, nitre-teatihs perohesail, ht , piece 26544- , -,*; perches , or :t, ereabOirtt, f' '1Snd.',, Newmarks

beach ''BELUON

EMPLAC

7erine Pt

RECRI

COVE Azelia Ley® Horriestead dog beach ; --4171annim Park :5545- woTt, 11111. 03' I11111,0 STA-ET num£lI!UPIIoeie :' tiMOM 111111111P. 121=NMINNEN1111 IM=1 Maill0111114 al NI JEAN 011161111MATAIWinn UMW gr,.=-Z riffille STREEY mumsVamint: 1.1111....,i=inimoMa...... ,MM.NAMEMI NM.... 3° taMil..,.. iDi al 0.- 611111111111111111111111111111111111E ROAD aiming -...milli...v.."... WM I0 Gm 11. 101am wz, Igx n ai s 2 rialeiummnilL,6115114116 1111111111mUlmillinhe, PA hiniklb HEALY --Rog) ITIal randiblit I -15I 56 156 41 -" Art 100 -BOYD-CRESCENT alqUIPIN 'Mal NOP101 IP& 89 --SELLICN CAS264 1946 ROAD KmDUMP! -9.60 1 / 403- c644048 41-99; L.,41 p N 22 40* 4t# tor WAY EMPLACEMENT - -104_ - -'rer10 -205704424159 GARSTON CA4500-9 2102 At9s_ - 945 CA44273 - VC, v$1151211:11EMM - CRESCENT' -= 11.546 126 109 IHAMILITON HILL - %,04-r1D:= 2103 44 ira111 RE HEATON CA36493 211 17 - L 15 mNFIELD IV g_ - '2109 7J830 immimsWillellaiMS11111113WWII.%ram= iltsma' eaemivormi JANSEN ROAD g1:1:11:SITT: 111...... ,...... ICEMINIAIIIII In VCL COVE - 253 MEMawrilan,.....1..ne=11:2 Minen= ii9IMINIMillion 161.i..1111.12-°FREYLill= iren wow MN stsi 2161 26 S 0.2(67p 2Aio : 0126573 CAS7305 19115 ROAD CA37833 1990 250 AZEL14 OraemerAlimmono tiww miligirlan rztIII I relarm MAIN II A

r. r.

II I - A. NW. Queensgate Centre, William Street, Fremantle W.A. 61.60(P.O. Box 871) Telephone:(08) 9336 7000Fax:(08)9430 4564Email:[email protected]

Ms Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan St Hamilton Hill WA 6163

Two_ 4,,May 2006

Dear Ms Wainwright

Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the Water Corporation in which I seekadvice as to whether your property is scheduled to be included in theInfill Sewerage Program.

I will contact_you_again_as_soon as Lam in receipt of a reply.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Jim McGinty MLA Member for Fremantle C : \My Documents\ElecdataWLECTORATE\Wainwright Sheila. Watercorp.SewerageInfill.jm.doc Shop 1, Qdeensgate Centre, William Street, Fremantle W.A. 6160(P.O. Box 871) Telephone: (08) 9336 7000 Fax: (08) 9430 4564 Email: jmcginty@mp,wa.gov.au

Mr Ian Pineira Infi 11 Sewerage Program Manager Water Corporation PO Box 100 LEEDERVILLE WA 6902

26 May 2006 Dig

Dear Mr Pineira

Re: 16 Cardigan Street, Hamilton Hill

I have received a letter from a constituent, Ms Sheila Wainwright from the above address.

Ms Wainwright's property is located within a reservation zoned 'Primary Regional Roads' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The reservation was intended to be used as part of the Roe Highway extension; which has now been shelved.

Ms Wainwright's concern is that she won't be able to replace her septic tank due to this zoning restriction; which will be in place indefinitely.

I was unable to determine whether this property is scheduled to be included in the Infi II Sewerage Program. Could you please advise if there are any plans regarding this address?

Yours sincerely

Jim McGinty MIA. Member for Fremantle FAEle.Cdata\ELECTORAMINainwright,Sheilasewerageinfill.doc t IV' II

Shop 1, Queensgate Centre, William Street, Fremantle W.A. 6160 (P.O. Box 871) Telephone: (08) 9336 7000 Fax: (.08) 9430 4564 Email:.jmcginty @mp.wa.gov.au

Ms Sheila Wainwright 16 Cardigan St Hamilton. Hill WA 6163

4 May 2006

Dear Ms Wainwright

Thankyou for your letter dated April5th2006 re the status of your property. Please find enclosed a letter sent by this office to the WesternAustralian Planning Commission on your behalf. We will contact you as soon as we havereceived a response.

Yours sincerely

Louise Good Research Officer to Jim McGinty MLA MEMBER FOR FREMANTLE A

""'

Shop 1, Queensgate Centre, William Street, Fremantle W.A. 6160 (P.O. Box 871) Telephone: (08) 9336 7000 Fax: (08) 9430 4564Email: [email protected]

Mr Steven Davis Snr Transport Planner Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington St PERTH WA 6000

4 May 2006

Dear Mr Davis

Re Ms Sheila Wainwright, 16 Cardigan St, Hamilton Hill, WA 6163

I am writing on behalf of Ms Sheila Wainwright who lives at the above address. Ms Wainwright is seeking clarification in relation to her property that has been put aside as a Regional Land Reserve by Main Roads Department for the previous Roe Highway.

Could you please advise me what the current status is of the zoning of this land. Her two main concerns appear to be about subdivision and the replacing of a septic tank on her property. I would be grateful for any information you could provide to us, in order that we may assist our constituent.

Yours Sincerely

Louise Good Research Officer to Jim McGinty,MLA MEMBER FOR FREMANTLE \MINISTERS \Planning \wapC.Wainwright Shiela.doc Bill ThomasJ.P., M.L.A. Member for Cockburn Telephone 9418 4114 Fax: 9434 1818

Address: Suite 11, Lancaster House, Cnr. Rockingham Rd and Lancaster St, Spearwood

Postal: P.O. Box 104, Hamilton Hill, W.A. 6163

Mrs Sheila Lamb 16 Cardigan Road Hamilton Hill 6163 by fax:. 9336 4726 Aas-c-,)82 ;v1

Dear Mrs Lamb re: Lot 35 Cardigan StreetHamilton Hill

I have spoken to Main Road W.A. It seems they are not yetabsolutely certain that your house is on the final alignment of the Fremantle Eastern Bypassbut it is definitely on the Roe Freeway reserve.

They tell me that if you advise them that you want toupgrade your accommodation, either by building a new house or substantially renovating the one youhave, but cannot because it is reserved for roads, they will put in motion steps toacquire it from you.

You should write to: Lloyd Jones Acquisition Manager Main Roads W.A. P 0 Box 6202 East Perth 6892

You can fax Lloyd if you wish on 9323 4600.I have spoken to him today and he isexpecting to hear from you.

I hope it all works out. Let me know if I canhelp.

With best wishes.

Yours faithfully,

BILLTHOMAS J.P., M.L.A. MEMBER FOR COCKBURN.

'9 February, 1999 GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

A, 9p. le__ 94-

INFILL SEWERAGE ®- SAFEGUARDING OUR FUTURE

Dear Sir/Madam As a householder with a septic tank you will be pleased to learn that at last youhave a State Government that is acting to implement an infill sewerage program for Western Australia.

To secure our community's health and the protection of the environment the Governmentwill ensure that those parts of Perth and country towns not yet ondeep sewerage, will be connected to a sys em within 10 years.

This program will benefit not just yourself but the whole community.

A massive 100,000 households in this beautiful State of ours do not have deep sewerage.The efflu- ent from these septic systems is polluting our drinking water and threatening our oncepristine waterways.

It is a serious problem that governments have ignored for too long.

The threats posed by septic systems to safe drinking water, community health and to our waterways will become even harder to deal with if they are not tackled now.

It will cost an enormous $800 million and will be one of the State's biggest eversingle public works projects. It will provide thousands of jobs and is equivalent to sewering a city thesize of Canberra. The program will begin immediately. It will be managed and financed by the Water Authority. Through sound financial management there will be no levy or service contribution fees thrust upon the public. The Water Authority will give you detailedinformation well ahead of time, when work is planned in your area.

The accompanying brochure and fact sheet provide more information about the program, andthe priorities that will guide its development and progress.

It is critical to the State's future and we are going to do it.

Yours sincerely

HON RICHARD -_-cf-A. INFILL SEWERAGE

A Infill sewerage program launched

THE Western Australian Government and_f_h'e 'Water prow ide reticulated sewerage to about 80, 000 residential, Authority have undertaken to spend $800-million_over commercial and industrial properties inthe metropolitan the next -10 years to elinfinate--;the health_ and area and about 20,000 properties in country areas. environmental risks posed, by_septio:S3.'stems =in Perth Inthe first year $65 millionwill be allocated, ekpanding' and country centres andto assist in orderly deyelopinent to $70 million in year two, 875 million in Year three and and redeveIoPrrierit Of land. _ $80:inillionin year four. The program"called the Infill Sewerage Program = will Work to be carried out in Year One of the pro-grant-Will begin in the 1994t95- financial year. It will be managed initially provide sewerage to individual properties but; L_ bytheWaterAuthOrity ofWesternAu-stralia arid financed -where necessary;, iiiclude=pumping stations and from Water Authority furids. Through sound financial larger sewers. This will continnethiongliout the prog management,- there will not be a levy_ or service -along with increases in treatment capacity as required. contribution fee. Property owners Who will be affected in Year One will be On 1993 estimates the Infill Sewerage Program will alerted by letter before surveys and design work begin.

PERTH METROPOLITAN YEAR ONE PROGRAM SEWERAGE AREA '-LOCALITY-: IDENTIFICATIOIL Tuart Yokine Yokine----4A and pumping station- hinaloo Baleatta 15C and purnping station Stirling Balcatta 1 lA and pumping station Innaloo Balcatta Shelley - Willetton :Helena Valley Midland 6F Innaloo Balcatta 15B Bedford, Embleton and Morley Morley 18B and pumping station South Guildford South Guildford 1A and pumping station Carlisle and East Victoria Park Victoria Park 24A and pumping station Bayswater, Morley and Embleton Bassendean 14D Nollaniara Balga 8H Gosnells Gosriells 7H South Guildford South Guildford 1C ),Vilsori Carmington 8B Glendalough Perth 59A Cloverdale Belmont 9D Cannington and East Cannington East Cannington 10B and 9G GreenmOnnt Midland 25W Armadale Kelmscott 4K -Mtridaring Mundaring 1A-,-pumping station; pumping main and treatment plant Rockingham Rockingham 9A and pumping station Hilton Spearwood 13K and 21D

The-Water Authority will be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the Infill Sewerage program. A special Infill Sewerage Hotline has keen set up. Yen can call toll free on 1800 -627666. T-HME 141-0P-OLITAisilREGION _ 'NFU_ - SEWERAGE PROGRAM -YEAR_ V

43ALCATIA 11A

MUNDARING-INSET

CANN:H170N BB

'00010iIGHAA1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNI Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 12 MAY 2010 Form 41

Submission FILE 1e-4,,C 0075". Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180141 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Name PAUL. rtI(Z'ES TT (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address FRE-PA /)N E": wo< 01 Postcode...... E-R5P1 A N1-1- e Contact phone numberc11-1?- °1'1'13 Email address Dk utl.@ yremgnbte .3.0v.cto

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

F1,-VAS S PC3- C SDL'

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: ivt"C2R f lTi oR t'eL5-11-CE Contact telephone number (business hours):t1432- c't13 Postal address: C 7"1 ° Pc) 3P>( r vvA 6159 I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that:

The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Signature Date

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close o business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au Our Ref:216/012 Contact:Sham Meekel - 9432 9964

7 May 2010 City of Fremantle ABN: 74 680 272 485

Town Ha Centre, 8 William Street Fremantle WA 6160 Western Australian Planning Commission PO Box 807, Fremantle WA 6959 T 08 9432 9999 F 08 9430 4634 469-489 Wellington Street TTY 08 9432 9777 PERTH WA 6000 E info@fremantlewa,gov.au

Attn: Lauren Aitken

Dear Sir

PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41 - COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN - CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION

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

Council at its Ordinary Meeting 28 April 2010 made the following resolution:

That the following comments be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission as the City of Fremantle's submission on Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 'Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area': 1. The City supports the proposed rezoning of land currently zonedIndustrial to Urban Deferred. This is considered the most appropriate zoning atthis stage, given the need for various environmental, infrastructure andstrategic planning issues to be addressed in more detail prior to the land being zoned Urban to facilitate development for more intensive urban uses in thelonger term, as envisaged in the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. 2. The City supports the proposed rezoning of the site of theformer South Fremantle Power Station and adjacent land to the south to Public Purposes Special Use Reservation in recognition that this will facilitate the retention and future adaptive reuse of this important 'landmark' building for appropriate community-orientated uses as envisaged in the CockburnCoast District Structure Plan. Although not directly related to the Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment process, the City also wishes to take this opportunity to reiterate its previous recommendation that the Western Australian Planning Commission should pursue reinstatement of the listing of the power station on the State Register of Heritage Places. 3. The City acknowledges that the proposed realignment of thePrimary Regional Roads reservation is an improvement upon the current alignment insofar as it reduces the potential visual impact of any future road 2

constructed within the reservation upon the ridgeline of the Bee liar Regional Park, potentially enables more land to be retained within the Regional Park, and avoids the severance of land within the western edge of the Parks and Recreation reservation from the main part of the Regional Park which is caused by the current alignment. However, the City considers that the justification in the MRS Amendment documentation for the retention and configuration of the Primary Regional Road reservation is premature and unproven, given that the Department of Planning's 'South Metropolitan and Peel Region Integrated Land Use and Transport StudyStrategic Assessment of the Regional Transport Requirements' which will include an assessment of the transport needs of the South West corridor and a review of the status of existing and reserved Primary Regional Roads has not yet been completed. 4. The City reiterates its position as previously stated in its submission on the draft Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan in August 2008 that the strategic planning framework for the area should include provision for a dedicated public transport corridor with an alignment mutually agreed upon by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the City of Fremantle and the City of Cockburn to link the structure plan area with Fremantle. Further investigation of alignment options, taking into account the full range of potential public transport modes, should be progressed as a matter of priority prior to conclusion of the MRS amendment process so that any appropriate reservation provisions for this purpose can be incorporated into Amendment 1180/41 if required.

If the Commission has any questions or requires further information on the City's submission, please do not hesitate to contact Sham Meekel on 94329964 or [email protected].

Yours faithfully,

Paul Garbett Manager Planning Projects and Policy Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY I Submission Number

To: Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Submission12 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Name: Chris Fitzhardinge, Director South West Group

Address: Locked Bag 1, BOORAGOON WA Postcode: 6954

Contact phone number: (08) 9364 0631

Email address: directorsouthwestgroup.com.au

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

Attached

X Yes I wish to speak at the hearings and will be represented by myself (Contact mobile number 0408450071). I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in public

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Signature Date: May 12, 2010 Radley, Steven

From: Chris Fitzhardinge [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2010 2:56 PM To: mrs Subject: Cockburn Coast MRS Amendment Submission Attachments: SWG Cockburn Coast WAPC May 2010.doc; SOUTH WEST GROUP Background April 2010.doc

Attached please find a submission from the South West Group.

regards

Chris Fitzhardinge Director South West Group (08) 9364 0631 Web wvvw.southwestgroup.com.au www.employkwinana.com.au WWWsabahtrade.com.au

City of Melville Legal Notice. The contents of this email or its attachments may be private and confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure in the public interest. 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 have taken of the email and attachments. Before taking any action based upon advice and/or information contained in this email you should carefully consider the advice and information and consider obtaining relevant independent advice.

12/05/2010 A Co-operative venture of the municipalities of: Cockburn, East Fremantle, Fremantle, Kwinana, Melville & Rockingham

Date: May 12, 2010 Contact: Chris Fitzhardinge (08) 9364 0631 Reference: SWG Cockburn Coast WAPC May 2010

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

SOUTH WEST GROUP SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41 COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AREA

The South West Group broadly supports the development of Cockburn Coast as outlined in the Structure Plan and the redevelopmentof the South Fremantle Power Station as the mixed use hub of the redevelopment.

The South West Group has previously expressed concern about the quality of public transport linkages and the adoption of an 800 metre walking distance standard for access to public transport. The provision of three bus/tram/rapid transit stops within an area providing for 10,800 residents is inadequate particularly as the area is being promoted for transit oriented development. Provision should be included for a further public transport route closer to the coast and a target set of having access to public transport within a 400 metre radius. This could be provided by a bus service which would also facilitate family access to the northern beaches within the Structure Plan area.

The Structure Plan should incorporate a transit corridor with geometry that will ultimately be capable of being serviced with light rail.

The District Structure Plan shows strategic access points across the 'Railways' reserve. It is recommended that these crossings be rezoned to `Urban Deferred', as it is considered that the success of the District Structure Plan will be largely measured by the manner in which it reunites the public with the coast. By rezoning these crossing points from 'Railway' reserve to 'Urban Deferred' this will ensure that some form of grade separated access is both acknowledged and permitted at these strategic points along the railway line.

The freight rail linkage through Cockburn Coast is crucial for the economic development of the region. The freight line must be capable of handling 500,000 containers a year if the objective of having 30 per cent of Fremantle Inner Harbour container traffic on rail is to be achieved. Crossings over the freight rail linkage should provide for double stacked containers and access to the rail reserve be suitable for heavy equipment needed to deal with the derailment of a train and wagons.

Yours sincerely

Chris Fitzhardinge Director South West Group SOUTH WEST GROUPS54

SOUTH WEST GROUP

The South West Group, formed in November 1983, is a Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils (VROC). It comprises the Cities of Cockburn, Fremantle, Melville, and Rockingham, and the Towns of East Fremantle and Kwinana. The South West Group is managed by a Board consisting of the Mayors and CEOs of its member local government authorities.

The South West Group seeks to work with these six local governments and through cooperation with industry, community and the other spheres of government to capture a wide range of opportunities to enhance economic growth as well as supporting a diversity of quality lifestyles whilst servicing and sustaining cohesive, productive communities in an enviable environmental setting.

The South West Group will be persuasive, forward looking and influential in representing, supporting and promoting Local Government interests that affect the growth and sustainable development of South Metropolitan Perth.

Contacts:

Chris Fitzhardinge Director South West Group Phone: +618 9364 0631 Email: Directorsouthwestgroup.corn.au

Joanna Ong Executive Officer South West Group Phone: +618 9364 0637 Email: joanna.ongmelville.wa.gov.au

Address: 10 Almondbury Road BOORAGOON WA 6154

Post: Locked Bag 1 BOORAGOON WA 6954

Fax: +618 9364 0285 Web: www.southwestgroup.com.au www.employkwinana.com.au www.sabahtrade.com.au

South West Group 1 April 2010 SOUTH METROPOLITAN REGION KEY INFORMATION Area 619.4 square kilometres (approximately 50 km long by an average 12km width) Location South Western Quarter of Metropolitan Perth bounded by the Canning River, Swan River, Fremantle Harbour, Cockburn Sound, Warnbro Sound and generally 2 km east of the Kwinana Freeway alignment. Economic Infrastructure Fremantle Port, Australian Marine Complex, Kwinana Industrial Area, HMAS Stirling, Jandakot Airport Current Population June 2009 353,582 (ABS 3218.0 2010) Population Growth 2004 to 2009 2.8% (ABS 3218.0 2010) Projected Population 2020 424,400 (Based on ABS and WAPC information) Participation Rate 68.0% (ABS 6291.0.55.001 March 2010) Employed 181,800 (ABS 6291.0.55.001 March 2010) Unemployment Rate 6.1% (ABS 6291.0.55.001 March 2010) Indigenous Population 1.4% (Census 2006) Overseas Born Population 31.5% (Census 2006) Personal Income $8,696 million (ATO 2006/07) Building Approvals $2,469 million (ABS July 2009 to February 2010) Registered Motor Vehicles 233,131 (ABS as at 31/3/2006)

tie fremant r°r:' Port City of .71 iMe 0.111 'Rremanice 1- 1

city of Cockburn ,

nustrBBllan MadnE comaJex

\ Gotten 1 Island

Kwinans, Industrial-- Towriof kwaVaila

Rockmgham Regional \ Centro

of Rockingham

\

South West Group 2 April 2010 Planning and Development Act 2005 MAILED Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 13 Perth WA 6000

Name cc. G-cl.,$-Q-1

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address /14 /9-7.J/ s 3T-(2,&."PT- ,40h)rut Postcode 16-3

Contact phone numberOL-f (? 9 ESC& Email address / &A- i= e Certit. eLki

Submission(Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound) RuP6-4.2rt g 0 S i sJ 0-4.4 4- trizEmirild 77-46-' c iy CZ 'FLY1-`-; /1--00 04) c.6.-.gS 1 rtt

II i

4 t t k .). c A x. L _% 14 To 6--1 t i 0 C. -a l i i z 7 .J L, ,,,ci3 p prq"-- go IZ,Tecr-

'TO -'""c fAii-1 a Nvk_---ci,rrJ3 r:0 r frcv-e3e;r:vv-ille(5-a-i vkA.= ocz v.--G- Q;.,,-_.e.e--s pcv,36. tc)e-o-ivra, eitoiitA i ,t'i-1,,x.c._,_ -&,.,3 a * Q 6---\:Vv-NASG---c-a-kk.e.u_ tsc-, vsyGis,ePA w,,,,,L3,4s,c.cri-t;

rkv.ON c,,N- 6-F- el-067.-PettG:-ec i44 b E. (1-1,-hI-64-eIA/ Frz-r+-srilt-k.cru4le -Reirvt,c Li14-Pci-koz-A-13I.,-v-N (-Cbe*.-dEtt p4,,,tE19-- m.,.9 M 6..,,,I c! ,/ 1:(N) --TVis' Re e-W c._.-c- 9A-a-a--1. 0.0.,0,41.._k PE- -cam.` -k-i, wrb:-.J. c'as, cocu.%LkA.,,,)COO % 7 (20-A-43/9.Atb rrs zi.vi-c, 76RaidAisty.4 f2e-4-is Coi-J6,-ets,3-2.t>6) ("772/1- '_ 3 't,ttz:n "11 &A_L-igt AN-r-o j R1-14---(1 1,s-juithi, :bgOetc: 1,062-G- itZ°1 OU-,&CLAI LE CiAt) .'7 pric Low- V,5%_to,,52.LQ "1-E) Tfuivave-

.315m)% l')U.CS-CktC/ ; b)Ai_6;*rkhl-r 146 i/79b Orn+-CA.1 47N16 41726- er-6-4-1 A( ,161 SOCA-k R-6 C-C-1-Lie-I-1-e.KE, tk..% sC)e,ir titmod= 4LAA),,- 0 c) 1 Pc -,9r ?'S (4-7\)6 d. .. /2001'111-74A1 77,41' A eO 7716 y r,3n4 6 OS. turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC.You do not have to attend a hearing.The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of 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 wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details)

1will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): or U A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. in the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Date 20/0

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au Page 1 of 1

Aitken, Lauren

From: Ian Ricciardi [ian©ricseafd.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2010 1:20 PM To: Aitken, Lauren Subject: Cockburn Coast Submission [Scanned] Attachments: Cockburn Coast District Structure Submission.pdf; PETITIONPublic Address.pdf

Hi Lauren,

As per discussion attached copy of our submission, the original is in today's mail.

As Lander owner and major business operator in Darkan Ave I wish to express my concernabout the current and future traffic congestion, more particularly during the infrastructure / development stage.

Attached signed PETITION from some of the drivers who have picked up and delivered frozenproduct from Fremantle City Coldstores . The majority of the vehicles entering and exiting this precinct are of the heavy haulage type,the PETITON has been signed by some of those drivers who have experienced traffic congestion anddelays and who also feel there is a major safety issue at the Rollinson / Cockburn Road intersection.

It has been pointed out that there is currently no budget in place for Main Roads toproceed with the Proposed Cockburn Coast Road and its link to Rollinson Road. This is obviously a major issue for us as it raises increased traffic congestion issues atthe Rollinson / Cockburn Road intersection if any development be it infrastructure or housing be approved prior.

One would imagine that this major arterial road to be a prerequisite to the commencementof any development in this precinct and imperative for all those who operate businesses in thesurrounding mixed use and mixed business area.

I trust this position which is by every means detrimental to our business operationswill be taken seriously and addressed by those concerned.

Regards

Ian Ricciardi Executive Director Ricciardi Seafoods & Coldstores

phone: +61 8 9430 4677 fax: +61 8 9430 5288 mobile: +61 418 955 583 email: [email protected]

"Producers, processors and exporters of Premium Quality Seafoods." This email may contain information that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or if you havereceived this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email together with any copies of it that may have beenmade. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this email is strictly forbidden. If this email containsattachments, please scan them for viruses before opening them. The sender cannot guarantee the integrity of this communication, or thatit is free from errors, viruses or interference. As the Internet is not a guaranteed secure environment, the sender cannot ensure that an email is notinterfered with during transmission.

13/05/2010 Western Australian Planning Our Ref: 809-2-23-17 Pt 1 Commission Enquiries: Ms Lauren Aitken (9264 7674)

Big Bouy Pty Ltd Po Box 1826 FREMANTLE WA 6959

Dear Sir/Madam

Metropolitan Region Scheme Proposed Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan

I am writing to advise you of a proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) which, if it is approved, will change the regional zoning of your property. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) invites you to comment.

If you are unfamiliar with the MRS, an explanation of what it is and how amendments are conducted is contained in the enclosed amendment report. The WAPC is required to run advertisements about the amendment, display plans and documentation and invite people to make submissions.

Notices will appear in The West Australian, The Sunday Times and local newspaper over the coming three months. The amending plans and other documents will be on display at the offices of the Western Australian Planning Commission in Wellington Street, Perth, the Cities of Perth, Fremantle, Cockburn and Rockingham, the Town of Kwinana, and the State Reference Library. Documents can also be accessed on the Planning WA website www.planning.wa.gov.au.

Most importantly, you may wish to write a submission. Your views and comments can be made through this submission process and we welcome them. Please use the submission form that is printed in the back of the amendment report, so that we can match your comments to the appropriate planning issue. Submissions must be with the WAPC on or before Friday 14 May 2010, The address is shown on the form.

If you would like more information about this amendment please visit the display locations or contact Ms Lauren Aitken at the Department of Planning on 9264 7674.

Yours faithfully

Tony Evans Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission

8 February 2010

Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street (cnr Forrest Place), Perth, Western Australia 6000 Tel: (08) 9264 7777;Fax: (08) 9264 7566; TTY: (08) 9264 7535;Infoline: 1800 626 477 e-mail: [email protected]; web address; http://www.planning.wa.gov.au wa.gov.au ABN 35 482 341 493 PETITION TO UPGRADE INTERSECTIONS OF ROLLINSON & COCKBURN ROADS HAMILTON HILL June 2009

To Whom it May Concern - Main Roads Western Australia,

We the undersigned wish to bring to your attention the traffic congestion and potential danger that exists at the intersection of Rollinson and Cockburn Roads, Hamilton Hill. The intersection is totally inadequate for heavy haulage vehicles which service the Darkan Ave precinct. And is a major concern to all drivers transporting loads in and out of this area. We request immediate investigation and remedial action regarding this intersection before near accidents turn into a fatality. Not to mention how peak traffic congestion is causing unwarranted delays to transport commitments.

1 Trucking Company: Vehicle Rego: Drivers Name: S nature: Dater gl lelk 1?).1)Cl(--(-40i0*- Dg' , ti\,C) ,

,1. + 741-0 ..:: ,,e;,,,,,, 0-.6. .,- "frIE.-f- ,.'.e2-. ..-CIA/01 )

&Hag gfe.7-146:43-1 frit 64,,t, ntititowo 1/-7 41

o,,,thovd) ?0,4:7-14v ,,-- (fiou./J65.1 'igen/16.4( e)mt(.0 0016, '7.c( -- ( 7 C1' \--13,Q,v vai1(;aqu\,0istt*ID(3(i? Os/C/Pirvib<.(b.A.- d)1 .-:-2--- %, ..--" /I ' 7 ( 7 G .://-:- H4,- 0" 4) v r /0i', 4041(44702), /e521- 410 2 4eAre/41,6--,(613e-r. 7 c 5,

Al t:L 7 R-tc qCci 6-ror---v-14(.7,><- ...-.,,,, 7/7 9;

65-630-VE-At IS (a. ti 9 to CALa-L (22crenA5.)7

C.: t--I1 ,i6 eAc f:z.0.45 LIM. el,i 95, c, LA..e,i.,5' eAvevQS eR &Lei 41,,=,' rQ IVO3 )

mit--ip vr (Aff4. 164-1.(5.vific,*W' ,ter ((ifs-Jt .._ ,--;) 6.o-c r. '''- td'>((x.S' a /.. 'ze:/),}". (--?" >7/7/0 1 7, N...." to L5N-7i) ta..1 of,..i e3/770c1

(,,k4 {fv-1al- QuDcri 0e,u(, RAJ 6/7/cri /4.7,/i (2,42'7429Z A.4//>''A"/. 09 rt PETITION TO UPGRADE INTERSECTIONS OF ROLLINSON & COCKBURN ROADS HAMILTON HILL June 2009

To Whom it May Concern - Main Roads Western Australia,

We the undersigned wish to bring to your attention the traffic congestion and potential danger that exists at the intersection of Rollinson and Cockburn Roads, Hamilton Hill. The intersection is totally inadequate for heavy haulage vehicles which service the Darken Ave precinct. And is a major concern to all drivers transporting loads in and out of this area. We request immediate investigation and remedial action regarding this intersection before near accidents turn into a fatality. Not to mention how peak traffic congestion is causing unwarranted delays to transport commitments.

Trucking Company: Vehicle Rego: Drivers Name: ,Sivature: Date: , .

A 7:;,-,A t\ 61.--,,u, 6 /4? k { /67 ._,S /-e' .," . ___71_,....."1 ,, -2:2,----1-1.

2..3.. -2-- 61' V le? A 16,1V--- /3-> /-( 6-4-

V T V 1 6-(1)(\`6-( --\\\4,-3,... 241-'7 4

1 /2, /et, 41'1(4 .-:,n 0,-,,, 6 -}e2f_-:

40/ iv?,zavvY f,,....i

(.'..7 tiM-4,74"4-5 1 eriAl3 f 65:1,7/77/ 4 Si e2(

e,,/01--kZCA- ic-Lwqq6 1, FLI.K.Ale...c "----___.--2_. i ci/s/01

illerfaEc IcA 160 O. if.7-70( 2 4-11)-: (<71/4'109

1 t-s 1l-x (wt. 3 Otcc,rie c15AA ,z,4...cq

4 .x)-- - i CkA9 hi aff-)X4.21

C. C. S- b\-1:5 -43,9)i WIi 4'...fro (.;- \ 25 PETITION TO UPGRADE INTERSECTIONS OF ROLLINSON & COCKBURN ROADS HAMILTON HILL June 2009

To Whom it May Concern - Main Roads Western Australia,

We the undersigned wish to bring to your attention the traffic congestion and potential danger that exists at the intersection of Rollinson and Cockburn Roads, Hamilton Hill. The intersection is totally inadequate for heavy haulage vehicles which service the Darkan Ave precinct. And is a major concern to all drivers transporting loads in and out of this area. We request immediate investigation and remedial action regarding this intersection before near accidents turn into a fatality. Not to mention how peak traffic congestion is causing unwarranted delays to transport commitments.

Trucking Company: Vehicle Rego: Drivers Name: Signature: Date:

94,t 0- .,)- /cf,IFi-vt-7D _,,--- f ,5 sr,-gi,//4 4:.7,,,("6' 41-4' ,/4/66 5,0s*.z),,IL-k (co&ifil_) z,-.7 -,,..Q:Iv?2

0-r- 5 Ly yAi At I ,t-2;54,-/-/- 2?14 Si-1---1/4-acyv /(Srs(8 yz 7,2,.0Lacific 4,-73ia,,, -,_ O,/1 la /1 t\k---57- ffia,friH 9eg6r 6- ew( iii,77 grit-'D )04,7/1( 6c22fwriza_ 45141" ,/,010k, 1-/Ps Abc;440.,67.e.,,,ye eiy Pes kix30 a 7 e- "_ //v/07 p,cv ?'i3occoAk- /3-00(

VI Pip qc-p i- i. c-- 4-fa9(.1-1 fr-I6,1

RANO ( 95"41(t) 3 g-c.,-, igekk,-. (----2 0/(v) f4c44 Litl, 10 ( c. 0 6Ou Da,-- ( 23 -/o.c-

(e14-41D (6-rotcook,r 2f f 4 NivioN- to,p. Nk,A,, ry \--,,,\ .1,1-,\,Ms\ Cr PETITION TO UPGRADE INTERSECTIONS OF ROLLINSON & COCKBURN ROADS HAMILTON HILL June 2009

To Whom it May Concern - Main Roads Western Australia,

We the undersigned wish to bring to your attention the traffic congestion and potential danger that exists at the intersection of Rollinson and Cockburn Roads, Hamilton Hill. The intersection is totally inadequate for heavy haulage vehicles which service the Darken Ave precinct. And is a major concern to all drivers transporting loads in and out of this area. We request immediate investigation and remedial action regarding this intersection before near accidents turn into a fatality. Not to mention how peak traffic congestion is causing unwarranted delays to transport commitments.

Trucjcing Company: Vehicle Rego: givers Name: nature: Date:

/.e6xOy 4-744/&17,1 (elitiv) C /..or

,-,-- 1411-44\16-7--L11)(74(& ,

;91.-"(S771(evc-DI, len -7.6L- 47-9-74,,../FAD ,.,.----,---- 7,,'-`c2-7 (..

cbo-(46tic-crEA4Acicz..6,7 2A--

D/-i9 y Coo k_1MA- oi 30 i.,-(), go 0 '.. /..., ,,,-, s4---,,,,,,,,...,,, ,c,, g?..

410 MI5 04 WLI 4W4

-00447_corkt,if/, IW-6:- <:.7-- Lztre be.,_X>014.---- '''' W/6/0"

7 //5-77/1/ 7.7 / 144 //4.6*-iA ( /,',/-2AI ?f , 7;2 X4C/2 / g-/c J4(2:3 tuK-2.47w2..., GA,,,,3 3 ..,,,---$1#'ia; / 2311 4 5, t- , A -1rot 0.1 6tg , t igl it /or (4---//17//9 /1"-t) //4-.76 -0-i I') i.. AN N iNGI DE-TPH -:', -Niiii

Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 1 2 MAY 2010 Form 41 s Do7'S-- Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 14 Perth WA 6000

Name TPG Town Planning and Urban Design for Schutz DSL (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) S PerthPer WA AddressPO Box 73757375, ClCloisters Square Postcode 6850 [email protected] Contact phone number08 9289 8300 Email address

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

Please refer to attached addendum.

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

O Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: 1-1 MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

signed by person(s) making the submission

Signatur Date 12.05.10

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on '14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered,

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au Addendum to Section 41 Amendment (Form 41)

Proposed Metropolitan Scheme Amendment 1180141 (AMD 1180/41)

Organisation: Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Landowner) Contact: Steve Johnston Address: Freehold Lots 22 and 222 Cockburn Road Leasehold Lot 21 and part of Lot 25 NORTH COOGEE WA 6163 (the subject land)

Submission:

TPG Town Planning and Urban Design (TPG) on behalf of the landowner of Lots 22 and 222 Cockburn Road provide the following comments on the draft Urban Design Framework as invited by the Western Australian Planning Commission:

1. The Landowner has reviewed and considered the proposed AMD 1180/41 and is supportive of the proposal, however it should be recognised that many industrial landowners will be making significant investment decisions to relocate based on the timeframes discussed at the Stakeholder Reference Group meeting held at the Fremantle Maritime Museum 8 May 2010. Whilst the timeframes envisaged for the lifting of urban deferred zoning (subject to the criteria outlined on Page 3 and 4 of the amendment report) are considered acceptable, optimising the delivery of the outcomes envisaged by the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan (CCDSP) is imperative to minimising any potential adverse impacts on the existing landowners associated with the transition of land uses in the short to medium term.

2. It is recognised that both AMD 1180/41 and the CCDSP identifies a number of roads of local, regional and district importance which, subject to further detailed design, are likely to result in acquisition of a portion of the subject land. Whilst it is understood that, should development of the subject land be proposed in the future, compensation streams are available for the acquisition of land for regional and district connections. However, there is little certainty regarding the processes that may be put in place for compensation for the acquisitionof lands for identified local roads within the CCDSP. Therefore, consideration should be given to including such roads (many of which are seen as critical links e.g. Road 7), as a part of the formulation of a future Developer Contributions Plan. This will provide assurance to land owners that compensation will be available for land acquisition to accommodate infrastructure that will ultimately benefit all landowners within the MRS amendment boundary.

3. The State government is encouraged to be an active participant in the redevelopment process to ensure optimal delivery of high quality outcomes. Establishinginitiatives such as land management agreements or a mooted redevelopment agency would signal to landowners and investors that the Government is committed to the timely delivery of high quality outcomes for the Cockburn Coast.

4. The Landowner has concerns that while its operations remain at Lots 222, and 22 together with its leasehold operations at Lots 25 and 21 Cockburn Road, full access is permitted for large articulated vehicles (including B Double & Road Trains) both in and out of their premises onto Cockburn Road. The Landowner currently has approximately 70 truck movements per day in and out of its' sites onto Cockburn Road during their peak seasonal demand.

We trust that these comments will be taken into account in the further review of proposed Metropolitan Scheme Amendment 1180/41. Should you have any queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact the respondent, Andrew Howe or Sonny Embleton from TPG Town Planning and Urban Design on 9289 8300. Submission 15

From: Joanne Appleby [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2010 5:26 PM To: mrs Subject: PATF Submission on Cockburn Coast Structure Plan Amendment Report Attachments: Submission on Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Amendment.DOC

Please find attached a submission from the Physical Activity Taskforce.

Kind regards

Jo Appleby

Joanne Appleby [Senior Policy Officer Physical Activity Taskforce Secretariat 246 Vincent St 1 Leederville WA 6007 PO Box 3291 Leederville WA 6903 T: 9492 9633 Fax: 9492 9711 W: www.beactive.wa.gov.au

Please note the updated postal address

To subscribe to regular PATF email updates and enewsletter click here To unsubscribe from the email updates, dick here

The Department of Sport and Recreation Legal Notice. This email and anyattachments are confidential and are intended solely for the recipient named above. You should notread, copy, use or disclose their contents without authorisation. If you are not the intendedrecipient, please contact us immediately by return email and then delete bothmessages.This email and its attachments may contain copyright material. We do not accept liability for any loss ordamage caused by negligence or other means, in connection with any computervirus, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.

This notice should not be removed.

14/05/2010 wa Physical Activity Taskforce GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SUBMISSION ON COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AREA AMENDMENT REPORT

NAME: THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TASKFORCE

ADDRESS: C/O JO DAVIES, MANAGER PHYSICAL ACTIVITYTASKFORCE, 246VINCENTSTREET, LEEDERVILLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA, 6007 (POBOX 329) Background

The Physical Activity Taskforce (PATF) has welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan AreaAmendment Report which has been released for public comment.

The PATF coordinates a cross government approach for the development and implementation of a whole of community physical activity strategy for Western Australia.Bringing together the expertise of a number of state government departments,localgovernmententities,leadingacademics and community representatives, the PATF's mission is to provide a strategic direction to increase and maintain the proportion of physically active people in Western Australia.

The current PATF Strategic Plan outlines the importance of improving the physical activity levels of Western Australians as a whole by providing healthy active environments through a multi sectoral approach.

The PATF wish to make the following comments on the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area Amendment Report and would like them to be considered in the preparation of the final document.

Introduction

The PATF is supportive of the intent to rezone the North Coogee Industrial area to an urban deferred zone to reflect the outcomes of the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. The transformation of redundant industrial land into a vibrant mixed use community with associated infrastructure developments willprovide a positive impact. In this regard, the PATF wish to make the following comments with regard to health, transport, accessibility, environmental sustainability and designing out crime measures.

Health Impacts

The PATF would like to see more prominence attached to health and wellbeing as this is recognised as a significant driver for land use and transport planning. There is an accumulating body of evidence which demonstrates thelinkages between the design of the built environment and impacts on population health levels.

Under the New Public Health Act, there is a proposal to introduce public health assessments. This is supported by the PATF who advocates the use of Health Impact Assessments for the development of policy and the appraisal of planning applications.Thesedeterminethephysicalandsocialcharacteristicsof neighbourhoods which impact on walkability, access to transport, social contact and recreational facilities which impact on physical activity opportunities. As there are currently no formal agreements between the Department of Health and planning authorities, health interests are often overlooked at the State Administrative Tribunal level.

Transport

Whilst there is recognition of the need to provide improved public transport linkages, there should also be consideration given to the development of an integrated local

1 transport strategy in conjunction with the City of Cockburn which acknowledges various modes of transport particularly cycling and walking. Design options need to be employed which promote the development and usage of shared paths.

Cycling and walking both as recreation and utility services are likely to have the most significant impact on physical activity.In order to achieve a balanced transport system it is essential to support and increase opportunities to walk and cycle. By improving the walkability of urban areas it provides an added bonus of reducing crime and improving community cohesion.

Accessibility Public access to and from all the community hub and all amenities is critical for its vitality, sense of purpose and focus.

In addition to improved pedestrian and cyclist accessibility, recognition also needs to be afforded to vulnerable road user groups. This includes addressing the needs of peoplewithdisabilities,olderpeople andyouth. Thiswillalsoinclude accommodating motorised wheelchair vehicles.

All paths, existing and proposed should be well lit, signed and clearly identified in accordance with Designing Out Crime principles.

Improved infrastructure will result in increased road usage which could result in potential hazards. As the Cockburn Road is already a main commuter route, there is a clear need for risk management. Traffic calming measures may need to be considered to protect pedestrians and usage of additional shared paths.

Environmental Sustainability Whilst the PATF is supportive of increased recreational visitation to the coastal areas of the Cockburn Coast, this will necessitate the provision of increased access and a balanced approach to the management of environmental assets practices to manage the associated environmental impacts.

Community Safety. There should be some consideration directed towards crime prevention measures in the area. The Designing Out Crime planning guidelines already provide local government, government agencies and developers with an understanding of the planning principles which impact on safety and security. These show how the planning and design of places, spaces and buildings can reduce crime by improvements to lighting, fencing and landscaping. This in turn influences people's movement behaviour and does impact on the accessibility of a community.

I thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area Amendment Report and trust you will take these views into consideration.If further clarification is required on the matters raised, please contact me on 94929632 or e-mail [email protected]

Yours Faithfully

Jo Davies Manager Physical Activity Taskforce Secretariat

2 DEPARTMENT OFPLANNING Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 13 MAY 2010 Form 41 Submission FILE& 0 0 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180141 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission =16 Perth WA 6000

Name ?pPi.c.> epo6,N) (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

Address CLA Pe f 1--F-cf-vv\PI-JA._ \fsi A Postcode 4-1-22,

Contact phone number.04 qL130 IQ Email address .e.eivv. v CQr, Akls

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

pc64,5. rg--2 -I-a' 4774 (-We°

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

tritNo, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign)

OR

O Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: n Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that:

The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Signature

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone(08) 9264 7777; Fax(08) 9264 7566; [email protected]; Websitehttp://www.planning.wa.gov.au A Health & Environment Quality Safety ISO 14001 ISO 9001 Ref: PDE.1 00-02 AS 4801

11 May 2010 DEPARTMENT OFPLANNING

The Secretary 13 MAY Western Australian Planning Commission 2010 469 Wellington Street FILE oo 7S" PERTH WA 6000

Dear Mr Evans

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41

COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AREA

Please accept this submission on MRS Amendment 1180/41.

As detailed in previous submissions the freight rail and road routeslocated within the district structure plan area are critical as they play a crucial role in ensuringthat the Inner Harbour meets the State's trade needs. As the State's onlydedicated container port the Inner Harbour plays an importanteconomic role in facilitating trade. In 2008/2009 the port handled 26.6 million tonnes in trade worth almost$25.9 billion. It accounts for 76 per cent by value of the State's seaborneimports and 16 per cent by value of the State's seaborne exports.

Planning for the Inner Harbour indicates that it has a long future. The InnerHarbour Port Development Plan (IHPDP) has been prepared to guide theplanning of the Inner Harbour. A focus of this plan is ensuring road and rail routes thatservice the Inner Harbour are well planned. For the Inner Harbour to continue to fulfil its role it is crucialthat the connecting freight routes are able to operate at their optimal capacity withoutbeing adversely affected by urban encroachment or other activities. It is requested that theplanning for the district structure plan area recognises the strategic importance ofthese freight routes and ensures that they are protected frominappropriate urban encroachment. To achieve this it is recommended that the WAPC ensures that this issueis satisfactorily addressed prior to the lifting of the 'Urban deferred' zoning in the future. The issues relating to the protection of strategic freight routes in theCockburn Coast area and our recommendation are discussedin more detail in the following sections.

Fremantle Ports: 1 Cliff Street, Fremantle, Western Australia 6160Postal Address: PO Box 95 Fremantle WA 6959 Telephone: +61 8 9430 3555Facsimile: +61 8 9336 1391 Email: mail©fremantleports.com.auWeb: www.fremantleports.com.au ABN 78 187 229 472 Ref: PDE.1 00-02 The importance of the freight rail line to port operations

Since 1997/98 the container trade passing through the Timer Harbour has increased by 125.5%, with the growth forecast to continue. This means that there will be an increasing need for good road and rail freight access to the Inner Harbour.

Rail is an increasingly important transport mode. The aim is that 30% of trade will eventually move via this mode. The minimum future number of trains servicing the Inner Harbour will be 8 train movements per day (four to the port and four from the port). For this reason it is important that the strategic importance of the freight rail line is clearly recognised and addressed at all stages of the planning process.

Protecting strategic freight routes from urban encroachment One of the biggest threats to the ongoing operation of the Inner Harbour is urban encroachment of connecting road and rail freight routes. This problem is exacerbated as former industrial areas adjacent to strategic freight routes areredeveloped for residential purposes. This creates a lose-lose situation for both the occupants of dwellings located near freight routes and the freight operators who increasingly find it difficult to operate in this environment. The main issue is the amenity of the residences being adversely affected by transport noise. This may result in a situation where residents seek to restrict the operation of the freight routes to protect their amenity. Any restriction on the operation of the freight route would ultimately impact upon the efficient operation of the Inner Harbour portfacilities. Appropriate planning is needed to avoid this situation.

State Planning Policy No.1 - State Planning Framework Policy and State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning provide valuable guidance on this matter. One of the principles of SPP No. 1 is: "protecting key infrastructure, including ports, airports, roads, railways and service corridors, from inappropriate land use development". The objectives of SPP 5.4 include protecting people from unreasonable levels of transport noise, as well as protecting major transport corridors and freight operations from incompatible urban encroachment. This policy specifies a range of measures that can be used to mitigate the impacts of transport noise on residents, include separation by distance, the construction of noise barriers and built form requirements. Ref: PDE.100-02 Recommendation

The Inner Harbour and its land freight routes are of State significance. The protection of these freight routes needs to be considered at both the regional and local planning levels. It requested that a strong focus in placed on ensuring that the issue of urban encroachment on strategic freight routes within the subject area is clearly addressed prior to the lifting of the 'Urban deferred' zoning. This can be achieved by the WAPC identifying the issue of urban encroachment upon strategic freight routes as a constraint to urban development that needs to be satisfactorily addressed prior to the lifting of the 'Urban deferred' zoning.

The benefit of this approach would be that any transport noise issues would be clearly identified early in the process resulting in improved planning outcomes where the amenity of residential areas and strategic freight routes are both protected.

Yours Sincerely,

Dean Davidson Planning Manager DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

Planning and Development Act 2005 13 MAY 2010 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 FILE /007S'--- Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180141 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To: Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 17 Perth WA 6000

Name HASSELL on behalf of Land Corp

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address Podium Level, Central Park 152-158 ST Georges Terrace, PERTH. Postcode 6000

Contact phone number (08) 6477 6091 ...... ".. Email [email protected]

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

...... 0 90 ID" ../..".119 aetSa. [."1101 aaaaaaaaaaa 11......

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submissioron the amendment has theopportunityto personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC.You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submissbn will beconsidered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process,please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

0 Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: Myself My telephone number (business hours): or El A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR ri Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to theFreedom of Information Act 1992 and as such,submissions made to the WAPChlay be subject to applications for access under the act.

In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, ormaking its report on these submissions, copies ofyour submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed tothird parties.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of allhearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should theGovernor approve the proposedamendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report onsubmissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission .OS 2010 Signature ...... DateII

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised -closing date, beingclose of business (5pm) on 14 MAY2011). Late submissions will NOT beconsidered,

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au Podium Lever Central Park 152 158 St Georges Terrace Perth WA Australia 6000 T +61 8 6477 6000 F +61 8 9322 2330 www.hasselLcom.au Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design Australia PR China Hong Kong SAR Thailand HASSELL Limited ABN 24 007 711 435

Secretary 13/05/2010 Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Dear Sir/Madam

SUBMISSION ON METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41

HASSELL is pleased to submit a submission in relation to the above amendment onbehalf of LandCorp. In this regard LandCorp is supportive of the MRS Amendment totransfer the project area to urban deferred, recognising this is an interim steptowards realising the full potential of this uniquely situated piece of land to urban.

LandCorp is the State's land development agency charged with a significant rolein achieving balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes, with a commitmentand vision to leave a legacy for future generations. LandCorp aspires to create sustainable and vibrantplaces to work, live and play creating better places for future generations, and the CockburnCoast project provides the opportunity to achieve best practice in this regard.

LandCorp is a key stakeholder within the amendment area owning approximately40 ha of land.

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan

The Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan (DSP) was prepared by theDepartment of Planning and endorsed by the WA Planning Commission in August 2009. LandCorp supportsthe DSP, as it provides a clear vision and statutory framework to progress thefuture development of Cockburn Coast.

The DSP provides the basis to justify the rezoning of the land from Industrial toUrban Deferred under the MRS. Key elements of the plan include:

1. Creation of a sustainable residential and mixed use community along a prime areaof coast in close proximity to Fremantle 2. Creation of an integrated transport network underpinned by substantialpublic transport infrastructure 3. Redevelopment of the power station site as the landmark development for the project. Redevelopment of the power station precinct will create a landmark mixed use node onthe coast, including recreational, tourism and commercial uses 4. Relocation of the South Fremantle Switchyard terminal, providing new development opportunities in a strategic location close to the beach 5. Improved access to the beach with proposed pedestrian linkages across theexisting railway and improved movement network

Page 1 of 4

Vhps002\data2\pro\pla\02\PPR0235\12 Reports\12A Reports\MRS Amendment File HASSELL SuornIssion\Submission on MRS Amendment 1180-41_10_05_2010.docx Land Corp has considered the proposed amendment to the MRS and supports transferring the project area from Industrial to Urban Deferred in order to facilitate the implementation of the DSP, however provides the following points for consideration.

Power Station

The District Structure Plan recognises that the Power Station Precinct will play a significant role in the area and states that the "precinct will be the activity hub of the Cockburn coast area, centred on the power station special development area with its local transit stop and associated mixed use and activity node focus".

The DSP also acknowledges that "the building's future function is not associated with power generation at a commercial scale and therefore any redevelopment of the building will be dependent on the asset being sold or transferred to a relevant agency or body".

It is noted that the MRS amendment proposes to reserve the site as Public Purpose Special Use.

The MRS document cites a primary reason for the Public Purpose reservation for the power station site is to ensure the WAPC will retain ongoing development approval responsibility to secure an appropriate planning outcome for the site prior to it being transferred to urban or sold on to the private sector. The WAPC could still retain approval responsibility under a future urban zone through other mechanisms, such as a Clause 32 resolution. This would provide an equally robust decision making framework, as the urban zone would allow the introduction of special control area provisions under the local scheme, to require the preparation of a local structure/precinct plan, prior to subdivision or development.

In this regard, LandCorp considers that an option exists for the site to be transferred to urban deferred under this MRS amendment, with the following additional mechanisms being a prerequisite to the Commission considering a request to lift the urban deferred zoning over the site:

1. local scheme provisions relating to planning requirements for the site being progressed to advertising and/or 2. detailed planning by way of a precinct plan and delivery framework (or similarly detailed planning outcome) be endorsed or approved for public consultation and/or 3. a Clause 32 resolution being made over the site to ensure WAPC remain the determining authority

In addition to the above, it is considered that a future reservation of "Public Purposes Special Use" is not conducive to facilitating future redevelopment or commercial outcomes for the site, for the following reasons:

1. The public purpose reservation assumes in part that the land will be retained in public ownership and ongoing private sector tenure would be on a leasehold basis. This limits the options for procuring redevelopment outcomes and could reduce the attractiveness of the site to private sector investment; 2.The public purpose reservation is likely to affect valuation of the land when compared to a potential urban zoning. The WAPC should seek an urban zoning to maximise valuation and to provide the commercial/private sector with certainty as to the sites ultimate urban potential; 3.The reservation does not provide a statutory framework to allow the progression of further detailed planning by way of structure planning or precinct planning for the site, which is a requirement identified by the DSP.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Power Station site be included within the Urban Deferred zone.

HASSFI I PanA 9 nf 4 We again thank the WA Planning Commission for the opportunity to provide a submission on the MRS amendment relating to Cockburn Coast and look forward to working with the Department of Planning in realising the vision for Cockburn Coast.

Yours Faithfully

Michael Davis Senior Planner Email mdavis @hassell.com.au CC Sergio Famiano, LandCorp

(

HASSELL Pane 4 of 4 Addition to Submission 17

Podium Levet, Centrat Park 152158 St Georges Terrace Perth WA Australia 6000 '1+61 8 6477 6000 F +61 8 9322 2330 www,hassell.com,au Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Australia PR China Hong Kong SAP Singapore Thailand

HASSELL Limited ARK 24 007 711 435 26AUG 2010

FILE 1)© '4'

Mr Tony Evans 25 August 2010 Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Dear Mr Evans

Metropolitan Region Scheme Proposed Amendment 1180/41 Revised Primary Regional Road Reservation Alignment

I refer to your letter dated 20 August 2010 in respect of the above amendment.

HASSELL is pleased to submit this submission in relation to the proposed changes to the above amendment on behalf of LandCorp.

Please note that LandCorp has no objections to the revised Primary Regional Road Reservation at the intersection of Cockburn Coast Drive and Rockingham Road, Hamilton Hill

The comments made in our previous submission dated 11 May 2010 should still be noted in relation to the remainder of the proposed amendment.

Regards

Michael Davis Senior Planner

Email mdavishassell.com.au

CC Sergio Famiano, LandCorp

Page 1 of 1

G: \ pro \ pla \ 02 \PPP0235 \12 Reports \12A Reports \MRS Amendment Submission \Second submission on File HAS TL1 MRS Amendment relating to revised Cockburn Drive Reservation_25-08-10.docx DEPARTMENT OFPLANNING Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 13 MAYMO Form 41 07S-- Submission FILE te t s Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 18 Perth WA 6000

7-1-7A-7 NameCIS6 C(T Yr6VY4rr7 te(Y. COX/024-71ov, v6evg (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) 60 Addressat'c 11, lc-17wl"-/-A-41s-1/.. P-647-ff Postcode

Contact phone number (kZci Email address of el-, 40c1tece Ver'Ireene'r-00, /0/ -a41 Submission(Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound)

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC.You do not have to attend a hearing.The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

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

0' Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: er6A Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR 2 Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that:

The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may De subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signedby person(s) making the submission

Signature Date /2/5- CO Doegg fforlzrz G9t7(676444/171(46tK 60Z1:04476 vim- Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered,

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Website - hftp://www.planning.wa.gov.au PROPOSED METROPOLITAN REGIONAL SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41 PROPOSED REZONING OF THE SOUTH FREMANTLE POWER STATION

Verve Energy strongly objects to the proposed amendments for the reasons set out below:

+ States "It (the power station building and surrounding curtita_g_e) would remain in State Ownership".

Verve Energy was established as a body corporate under a "written taw", namely Part 2, Division 1 of the Electricity Corporations Act 2005 (WA) (ECA).

Section 5 of the ECA provides that Verve Energy is not an agent of the State and does not have the status, immunities and privileges of the State.

The subject landholding is an asset owned by Verve Energy in its capacity as a corporation and with the obligation to act in accordance with commercial principles.

If it is the intention of WAPC for the building and curtilage to be directly State owned, then Verve Energy considers that WAPC should acquire the site for a satisfactory commercial outcome to Verve Energy.

+ Zoning part of the land to "Public PurposesSpecial Use"

The imposition of Public PurposesSpecial Use zoning would wholly constrain future development of the whole site.This is considered unreasonable and inappropriate.

+ Zoning part of the land to "Urban deferred"

The proposed zoning places considerable restrictions and risks on a future owner as no time frame is provided to amend thezoning from "Urban deferred" to "Urban".

It could be argued that a future owner would seek to develop the proposed "Urban deferred" area first to create a cash flow to fund the redevelopment of the power station.

It is suggested that the proposed zoning of "Urban deferred" be amended to Urban to provide any future owner of the site a range of options as to how and when the land is developed.

DMS#: 3263421v1 4.4. Redevelopment costs restricted to 99 year leasehold returns

Any Large coastal englobo landholding within the Perth Metropolitan Region and identified future urban development would usually be highly sought after by property developers.

Developers will normally pay a premium to acquire coastal land with future development potential, but in this instance, the price paid would need to factor in both the extent of any capital expenditure required on the existing power station building and the rate of return on the investment, especiallyif only leasehold tenure is to be offered.

From an investor's point of view, the acquisition of such an asset (within any development of the power station building) would be seen as a depreciating asset, potentially attracting a considerably lower purchase price.

Loss of potential to sell site to date

The planning process for the site has been very lengthy and drawn out.This has restricted Verve Energy's commercial opportunity to dispose of the land as potential purchasers were unwilling to proceed due to planning uncertainty.

4.4. Strong case for Verve Energy to seek compensation

It is Verve Energy's view that the proposed zoning changes will severely and significantly impact and compromise what can be done on the site in the future.If the proposed zoning amendments proceed, achieving a sate on the open market (if the site were offered) would appear very unlikely.It is Verve Energy's intention to seek compensation should the proposed zoning be approved by WAPC.

DMS#: 3263421v1 (Tabled at Hearing) Dc_ 18 14' I2 IS MB. Power Station Northern Elevation Eastern elevation main po er s a ior buildinc ; p Interior of the main power station buildingA /

/ it. r, Jr" 0 Part of southern elevation ,

/

4,

/

4 WM, ypical in erior room in the northern extension building Your ref: Our ref: P321125606 Submission 19 C Crofton /(08) 9220 4151 Enquiries: [email protected]

HERITAGE 10 May 2010 COUNCIL. OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 13 MAY 2010 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000 FILE4e/1/5(9

Dear Sir or Madam'

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41

With regard to the above amendment as it relates to heritage matters, we would offer the following submission: South Fremantle Power Station has been recognised as a place of cultural heritage significance and has been assessed as being of cultural value to the State. As such it is included in the Register of Heritage Places (Place number 03381). While the retention and adaptive reuse of the Power Station are welcome statements, it should be noted that the Heritage Council of Western Australia should be consulted in relation to future development. It should also be noted that this requirement for referral includes development of the adjacent land.

The proposal for a heritage management strategy for listed places is supported and the Heritage Council looks forward to future collaboration on this matter.

Should you have any queries regarding this advice please contact Mr Callum Crofton on 9220 4151 or at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Gra ammie Exe Director

1: - . ' OW '0 to 1 ". - : . 0: , :00 Your ref: 809-2-23-17 Pt 1 Addition to Our ref: File C015/26080 Submission 19 Enquiries: Mr Callum Crofton / 9220 4151 ce'vA431414N

HERITAGE COUNCIL

27 August 2010 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

Mr Tony Evans 0 1 .SEP 2010 Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House FILE 09/02'02317 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000

Dear Tony

MRSPROPOSED AMENDMENT 1$80/41DRAFT REVISION

As discussed with Lauren, the Office of Heritage welcomesthe revised road reservation alignments proposed to protect the Randwick Stables. Future roaddevelopment remains a threat to the curtilege and setting of the Stables, but it ishoped that this can be mitigated to some degree through appropriate landscaping.

If we can assist any further in achieving a positive heritage outcomefor Randwick Stables, please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Callum Crofton MANAGER LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES

. 17. °- ' ell, Z. : - 0: :00 0 . Submission20 WestNet

Your Ref:809-2-23-17 Pt 1 Our Ref: LM 10205 Contact: Chris Pemberton Telephone: 08 6213 7163

OFPLANNING DEPARTMENT 12 May 2010 . MAY Western Australian Planning Commission 3 Albert Facey House oote 469 Wellington St FILEe...bs PERTH WA 6000

RE : Development Application Ref : 809-2-23-17-Pt 1 MRS Proposed Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan

Thankyou for your recent letter regarding the above mentioned proposal.

We wish to advise that WestNet Energy, on behalf of WA Gas Networks, have High Pressure and other gas infrastructure within the structure plan area. We have no objections to the proposal, provided that our existing infrastructure and access rights are not affected.

Depending on the rationalisation of existing roads and possible closures, we may require gas infrastructure to be relocated (at the proponents cost) or easements created to ensure our existing rights are not diminished.

WestNet Energy must be notified of any future works within 15 metres of High Pressure gas infrastructure before any works begin. Ph: WestNet Energy on 9499 5272. Anyone proposing to carry out construction or excavation works must contact 'Dial Before You Dig' (Ph 1100) to determine the location of buried gas infrastructure. Attached please find a plan indicating the location of existing gas infrastructure in the area. This may assist the planning process.

Should you have any queries regarding the information above,I can be contacted on 6213 7163 or cpembertonwnq.com.au

Yours sincerely,

Chris Pemberton Land Management Coordinator

Ereggy SQTti) EtyItxe, ABN 25 1:.54 gWO T +61 6 6213 MO F +81 8 6213 1081 E initgrwrig. 12-14 The E s p l a n a d e ,+ s i g h V I A M O O PO Box MI, Perth BC 3545 mama swam emlaMmssoMirn. WARNING HIGH PRESSUREGAS PIPELINE MI.ItyPro.WEPhorPnielrebrlurb.rodul No nxcavalloo pormittad without 11,0 IN THE VICINITY RAH UPF01130PAYSTPOMPRIHTOME0 Os MOMS. prior approval of WA Gas Networks PHONE (08) 9499 5272 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 17 MAY 2010 Form 41 Submission FILEOS Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street ;)-- Perth WA 6000

Name westeyri LFcL Nlcrt. Seebor LA-rt. Starpetc. CorpOtottiot 3(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address Lot221 oc,kbt,trytgot) Nooth,C,003e.e_ WI4 Postcode &/f) Kiln 1,v ki Contact phone number 089433i1-1 11 Email addresshart, conl

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be looserather than bound) we all ciree, 4-0+he proposed,cun ar.imeiteTh rezoni injof our ric, -bornzoneA -I-0lAaDAN Erg ED ,41,,Dv4i Ciii-latectfosic-0/

-4-ret kis i-/-iort .-txp Vg.BilIV col-di-f1og/1-Sh ove,btert-met.Th;4 Cocki)1,4 v Cor451-- has bee" LiMgr WI tea -for many yoys o.f in 01 vt,5+ri beLaws.e, .pc r es;ve,.ol.eLtioe o-tmie, -type- invoivect,So ..cu.pport +he,char-13e5 rl -coy4-is pr ecieic-t haS so pO'leirxi-i0l. Of Coil Ce(rk-30 (4,.$ vhilre qcce .,.& Crrka;ivi-cd t-o12-2-1 ).is. Wrrtio_werlicxt_ of or -FP pyocItitct,

vOrn C1I LO. tegiQns ct ototai pttc1errnove_menis 0FreAyorri-re

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

0 Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that:

The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be sinned by person(s making the submission

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered,

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au Submission 22

363 Wekington Streot Perth WA 6000 npower 3P(:) Box L921 Perth WA 0842 IDEO 9326 4911 F. (013) f.0326 4595 WWW,\A/estern0ower.cvn.,1

:121,-,-0 y iv:-CO AC4-1 Our ref: DM#: 7037940 Contact:Neil Chivers (9326 4867)

14 May 2010

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

Dear Sir/Madam

COCKBURN DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN

I am writing to you in response to the Western Australian Planning Commission's request (8 February 2010) for comments on the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Proposed Amendment 1180/41, Cockburn District Structure Plan.

Based on the Cockburn District Structure Plan, it is recognised that there will be development (mainly residential and mixed use) and rezoning in the North Coogee area.

The existing South Fremantle 132/66 kV Terminal Station is located within the rezoning area. Western Power has been approached by the Department of Planning (DoP) and LandCorp to investigate options for the possible relocation of the Terminal Station. Meetings have recently been held between representatives from DoP, LandCorp and Western Power to discuss options for the relocation and the way forward.

South Fremantle Terminal Station currently supplies the local area (including for example, Fremantle, North Fremantle, O'Connor, and Myaree), and interconnects to and supports adjacent load areas. The Terminal is a long term asset and Western Power does not have any plans to decommission or relocate it.

Given that the cost to relocate the Terminal could be in the order of $150M+, clearly, one of the most significant issues for the relocation will be the provision of funding.

Among other things, Western Power will be required to submit a Regulatory Test to the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA) if the relocation project proceeds. Another key requirement will be the satisfaction of the New Facilities Investment Test (NFIT) which is also assessed by the ERA. As the relocation of the Terminal is proposed in order to allow for the Cockburn Coast redevelopment,itispossible that the requirements of NFIT will not be fully satisfied.In such a case, all or a significant portion of the cost of the relocation would need to be funded by way of a capital contribution to Western Power.

DM#: 7037940 1 Details of the requirements of NFIT are set out in Chapter 6 of the Electricity Networks Access Code 2004 and details of the Regulatory Test are set out in Chapter 9.

Western Power is in the process of preparing a proposal for the consideration of the Department of Planning and Land Corp which will set out, among other things, the activities, and associated cost, required to more fully investigate options and prepare budget construction costs.The investigation is expected to take many months to complete. Assuming that agreement is reached on the preferred option, and funding and necessary approvals can be obtained, the relocation of the Terminal would be expected to take many years to complete.

In regard to the land use information provided in the Cockburn District Structure Plan, it is noted that there will be major development in the North Coogee area.A preliminary assessment indicates that there will be a need for network reinforcement in order to provide adequate supply to the area. In addition to new 22 kV and 415 V distribution works, there is expected to be a need for at least one new 132/22 kV zone substation and associated 132 kV transmission line works.Such works will also have funding implications and can be expected to have a lead time in the order of 3 to 5 years (including the approvals process).It is essential that DoP, Land Corp, and other developers work closely with Western Power to ensure provision is made for network infrastructure [e.g. zone substation site(s) and transmission line corridors] to enable supply to be provided in a timely manner.

Please contact Neil Chivers, Transmission Planning Manager, on 9326 4867 or via email at neil .chivers @westernrower.com.au if further information is required.

Yours faithfully

/

DAVID BONES Manager Network Planning & Development

DM#: 7037940 2 From: Neil Chivers [ Neil .Chivers @westernpower.com.au] Sent: Friday, 14 May 2010 3:04 PM To: mrs Subject: Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area Attachments: WE-7140788v1.pdf

To the Secretary, Western Australian Planning Commission

Please find attached a letter dated 14 May 2010 regarding the above. The original signed hard copy was dropped off at your Office's Reception Counter this afternoon.

Regards

Neil Chivers Transmission Planning Manager Network Planning & Development Western Power - 363 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000 [map]

T: (08) 9326 4867 I M: 0439 986 848 I F: (08) 9218 5167 E: [email protected] W: www.westernpower.com.au

Please consider the environment before you print this email.

Electricity Networks Corporation, trading as Western Power ABN: 18 540 492 861

TO THE ADDRESSEE - this email is for the intended addressee only and may contain information that is confidential. If you have received this emailin error, please notify us immediately by return email or by telephone. Please also destroy this message and any electronic or hard copies of this message.

Any claim to confidentiality is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken transmission of this email.

Unencrypted email is not secure and may not be authentic. Western Power cannot guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness or confidentiality of this email and any attachments.

VIRUSES - Western Power scans all outgoing emails and attachments for viruses, however it is the recipient's responsibility to ensure this email is free of viruses.

14/05/2010 Page 1 of 1

Davey, Julie

From: Evans, Vicki on behalf of mrs Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 10:11 AM To: Davey, Julie Subject: FW: Cockburn Coast MRS Amendment Attachments: andrew_sullivan001.pdf; cockburn coast submission MRS 1180_41.pdf

From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:andrew.sullivan©y7mail.com] Sent: Friday, 14 May 2010 4:29 PM To: mrs Subject: Cockburn Coast MRS Amendment

Please find attached my submission in relation to the MRS Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area.

Regards

Andrew Sullivan Andrew Sullivan Architect 2/133 High Street (Mall) Fremantle PO Box 509 Fremantle WA 6959 Tel: +61894333398 Fax: +61894333397 Mob: +61407447972 Em: [email protected]

please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

17/05/2010 Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180141 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

onceUSE ONLY

ISINIMISSION NUMBER I ToSecretary Western Australian Planning Commission 489 Wellington Street Submission 23 Perth WA 6000

SULOW VA-!Ni Name . V .... 9 9 IV Raft./ .... al...anaoragpS .. i ...... OULU I It .* 4, . AddressIt.5..DIA 44041;:q445.4. . *1.#*

Contact phone numbr Email addressPAIN711.0t!.Og. 6666 11. CON% SubmissiontPtease attach additional pages It required, II is preferred that any additional IntomiatIon be loose rather than bound)

4.04.4v,a4 ...... CU...... ay9a004.0...... 4-.a...... 4...... a.

AC4+11r0000 0 .4.404...... tO*44.41.444,04604 ...... 00414m1444.41Faawst..0..0.440.00.4.44.44e04444,44.0.4.414

.m."44..004441 ...... C.4424.6,64000G ...... oa...... 4,44a....644.04.414 ..... 0 ..... I .. 01100.0.1,44004.

11,4 ...... O.4 ...... a...... 40.....* ..... 04.0000 ...... po4apo.p64444.

...... 0..0400444.4 04.4..a.44ow4.4.4,44...... a00.0400xako4044..444400 ...... 0 ...... 0.4040 aloo...... a .. o ...... 4,444.4444...o..4.a.144411.4A11.4, .... a ...... A ...... BO

..... 04414.44144...... * ..... 414 ...... 00.0 ...... 04.0404.0040 ......

4004a44 ...... 00 ...... 44.0004.410401ot...4.44040...... 40...a.0 ......

.4.44-6440.4..4.460000140004,4*44.40...04444.4**11...... 04.a40.40.44, ...... 4440.040.414.4..4.4 ...... 4...... 040464044"i.

.4404 0 ...... a. .40.0 .....641640...... 4s0.4060.40, ...... 041Aaa...... 111*A0044041104$04a414b

04.400...... 0414.46.41,...... 466.6.6. 40419.44a.p00

...... vvvvv 4.444 6 4 ...... 0440040.0 ... 4 . 411.004,..0440.0.4.0.0.04.4y44.0a.P.aa

649'04 ...... 4.0 .....4040.24.4 ...... 0. .4044004

.... 4.,...faatoPea44 ...... 4440000.0.4.10.4 ...... 6.0 ...... 1441.404-40044.4,0p

...... 4.044.0.4.a...... 4 ...... 400.4014 ...... 0.4194,97.TVP, ...... *.....00.a...vaaa.a.a......

640....0004.960404,10...... V.004004144.4 ...... a ... 0 .

.... 6.66,44,11.A ...... 4.40 ...... Of* . . 4 . et..0.....a.410..444.60.40* ...... 0.0..0.0 .... 000 ...... 0.46...... at . a. .. tO,

...... Ia 049. 0 4010.444 ...... 9.4466 400..44.0.0a4V.,44110

oo.sp.ao...44.,444.4o04,44.4444-bla..446.1 ...... V ...... 04.4 ...... 4 ...... 0 ......

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity topersonally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend ahearing, The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered In determiningthe recommendation for the proposed amendment

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment reportand in particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (businesshours): 4.33 P3 or A spokesperson

Nameof spokesperson: ...... Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address: ......

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted In: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR 0 Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published In a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by gersonfs) making the submission

Signature..0" ..49 ...... tat, ...... P....reg.,Date...... 00AM VV.A.0

Note: Submissions MUST be received by thwadvertised closing dale' being close of buslneas (5pm) on 14 MAY 20104 Late inibMistions will NOT be considered.

Contacts; lelephone (Os) 9264 7777; Fax (OS) 9264 7566; Email mneplannIng,waiov.au: Wabsite http://ww.v.plannIng.wa.gov,au METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41

COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AREA

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Name: Andrew Sullivan

Address: 11 Sydney Street South Fremantle PO Box 509 Fremantle WA 6959 Tel: 9433 3398 Fax: 9433 3397 Email: andrew. sullivan@y7mail. com

Interests: Resident of South Fremantle, since 1985 Spokesperson, Coogee Coastal Action Coalition Frequent recreational user of the area Professional interest (architect and urban/coastal designer) Councillor, South Ward, City of Fremantle, 1992-98 & commencing again in 2009.

1.0ASPECTS OF AMENDMENTS SUPPORTED

The following aspects of the Amendment are generally supported: a) Rezoning Industrial zone to Urban Deferred, subject to modifying the DSP to provide for significant increases in population, adequate rail corridors and the protection of the coastal ridge; b) Rezoning of South Fremantle Power Station land to Urban Deferred and Public PurposesSpecial Use, subject to the resolution of the SEC substation; c) Rezoning of a portion of foreshore reserve to Urban Deferred subject to resolving issues associated with the development of a regional beach; d) Efforts to reduce the negative impact on the Beeliar Regional Park land (although more changes are needed); e) Converting areas of PRR reservation along the ridge to Parks and Recreation and including the same as Bush Forever area.

2.0ASPECTS OF AMENDMENTS NOT SUPPORTED

The following aspects of the Amendment are not supported:

a) Retention of the PRR reservations in the amendment area, including the retention of the Roe Highway reservation and the Fremantle Rockingham Controlled Access Highway reservation;

1 b) Inadequate width of the Railways Reservation and subsequent failure to zone sufficient land for a transport corridor along this route suitable for a heavy or light rail passenger network and separate freight rail line; c) Failure to identify a suitable transport corridor along Cockburn Road suitable for a light rail or Tier 2 transport option and failure to zone Cockburn Road as an Other Regional Roads Reservation to ensure it is capable of replacing and/or supplementing the need for a road running along the ridgeline; d) Failure to extend a 'green link' of Parks and Recreation Reservation between the Beeliar Region Park and Clontarf Hill to enable Clontarf Hill, and the bushland and heritage sites to its south, to be incorporated into the Beeliar Regional Park. e) Failure to acknowledge or protect the numerous WWII tunnels, bunkers and other remnant infrastructure in the vicinity of the FRCAH; f) Failure to provide the right balance of foreshore reserve and urban development sufficient to facilitate the development of a regional beach in the vicinity of McTaggart Road;

g) Failure to provide a fully integrated solution for the redevelopment in and around the Fremantle Power Station site, including failure to include the opportunity to zone the foreshore and sea bed in a manner suitable for use as a public marina.

3.0 COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT

3.1Protect and enhance the Beeliar Regional Park (Manning Park) Ridgeway

The MRS should be modified to retain and enhance the important cultural, recreation and environmental values of the Beeliar Regional Park (Manning Park) by removing the remaining section of the FRCAH.

The Primary Regional Road reserve that runs along the Coogee ridgeline is obsolete and unjustified (see below). It should be deleted from the MRS, or at the very least downgraded to the status and design of an Other Regional Roads Reservation ("blue road").

In addition, the effective removal of approximately 50 hectares of what most people recognize as Manning Park is unacceptable. Constructing any form of road along, or nearby the ridgeline will significantly devalue the environmental value of Manning Park.

This part of the Beeliar Regional Park includes one of the best remaining opportunities to retain and re-establish coastal heath on a limestone ridge in the metropolitan area. More importantly, the east-west transacts through Manning Park connect this coastal heath through to the more protected remnant forest of Tuart and Limestone Marlock to the east, which in turn are integrally linked to an important chain of wetlands including Manning Lake. The cumulative

2 experience and value of these vastly different habitats is what makes this landscape worthy of inclusion within a regional park.

The proposed road alignment will result in the removal of almost all of the remaining coastal heath. It is acknowledged that much of this land is degraded but after 40 years of planning blight that is not surprising. More importantly, the shallow limestone substrates are largely intact and much of this land would be easily re-vegetated.

Construction of a controlled access highway involves drastic change to the topography and will significantly erode the diversity of the available habitats. The road will create a massive scar in the landscape that will not only threaten the biodiversity of the park but will cause unacceptable aesthetic damage.

While the area of land to be removed from the park may be small in percentage terms (compared to the whole Beeliar system), and is in parts degraded, the negative impact on the environmental value of the park will be far significant because almost all of the coastal heath in the park will be lost forever.

The ridgeline also offers some of the best recreational opportunities within the regional park, primarily due to the coastal views and vistas gained from the numerous vantage points that exist along the ridgeway paths.The ridge could be developed as a coastal version of the paths and outlooks that exist along the top of the Mt Eliza escarpment in Kings Park.

The proposed road should be relocated or significantly downgraded to give way to the numerous opportunities for improved public access and enjoyment of this natural ridge, including some sensitively located and operated cafe/restaurants and picnic areas such as those that exist at Mt Eliza. Enhancing recreational access to, and use of this coastal ridgeway should become a primaryfocus for governments.

3.2Recognize the regional importance of Clontarf Hill

It is acknowledged that Clontarf Hill is technically outside of the MRS Amendment and DSP areas. That is an oversight that ought to be corrected by extending the DSP area northwards to at least the municipal boundary along Healy Road, and preferably through to Clontarf Road. Likewise, the MRS should be amended to provide appropriate recognition and protection for Clontarf Hill and to ensure a bush corridor is retained and enhanced linking the hill to the other parts of the coastal ridge that already fall within the Beeliar Regional Park.

The fate of the hill has been in a state of planning flux for decades primarily due to its location at the intersection of three Primary Regional Road reservations. However the recent lifting of the Fremantle Eastern Bypass (PRR) reserve provides the timely opportunity for this area to be the subject of fresh planning consideration. The failure of the Cockburn Coast DSP and this proposed MRS Amendment to seize this opportunity is lamentable.

3 There has been increasing local community recognition of the value of Clontarf Hill over the last two decades. Initially, that recognition was primarily intuitive. More recently, some of the environmental and cultural significance of the place has begun to be documented, including by groups such as the Friends of Clontarf Hill and the City of Fremantle. The more that is discovered, the more it is recognized that this place has great cultural and environmental significance.

The DSP and MRS Amendment processes should have included a thorough study of the cultural and environmental significance of Clontarf Hill and its value as a recreational asset for the regional community Such a study should be completed prior to finalizing this amendment. The study should include, but not be limited to, the following known values of the hill and the opportunities that exist to enhance these values: a) The important remnant forest of increasingly threatened Tuarts and the even more uncommon Limestone Marlocks; b) The value of Clontarf Hill as a major 'knuckle' in a network of recreational/bushland greenways'. (The importance of connecting the existing regional open space along the coastal foreshore and ridgelines with the urban areas of Fremantle, as envisaged in the Fremantle Green Plan, should not be underestimated; c) The opportunity to establish a greenway from Clontarf Hill to South Beach through the South Fremantle Tip Redevelopment Site to the west (via the land from the former Roe Highway reserve); d) The opportunity to establish greenways from Clontarf Hill to the suburbs of Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley through the Lefroy Road Quarry Redevelopment Site to the north, and to Manning Park to the south. e) The early settlement history of the area including the recent discovery of a well at Clontarf Hill thought to date to 1830, and the relationship of this area to other known early settlement sites in both the Beeliar and Woodman Point regional parks (e.g. the Azalea Ley homestead in Manning Park and the Clarence Town settlement in the Woodman Point Regional Park); f) The significance of the hills association with horse training and recreation, including associations with the nearby Randwick stables on Rockingham Road, the C.Y. O'Connor 'horse beach' (which has interim state heritage listing), the wartime connections with the Light Horse Brigade and the bridal paths in this area and Manning Park that are still used almost daily; g) The significance of the association with the wartime activities, including the remnant military structures at Clontarf Hill which require further investigation, including the recent discovery of the military tunnels that exist in the area; h) The cultural significance of Clontarf Hill to the local community demonstrated through decades of campaigns to have it saved, firstly from the Eastern Bypass, and now from becoming isolated from surrounding areas of bushland.

4 3.3Retain the greenway between Maiming Park and Clontarf Hill

The visual connectivity that exists between the summit of Clontarf Hill and the Manning Park ridgeway lookouts is quite apparent from each of these vantage points. It is acknowledged that relatively few people currently avail themselves of the joys of these vantage points. However, the current usage levels do not lessen the recreational potential of the places in question. Public access to these quite special areas has been hampered by neglect and planning blight. The DSP and MRS amendment processes provide the first real opportunity to reveal to the broader community the special value of these coastal ridge environments.

An examination of an aerial photograph of the area clearly shows the remnant greenway that exists between the two hills. Much of this remnant bush has been spared from development primarily due to the road reserves that have otherwise blighted the area for years. On ground analysis of this potential greenway between the two hills provides sound evidence of why the greenway should now be formally established.

The remnant Tuart forest on the southern flank of Clontarf Hill extends across Healy Road and around to the historic Randwick Stables on Rockingham Road. From these stables, the landscape reverts to coastal heath on the south side of Rockingham Road. Some of this heath has been degraded in the areas between Rockingham Road and Beelion Drive, but in the context of linking the two areas, that is only a narrow bridge to rehabilitate.

This existing greenway is currently used as a bridal path for horses accessing both areas. The existence of the Randwick stables along this greenway provides excellent opportunities in to the future to enhance this type of activity in the region.

It is increasingly important that such recreational pursuits be maintained and enhanced within the district to ensure that people living in the area are not forced to travel great distances to access their recreational activity of choice. The opportunity for tourist and recreational activity involving horses would be greatly enhanced by better integration of the stables and the surrounding bush areas. The existing bridal path currently requires only a signalized pedestrian crossing to Rockingham Road to enhance the connections.

3.4Incorporate Clontarf Hill into the Beeliar Regional Park

Based even on the existing understanding of the environmental and cultural significance of Clontarf Hill, there is already a reasonable argument to suggest that it should be integrated into the Beeliar Regional Park. Furthermore, it appears that the City of Fremantle has shown some reluctance to accept responsibility for the hill as conservation reserve because of inadequate resources to maintain any more bushland.

5 However, if Clontarf Hill was incorporated within the Beeliar Regional Park, proper recognition, management and funding of this place would be guaranteed. The first step in this process is to ensure that both the hill and the greenway link to Manning Park is properly established within a continuous Parks and Recreation reservation.

3.5Improve visual and physical connectivity with Manning Park

The MRS should be modified to provide a far more seamless integration between the proposed Urban Deferred areas of the Cockburn Coast and the regional open space in Manning Park. It is almost incomprehensible in planning terms to have such a wonderful asset as Manning Park on the doorstep of a high-density development area but then provide little or no connectivity between the two.

Integrating the Cockburn Coast development to this wonderful open space must take precedence over the construction of a highway. This remnant section of the Fremantle Rockingham Controlled Access Highway (FRCAH) is almost certainly not needed. Regional traffic can be accommodated on the Cockburn Road alignment within a "blue road".

The current proposal in the draft DSP provides only occasional bridged and underpass links between residential areas and Manning Park. It is clear to see from the newly constructed road around the eastern edge of the Port Coogee development that the proposed "Cockburn Coast Drive" will all but segregate residents living in the Cockburn Coast area from Manning Park. If the Port Coogee development is any indication, the extension northwards of this new highway-like road will force development to turn its back on the road and consequently it will also be physically and visually disconnected from the park.

The type of road proposed will include deep cuttings, filled embankments, sound barrier walls, fast moving vehicles and massive light towers and signage. All of these road design characteristics are the antithesis of the type of urban environment needed to link the development areas to the park. The DSP and MRS proposals will destroy the opportunity for a pedestrian friendly and environmentally sensitive connection between the park and the new development areas. Unless the problem of the road is addressed, the value that the regional parkland could provide to development will be significantly compromised if not lost altogether.

3.6Reconsider the need for a PRR along the ridgeline

The MRS essentially proposes to shift regional traffic from the existing Cockburn Road to a new road running along the eastern edge of the development area. In effect, the proposal is to construct by stealth another section of the FRCAH (albeit it won't be called that) notwithstanding that this whole road network was to be deleted by the previous Labor Government.

6 It is apparent that much of the proposal is a hangover from a bygone era of car dominated planning. The deletion from the MRS of the Eastern Bypass, and the deletion/re-routing of the FRCAH south of Russell Road essentially means that the remnant section of the FRCAH along the Manning Park ridgeline is obsolete. Indeed, the need for the road has not be proven by any reasonable assessment since the deletion of the Fremantle Eastern Bypass.

While the Amendment Report suggests the road may only be initially constructed as a single lane in each direction, the lack of a suitable alternative route along Cockburn Road (which is not even classified as a "blue road") means that, by default, it is almost inevitable that a controlled accesshighway (misleadingly named "Cockburn Coast Drive") will ultimately be constructed in the image of the section of FRCAH at Port Coogee.

The retention of both the FRCAH and Roe Highway reservations in this area significantly increases the capacity of the main north-south and east-west roads through the DSP area that can only be justified if those roads are able to extend further north as originally envisaged in the 1970's. However, there is now no prospect that any increased road capacity developed in the Amendment Area can actually be accommodated to the north in Fremantle. It isplanning madness to continue to merge two "red roads" at Clontarf Hill without any realistic prospect that the traffic generated on those roads can head north through Fremantle.

The current proposal in the MRS clearly aims to funnel an unrealistic quantity of traffic through narrow streets like Hampton Road and Duoro Road in Fremantle. It is presumptuous, to say the least, that any major road widening through the historic port city will ever be politically or socially acceptable and it beggars belief that the WAPC has not yet acknowledged this reality.

The construction of the bypass road around Port Coogee has already had a significant negative impact further south. The new road has further segregated the suburb of Coogee from the coast by increasing traffic volumes and speeds and by blighting the landscape in an area where high levels of east west pedestrian movement should have been given priority.

The need to provide access to areas south of Coogee may exist but the priority roads are actually those with an east-west orientation, not north-south. That is because the road design emphasis in this area is no longer to move vehicles along the FRCAH (and Stephenson Highway to the north), but to provide "blue road" east-west links between the coastal suburbs (and ship building industry) to the main north-south "red roads" such as Stock Road and the Kwinana Freeway.

Consequently, the DSP and MRS must provide a more suitable road hierarchy by upgrading Cockburn Road to a "blue road" of sufficient reserve width to provide for both cars and Tier 2 public transport, and deleting the FRCAH (or at least downgrading it to a "blue road" within a more sympathetic, narrower corridor).

7 3.7Upgrade Cockburn Road as the primary north-south road

The main north-south flow of vehicles through the Cockburn Coast area will never realistically carry more traffic than the combined volume possible on Hampton Road and Duoro Road in Fremantle unless it is planned to completely compromise Fremantle's road networks.

If the combined capacity of Hampton Road and Duoro Road is accepted as the upper limits of north-south vehicle movement, there is absolutely no reasonwhy the existing Cockburn Road alignment cannot be designed to accommodate all of the north-south traffic through the Cockburn Coast area.

It is acknowledged that Cockburn Road should be established as an urban road as, indeed the roads in Fremantle are. This does not preclude thepossibility of constructing two lanes in each direction while still maintaining all of the features of an urban road (including cycle lanes, parallel parking and an avenue of trees.) while also establishing an appropriate setting for development.

Some adjustment to the road alignment at the southern end of Cockburn Road in the vicinity of the Power Station precinct may be warranted to improve the development of that precinct. If that is done, it may also provide the opportunity to make the by-pass style road around the Port Coogee development more pedestrian friendly. Establisging a more appropriate urban setting for the bypass road around Port Coogee could create a scenic coastal boulevard rather than the highway-like road that currently exists.

A comparison should be made with the Subi Centro development where through traffic has not been seen as problematic, but embraced within the centre. In fact many businesses rely on through traffic for passing trade and exposure. It is possible to have large volumes of traffic flowing through, or directly adjacent to a town centre provided that some streets are traffic calmed and more pedestrian friendly.

If Cockburn Road were upgraded to a "blue road" in the MRS and retained as the main north-south road in the Amendment Area, there would need to be more emphasis on developing the local activity nodes with a east-west direction so that they ran at right angles to Cockburn Road rather than as strip development along it. Similar models of development operate perfectly well at places such as Claremont and Cottesloe that are bordered by Stirling Highway.

3.8An alternative edge between development and Manning Park

As an alternative to the massive cutting and filling of the ridgeline associated with the "Cockburn Coast Drive", the existing topography of Manning Park should be retain effectively as it is. The fixation with causing maximum destruction to achieve the 'perfect' highway needs to be tempered with an appreciation of the aesthetic and recreational value of retaining the natural topography. The lifestyle question planners need to ask themselves is whether

8 it is more important to get home 30 seconds quicker versus being able to maintain and access a beautiful place like Manning Park once you step out of the garage.

When the FRCAH/Stephenson Highway network was proposed in the 1970's, there were initial road designs that deviated the FRCAH around the western flank of the main knoll in the centre of the ridgeline, rather than cutting straight through it as is proposed in the current MRS. (The Coogee Master Plan 1993, fig ES1, clearly indicates this more sensitive alignment for the FRCAH.)

Even if the remnant section of the FRCAH is going to be constructed, the route needs to be re-worked to treat the function of the regional park and the aesthetic value of the ridge with far more respect. This Amendment does improve the situation slightly by shifting some of the reserve further west. However, the improvement is not significant and fails to protect the significance and opportunity associated with this place.

As noted above, given that the proposed Cockburn Coast Drive should not be used as a way of implementing the FRCAH by stealth, the function of this so- called "Drive" should be to enjoy the scenery, to provide a sensitive demarcation between urban development and the park, to afford better access to the park and to enable the opportunity for development to front on to the park rather than turning its back on it. The road design should be more like a windy road through Kings Park than the drag strip that is still likely due to the retention of the "red road" status.

Some rationalization of the park edge on the lower western flank can obviously be supported to establish a 'better fit' between the park land that is worth including as genuine ridgeline versus that which is further down the slope and may as well be developed. A more curvilinear edge betweenurban development and the park is likely to be more appropriate than the current rectilinear cadastral edges. This includes retaining the western flank of the large central knoll. Clearly, when the park was established, the western park boundary wrapped around this knoll for a reason and that needs to be respected now that an opportunity exists the delete the remnant FRCAH.

As a general rule of thumb, all of the ridgeline above the 30 metre contour line should be retained in its natural state both in terms of topography and vegetation. The land above about the 25 metre contour line should not be used for redevelopment, except perhaps where it is already privately owned.

A local road should be developed between the park and the developable areas. This road should follow the natural contours as far as reasonably possible, and not involve cutting into the landscape. The road should be a sensitively landscaped scenic boulevard that responds to the topography rather than annihilating it. It should probably be a two lane divided road with on road cycle lanes. It should be landscaped in a way that establishes a sensitive transition between the natural and urban landscapes. Developments should face the road and enjoy the views across to the park. Access to parking areas servicing the park should be provided where the topography permits.

9 At the very least, the Primary Regional Road reservation should be downgraded to an Other Regional Road Reservation, the reserve width made much narrower similar to Spearwood Avenue, and the reserve located to better reflect the natural contours of the Manning Ridge.

3.9Implementing the Greenway between Manning Park and Clontarf Hill

The long held community vision to formally reserve the existing greenway between Manning Park and Clontarf Hill has not been realised in the draft DSP and no new Parks and Recreation reservation has been proposed in this MRS Amendment. All of the existing bush land between Bellion Drive and Rockingham Road is proposed to remain available for urban development and regional road construction rather than for Parks and Recreation.

If the "red road" in this areas is retained then the road carriageway should be located as far to the west as possible so that as much of the eastern side of the PRR reserve can be used to form a greenway.

Preferably, the zoning and reserve width for the proposed Cockburn Coast Drive will be significantly downgraded as either a local road or a "blue road" in which case the land currently zoned for red roads can be amended to a Parks and recreation reservation.

There is no suggestion that existing houses are needed to implement the greenway and not all of the road reserve is required either. Groups such as the Friends of Clontarf Hill are quite willing to map a greenway that optimizes the use of land and leaves other land available for redevelopment. On the north side of Clontarf Road much of the land needed for the greenway will remain as PRR in the MRS and it is that land that could made available to form the green link.

The historic Randwick stables and associated cottage, both of which are within the existing PRR reserve, are important places that are connected with the post European settlement of this area. With a little bit of creative planning, this functioning stables and the cultural significance of that place could be incorporated within the Beeliar Regional Park in exactly the same way that caravan parks and boating facilities are incorporated in to the Woodman Point Regional Park.

3.10 Integrated redevelopment of the Power Station

Incorporating the former South Fremantle Power Station building within a Public Purposes reservation is supported. This zoning will provide the opportunity to capitalize on the unique opportunity to develop a highly activated coastal node for the whole region to enjoy. However, to ensure that development around this special precinct responds accordingly, the Government

10 must make an upfront commitment to a vision and timeframe for the redevelopment of the Power Station precinct.

It is not desirable for the issue of the Power Station precinct to remain in abeyance for any significant period of time. Having a derelict industrial site located at the core of this redevelopment area will result in sub-standard development in the surrounding areas. The value of surrounding land and the quality of developments proposed for that land must suffer if doubt remains about the future of the power station and the switchyards. The need to commit the resources to redevelop this place in a timely manner cannot be overstated particularly if that vision includes a major node of commercial and community based activity and a coastal entertainment zone.

In essence, if there is any expectation that the developers of the private land are to produce high quality sustainable development and urban environments, then the State Government needs to commit to the redevelopment at the core of all of this. At the very least, a structure plan for the Power Station site must be prepared and approved prior to the Urban Deferred land being allocated to Urban.

3.11 Marina at the Power Station to compliment the heritage building

One of the primary community objections to the Port Coogee development was the use of a good section of sea bed and beach for predominantly private housing. However, the Coogee Coastal Action Coalition (CCAC) never objected to the principal of constructing sensitively located marina facilities in the region.

Indeed, CCAC produced three alternative proposals for the Port Cooge and Power Station sites. Two of these proposed that the existing cooling ponds be completely removed and replaced with much larger public marinas. The third proposal also included the removal of the cooling ponds so that the coast could be rehabilitated for use as a regional beach. Those plans still have considerable merit and should have been further developed and incorporated into the DSP.

The cooling ponds and sea walls constructed to serve and protect the Power Station are essentially an eyesore in their current form. The sea wall to the south of the cooling ponds has no cultural significance as it was not directly related to the operation of the Power Station, but was built simply to control the erosion caused by the cooling ponds. While the cooling ponds probably have some cultural significance, they are nowhere near as important as thebuilding itself or the coastline that they destroyed

The value of retaining the cooling ponds for any heritage reasons is questionable as the water body has been largely filled and will soon be lost because of the accretion effects of the Port Coogee development. It is unlikely to be viable or practical to re-establish the original cooling ponds water body or its relationship to the ocean. It is not possible to convert the existing cooling

11 ponds to serve any boating needs and a contained water body would not be suitable for any public recreation activity involving immersion in the water.

The cultural significance relating to the cooling ponds can best be protected through accurately recording the place and the establishment of some form of interpretative display within a wholly new and sustainable environment. The MRS zonings for this area should be amended to reflect this approach.

The CCAC's proposal to construct a marina in front of the Power Station recognized the fact that the cooling ponds could not be retained but that retaining a functional water body in front of the building was still highly desirable to retain a water frontage for the power station building. A contained water body in this location would provide an appropriatesetting for this historic building and could include some interpretative understanding of the function that the cooling ponds played in the generation of electricity. Constructing a marina was considered by CCAC to provide a better heritage outcome than simply removing the cooling ponds and establishing a foreshore reserve to the west of the Power Station.

If a water body is not retained in front of the Power Station, the foreshore setback to the existing building will be at least 180 metres although this islikely to accrete as sand continues to be trapped by the new PortCoogee breakwaters. In essence, the foreshore area in front of the Power Station will be so wide that there will be a temptation, if not an expectation, that new buildings should be built between the existing structures and the ocean. Sadly that would serve to erode the important historical relationship between the building and the ocean water that it relied upon for cooling.

3.12 Recreational boating facilities at the power station

The prospect of building a marina at the Power Station is not just related to enhancing the conservation of the place but is in response to genuine recreational boating needs. The CCAC predicted that, based on existing per capita boat ownership, some 850 boat pens would be needed along the Cockburn Coast. This was based on the predicted growth in the hinterlandthat is likely to accommodate an additional 100,000 residents. This does nottake into account the additional increase in demand for more boat pens to servethe northern suburbs. Only 300 of these required pens are being provided at Port Coogee, requiring another 550 additional pens to be found.

An assessment of the region demonstrates that there are only foursites capable of accommodating additional boat pens without resulting in unacceptable damage to existing beaches, namely: a)Inclusion of boat pens adjacent to the existing Woodman Point boat launching ramps within the existing Jervoise Bay harbours, including the possibility of re-excavating the site of an earlier oil rig construction (this does not form part of the current proposed upgrade of this area);

12 b) Replacing the existing cooling ponds and seawalls at the Power Station with a new marina; c) Expansion westward of facilities as part of the Three Harbours proposal in Fremantle; and, d) Developing a new recreational boating harbour at Rous Head (now mostly stymied by Fremantle Ports recent land reclamation at Rous Head).

Other suggested sites have included the north side of Woodman Point, the expansion southwards of the Three Harbours at Fremantle and a development of a new marina at Swanbourne Beach. However, these threeproposals cannot satisfy the State Coastal Planning Policy and are strongly opposed by the community.

It is highly desirable that the boating demands be satisfied at sites that comply with the State Coastal Planning Policy requirements and have community support. Failure to plan for a positive outcome is effectively making a decision that will result in significant coastal planning conflict in the future. That is, to not take advantage of the opportunities like the one that exists at the Power Station will make it far more likely that inappropriately sites for marinas will be considered in the future and more good beaches will be lost unnecessarily. Planning for a marina at the Power Station now will essentially remove the prospect of more controversial plans ever eventuating elsewhere.

The Power Station is constructed on very low-lying ground because it needed direct access to the sea water. The reality of sea level rises makes the future of this building dependent on engineered protection against storm surges. The existing sea walls and cooling pond groynes are not well constructed and already showing signs of deterioration. They have not been designed with long- term sea level rises in mind and sooner or later these structures will need to be upgraded or even completely rebuilt. Hence, there will be considerable capital expense required to create new or improved sea walls. That is, retainingthe sea walls 'as is' will actually require a considerable cost. As such, it would be far more appropriate if the cost of rebuilding the sea walls and providingongoing coastal protection to the Power Station provided some additional benefit such as additional marina facilities.

It is understood that DoT's coastal facilities planners may have raised some objection to the Power Station site being used for a marina. However, it is also understood that these objections relate primarily to the inclusion of boat launching facilities in this location. It is accepted that including boat launching facilities and boat stacking alongside either residential developments (Port Coogee) or a high-density development node would be inappropriate. In any case, the expansion plans for the Woodman Point ramps include suchfacilities, and thus providing duplicate facilities at the Power Station is not necessary. What is necessary is the creation of more boat pen facilities.

The construction of a marina in front of the Power Station creates a kind of symbiotic relationship. The redevelopment of the Power Station as a regional node of public activity would be significantly enhanced by the draw card affect

13 that a marina would create. Likewise, the Power Station would provide the type of majestic backdrop to the marina that is enjoyed by other well-known dockland and harbour developments around the World. Some commercial, tourism and entertainment land uses could be developed on the north and south flanks of any new marina which would act to frame the new water-body and generate a protected microclimate along our otherwise hostile coast.

Allowing marina related commercial, tourism and entertainment land uses to be developed over what is currently sea bed and foreshore reserve will in effect free up existing land on the north, east and south sides of the Power Station to be used more predominantly for general urban development. The marina, while costly, would effectively allow for the generation of a higher economic yield and residential population around the Power Station. This is the one part of the study area where an increase in the intensity of development and the density of population is highly desirable.

A marina is also likely to generate a far more intensive level of public activity all year round compared to a conventional beach. Consequently, developing a marina is also more compatible with the development of a vibrant activity centre. A marina may include coastal tourism, education and institutional land uses. That in turn could generate more opportunities toredevelop the Power Station and may be the ingredient needed to provide a reasonable quantity of public usage within that important building. Co-locating a marina with the Power Station may be just the ingredient to enable this important landmark to be enjoyed by the public for generations to come.

The MRS should be amended to include appropriate zonings suitable for a marina to the west of the Power Station site.

3.13 Establishing a regional beach

A regional beach can be defined as an urban coastal node that accommodates intensive beach usage. It will also offer a broad range of facilities for public recreation and entertainment such as parklands, restaurants, bars and cafes, surf life saving clubs and other passive and active recreation facilities. A true regional beach should also be backed by a medium or high-density urban environment that is complimentary to the vibrant activities that should occur at such a beach. Using this definition, the first regional beach south of Fremantle is located at Rockingham.

One of the difficulties of developing a regional beach along the metropolitan coastline is the fragile nature of the sandy coast and the uninviting nature of the prevailing sea breezes. West facing sandy beaches like those at Coogee cannot sustainably accommodate urban parklands and boardwalks unless they are protected by wide sand dunes, or where the topography permits, retaining walls (like those at Cottesloe). Removing the sand dunes to make way for buildings and public facilities located very close to the beach will always end in failure along such fragile coasts. Either the sand drifts become unmanageable and unsustainable or the buildings are incapable of withstanding the hostile

14 environment, or most often both. Yet, there remains a desire to develop regional beaches like those that exist in places like Bondi in Sydney or Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.

The CCAC correctly identified that there were only two sites capable of being developed as regional beaches along the Cockburn Coast and the first of those has now been destroyed as part of the Port Coogee development. The other location is at the Power Station or immediately north of it, i.e. at the C.Y. O'Connor Beach. All the other sections of coast between Fremantle and Woodman Point are unsuitable for use as a regional beach because they either lack adequate foreshore reserve and access, they are not backed by urban development or are separated from it by a rail line, or the beaches are part of the conservation estate associated with the Woodman Point Regional Park.

The draft structure plan identifies a "high amenity beach" to be located between the Power Station and the Port Coogee Development. As noted above, that area would be better used for urban development with a marina located to the west. However, if that concept is not taken up, the site selected for what is effectively a regional beach is far from ideal because it isflanked to the south by low density residential land uses with no prospect of mixed use, commercial or entertainment activity. Regional beach land uses such as surf clubs and cafes will be in conflict with this low-density private housing. As such, either the northern portion of Port Coogee needs to be re-planned immediately, which is unlikely, or the regional beach needs to be centred around an area slightly further north at C.Y. O'Connor beach.

The draft DSP correctly includes a section of mixed-use development located behind the southern part of C.Y. O'Connor Beach and allows for a reasonably adequate coastal setback of about 200 metres. However, this section of beach suffers from all of the usual problems associated with a west facing sandy beach as noted above.It does not enjoy the raised topography that exists at Scarborough and more notable at Cottesloe. Any development behind this beach will not fully benefit from panoramic coastal views. At the street level of this proposed development, the public will be looking into the back of the necessary sand dunes, as is currently the case.

The marina plans produced by CCAC provide the solution to the problems associated with both the low density residential development in Port Coogee and the low lying sandy beach just north of the Power Station. A marina in front of the Power Station could incorporate a hook groyne on its northern side to enable the creation of north and north-west facing beaches. These in turn would provide the opportunity to have some sections of foreshore reserve that are not reliant on sand dunes for protection from the seabreezes. These more sheltered sections of beach could be developed with parks, boardwalks and development set immediately behind a sandy beach. As they would be backed by new development rather than by Port Coogee housing, the new development could be tailored to compliment the function of a regional beach rather than being in conflict with it. (A similar concept was included in the new Mandurah Ocean Marina. However, it would be better if the relationship between the

15 beach on one side and a marina on the other was far more direct and provided for continuous public activity at the street level).

In terms of the including the marina and north-facing beach in the structure plan, an area should be defined in the DSP to identify the general limits of the sea walls and hook groyne. That area could be defined by theexisting McTaggart Road alignment to the north, the Port Coogee marina to the south and distance offshore of about 400-500 metres. The north-facing beach should generally be designed to be south of the existing McTaggart Road alignment and south of the McTaggart road groyne (which should be removed).

Limiting the northern extent of the marina will be necessary to ensure that there is no nett loss of beach. The length of the new north-facing beach should be no less than the beaches lost to the new marina. Also, the relationship between the northern extent of the marina and the possible reconstruction of part of or all of Robb Jetty needs to be considered. If the northern limit of the hook groyne is contained within the area nominated above, it will enjoy a comfortable relationship with Robb Jetty. Indeed, such an arrangement could provide the opportunity to create a sheltered beach that was also protected by a stinger net that would be a real draw card for the community.

3.14 Land use requirements adjacent to the foreshore reserve

In establishing a regional beach, care needs to be taken to ensure appropriate land uses are developed at the street level immediately abutting the foreshore. While residential above the street level is appropriate, a regional beach should include a reasonable quantity of commercial and entertainment activity fronting on to the foreshore. It is therefore necessary to define theforeshore zone that will become the regional beach and to tailor the land use zoning adjacent to that accordingly.

As a general rule, the length of a regional beach is unlikely to be any greater than about 400 metres because there is a need for the activities to be concentrated to achieve the right vibrancy. This length is also considered to be a reasonable distance for pedestrian activity.

The DSP currently indicates mixed-use activity at the Power Station and the adjoining land up to the north up to McTaggart Street. To achieve the critical mass of complimentary commercial and entertainment activitiesfor the regional beach, the mixed-use zone should probably be extended to the new development area north of McTaggart Road.

More importantly, the structure plan should emphasize the necessity to ensure that detailed planning of the development fronting the foreshore should occur through the development of local structure plans and/or a development plan contained in the Town Planning Scheme. The commercial and entertainment uses at the street level need to be mandatory in planning terms. This isessential to ensure that the 'default' development of residential at the street level does not occur. These mandatory land use requirements must be locked in prior to any

16 of this land being released to private developers. The need to do this planning should be specifically identified on the district structure plan.

While the proposed MRS amendment includes a area of development west of the railway, it is inadequate in size and is poorly connected to the Power Station precinct to be capable of properly activating a regional beach. This is exacerbated by the retention of such a wide strip of Parks and Recreation land immediately north of McTaggart Road and the retention of the SEC & SU reserve.

3.15 East-west green link between the foreshore and ridgeline

Establishing public open space linkages between the beach and the ridgeline is a commendable goal. Given that both the foreshore and ridgeline are regionally important conservation areas, it would be desirable to retain at least one wildlife corridor linking these areas. That would require a wider footprint than any of the current links indicated. It is suggested that the two main open space links be merged into one much wider link roughly coinciding with the northern extent of the new Urban Deferred zone west of the rail reserve.

The McTaggart Road alignment should be used as a more urban link between the ridge and the foreshore. This linkage is suggested for a number of reasons, including: a) It incorporates the large open space areas already proposed to be set aside north of McTaggart Road; b) The distance from Cockburn Road to the main knoll (which should be protected as noted above) is comparatively short, thus keeping the land area required for the link to a minimum; c) It incorporates the existing high voltage transmission lines that would require open space underneath in any case; d) It would connect one of the prominent lookouts in Manning Park to the point along the coast where a regional beach can be developed.

3.17 'Sinking' the rail line

Any proposal to sink the rail line behind the Power Station, or at least to allow developments to be built over it, is commendable. The location of the rail line is a major physical barrier that makes integration of the urban development more difficult. It divides the developable areas in half and separates alarge part of the Urban Deferred land from the foreshore. The opportunity to mitigate these negative impacts presents one of the major challenges for the planners of this area. The DSP failed to provide resolve the problems and so much more needs to be done before this area is given over to Urban development.

In broad terms, there is a need create a situation where all of the rail operations (both freight and any future passenger rail) occur below the finished ground

17 level of the new urban precinct. This can be achieved by either sinking the existing rail line or raising the surrounding ground levels, or a combination of both. In the first instance, a technical decision needs to be made at the earliest possible stage of planning to determine what is the most pragmatic way of achieving the desired outcome, taking into account the relationship of surrounding levels especially at the Power Station.

In the southern areas, raising the ground levels may make more sense whereas in the northern areas, sinking the rail line would seem more pragmatic. The most important part of the exercise will be to consider the topography of several east-west transacts relative to the Power Station to determine the best overall outcome.

The emphasis should be to have McTaggart Road, and all the roads down as far as the Port Coogee development, to cross over the rail line. Obviously,the surrounding development would need to be at the level of these roads. Taking into account that most developments in this area are likely to include full basement car parking, raising all of the roads by about 3 metres would seem to be a good start.

The DSP failed to resolve these issues and the plan did not adequately identify proper planning mechanisms for delivering the best solution. In this context, to proceed with the proposal for Urban Deferred seems premature. Of greater concern is that the width of the railways reservation remains unalteredand if the current amendment is adopted, the options to improve the integration of rail within the development will be lost.

3.18 Relocating the rail line

It has been greatly disappointing to witness so much redevelopment of the South Beach and Coogee areas without any clear planning strategy in place to deal with the planning barrier between land and sea created by the rail line. Had a properly integrated vision been considered just tens years ago,the rail line could have been realigned inland starting as far north as Duoro Road. Had this been done, it would have enabled about 50% of the North Coogee area to be located on the west side of the rail line where it would be directly connected with the foreshore. The cost of relocating the rail line would have been offset by the significant increase in land value achieved by such a move. More importantly, the whole community would have benefited by such a visionary move.

However, in principle, it still remains feasible to realign some of the rail line to the east starting at Rollinson Road. The aim would be to shift it to an alignment roughly coinciding with Bennett Avenue and then following that alignment up to the existing Cockburn Road alignment. By selecting this alignment, the new rail line could be lowered at an acceptable gradient so that by the time it reached the proposed park north of McTaggart Road, it could be fully below ground thus achieving the outcome desired around the Power Station. South of the

18 Mc Taggart Road, the rail line would commence it's ascent back up to the existing grades at the cuttings where it heads east.

The new alignment would provide the opportunity to sink the rail and make space for a future passenger rail at the same time. It would enable this work to occur without major interference to the operation of the existing freight line. But most importantly, it would significantly increase the developable land located between the rail line and the beach adding significantly to the quality of the overall development. This value-added land is premium land located around the Power Station, adjacent to a regional beach and connected to a marina (hopefully a proper marina).

Surely, the idea of relocating and sinking the rail line warrants a detailed analysis to prove the viability of the vision. As a first 'guesstimate', the relocation between Rollinson Road and McTaggart Road would generate about $30 million dollars of additional value to this 'brown-fields' site simply by locating an additional 15 hectares west of the rail line rather than to the east. It would also free up an additional 1.5 hectares of excess foreshore land that could be used for urban development, adding another $7 million to the value of the brown-fields site. It would seem that the proposal is likely to be at least cost neutral and the benefits to the overall end product would be significant. The cost benefit of sinking of the rail around the Power Station would seem to be so self- evident as to not require justification.

3.19 Passenger Rail

Without doubt, one of the most disappointing aspects of the draft structure plan is the failure of government to commit upfront to the development of a passenger rail line through the study areaone that links it to Fremantle to the north and Cockburn Central to the south-east. In terms of modem sustainable planning, it is simply unimaginable to allow this development to proceed without having a rail option planned and operational as part of the early stages of development. When other developments at Port Coogee, the Watsonia site, Phoenix Shopping Centre, all of the new suburbs to the east, and Cockburn Central are factored in, the failure to incorporate rail would be inexcusable, if not criminal.

It is not true that development will respond to the proposed bus network in the same way that it would respond to a passenger rail line. Rail, whether light or heavy, is the only transport option that will warrant the significant increase in development expenditure required to achieve a quality high-density coastal city. Rail is also the right transport option when one considers the overall public transport network of the metropolitan area.

Clearly there is a need for a rail link between Fremantle and Cockburn Central (or alternatively Murdoch), and possibly between Fremantle and Armadale. In terms of a logical rail hierarchy, it would seem the Cockburn Central line should probably be an extension of the existing Fremantle heavy rail line, but light rail would be acceptable given the logistical problems in the Fremantle CBD.

19 The MRS amendment fails to provide any additional width to the railway reserve. The rail reserve must be widened to ensure it can accommodate two lines for passenger rail and a separate freight rail line.

3.20 Overall population

It seems that the goal of achieving an overall population along the Cockburn Coast has fallen significantly short of the 20,000 residents that the previous Minister for Planning had initially set as the target.This is greatly disappointing given the quality of lifestyle that this development site offers and how few will ever get to share in it. Such a fantastic site needs to be shared by as many new residents as possible.

Much of Fremantle and almost the whole of Cockburn is set aside as family capable housing and yet only 30% of the population actually need that type of housing. Furthermore, the new developments at Port Coogee and South Beach are still largely wedded to provide large areas of low-density housing. The Cockburn Coast site is the last remaining coastal site in the region and as much of it as possible should set aside for higher density living.

Without the benefit of the detailed planning analysis it is difficult to make suggestions for improving the overall population levels. That said, replacing much of the land currently set aside as a "red road" reservation with Urban Defered instead could generate another 3000 households. Suffice it to say, this issue needs to be explored in much greater detail and the aim of achieving the higher population target taken more seriously. Indeed, it is questionable whether the WAPC should allow any of the area to be rezoned to Urban Deferred until such time as the DSP provides for a better utilization of this special piece of land.

END

20 X6, Sr S.;0

- "- - , 0,slr"'77-4" "1"r)

11 0. a)

F- 4-0-

- _ J.,%Invo.037 iL -z7

T'6'" ,6-1-t I.

".," x r'1'.5144 ;1).+1,

147 im& litil .....-,- _ ---.- - -- 11,4 7 --1---:------,-; -..-1.

--V -7-4-

,

[ ,,, , , ,-1 ',014:Y

,-;.4r , "!.. , ' ,1 i-- ' '''' - d '.11It''' (1'''~`;- -7 ' ',..,,,-- -51"10'41,. :.=

-,,---1;--1-1,,'7-- - I -/ ' ,:-r...r. -r - 1.1. ,_ , ' _1-1 4 ...

'44.1470..44 ,t

' ,_ ;. Aw,1 .S,mc44.1fV4

1 I -a-01

I L, .41:7

0611616-

*

4 II _ - ^ Submission24

Government of Western MAIN ROADS Australia WesternAustralia

ABN: 50 860 676 021 Enquiries: Ms Assunta Dinardo on (08) 9323 4163 Our Ref: 10/631 (D10#67918) 13 May 2010 Your Ref: 809-2-23-17 Pt 1

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

ATTENTION: LAUREN AITKEN

Dear Madam

METROPOLITAN REGIONSCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1180/41 COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN

Thank you for your letter dated 8 February 2010 requesting Main Roads comments on the above proposal.

Main Roads does not support this MRS amendment. Main Roads has consistently advised the Department of Planning (D0P) that further work is required to resolve the future road connectivity from the proposed Cockburn Coast Drive north of Robinson Road.

This MRS amendment is proposing to rezone an area of land that is currently reserved as Primary Regional Road to Urban and there is a very strong likelihood that some of this area will be required for future road purposes in the future. A recent study(Road Network Study- West of Planned Stock Road/Roe Highway Interchange)undertaken by DoP has recommended a future road network through this area that includes a northern extension of Cockburn Coast Drive to provide connectivity to Hampton Road. The contact officer at D0P for this study is Mohsin Muttaqui.

Main Roads supports the MRS amendment for the area south of Rollinson Road.

If you require any further information please contact Ms Assunta Dinardo on (08) 9323 4163. In reply please quote file reference 10/631 (D10#67918).

Yours faithfully

Lin urst MANAGER ROAD PLANNING

Don Aitken Centre, Waterloo Crescent, East Perth or PO Box 6202 EAST PERTH Western Australia 6892 Telephone: 138 138 Facsimile: (08) 9323 4430 TTY: (08) 9428 2230 Australian Business Email: enquiries @mainroads.wa.gov.au Website: www.mainroads.wa.gov.au Excellence Awards Bronze Award 2007 Submission 24 0-4mo II

Government of MAIN ROADS Western Australia Western Australia

ABN: 50 860 676 021

Enquiries: Jerolina Rankin on (08) 9323 4544 Our Ref: 10/631(D10#180976) 11 August 2010 Your Ref: 809-2-23-17 Pt 1

The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 1 6 AUG 2010

FILE 00'9 ATTENTION: LAUREN AITKEN

Dear Madam

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT1180/41 COCBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN

Thank you for your letter dated 4 August 2010 requesting MainRoads comments on the above proposal

Main Roads does not support this modified MRS amendment.Main Roads has consistently advised the Department of Planning (DoP) that furtherwork is required to resolve the future road connectivity from the proposed Cockburn CoastDrive north of Rollinson Road.

This modified MRS amendment is proposing to rezone an areaof land that is currently reserved as Primary Regional Road to Urban and there is a verystrong likelihood that some of this area will be required for future road purposesin the future. A recent study (Road Network StudyWest of Planned Stock Road/Roe highway Interchange) undertaken by DoP has recommended a future road network throughthis area that includes a northern extension of Cockburn Coast Drive to provideconnectivity to Hampton Road. The contact officer at DoP for this study is Mohsin Muttaqui.

Main Roads' Manager Road Planning Lindsay Broadhurst and Urban Planning Manager David Van Den Dries want to attend the Hearings on this Amendment.

If you require any further information please contact Jerolina Rankin on(08) 9323 4544. In reply please quote file reference 10/631(D10#180976).

Yours faithfully

Lind urst MANAGER ROAD PLANNING

num. Ilan nusInen Excellence Aw.srds

Don Aitken Centre, Waterloo Crescent, East Perth or PO Box 6202 EAST PERTH Western Australia 6892 Telephone: 138 138 Facsimile: (08) 9323 4449 TTY: (08) 9428 2230 Australian Business Email: [email protected] Website: www.mainroads.wa.gov.au Excellence Awards Bronze Award 2007 Addition to Submission 24

From: RANKIN Jerolina (EA) [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 16 August 2010 11:30 AM To: Aitken, Lauren Subject: Cockburn Coast Drivehearing attendance

Hi Lauren,

Please find the attached document for Lindsay Broadhurst to attend the scheduled hearing for Cockburn Coast Drive on 16 September 2010.

Regards,

Jerolina Rankin Engineering Associates ds

Telephone: (08) 9323 4544Fax: (08) 9323 4449 Email: jerolina.rankinmainroads.wa.gov.au www.mainroads.wa.gov.au Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally presentthe basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing.The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report andin particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

No, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Pleasego to the bottom of the form and sign)

OR

D7Yes,I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours):Lind 59 broadhuisl or c15,23 451 I A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that:

The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPCmay be subject to applications for access under the act.

In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its reporton these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions,are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governorapprove the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a reporton submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Signature Date 1 °

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email- [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au 446V4De (Tabled at Hearing) 2i

ROCKINGHAM RD & COCKBURN COAST DR INTERSECTION with TRAFFIC SIGNALS

SIDRA ANALYSIS GEOMETRY

Cockburn Coast Dr MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Year 2031_1rtl on W-10% pht from dt_Cockburn Coast Dr & Rockingham Rd

Signals - Cycle Time = 150 seconds

- zo- e E 19-e A - ". -- o 0--o as South: CockburnCoast Dr 10 L 1718 2.0 0.558 10.9 LOS B 18.2 130.4 0.31 0.70 46.4 12 R 148 2.0 1.235 205.1 LOS F 19.1 136.4 1.00 1.20 9.1 Approach 1866 2.0 1.235 26.3 LOS C 19.1 136.4 0.36 0.74 35.1 East: Rockingham Rd 22.1 1 L 105 2.0 0.283 63.3 LOS E 8.3 59.6 0.88 0.82 2 T 334 2.0 1.314 230.6 LOS F 22.4 160.4 1.00 1.26 8.1 Approach 439 2.0 1.314 190.4 LOS F 22.4 160.4 0.97 1.15 9.5 West: Rockingham Rd 8 T 434 2.0 0.133 1.9 LOS A 3.6 25.9 0.18 0.15 56.1 9 R 1785 2.0 1.327 207.2 LOS F 249.7 1785.4 1.00 1.37 9.0 Approach 2219 2.0 1.327 167.0 LOS F 249.7 1785.4 0.84 1.14 10.8 All Vehicles 4524 2.0 1.327 111.3 LOS F 249.7 1785.4 0.65 0.98 14.9 GEOMETRY

Cockburn Coast Dr MOVEMENT SUMMA RY Site: Year 2031_2rt1 on W-10% pht from Coast Dr & Rockingham Rd

Signals - Cycle Time = 150 seconds

o. o e . e 6 °e o 6-

0 South' CockburnCoast Dr 10 L 1718 2.0 0.596 13.6 LOS B 24.1 172.0 0.42 0.74 43.9 12 R 148 2.0 0.727 80.6 LOS F 12.6 90.0 1.00 0.85 18.8 Approach 1866 2.0 0.727 19.0 LOS B 24.1 172.0 0.46 0.75 39.7 East: Rockingham Rd

1 L 105 2.0 0.177 26.9 LOS C 6.3 44.8 0.64 0.77 34.7 2 T 334 2.0 0.730 71.6 LOSE 13.7 98.1 1.00 0.86 19.6 Approach 439 2.0 0.730 60.9 LOSE 13.7 98.1 0.91 0.83 21.9 West: Rockingham Rd 8 T 434 2.0 0.141 3.3 LOS A 4.6 33.1 0.23 0.20 53.9 9 R 1785 2.0 0.766 27.4 LOS C 44.8 320.6 0.76 0.86 34.4 Approach 2219 2.0 0.766 22.7 LOS C 44.8 320.6 0.66 0.73 37.0 All Vehicles 4524 2.0 0.766 24.9 LOS C 44.8 320.6 0.60 0.75 35.6 TRAFFIC VOLUME_Year 2031

7-3 1

1632 - 141 2.0% " r 2.0%

Cockburn Coast Dr TITLE: Turning Movement Volume Estimates DATE: 3/06/2009 INTERSECTION: Rockingham Rd / Cockburn Coast Dr YEAR: 2031

SOURCE: Main Roads WA Traffic Model ASSIGNMENT: TAZone1160W2031\AssYr\Y2005 VG\ Projnets\ SWC\CDSP\SUBSWC31.PRJ REPORT FILE: TAZONE11 60\Y2031 \ASSYRW2005_VG\PROJNETS\SWC\CDSP NRROA31D.PRN PATHFILE: TAZone1160\Y20311AssYnY2005 VG\ Projnets\SWC\CDSP lTurn_Rockingham_Cockburn.xls AUTHOR: Sharif Siddique STATUS: Unadjusted Volumes (C) Copyright 2009 Rockingham Rd

t. T 21085 T 19494

16961

17735

Cockburn Coast Dr T 17967

T 5537 T 4178

Rockingham Rd /41w4 Dt)a2

(Tabled at Hearing) 2`t

Enquiries: Lang Fong on (08) 9323 4244 Our Ref: 04/11588-03 (D08#113786) 20 June 2008 Your Ref: 801-2-23-43PV8

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

ATTENTION:

Dear Sir

STRUCTURE PLAN COCKBURN COAST

Thank you for your letter dated 16 June 2008, requesting Main Roads comments on the above proposal.

Main Roads has reviewed the Cockburn Coast Structure plan and provides the following comments:

1.Whilst the structure plan does recognise the Cockburn Coast Drive should be planned to 4-lanes standard road, the connection of this road into Hampton Road via the existing Rockingham Road is a significant issue. Rockingham Road only has a 20m road reservation and there have been a number of recently approved developments. There are also existing heritage buildings along this section of Rockingham Road which will make it difficult to upgrade to the necessary standard.

2. The structure plan also suggests that Hampton Road between Douro Road and Rockingham Road be down graded to 2-lanes for general traffic with the other 2- lanes for dedicated bus lanes.

It should be noted that DPI Urban Transport Systems has produced a draft report titled "Fremantle to Rockingham Road Network-Network Evaluation" that recommends that this section of Hampton Road needs to retain 4-lanes for general traffic. Bus lanes should be in addition to the general traffic lanes. This standard should also be applied to a portion of Rockingham Road between Cockburn Coast Drive to Hampton Road.

Main Roads suggest that a planning design concept be developed for Cockburn Coast Drive, Rockingham Road from Cockburn Coast Drive to Hampton Road and Hampton Road from Rockingham Road to Douro Road to cater for the anticipated traffic that was determined during the study. This concept is required in order to determine the engineering feasibility for both Rockingham Road and Hampton Road.

Don Aitken Centre, Waterloo Crescent, East Perth or PO Box 6202 EAST PERTH Western Australia 6892 Telephone: (08) 9323 4111 Facsimile: (08) 9323 4547 TTY: (08) 9428 2230 Email: dac @mainroads.wa.gov.au Website: www.mainroads.wa.gov.au S: \Staff Work FoldersWan_DenDries\MRWA\Cockbum vision\Structure Plan\D08#113786 Structure Plan Cockburn Coast.DOC If the planning design concept cannot be developed sufficiently on the existing alignment for both Rockingham Road and Hampton Road, other alternatives will need to be explored.

3. The existing Cockburn Road is proposed to be down-graded with connections to a number of east west roads and direct frontage to property. As Cockburn Road is a regional road, Main Roads will require that the alternative route, Cockburn Coast Drive, be constructed before the existing Cockburn Road is down-graded.

3. The structure plan proposes a number of traffic signals on existing Cockburn Road. Main Roads approval is required for all proposed traffic signals prior to implementation. Council needs to provide justification and an evaluation of alternative measures for any proposed traffic signals. Supporting information such as a preliminary design drawing(s), predicted traffic and pedestrian volumes, SIDRA analysis, paramics modelling and traffic impact reports will need to be included for any formal assessment.

Please forward a copy of the Commission's final determination on this proposed structure plan, quoting file reference 04/11588-03 (D08#113786).

If you require any further information please contact Lang Fong on (08) 9323 4244.

Yours faithfully

Lindsay Broadhurst MANAGER ROAD PLANNING

S: \Staff Work FoldersWan_Den_Dries\MRWA\Cockburn vision\Structure Plan\D08#113786 Structure Plan - Cockburn Coast.DOC Page 2 of 2 ':;\ - f , lejcir,1 r 4 tk!, 1;1A Submission 25

Tony Ruse ABN: 83 264 636 734

ACN: 00 88 00 342

PO Box 528 COTTESLOE WA 6911

Fax: +61 8 9384 5657 Mobile: 0418 942 933 Email: alrusePoptusnet.com.au

13th April, 2010

The Secretary

Western Australian Planning Commission

469 Wellington St

PERTH. WA. 6000.

Dear Sir,

SUBMISSION ON COCKBURN COAST REZONONG FROM

INDUSTRIAL TO URBAN BY TONY RUSE PART OWNER

SOUTH BEACH PTY LTD, LOTS 17 & 123

COCKBURN RD, HAMILTON HILL

The issues I consider that need to be addresses and resolved are:

Landcorp has indicated as a landowner (40ha) it will be primarily responsible as the entity to Project Manage the rezoning and the infrastructure implementation over the entire 100ha project area.

This needs to be formalised so landowners can rely on Landcorp to drive the process. Is this an interim arrangement until an Improvement Plan or some other process is in place or is the appointment permanent?

Whatever the process and the entity responsible for its implementation, a formal timetable is required. This timetable should show the items on the critical path so that priority can be attributed to certain areas within certain cells. A reporting system needs to be established to ensure the process can be monitored and managed.

Precinct landowners need to be briefed on their role in the process.

Landowner and precinct meetings need to be chaired by a Landcorp/DPI representative so they know the issues they need to determine and where they fit in with the process.

An estimate of costs to be contributed by Landowners pre implementation and post implementation (on development approval) needs to be assessed so Landowners are not caught unawares and hold the process up.

Apathy and non involvement from Landowners should not interfere with the process and Landowners need to be made aware that their participation is encouraged, however macro infrastructure issues will be determined with or without their involvement.

Yours faithfully,

TONY RUSE DEPARTMENT4PLANNING

Planning and Development Act 2005 17 MAY 2010 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 po7,s- FILE"-AS Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 26 Perth WA 6000

Name ciorvo-c. tiv ILA (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address YO °P ..OveetASa te Cer,/14-t Postcode 0

Contact phone number .13 g '7000 Email address adek 6ader09'

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

Nettre- at cep/v-Itt Af(aced e S- AS /1^-e sEi644 'Sr/ Cry*. teL /W44 ir-opt4 144,2 14 s

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

O Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): ...... or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that:

The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions., are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

) Signature Date

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Websitehttp://www.planning.wa.gov.au Submission by Adele Caries MLA

On

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

May 2010

Page I 1 Executive Summary

This submission outlines a number of concerns and suggestions in relation to the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan (CCDSP) as it appears in the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41. Comments are also made in relation to planning issues surrounding the South Fremantle tip site and the Fremantle Chalet Village (Caravan Park). The tip site and the Fremantle Chalet village both fall within the boundaries of the CCDSP and share similar environmental problems, yet the planning considerations of the former tip site are side-stepped in the documentation of the CCDSP. The South Fremantle tip-site is regarded as being subject to separate planning measures by the City of Fremantle and the chosen planning option for the site differs from that which has been made public previously.

There is clearly a need to consider sensitive and ecologically sustainable development of this locality given historic use as an industrial area with noxious industry land-use. However the need to remediate or manage contaminated land should not compromise the remaining high conservation values of other land within the structure plan area or resident's health or amenity.

With a view to ensuring more sustainable outcomes for the structure plan I have provided comment on;

The urgent need to fund dedicated infrastructure for a light rail network to service the structure plan development and alleviate congestion on Hampton Road and throughout Fremantle. Strong community opposition to residential development of the South Fremantle landfill site due to health and safety issues and environmental impacts. The need for greater setbacks between the coastline and the key residential and commercial developments of the CCDSP. Real consideration to be given to the relocation of the Fremantle Chalet Village permanent residents to affordable accommodation within the CCDSP that provides improved amenity and security (the 'village' is currently located on top of a medical and municipal waste dump). The need to integrate renewable energy systems in to the development at district scale where possible and certainly at lot scale for commercial and residential structures.

Page I 2 Transit: Light rail vs. buses

I am disappointed to see that the WAPC is still pursuing the option of road-based transit in the CCDSP. The response below (from the public submissions report) indicates that while the vast majority of respondents (27:3) were encouraging the implementation of light rail to link the CCDSP to Fremantle in preference to a bus system, the WAPC has not adopted their views.

"It is considered that Bus Rapid Transit presents the most viable and effective public transport option in the short to medium term, in the absence of the significant Government financial commitment required to implement the alternatives suggested through the public comment period. By securing the public transport priority contiguously to Fremantle from the project area, and ensuring that appropriate transit stops are provided, the opportunity to transition to light rail in the longer term is preserved, should the technology be implemented on a broader scale ".(response to submissions) Draft Cockburn Coast District Structure PlanPublic Submissions Report August 2009 p.9

The argument made is that the bus transit system is cheaper than light rail in the short to medium-term. This is qualified by comments that such viability only occurs in the absence of 'the significant Government financial commitment' that would be required to implement the clearly preferred choice of respondentswhich is light rail.

Long-term sustainability assessment should be considered in this case and a comparative assessment considered. An electrified light rail system has the benefit of reduced running, maintenance and replacement costs when compared to gas/diesel buses even if the capital investment on infrastructure is considered. It is also clear that light rail can source renewable energy based electricity to reduce or eliminate its inherent carbon footprint unlike gas/diesel buses which will rely on external offsets in order to approach carbon neutrality.

If a light rail line were configured parallel to coastal views it would prove attractive to tourists in its own right and increase patronage. It is difficult to see a bus system achieving the same status. The cost for implementing light rail has been estimated at $15 million per kilometre in high density urban environments (Ludlam 2010), although the majority of track would be installed in a low-constraint environment (the CCDSP itself) until it reached the developed outskirts of Fremantle. Depending on alignment the track may extend 5-7 kilometres with a total cost of $75-100 million plus rolling stock and maintenance. Light rail vehicle costs are around $3 million per vehicle and a maintenance facility of around $4 million.

However, construction costs vary dramatically depending on the environment (tunnelling, gradients, dense urban development etc) and many cost assessments from other states and countries are less than those quoted in the CCDSP (Ludlam 2010). Importantly the cost/revenue

Page I 3 ratio decreases dramatically with increased patronage and at maximum capacity the light rail system is highly cost effective, carbon efficient and has high rates of congestion reduction.

DPI (2008) has acknowledged the superiority of light rail in this regard over buses and also note that light rail gives a sense of permanence to developers who are more likely to invest if government has dedicated capital and infrastructure to a long-term transit system (buses lack this permanence). They also acknowledge that the scale of the transit project can have a significant place-making ability as in my earlier comments on tourist potential. In DPI's view "Large-scale (transit) projects with considerable government investment are more likely to generate development/redevelopment opportunities".

DPI also acknowledge that buses in Western Australia suffer from stigmatisation (the public view them as uncomfortable or inconvenient) and that this would be a barrier to uptake unless specific marketing plans were put in place at considerable expense.

Putting aside the cost merits of buses vs. light rail it is clear that Hampton Road will reach unacceptable levels of congestion in the near future. Indeed the WAPC note in its transport analysis that Hampton Road;

"... is predicted to be congested, regardless of whether the DSP area is developed or not. Paramics modelling undertaken for Scenario 1 (two lanes for general traffic plus kerbside transit lanes) without any DSP traffic predicts volumes of 32 100 vpd by 2031. The predicted congestion on Hampton Road places an increased emphasis on the need for transit priority in the coastal corridor." (DPI 2008, p.15)

Given this assessment by the DPI it is increasingly apparent that any transit option should avoid road use as it will inevitably lead to further congestion.

Recommendation 1: It is clear there is a need for a light-rail service for the Cockburn DSP to be funded at the next state budget. Although provision is made in the plans for a light rail reserve, the emphasis in the most recent draft CCDSP appears to be on road-based bus transport. I would recommend that the State Government develop an infrastructure investment plan for long term light rail implementation in the CCDSP with a view to extension into surrounding suburbs at a later time.

Recommendation 2: Traffic congestion on Hampton Road has reached critical levels and with anticipated population increases resulting from the CCDSP, any increase in road based transport (including bus services) will prove unmanageable in the short to medium term. I recommend against road based transit systems as they increase congestion and represent an opportunity cost and investment disincentive for future light rail infrastructure.

Page I 4 Recommendation 3: Light rail integration with the broader regional transport network is the most sensible and sustainable option to connect Fremantle with the CCDSP development and the suburbs beyond. The state government should establish a transit working group to integrate the heavy rail line at Fremantle station with light rail infrastructure from the CCDSP.

South Fremantle landfill

There is virtually no community support for the development of residential dwellings on the South Fremantle landfill site.It is noted that the City of Fremantle has been permitted to undertake the planning activities for this site even though it falls within the boundaries of the CCDSP. The City of Fremantle planning process has been augmented by a Stakeholder Advisory Group ('the Group') which includes representation from the community adjacent to the landfill. I was a member of this Group as the spokesperson for the South Fremantle/Hamilton Hill Residents' Assoc Inc. Although this Group has been in abeyance recently, my recollection is that there was no clear consensus on whether Option A (which includes netball courts and a council depot) or Option B (which included more housing) was preferable.I recall that the community representatives on the Group, including myself preferred Option A, whilst the developer representatives preferred Option B, creating an impasse.

However, the DSP document available online at DPI states "The structure plan reflects Option B as determined through the advisory group process."

I met with the City of Fremantle last month about this matter and I understand that a further meeting of this Group is to be convened with a view to reconciling this and to moving forward.

The lack of community support for residential development at the tip site is directly related to the hazards associated with any potential remediation and redevelopment of the site. Historical and anecdotal records confirm that a range of hazardous waste materials are buried within the site and that these include PCBs, quarantine waste, municipal waste, medical waste, sullage and ordnance. There are also serious ongoing issues associated with uncontrolled methane release from the landfill, within the landfill and under the adjoining Chalet village site.

Referenced details of the site history and contamination have already been presented to the WAPC in my original submission of the South Fremantle/Hamilton Hill Residents' Association Inc in September 2008 which attached a lengthy scientific report by Kelly Duckworth (Duckworth 2008).I ask that this original submission be included with this current submission.

Contaminated site remediation in Western Australia is still in its infancy in terms of methodology and public health protection. The primary means of remediation in WA are dig

PageI 5 and dump approaches with poor dust control, no vapour control and inadequate air monitoring techniques. The South Fremantle community were subjected to the remediation of the former lead smelter site in 2005.I represented this community in the Supreme Court in which we attempted to have the WA Government adopt best practice remediation by removing all risks to local residents and beach users. We requested that the Health Department and the Department of Environment and Conservation implement a requirement that the hazardous remediation activity be conducted in an enclosure to prevent the release of lead contamination across Fremantle. Large tent like enclosures operating under negative pressure areused in the US and Europe for remediation of sites containing harmful dust and vapours in proximity to local communities.

Unfortunately the responsible government agencies in WA refused to take this preventative action and approved a plan which did not remove the risk of lead dust being released over South Fremantle. The departments gave public assurances that nothing would go wrong and site specific risk assessments that generated 'tolerable' levels of contaminants. These assessments did not take into account the special sensitivities of the elderly, infants and pregnant women. They also failed to account for the accumulative and synergistic impacts of the hazardous chemicals released and ignore the pre-existing body burdens of likely receptors.

Ultimately many families with young children, including mine, made the difficult decision to leave our homes voluntarily while the developer conducted its remediation over an 18 month period. Some families never returned. The unfortunate legacy of this remediation has left a scar on our community.I have relayed this story in the hope that the Government acknowledges that the community adjacent to this tip site has already suffered loss and dislocation due to the recent lead remediation at South Beach. We do not want to find ourselves in this situation again. Specifically we do not want to leave our homes again.

Given the high degree of hazard associated with the waste fill at the South Fremantle landfill and the inability of contractors and government agencies to adequately protect local residents, I maintain my strong opposition to residential development of the South Fremantle landfill site.

I support the recommendations of the 2008 South Fremantle/Hamilton Hill Residents' Association Inc with respect to this issue and reiterate those recommendations;

Recommendation 1: Residential redevelopment of the South Fremantle Landfill Site should not be approved due to the many risks associated with the hazardous waste and emission of landfill gases from the site.

Page 16 Recommendation 2: A 500m buffer zone, which precludes further residential redevelopment, should be applied around the South Fremantle Landfill Site, in accordance with Victorian EPA guidance statements.

Recommendation 3: Regular monitoring for landfill gas at the South Fremantle Landfill Site, surrounding residential areas, and commercial areas, already existing within the 500m buffer, should be implemented as a matter of urgency, and in accordance with the highest international standards.

Recommendation 4: Comprehensive soil and groundwater testing should be undertaken in the Plan area, to support well informed redevelopment strategies.

Fremantle Chalet Village

The Fremantle Chalet Village has an uncertain future. It was established in the 1980s as a temporary caravan park to accommodate an influx of temporary visitors to Fremantle during the America's Cup yacht series. In following years, approval was given by the City of Fremantle to integrate long term residents in 'park homes' at the site. Throughout this period little or no regard was given to the health implications of long-term tenancy on a landfill site where waste is regularly exposed during site works and gardening. Methane levels in soil at the site have also been found to be very high at times, raising concerns about asphyxiation risk and explosions.

Both the South Fremantle landfill and the Chalet Village share similar problems in terms of waste fill, methane release, inadequate management and remediation. It is doubtful that government authorities would ever again allow a situation where residents were permitted to live for long periods on an unremediated landfill site.

This brings into question the future of the residents currently occupying that site. Many long- term residents are elderly pensioners who have invested a large portion of their capital into the 'park homes' that occupy the site. Due to current debate over legislation affecting these types of caravan parks and dwellings, many owners have found themselves in a position where they cannot sell their homes and cannot relocate. The financial situation of many long term residents has been seriously affected as is their security of tenure.

The Fremantle Chalet Village requires remediation which cannot be undertaken with the current residents in-situ. The future development of the site and the intentions of the current owner are not clear, but it appears that the current land-use will change under the CCDSP. Either remediation or re-development will require current long-term residents to relocate.

Page17 On a positive note there may be an opportunity for the State Government to assist these long- term residents through a relocation program within the CCDSP. The Government has committed to a minimum of 20% affordable housing within the CCDSP which should provide an opportunity to relocate those long term Chalet Village residents who would otherwise have extremely limited options to seek alternative accommodation in close proximity with similar amenity. Many of these residents have family and support networks in adjoining suburbs and cannot afford to move from their current accommodation into surrounding communities.

The Government has not yet responded to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee report titled "PrOvision, Use and Regulation of Caravan Parks (and Camping Grounds) in Western Australia"which raises many of the issues that disadvantage long-term caravan park residents.

However, the Caravan Park/Park Homes Interagency Working Group has been established with a Memorandum of Understanding to assist displaced residents resulting from caravan park closures. The agencies include;

Department of Commerce Department for Communities Department of Housing Department of Planning

Recommendation 1: It would be commendable if the Working Group, in collaboration with the long-term Chalet Village residents could develop a resolution to their current predicament based around secure, affordable housing/accommodation within the CCDSP.

Coastal setback

All development should be setback at least behind the freight rail reserve and Robb Road to protect against the risk of inundation from predicted rising sea levels. The threat of rising sea levels persuaded the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to refuse a housing development within 1km of the coast recently.

Many scientists have predicted sea levels could rise by as much as 2 metres by the end of the century (Allison et al. 2009). Some scientists have predicted the rise could be even greater. This raises the issue of State Government liability.If the precautionary principal were invoked in these circumstances, the State Government would place a moratorium on any further coastal developments within 1km of the coast depending on the slope of the land and potential for inundation.

Page 18 Recommendation 1: All development should be setback at least behind the freight rail reserve and Robb Road to prevent inundation of coastal lots:

Recommendation 2: If the Government accepts current sea level rise predictions, the precautionary principal should be invoked and there should be no coastal development within 1 km of the sea.

Renewable Energy

The implementation of the CCDSP will provide a unique opportunity for government to plan for and integrate renewable energy generation at lot level for domestic and commercial developments within the structure plan.

While site orientation and current electricity supply legislation will make it unlikely that district scale renewable systems can easily be implemented (such as terrestrial solar or wind farms) in the short-term, a stronger government commitment to sustainability targets for the development could see wave power and medium scale wind turbines established to contribute to the carbon neutrality of the project. Geothermal power should be assessed for district power generation for the CCDSP and a feasibility study conducted.

Superior site elevation in the north-east corner of the development allows for a very good wind resource and sufficient space is available for around five or six 20kW wind turbines to be installed. This would be sufficient to power 65 six-star energy efficient households.

Current electricity legislation would make it very difficult for on-site renewable energy to be used directly as the power supply for CCDSP homes and businesses.I would recommend that the Government consider amendments to legislation to streamline the ability of on-site renewable generation to be used for the power needs of developments such as the CCDSP.

It is entirely practical for the Government to encourage (through building codes and developer agreements) the implementation of lot scale renewable energy generation. Commercial buildings could install vertical axis wind turbines and photovoltaic power generation, while households could incorporate solar hot water systems and photovoltaic power generation.

There are many other sustainability initiatives that could be considered and many of these have already been outlined in Land Corp's 2009 Alkimos Environmental Sustainability Initiatives Report. All of these initiatives should be considered in the context of the CCDSP.

Recommendation 1: Assess and implement district scale renewable energy generation for the CCDSP where feasible.

Page 19 Recommendation 2: Require design criteria for domestic and commercial buildings within the CCDSP that maximise passive energy savings and active renewable energy generation wherever possible.

Recommendation 3: Review legislation to make it easier for larger scale renewable energy generation to be dedicated to local developments to create a level of measurable energy autonomy and carbon footprint reduction for developments such as the CCDSP.

References

Allison I., N.L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Nob let, M.H. England, J.E. Francis, N. Gruber, A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quere, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil, A.J. Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J. Somerville, K. Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, A.J. Weaver. The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science. The University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney, Australia, 6Opp.

AQIS. (2005). Correspondence to City of Fremantle. Canberra ACT.

City of Fremantle. (2004). Proposed methane barrier to Sandown Park interface with South Beach subdivision DAC0412-332.

Department for Planning and Infrastructure (2008). Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Transport Analysis.

Duckworth, K. (2008). Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. Submission on behalf of the South Fremantle/Hamilton Hill Residents' Association Inc.

Dunnett, S. C. (2004). Current issues at the South Fremantle landfill site, Western Australia. Rural and Remote Environmental Health, 3(1), 40-51.

Golder Associates Pty Ltd. (2005). Review of the groundwater monitoring program South Fremantle Landfill Sitedraft report. West Perth.

LandCorp (2009). Alkimos Environmental Sustainability Initiatives Report.

Ludlam, S. (2010). The Greater Perth Light Rail Network, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.

Western Australian Planning Commission (2009). Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan.

Page I 10 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

Planning and Development Act 2005 17 MAY 2010 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 FILE71A-S. Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

To: Secretary Submission Number W.A.P.C. 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Name: Mike Hulme Address: P.O. Box 529, Margaret River, 6285 Contact: 97 588024 (M) 0414 919388 Email: [email protected]

Submission:

I am glad to see that the MRS Amendment process for the Cockburn Coast district Structure Plan Area has started, and commend the work that DPI has done throughout the Structure Planning process. I am, however, disappointed that it is proposed to rezone the land to Urban Deferred instead of Urban.

I understand that the reasons for this are to enable an orderly process for completing a Water Management Strategy, Infrastructure Master Plan and Developer Contribution Scheme.

It is important that each of these are completed before land owners start preparing and submitting development plans and applications to Council, however, I am of the opinion that all of these would be best dealt with before and during the City of Cockburn's TPS Amendment, which still needs to be prepared, advertised, approved by Council and the Minister for Planning before being gazetted. If all three are not completed by the time the TPS Amendment is ready for advertising they can be picked up as conditions of the TPS Amendment. This will still guarantee that they are dealt with properly, whilst providing enough confidence to landowners to start the expensive and lengthy site assessment and detailed planning and design process.

Other then this point I support all other aspects of the MRS Amendment Report.

Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. I will represent myself.

14/5/10 Submission 28

YOur Ref: 809-2-23-17Pt1 6WATERCORPORATION Our Ref : JT1 2010 01448 VO1 Enquiries: Brett Coombes Telephone! 9420-3165

14 May 2010

629 Newcastle Street Secretary Leederville 6007 Western Australian Planning Commissio Western Australia DEPARTMENT OF PLANN,; PO Box 100 Albert Facey House Leederville 6902 469 Wellington Street Perth Western Australia PERTH WA 6000 14 MAY 201 Tel (+61 8) 9420 2420 www.watercorporation.com.au Attention: Ms Lauren Aitken ABN 28 003 434 917 FILE ia L2

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 - Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

Thank you for your letter of 8 February 2010 inviting comments on proposal to rezone the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan area from "Industrial" to "Urban Deferred" in the MRS.

The Water Corporation generally supports the proposed amendment subject to the following matters being satisfactorily addressed as part of the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan and future more detailed planning stages of the project, prior to the subject land being further subdivided and developed.

Some matters covered by the Corporation's submissions of 8 August 2008 and 6 July 2009 to the Department regarding the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan and the preliminary MRS rezoning proposal have not yet been satisfactorily addressed.

Water The subject land is currently served from the Water Corporation's Hamilton Hill Water Supply Scheme. However, the land is situated in the far south west portion of the water scheme where the water mains and reticulation are sized for the former industrial use of this land. These pipes are not of an adequate size to serve the ultimate development now envisaged in this area.

The proposed rezoning will result in significant increases in development density which will place an increased demand on the water scheme. The water scheme willtherefore need to be replannedprior to subdivision and development proceeding and the proponents of the development will need to fund major upgrading of the system to support the development.

The Corporation has initiated technical investigations to examine the water infrastructure issues arising from the proposed development.Itislikely that upgrades will need to be undertaken to the water distribution mains serving this area in order to provide adequate water pressure and capacity to the proposed 'elopment. 3

In this regard, the Water Corporation requests that Amendment 1180/41 be modified to include Reserve 5239 within the "Public PurposesWSD" reserve in the MRS.

Drainage The Structure Plan area isnot within a Water Corporation main drainage catchment.Local drainage will need to be implemented by the proponents in consultation with the Local Government.

Water Management A Local Water Management Strategy should be prepared in accordance with requirements of WAPC Planning Bulletin No.92 Urban Water Management and the Department of Water Better Urban Water Management framework.

The Water Management Strategy should address the issues and targets contained in the State Water Strategy 2007, State Water Plan 2007 and State Planning Policy 2.9 Water Resources, and should consider all aspects of water planning and management within a total water cycle management approach.

Should you have any queries or require further clarification on any of the above issues, please contact the officer indicated above. Please quote our reference number above in any return correspondence.

Brett Coombes Senior Town Planner Land Planning Development Services A/6/4--, Co7 Poc /

(Tabled at Hearing) 2.5?

FremLLLe15,4a;i- ewer Pump ,_tion Bennett AvenuelRoffirisori Rd, Southr mintle crown Reserve 5239 (Lot 1946) CITY OF FREMANTLE

0.

OCEAN

oW,4,41441,9-m

Bennett Ave Pump Station

, II.

LEGEND IIMP3M11 SEWER DISTRICT CATCHMENT :117 ,-, I ] _ ft, , I ArNAMANIM LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY r

THE INFORMATION ON THIS WASTEWATER SCHEME PLANNING SERIES PLAN IS BASED ON THE HEST DATA AVAILABLE AT DATE OF 1ER. FREMANTLE SD026 PRINTING ANDIS SUBJECT C O F FOP.AT ION TO ONGOING REVIEW AND SEWER DISTRICT AND COUNCIL AMENDMENT. ISSUED WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE MANAGER NO RESPONSIBILITY IS ACCEPTED INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING BRANCH BOUNDARIES BY THE WATER CORPORATION 629 NEWCASTLE STREET,LEEDERVILLE 6007 MANNING BY COMPILED BY ACCEPTED BY FOR ACCURACY OP DATA SUPPLIED WESTERN AUSTRALIA. C. DELP ORT W. CALLANAN BY EXTERNAL AGENCIES. SCALE VERSION IPM HOUSE FILE ND. TELEPHONE IOW D420 0420, FAX 100 19420 3179 1:30 000 8 JUNE 2010 1A3 KOTSSUIKKdKKOECKIKaahroz asTV/Is .411,1 OWWooN01,010.1000 31.4. .40 lalladOtrd 0110 NV, BM0) Cock 1 FL 7 Coast District Structr (Sop t '09) ExtL :xi from Wc4'ter Corporation subir MRS Amendment

Fremantle (Bennett Street) Wastewater Pump Station OdourBuffer The Fremantle Main Pump Station on Bennett Street has alarge operating capacity arid has several large volume, onsite overflow storagetanks, The planned, long-term pump rate of this pump stationisin the order of 350 litres/second. The pump station wet well and overflow storage tanks are a potential source of odour, Pump stations of this size thereforerequire a 50m radius odour buffer free of odour sensitive land uses in order to protectthe long-term operation of the infrastructure and minimise impacts on surroundingland uses. This buffer also allows for routine and emergency maintenanceand noise and light spill impacts associated with these operations.

Planning approvals that cause encroachment of incompatible useswithin close proximity to the pump station will decrease the ultimate operatingcapacity of the pump station, risk the achievement of theplanned urban densities for Fremantle and the Cockburn Coast area, and undermine the state'ssignificant investment in this infrastructure into the future.

The tWiI EngineeringPhase 1" report (January 2007) prepared by GHD,which accompanied previous versions of the draft Cockburn Coast DistrictStructure Plan and the preliminary rezoning proposal, referred to a 30mradius odour buffer. As previously advised, this buffer is not adequate to protectthe pump station. A 50m odour buffer must be reflected on the final Cockburn Coast District StructurePlan.

h the The pu, = ia on is located within CrownReserve 5239, which is r Corporation for this purpose, Thedraft Cockburn Coast District SZ ure an indicates a portion of the pump station reserve as"Public Open Spa6,,, Bile it is acknowledged that POS may in some instancesbe compatible with th;e::, cation of a pump station, the Structure Plan and this amendmentmust f1ed to show the full extent of the Crown Reserve as "Public Purposes - ier Pump City of CockL !fin 7PS AI-

, . t BO 1

-: MRS Ainen6inent No.11,40-41

Modify Amendment 1180-41 to include the Bennett Ave wastewater pump station site (Reserve 5239, Lot 1946) within the MRS "Public Purposes WSD" reservation. Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180141 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

I4UBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 29 Perth WA 6000

Name 3N (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) 2" Address --501/C04-71-Postcode (DI 6

Contact phone number01-1-090 IVo9 Email address 56"S'T.11-r4C.-ki6^1

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional Information be loose rather than bound) bcwiPL AriTorem c_a 5r S enkSs oo ?be

0 a 1...... e ...... ,..,eeseev.ase

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to Personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

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

OR

O Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following detail I will be represented by: Myself My telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentqtion) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the propdsed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be sinned by persons) making the submission

Signature 4jt:1-7 DateI tt /04 2-4 i

Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Website -httptw.planning.wagov.au Submission on the MRS amendment for the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. from Jon Strachan 14th May 2010

Cockburn Coast Drive.

I do not support the inclusion of the Cockburn Coastal Drive CAH in the MRS amendment, and believe the existing road reserve in that location should be removed.

As the report states this road reserve has been on the MRS since 1973, when it was positioned to connect with the Fremantle Easter Bypass (FEB), at a time when the Hepburn Stevenson Plan was the guiding document for transport infrastructure in the Perth metropolitan area. Netrwork City was the first step to turning Perth away from being a car orientated city to that of transit city, Directions 2031 continues this vision. The Hepburn Stevenson Plan was a document of its time and has no place in inner city Perth in 2010. It also needs reiterating that the FEB has been deleted. Cockburn road was downgraded, redirected through Henderson and given lower speed limits specifically to turn it from a coastal distributor road to a local road. It is no longer the Fremantle to Rockingham Highway, Stock Road performs that role.I see no benefit in returning to the past, with all the congestion problems it would create. Rockingham Road is, and should stay a local road servicing the residential coastal zone from Fremantle to the industrial hub in Henderson. A controlled access Highway would attract the heavy truck traffic that has been successfully encouraged to use Stock Road, this heavy traffic would flow north to the bottleneck which is Hampton Road, resulting in pressure being brought to revisit the FEB, or turn Hampton Road into a pseudo FEB. It could be speculated the inclusion of the CAH is to reignite the FEB.

Transit Infrastructure.

This land is ripe for development, development that reflects the aspirations of Directions 2031, development that is transit orientated.I can think of no development site in the metropolitan area that is better placed to become a TOD. Once the land is subdivided and sold the opportunity will be lost, transit infrastructure corridors and commitment to infrastructure must be introduced in the conditions at Urban Deferred level, waiting until it is rezoned to Urban is inappropriate. There is merit in extending the current rail reserve to include dedicated transit infrastructure. A visionary plan would be developing this land in combination with rerouting the heavy rail away from coastal medium density residential land, and extending the passenger rail from Fremantle Station to the old South Fremantle PowerStation, the proposed hub of the development area. While it may be put that a coastal rail service has reduced catchment, it would provide transit for beachgoers, vastly reducing the parking pressures at the beach. If a transit route further east is considered appropriate it should be reserved as such, saying Cockburn Road may become a transit route in the future in not good enough. Active Open Space.

Implicit in medium and high density development is a requirement for open space for both active and passive recreation. If the CAH is not built, then Bee liar Park could act as passive space to the east, as would the beach to the west. Active POS however is not catered for, claiming the school grounds were adequate, as suggested at a workshop on the structure plan is unfounded. Community health and wellbeing is directly linked to physical activity.

South Fremantle Power Station.

This building has the potential to be a world class centre, as such the proposed rezoning is supported. The adjacent switchyard is a problem and a remnant from the power station's generating life. As such there is no technical reason it should stay in its current location. The cost of moving it should be integrated into a review of the grid system demands in the region. Priority should be given to this area becoming a pilot for a 'Smart Grid'.

Conclusion.

This land has been identified as appropriate for medium to high density sustainable development; inclusion of a new CAH does not fit with that intent and should be removed from the scheme amendment. This area is the prime site in Perth to develop a high quality TOD, therefore transit infrastructure must be mandated at this stage; waiting until the next stage of the zoning process will miss valuable opportunities. The old South Fremantle Power Station should be at the hub of the development and central to any transit plans.

Planning for this area should be integrated with the region in terms of infrastructure renewal and applying best practice sustainability in terms of smart power and transit options. Impacts and opportunities offered by Fremantle should be more prominent.

Jon Strachan Submission 30

SUBMISSION 1 4 MAY 2010 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area FILE lets0497i

Secretary DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING Western Australian Planning Commission AND INFRASTRUCTIPE 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000 MAY 2010

To Whom It May Concern

AMENDMENT TO MRS COCKBURN COAST PRECINCT

This submission is made in response to the recent advertisementseeking further comment to the proposed MRS amendment, specifically the Cockburn Coast DistrictStructure Plan Area. I make this submission as a Director of South Beach Pty Ltd, owner of thefollowing holdings:

17 Cockburn Road, North Coogee 123 Cockburn Road, North Coogee

The above lots form part of Precinct 2'Hilltop' and comprise circa 3.4ha.

In general we support the District Structure Plan conceptand the inclusion of a Local Activity Node, Mixed Use, & Residential uses on the abovementionedsites. However we have major concerns regarding the proposed implementation of the concept,specifically relating to the following:

Timing

There is nothing fundamentally new about this proposal,in fact negotiations commenced in 2004 on the same topics. Following the endorsement of IP33 in 2006,and subsequent structure plans, very little has happened. As a result many landowners andother stakeholders have lost confidence in the vision, something that needs to be immediatelyrectified. I raised my concerns at the recent Landowner Briefing (08/05/2010), and there appeared tobe little opposition to my views from either other landowners or relevant planning bodies.There needs to be swift and decisive action on the outcomes that need to be achieved and the mostefficient way of meeting them.

I propose all relevant stakeholders reach agreement onwhat needs to be done and commit to a critical path. All the information is available and there is no reasonwhy this can't be done in the next 2-3 months. The outcome will be one timeline that ismade publicly available setting out steps. As it stands every authority involved has a rough outline butlacks consistency and accountability. A representative body (preferably Landcorp given theirstated desire to achieve final outcome in an efficient and timely manner) would be responsible for preparing amonthly update detailing what stage items are at in relation to the agreedtimeline. Any party operating outside of set parameters will be identified and questions asked. This seems alogical and easy way to approach the situation. Further to this there would be open meetings every threemonths chaired by the representative body, thereby providing the opportunity for questions tobe raised and issues worked through to the benefit of all involved. This would also be the appropriateforum to discuss cost contributions and other items as they arise.

Notwithstanding best attempts to create an inclusive processwith all precinct landowners, their non attendance and involvement should not delay theimplementation of the macro infrastructure.

Urban deferred versus urban

In contrast to previous statements made the WAPCis seeking to rezone the land to 'urban deferred'. This is clearly an unnecessary step in an already lengthy process.The three reasons identified in the Amendment Report relate to the following:

1.Adjustments and refinements to City of Cockburn's localplanning scheme; 2.District Water Management Strategy being prepared 3.Provision of infrastructure master plan

We have no argument to the importance of theseitems, however why can't they be completed in parallel with the usual local structure planning itemsassociated with an 'urban' rezone? This would make more sense, save time, and get stakeholders onceagain interested in the concept.

It is also worth rioting that in the 2008 versionof the DSP the proposal was a direct rezone to 'urban'. Somehow, without landowner consultation,authorities decided to move the goalposts and push for 'urban deferred'. As a direct result ofthis land prices have diminished given the lack of clarity on when/how milestones will be met. Thisneeds to be urgently rectified, and an 'urban deferred' zoning will not do this.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, the following items need tobe addressed:

Formalising a representative body to steer the project One timeline that all relevant stakeholders arein agreeance with; Monthly operating report with itemsresolved/arisingprepared by representative body; 3 monthly meetingsrun by representative body; While we are supportive of the DSP in its currentform we believe an 'urban deferred' rezone is an unnecessary step and would insteadfavour a direct change to 'urban'.

Subsequent to the items above, as per LandownerMeeting (08/05/2010) Landcorp and the WAPC both encouraged attending stakeholders to operatealongside authorities to achieve the mutual ambition of successfully redeveloping thesubject area. Given South Beach Pty Ltd's land holding proximity to Landcorp holdings, and the adjacent'Local Activity Node', our involvement in the earlier and stages of the project alongside Landcorpshould be considered. Please make note of our request desire to be involved from this preliminary stage. We thank the WAPC for the opportunity to submit, and welcomefeedback and look forward to being part of this exciting project. if you have any questions please do nothesitate in contacting me directly.

Kind Regards

A.L. Ruse

Director, South Beach Pty Ltd [email protected]

0418 942 933

PO Box 528 Cottesloe, 6911 DEPARTMENT OF

Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 14 MAY 2010 Form 41 FILE.11457D..D..7 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUBMISSION NUMBER To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000 Submission 31

Name K 1,A 12-c---r-og v%per(r4A-q4-

(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address Re Postcode 000

Contact phone number 1/1/-11 Email address loot Cokv-eu

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

--rtAY-7 wsmiRmt, o-\-,1P-1(1 rat L.;-C-3) k T soPrL'1.

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions present the Anyone who has made a written submission on theamendment has the opportunity to personally The basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC.You do not have to attend a hearing. comments presented by you in this written submission willbe considered in determining therecommendation for the proposed amendment. and in For information about the submission and hearings process,please refer to the amendment report particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

El No, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to thebottom of the form and sign) OR

Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete thefollowing details) I will be represented by: ri Myself My telephone number (businesshours): or A spokesperson tv1A11SH--- Name of spokesperson:K. 1 M 9CeMA! DO e-Mt,., kr1C4417-CT- Contact telephone number (businesshours):°117ee 6,ct 0 Postal address:P.O. o .5015411,c_o z I wouldprefer my hearing to be conducted in: 177 Public (members from the general public mayattend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you orthe hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You slibilid-n aware that: WAPC may be The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act1992 and as such, submissions made to the subject to applications for access under the act. of your In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, ormaking its report on these submissions, copies submission or the substance of that submission, may bedisclosed to third parties. submissions, are All hearings are recorded and transcribed. Thetranscripts of all hearings, along with all written The tabled in Parliament and published as public records shouldthe Governor approve the proposed amendment. WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report onsubmissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making thesubmission

/r0 1 0 Signature Date1

Note: Submissions MUST be received by theadvertised closing date, being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissionswill NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au 27.45 DEPARTMENT OFPLANNING

14 May 2010 14 MAY 2010

FILEkl 0

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

Dear Secretary

RE: SUBMISSION - MRS AMENDMENT 1180/41

On behalf of Western Salt Refinery Pty Ltd and WA Salt Supply pleasefind a submission on the Amendment.

Yours faithfully DOEPEL MARSH ARCHITECTS

Kim Doepel B.Arch, F.R.A.I.A.

cc: Mr A Peters, Managing Director, WASalt Supply

61 Forrest Street Subiaco Western Australia 6008 PO Box 308 Subiaco WA 6904 T +61 8 9388 2281 F +61 89388 3162 E [email protected] W www.doepelmarsh.com.au ABN 73 883 655 197 Licence No. 2038 AMENDMENT 1180/41 TO THE MRS

1. This submission is made on behalf of Western Salt Refinery PtyLtd and WASS Nominees Pty Ltd trading as WA Salt Supply.

2. Their properties are within the Cockburn Coast District StructurePlan Area, yet in Section 2; Scope and Content of the amendment underCockburn Road, their properties are not listed.

3. Their land description is: Estate in fee simple in portion of each of Fremantle Lot 1965and Cockburn Sound Location 85 being Lot 102 on Diagram 88377,Certificate of Title Volume 2040, Folio 685, owned by Western Salt Refinery Pty Ltdwith an area of 5420 square metres and Lot 103 Cockburn Sound Location109 on Diagram 883377, Certificate of Title, Volume 2040, Folio 686, owned by WASSNominees Pty Ltd, both of Cockburn Road, Hamilton Hill, WesternAustralia, post code 6163.

Copies of Titles are attached.

4. Please ensure that the land withitslegal descriptionislistedinthe amendment document.

5. The purpose of the amendment as set out is supported andsupport is given to the MRS to be amended to rezone the land from "Industrial"to an "Urban Deferred" zone.

6. The subject sites represented in this submission are proposedto be MIXED USE under the CCDS Plan and that is supported.

7. The future development of the subject sites at the high densitycategory will deliver outcomes described in the Government's 2031 infill housingtargets vision which are supported.

8. As mentioned in the submission on the Cockburn CoastDraft District Structure Plan, these sites should be recognised as landmark sitesbeing at the southern entrance to the redevelopment area.

9. The development of these sites therefore should be inaccordance with the DDS Plan, which has now been approved by the Ministerand these sites should be at the nine to eleven storey range in height.

10. The owners support and welcome the involvement ofLandcorp as the implementation agency, to guide the development process goingforward, provided that they recognize the "landmark" status of our client's sites. 11. The performance targets indicated at the landowner briefing on 8 May 2010 are supported.

12. Timing The orderly roll out of the development timetable is supported, however, it is important to these landowners to be kept fully informed of the timeframe, to allow them time to plan for relocation and re-establishment and refinancing.

13. Contributions The owners recognize that scheme contributions are necessary but they must be fair and equitable, and the timing of payment contributions must be carefullyorchestratedtoalloworderlyrelocationandsubsequent redevelopment of the subject sites.

14. The amendment 1180/41 to the MRS is commended and supported taking into account the points raised herein.

(,.

DOEPEL MARSH ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS

13 May 2010 LT. 37 ORIGINAL-NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE OF TITLES REGISTERBOO, VOL. FOL Application F873659 WESTERN AUSTRALIA AIME Volume 1915 Folio 597 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CT 2040 685 UNDER THE "TRANSFER OF LAND ACT, 1893" AS AMENDED 111111111111111111111111111

Icertify that the person described in the First Schedule hereto is the registered proprietor of the undermentioned estate in the undermentioned land subject to the easements and encumbrances shown in the Second Schedule hereto. m z0 On

Dated 9th May, 1995 REGISTRAR OF TITLES 0 ESTATE AND LAND REFERRED TO ), 0 Estate in fee simple in portion of each of Fremantle Lot 1965 and Cockburn Sound Location z 85 and being Lot 102 on Diagram 88377, delineated on the map in the Third Schedulehereto. rn As to the said Fremantle Lot 1965: limited however to the natural surface and therefrom to a depth of 12.19 metres.

FIRST SCHEDULE (continued overleaf) z

Western Salt Refinery Pty. Ltd. of Cockburn Road, Hamilton Hill.

1 m SECOND SCHEDULE (continued overleaf) xi z As to Locations 85 and 109 only: 0 1. MEMORIAL E728610. Section 7D of Industrial Lands Development Authority Act 1966. 0 Registered 22.10.1991 at 10.32 hrs. 0 THIRD SCHEDULE 0 z 0 1 0 FREMANTLE LOT 1925 T28573 PT 9 Er) PLAN 3727a) C)

1i C) 0 C) m 0

z z FREMANTLE LOT 0 1929 4\ 11 430 0

zO

A709 m2 m 4,37305 m 1905 0 0.

Ntil\ 110.11: 40 73 LOC, 109 CD SCALE 11500 4,11,0o 103 1929 at; \ \1;\ SEE ENLARGEMENt.:ic ENLARGEMENT. .1.\ a,4; . NOT TO SCALE) 37'72

FREMANTLE \LOT 1990 4\ 37 833

NOTE: FNTRIES MAY CIL AFFECTED BY SUBSEQUENT LNDOFISEMENTS. [67598/3/89- WA- L/4654

DLI COPY O' ORIGINAL NOT TO SCALE Thu Mar 23 16:19:47 2006 JOB 039238 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 17 MAY 2010

Submission FILE4G,S9Os Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

I SUBMISSION NUMBER I To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Submission 32 Perth WA 6000

Name i hi 06 /4 /111413`At (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address Lseri-paiv ,49-A1 Postcodee/zz

Contact phone number a1/' 9 3 2- S'3 Email address 96 iii412-1,,w_t; et,4x,

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

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment hasthe opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. Youdo not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will beconsidered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, pleaserefer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

0 No, I do not wish to speak at: the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form andsign)

OR

Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MyselfMy telephone 'number (business hours): 9/3 04 63 or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committeewill be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and as such,submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report onthese submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties.

All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings,along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approvethe proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissionsand tabled in Parliament.

To be signed i3ffl-sc.nakinthesubmission Eur Mg HUGH L HYLAND BScaezh). BSang.). MlEngSc.JPGNISW) mug CEng(UK) FILinst, CEng, FTMARE. FRINA. Date Signature Patter of the 'Mechanical. Collor.NPER-5. Arrhttert. Mechanical & IndustrialEngineer Note: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date,being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissions will NOT be considered.

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax - (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected];Website - http: / /www.planning.wa.gov.au 1. LAND: Being coastal, near to Fremantle and with high transportpotential, all land between South Fremantle and Port Coogee west of ManningPark is too valuable to use in any way other than high-class residential.

2. BUILDING HEIGHT: A distributed proportion of building up to 16stories high would be acceptable, so as not to form excessive shadows,wind tunnels, possible future ghettos, etc. Maximise views with the taller buildingsstaggered and sited inland. Ensure they look attractive and blend together.

3. THE SOUTH FREMANTLE POWER STATION: This would seem tohave excellent potential for redevelopment. (Whether it is knocked down or not,the building and site would have to be remediated from contamination.)It would be an excellent project to initially involve the Master of Architecturestudents at UWA to gain ideas. Atrium inside, path and park along a revampedshoreline Shield the switch-farm with trees around the perimeter, or possiblyrelocate it to the east of Cockburn Rd.

4. RAIL AND BUS: This requires a more global approachincluding north, south and east. Also the future depends on much more use of public transportand much less use of private cars, whilst facilitating commercialvehicles. Although I am a strong supporter of trams (lightrail), this area is already adjacent to a rail line (which used to carry passengers and should still be a key transportroute). This railway needs to be upgraded between Fremantle and Thornleigh,and fed by buses at numerous locations. Most of theinfrastructure and reservation are in place for a dual line. It can accommodate a huge increase in both goods and passengerservices by converting the existing narrow gauge track and the separate standard gaugetrack to dual gauge each way, (without the need to double-stack containers).In particular: Dual-gauge the two existing tracks between South Beach Station and Thornleigh Station. Duplicate the existing dual-gauge track between The Esplanade Station and South Beach Station. Electrify both tracks throughout. Retain the single dual-gauge track between The Esplanade Stationand Fremantle Station. (Such a short length can be easily managed, as proven elsewhere.) Where the line passes close to residential properties, screenwith trees for aesthetics, and erect 2m high noise barriers and grind the rail headsfor quiet running. (This has proved very effective elsewhere.) Have bus-rail interchange stations adjacent to RockinghamRd, Miguel Rd, North Lake Rd, Hope Rd, Ranford Rd and Nicholson Rd. (Interchanges have proven to be very effective elsewhere.) Have a rail interchange at the Kwinana Freeway. /711/a=-LW Pae

(Tabled at Hearing) 32

1. LAND: Being coastal, near to Fremantle and with high transport potential, all land between South Fremantle and Port Coogee west of Manning Park is too valuable to use in any way other than high-class residential.

2. BUILDING HEIGHT: A distributed proportion of building up to 16 stories high would be acceptable, so as not to form excessive shadows, wind tunnels, possible future ghettos, etc. Maximise views with the taller buildings staggered and sited inland. Ensure they look attractive and blend together.

3. THE SOUTH FREMANTLE POWER STATION: This would seem to have excellent potential for redevelopment. (Whether it is knocked down or not, the building and site would have to be remediated from contamination.) It would be an excellent project to initially involve the Master of Architecture students at UWA to gain ideas. Atrium inside, path and park along a revamped shoreline Shield the switch-farm with trees around the perimeter, or possibly relocate it to the east of Cockburn Rd.

4. RAIL AND BUS: This requires a more global approach including north, south and east. Also the future depends on much more use of public transport and much less use of private cars, whilst facilitating commercial vehicles. Although I am a strong supporter of trams (light rail), this area is already adjacent to a rail line (which used to carry passengers and should still be a key transport route). This railway needs to be upgraded between Fremantle and Thornleigh, and fed by buses at numerous locations. Most of the infrastructure and reservation are in place for a dual line. It can accommodate a huge increase in both goods and passenger services by converting the existing narrow gauge track and the separate standard gauge track to dual gauge each way, (without the need to double-stack containers). In particular: Dual-gauge the two existing tracks between South Beach Station and Thornleigh Station. Duplicate the existing dual-gauge track between TheEsplanade.Station and South Beach Station. Electrify both tracks throughout. Retain the single dual-gauge track between The Esplanade Station and Fremantle Station. (Such a short length can be easily managed, as proven elsewhere.) Where the line passes close to residential properties, screen with trees for aesthetics, and erect 2m high noise barriers and grind the rail heads for quiet running (This has proved very effective elsewhere.) Have bus-rail interchange stations adjacent to Rockingham Rd, Miguel Rd, North Lake Rd, Hope Rd, Ranford Rd and NichOlson Rd. (Interchanges have proven to be very effective elsewhere.) Have a rail interchange at the Kwinana Freeway. Ov-::yz tJ,s---7.1,)

6 A.) T23 e c.e,7) D - z. Lt)4.?!.."-e15 77 Z7')Ni PR- 5

E--"F" I 71-14'51.'1) --a- 5-77 'e=,'"\-, 71-47, 4-') iZ 7-7- F /-7 '""),¢C w7,i)LJ f2f x `°"--- ),ZflV7

f.22.7 77_,) 5 11)

P.4 ,cZ vt-)D 5 re-4) )\)S 0 rN) 1(11. :II NI/ i Fg---fii.,-,AJTz..& rc /4.411 f/465L----7-AJ I .501/th Beacoast ... r 6, D5 R.,pizict4Y 5.04,,(L1" - r Frew. tiv Sou, -CLODS/litii --(ifkiiNtili ` p04,4,8s - rdoh 4'0010 i1...... i .'.:5- Canning Milli ,C S...117:ilkt6, 161FTIni, Coolliellup 5 iia::: ' I Martin is ,..,,,:**--... ,..i..-,, in Inc, .c..- -- , \ r-PHOEN I . ------1 sepdavoopZmilto o 1 SD :. ,_ ._ : .,.iA,,,,, ...J,/ ,,--- cIIi.v.._ tn ------.0709.7, ,i-,./ap_1, :i64 ,,i)i., i ,ispeal ood i 'L1S ,-- ,,, ' IV -, -,. , ti- . Coo eu -- c-') 1.-_;:i.) I:, .9 Mu \3-; -tg...... ( ---,-4-ii.-1.1.-i-, Beeliq i ,:.' of:2 os? olt -) /if - -- Ocean Woodman Po,,: © 5 '------i C 94eeL. 1 ai,-----,--anSgsti'"--. 1_1 Kogoaro, N,) _.-,--LakeLf ..,,:-...i.-,. -,>. ..-"i,' ,- ,- ) , 0,Sz O'il\,. ,ati up? .:, , i ciii)N a sti ra, Mount ',,,,...s_.1,4 Point The Brothers -. _- A,I.)-:CD ---ir , i' (711., -- ,..--: 2.: 0 i- ( Z?r, _ . Reservoir, funan Brook tw. On x ' 7.4', 1111L111, '1..'1:;:'''IHinr,:c:111,9'';,I1'11;':./...11RIVI7A,Li.:1)1:/;,,(),:', (AI Ilaftt .. 'Lake ' 010 0 5e.1 , 111 . I \ .:::__:.:.:.,hqra:,. 1 1 11, ._,Lv ITLEVP ' - i 11,,,, , 87. al 1111) 01111.EY - ' Sulphur . ,,-- -. . Challengr aeadi (.' Mandogalupl', \ -'il-si i - Ci I iC CT 111-AillY ; ' ill i,,:t:. owl ,,, ' ._ art Point . .,,,.. i I ,-...... "'-`'d , m, 13edfordale . , 1 Bo 1r- . a enup 1 Dwing . ,Garden 'cBuchanan Island B ay :4' o, ' , _ _::111-v:arn,n,fP,:jig fj 1:D, -- l i, 1 ' I ,,N' \ - 'SO' ,11. Ci ------(-.L(L .:!Ai 7 Ti14.151.,Lui -' __....:<, .., _-<_ANA.7,TicEelftLe I :111,rtord l'-' s° j--- A \ CI , . u, ,. , . , ., .. - ,, -... 5 N. \i ;I _./.\/--_,-10alpoysPStirlikzg'Cateeni hi CY.: Medina /71 THOMAS elia SPe R6 Lt'''' i.2. lal°P6a111:'1-,-. 1 South West Pointv- N.7d;1:111:: Bond: ? ...- ,GiT ,,,,..,..-,,. .,... liStil q ,m Panne'lia ghertratii 41(); '' Casuarina cii,40 i ORTO\I ..!_,,i - DrawCIlie . :Sasirla.1,,.1C?7, - ....11, gialeOFFIC =i ;, A-0-14,//6.,-..-7- ,...... o: ..,,-1-,, Town i,- --'1,r--i-,---,------'------* Vi, cri y:______I rf.' '-inf-'. Pojnj / - ty 1 p ) no , /I 7-'1 "2- Peron Pain Man (gr. ,,, ,,,-,,k LEapiiibljt.-:) \....-'_ ( 711, , i -,,.-___,....--, --....:Z,,,/,c-----.:,---- i2-a '.2, '77 ,...t.... - _ Lake" ,(..,1(' t,, '_. \i,_,..,1----\'"'<-'--- 0 , ICall -t.t, C00100TI - "' , (0-I

I I " c z TO / 2 5 % 8 . 4 ) /Yr-) 64,7

ic/-1 r /41AY -re:).7-4-V42ib

73 2...7

P ti2--z))(/ i -.4-3'L /. I 1c3 c 6 rh-z-ANJL:e./c-; /4R,4)L--w ,4 y

P4.) Ge ) rg

eJ. 4p /7.2

,4 " C 'NJ r.7-1-i

A- DD)".)<:/ A- 3 /2-

r T 1-71- t 3 "7-2 i"j L.)

I2,P1A)4; A 3/2-,p ,C7-- 6 PEJ2 /Ai

Fp T72-4- 6:-ir 5/4.4-v L., 3 /e., fr,L)

2_ z.c..:fru 6 yJ < /LI rH) (...)

1%)D Li L

Bs:4 .6H i j 6 1' Tk-/- s--- 5'p L. C.- '7712,4..-L -,14-

ai.--7=-7 la ETA-/NJ /

77jJ5rz--). (Liz 7Z-4,) 7,2 /3

72-10"

CLAWf> .5

SETA.? r- 6. rHRe4-z_kA ADD

rile a D P _5Tr'iJJ

fW5 r-L77H zci 1.-t)RY, Tiz& fL27

/3127C-3 FL-GX/SiL/Ti/C--"`"Les°

5 5 E2A.; ef-4-711; rf2,47,,,j

Re-p ,9-iv9

e) j"pp.) 0 Att, f'-'" c.f1/9-A)0Z)/Z/4/171 )1,1 &S".5-i; '.'For-Ci ofperth, Par ingin ormation please telephOile'94613236 aCe or visit www.perth.wa.gov.au JOINS MAP 571 G ' H J

2 ' /1---; RopnestExp ok, ----,-4" , 4 P A 6159: Gom,s,,,,k , _.,.0 ,, --1 ,-----1.:..>,z eN° 2 Pa ,0 .--- r

''', 51,1_-ST ' '-., I- - _ 1 '"-- - ^, ) MUSELIM 'CI t'" ' .270=-` T 7,20 A l'_- i'-ti P lei i'leL,n, Offadenger_ I 0 15, 6"r"' ,ates,. . . No.29 w i

Tiik-FE ..,,,,r A ,1 . (A 1,111111?-fr. ' TA; - rVt =rt( e Eri',, Frciiiiantle ., p . eJ :,.'t 11-- r o.\s,uri.sio ,,,- ,;,0,,,,.* N ,05....- 51, .e `-.. ILI r k _TI:r',...-_, Cicean Farm T_ 71 !:"117.' oikti_0_,, uri--;cf,e, f,.,,,,4,, r,,,,,,fa -,,_ ,, ,if, 4; ,-;,..=;1,. V i -, ."-OGILL. . --. achNursery . tj, .., ...11r , " R3ta-r-, s'il.( B-nl, \ Dame aVe irC?'r \ ' -.;--a-r.--,---TI:'" Aiofe-- .,/7-----._!T'-i-,.,,,-,,_ '1.' ';'-'5-64''POU,S0'r.. g ,,,,. 0 4"-6 .08";1`1.--,,.--,,,--iiiii,or,----,.---- .. _i-;--,.,-- .... ,,,,, ,..,.. ,,,ir,,_.q2, s>4,-,,4,.,-;.-' .: --,--_, ahuo.?.ct ,,, -,0,,09,0 ,d_ ,.,,,, . c,,,,,,,,,,,. c,... ''AnS -Prr, '', {Silver i Cr Esplanade e*? Marquis- I .,-,N6.19 W.A. k Cq't 1, rrt, CAM

does 0 Bat-firer,' %Vf4P ,,- M. - '*,Tr, 24-0r1IP-'''''' ,ileseiveT ,.-- ,....-t e4_ ; F,aY,-444,-. ___m,------I, - ..... - 4,0,--,,,..*6-,1%.!=.-Fr,grr ,..-.... No italian+ os' ;t'.\ .- ffiii pl naae dtro

, = =Boot , = _; atour-

DOUGLAS rkir,?,;, - Seirliescua -

GOLD ST

o PV SILVER _ ;:'-` 'ff',NaFq LOUISA ST NELSON lirck,TY5'4;zi - , Seridte , Wharf , .....,-

I Fuel Boat GyAk , _ Mail.. Lifter rrY. RF44°AODSAE:6;- la''' - I cfts.5 -, ,_ _-'r I T' 11Ca:b.,9ii.: #t\._ '' . .-- ' I , - LiTiL 'EL: v '''=''Z.:: -Su-ctifiNi";;;;u; '1,,,. ,,- A 011 I_10-..,., -- ,- 0 - Weiahltig,T,irpr ,-. - , -_ 0 Piazza SOUTH r .7 I- 1 g7LITV:1 _ --.."------7-t-77- _ --: , . eillt:IrkL= 1, JElsa(iN REIVIANT , -a- .,'Ii. 6162-qt'1R4 _ ' _ ,-.-- Caretaker 1 1 _ .-- ._. ,---, ____4____:: ....._,___,..-__. _ .. _ ------r = >---....,_. :'

raraLL-Lr_ 0 COPYRIGHT 0 UNIVERSAL PUBIJSHERS PTY LTD 2007 AMBULANCE STATION CAR PARK FREEWAY PARK, RESERVE, OVAL SCALE 1:9 500 BARBECUE COLLEGE - PRIVATE 1 PROPOSED FREEWAY .."g4.1 SCHOOL, HOSPITAL 1 BOAT RAMP COLLEGE - PUBLIC 1 Metres 250 500 HIGHWAY or MAIN ROUTE MISCELLANEOUS AREA -A'i-LVN;TL, BOWLING CLUB/GREEN CYCLEWAY ALTERNATE ROUTE MALL, PLAZA CAMPING AREA A DISTANCE FROM GPO 0 TRAFFICABLE ROAD CARAVAN PARK EMERGENCY TELEPHONE PROPOSED ROAD PRIMARY RECTANGLE PERTH BG34 ii

tt,t7 FFIrim W Woolworths Coles McDonald HOEr 3 ATM Oqek, 50 specialiy shor SHOPPING. CENTRE Undercover parking fully air candition, 254 ReXkinghom Rood, Speorwood Mu p Rob 346,

JOINS 114AP 36 34,

° 111 NICROCA8:-T,

FAN 6,444 I'SNOOK], '4,i,%34:4,?-ii "-= LYNN tV-e' f.CRT" AM Do.Aawed t, II

OLD-

ST

_ _qquinBeach 3Uhy H" I'771,10,Ar ILtMl/AP qn,Y1,9 tt'-` ; TI.CCa39 t?_11 peaph;' , "ai,Freigh , S T

e t

, .44

tt% V,ttf, r' '',1tWV +11 f (70,Pi

;1.1

kat GRAN _Azalta Ley ' Homestead -7 yuseurn ihe Old 11;la , Wagon Horse AAA is;; 8 FENTON Alan Thomas- 1,07,?.4 sm Shea - -' °INA CT - Manning F,vc/up, ;iIJ ' hv rPALFERN DO NEB WY

LI1 cA 0Yk. LANCASTER STJ SE EN

rE M

RLEANS cc ge

OFFE ST

RAVERS

PL A

Gozos,G,s,

FIEsERy)

tyq (7,1P AN COPYRIGHT ©

CARAVAN PARK 13i1 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE 1",fA' INFORMATION CENTRE 0 MASONIC CENTRE 741 PLAYGROUND SCOUTS CAR PARK GOLF COUFF.. KINDERGART..; MONUMENT/MEMORIAL A POLICE STATION . . * sHoppiNa( Pert .. GUIDES 13 LEVEL OROS:I.:, ,X MOTEL Tr:f POST OFFICE El TELEPHONE .. . COLLEGE PUBL HOSPITAL .. -4° LIBRARY ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ROUTE ROUNDABOUT TOILETS _40 CYCLE WAY HOTEL ft LOOKOUT 360° PICNIC AREA SCHOOL-PRIVATE tr TRAFFIC LIGHT DISTANCE FROM GPO HOUSE NUMBER 42 LOOKOUT 180° PLACE OF WORSHIP SCHOOL- PUBLIC a WEIGHBRIDGE HE__ g A D cg gs-p 2-4 i 2 iT zS J 7 rid, -Le3 ocz,c)P.--sAJ-r5i i\J Lfrz-,1//<=4, c9)72-;/7- 7 (1) 5 7-74 LAt,")' c 5 / 6 P 5 ) /L)L G

)-4 r f7; A-.) )11:4 Z.- 4%..,- _MCP 'L; z-

4 s ; A- z_L-, 4\)4, 1147/37-e.)I1J1

Z--L2 r.7 5 ,./.74v /-75 .9-1-5:274 1.1

I-) ,C)) R.E.I.W.A M.L.S.RESIDENTIAL. COMMERCIAL - STRATA SALES & MANAGEMENT Mobile: 0411 181 443 Ph: (08) 9317 1707 Fax: (08) 9317 1607 DDARD REALESTATE www.reiwanet\goddardEmail: [email protected] ref: 307, F15 11 HISLOP RD, ATTADALE 4 GRID SQUARES MEASURE JOINS MAP 306

0 0 ST P z8 0:i., AY RAC 271-4d 0 POLONIzwiWyr-TONDAREF

-ME+OvLa B2YPTCH00T

FORREST

I.% GREGOR

AMAW---elz HIR3 -.L

LEACH

ABSOLON Fremantle- -VIChapel Cemetery

EDE k.12 O'REILLY CO IL DALE ` ii ST W MARTHA ST Eu,I:I 4THA GROSVENOR ST rk g AGNES $Tz 0 2 S 1.3.1 CtIalInger cc VBARRNO tAFE 0) c9 kr7 A LEFRoy 17,, Oy F.-TBEACONSE t- WATER- MICHAEL 'MI \ \ SUnlIT Eternal ST i Senior High 1 6162 TA

i . I 1..., -87;ic,i.` BEARD ST i Gate I.?_ Z7.-_ 0 'E NAVA sGart Cr 7) j)JJ t ; _. , _ A ,.pizeir,t 6ED gte /Jul y 577,aLi1g COPYRIGHT CD UNIVERSAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD 2007. PRESS POST BOX 121 INFORMATION CENTRE ...... IT. ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ROUTE .-l-ROUNDABOUT 0 SWIMMING POOL LOCALITY P,-.-_ STATION .. F LIBRARY SCHOOL-PRIVATE . TELEPHONE . 0 PICNIC AREA DIAGRAM PLE--- COURSE . , QS- LOOKOUT 180, &:5.....le PLACE OF WORSHI:'...... I SCHOOL - PUBLIC 13- TOILETS : .. ..

eVo MASONIC CENTRE .. 76. PLAYGROUND SCOUTS TRAFFIC LID!r...... G PES Ink Key Map Coverage t-ITAL :1', MEMORIAL/MONUMENT A POLICE STATION * SERVICE STATION WEIGHBRIDGE ITEL l7 MOTEL ErPOST OFFICE , 12I SHOPPING CENTRE WINERIES PeC> 2-4-1 ,r.) L.,;)/z7.-w) LiA.) 72)6

Lyi-j Aiz,.)p,_;y, R.2:)4.9/Q2:) R L> I1 i 1.-/ Fl 5 /33i,',-1-) 7-1 c7".; /6 r

A.) 6 2.4,;pi y'j e? 6 2 » 14-,17 P4-4 7 /-7Lvu 7-5 r _r_ R"-) 772> Li/7,

(j) )7.4-3 ) 7 z,),14)A 52 ) 6 )4- P)2 ,

R 7-g ,E.E2c.:77z. 4:21:z i 6

G 6 4-2)2_/z1_,,,A) D L-4-0

Ai A

)r"o LIE A- t- 7--;fr-9 e ,A- -, 7A ) ;-) 77,7Z, ss JD. ..irk 771 )79' L

1-1 I 4, Al 12. ) ep/-7

L P r/ IEH rE) P > "J. ) E-1,0 S 77-1-Z:=4--, 7- )3i- <--; 777/ E

y/ ,C)2--)171- -'WOOLWOR`fAsr= cag/e,eueigelgel fy's IMMEgrEffiga 4_...... z u Over 50 specialty stores u 5 star parenting room - None ea eta! U Disabled parking U Undercover parking bays Li Complimentary wheelchair service .

, C...`t 175BEARD SHEEDY.,;,, 2-Er_ 6 . ST ,z DIXON------4i-Alton . L '772 o g) ' ; ,5 tni....P-- ' :Cf.'', ..tdky3E;iiFte'ingfre, , t. tiuniorSatlii "I"-P.T_ E ; S" '- g ut.t.-tz'ITRT7:-.461-62 ' 2 hltcr-TA- 17-1 18.21 °Pt7tA','142`Ts .pieamtkoty by.;;1;;;.4-48_ ,,,,c1;,6:1" Club- 1,V3:1=k i , LYNII 4__ :_s7-__0.,, ,T, IR ub,bi_l_..qa.gie ,-,ST OLDHAM '51.- S.k0- ---- Dogs Allowed 6AEACONSF1 ED- '-') ., J _ DUFFIELD '/V 2 P Wrirtnn;te adory72:11a:thC.:1:121. V) -4 on Beach :, ,, IJEFFERY wH_LL i,-_,'' :°pts.= 1'5 ,1-g,208 , tu , 5 I°2 a . 3 Foli = 0 . - T 'k ° At ;'-' -,_' .1 Fl c;;t..a. I 12, f__,'-' AO= --..-.4-:. - , < L4_ _ __ ST ' 3... o JEAN , ta2, ------_ SQUTH 2'2' [15-g411--IT> ST oc, f, CLONTAW,--r1------;;', Z.., 0 0 a ;3' Q173 - . ENIAH,T;LIE1 tTo - Se'.:: ;-- 11c2 '4 -Pz OCEAN RD - r,i ci_r u_TRADIEIJRY.C? . 1 33- STD,dt :HUr:MDD0-- ,''' o I E 036;i"9iCPKI:V1,;.'14-La I B-*! Park,i lame :- Groyne

-NIEWSTONrEl ,p ;lea DogsAlloted-': RD Lon Beach:- 't -'°44,t, CARnia'- ' -1'7,91/4::_,,,°----s-f;°I -, STIR SEr ,,Cltait,' 5.:,-, i 4c' Ennght.i" u'it3Rark-S:1 -;:'--2:1:::: CI ',ft. B'bell .S''''''-' ..,._.i---='''' iii _,., 4 . i ,.:, Reeeive" Assoc reir. 08(gERNIER-41 ' ''.. P4 ii7-1 g tc.J4/roi ki44416 RcV 1 = cn ..-..-` WATER Fremantle -_71>_ Village PIG44 j cTif Y ,BREAKS` SOLLIAs6N" RD ''a wrirrrora ,-1,,,%(, 90 ' vox'5' q) j' Iodustriall, \ ,..-'-"4- -_"..,- -&- ,____:: =' T- Roe GARSTON WY i '," 0 ,,, .. nu 14,91, -' ,,,, 40,-_-.t. ' 1 01/ Newiii 4,17-N,coll-- 641444 RD CO PST. ..v. -iDavitak ., AHeilv Cathenne Pt Ball

>- SI.i7L_L--;__77,;_:,,t HYItft ,t? alP"-[-- 404,_._ ,LA yrGoodchil HEAL , Tad(

° DERINTON tr

OFFL:" --RUDDICK : ASk., ; 4-g, PHOENIX 0 0 rib "PHOENIX- suq6). BALFERN Q.00P \.\ DOWER WY imanne.' ' - o a N40 ce HOTSPUR ST7'i IA RD RD t LANCASTER co it:o GAUNT RDZ , DANE Ai4c13 WY BIRBECte-/, BUSHY RD Th,

enald ; Res

, U.':-Soccer CALE 43 TRAVERS g ST S arwood9, 2_ lq g-

_ 1-SPE EDELINE 2 2- -"k: 44-

z ,v0

IS RESERVE RD no

:JOINS MA 6 COPYRIGHT © U

4RK EXPRESSPOST BOX INFORMATION CENTRE ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ROUTE .7.-ROUNDABOUT 0 SWIMMING POOL GE - PRIVAT: FIRE STAT LIBRARY PICNIC AREA SCHOOL- PRiVAT:: TELEPHON: SCHOOL - PUBLIC .. TOILETS ..... oo GE - PUBLIC GOLF CO . LOOKOUT 180, S-''I .`41*-- PLACE OF WORS WAY GUIDES... MASONIC CENTR'. PLAYGROUND )I1 SCOUTS TRAFFIC LI -ICE FROM GPO...... HOSPITAL MEMORIAL /MONUMENT POLICE STATION SERVICE STATION WEIGHBRIDGE WINERIES ?ENCY TELEPHONE - HOTEL a MOTEL POST OFFICE SHOPPING CENTRE it I I I I AAs I I .

D

Centre for Maritime Engineering WA Euring. Hugh L Hyland 85 Chalgrove Ave BSc(Tech), BSc(Eng), MEngSc, CEng,CPEng Rockingham WA 6168 CMarEng, FIEAust, FRINA, FIMarEST,MSNAME AUSTRALIA Assistant Director Engineering WA Tel: 08 9591 9948 Fax: 08 9591 9955 Mobile: 04 19 930 283 email: [email protected] Submission 33

Government ofWestern Australia Public Transport Authority, Public Transport Authority West Parade, Western Australia PO Box 8125, Perth Business Centre, Western Australia 6849 Your ref : 809-2-23-17 PT1 Our ref : 01510/10 Enquiries : Shelley Brindal ([email protected]) P 9326 2510

12 August 2010

WAPC Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000

Attention Lauren Aitken

Dear Lauren

Proposed Scheme Ainemdment

Thankyou for your letter dated 4 August regarding the above.

The PTA has no objections to the revised road reservation alignment given the rail is underneath the subject road and not affected.

Yours sincerely

Sh = ley Brindal Corridor & Heritage Coordinator INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING & LAND SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

17 AUG 2010

FILE L 00

y:\pla nning\ via p p5external a.ppl Ica tions \2010 docs\sb1i,Gpc cockbum 80922317.clocx Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

To: Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Submission 34 469 Wellington Street Perth WA 6000 .110401=11.1.04/

Name CAliek. A').a PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Address 5 ma (Lotyvi LA.-AD Postcode

Contact phone number 3(-"II. Email addressCLII5e 6 EA\ .4-pnriQf-

Submission (Please attach additional pages if required. It is preferred that any additional information be loose rather than bound) $/1,&0415`")1&---. o c

turnover to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on the amendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D.

Please choose one of the following:

07No, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign)

OR

0 Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings, (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: Myself My telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: Public (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that:

® The WAPC is subject to theFreedom of Information Act 1992and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the act.

® In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties.

® All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings, along with all written submissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a report on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making the submission

Date rO Signature...___.------. .... (s/

suairiissior 0149,---- yettiOd 00* eingcose 14. MAY missions 01 NOT becensrdere

Contacts: Telephone - (08) 9264 7777; Fax (08) 9264 7566; Email - [email protected]; Website - http://www.planning.wa.gov.au MRS Amendment 1180LIA

As owner of residential property most affected by this MRS Amendment, I wish to lodge an objection to proposed MRS Amendment 1180/41 (as modified) for the reasons described below.

I own the property described as Unit 39/4 Bellion Drive Hamilton Hill, which is part of Ocean View Villas complex (Lot 304) of 64 units. Specifically, Unit 39 is the end unit, located 3m from the eastern boundary of the complex. MRS amendment 1180/41 proposes to realign to the west the Primary Regional Road ("PRR") reservation for the future Cockburn Coast Drive, to lie approximately 5-10m east of the eastern boundary of Lot 304 (difficult to ascertain exactly due to the scale of plans received).

It is understood the reason for realigning the PRR westward of the originally advertised location is to avoid impacting the Randwick Stables, a heritage listed property. This is a problem, as the district structure plan for Cockburn Coast has been prepared anticipating the alignment of Cockburn Coast Drive intersection with Rockingham Road to the east of the existing MRS PRR reservation.

The elements of MRS 1180/41 I object to relate to the realignment of the PRR reservation westward, (compared to the originally advertised PRR alignment) from north of the future intersection of the Rollinson Road extension with Cockburn Coast Drive. The concerns I have relate not only to the broad level planning implications but also to the unknown traffic impacts from the perspective of a potentially affected landowner.

The original advertised alignment (MRS 1180/41 'as-advertised') of Cockburn Coast Drive (north of Rollinson Rd extension) allowed for the development of the hillside between Ocean View Villas and the PRR for mixed use development in accordance with the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan, providing a unique opportunity to create a high quality urbanised gateway to the DSP area. Built form in this location would also buffer the existing residential development at the top of the hill from the effects of proposed Cockburn Coast Drive.

Planning for the Cockburn Coast has been underway for some time and has significantly progressed to the point where:

The Cockburn Coast District Structure plan has been prepared and adopted by the WAPC. The DSP encourages mixed use & landmark development at the high point of the Newmarket Precinct forming a gateway to the project area from the east. This reflects sound planning practise and nicely "rounds off' the DSP area (refer attached). In support of the DSP the City of Cockburn formally adopted the Local Planning Policy ("LPP") "Newmarket Precinct Design Guidelines", which along with mixed use development encourages a landmark building at the southwest corner of Rockingham Road and Cockburn Coast Drive at a prominent location on the ridgelineas an entry statement into the DSP area (refer attached).

O Furthermore, in support of the DSP and LPP the City of Cockburn resolved to initiate Town Planning Scheme Amendment No.82 to rationalise zoning within the Newmarket Precinct to facilitate achieving the vision outlined in the DSP and LPP. The rezoning map adopts zoning boundaries based upon the DSP and LPP cell boundary. It is understood the amendment has recently received approval for public advertising (refer attached).

The point here is that the proposed MRS 1180/41 represents a major departure from the planning undertaken to date, conflicting with and potentially compromising the vision for this precinct. The PRR alignment proposed will deny the opportunity for a high quality planning outcome in this area.

Selecting the correct PRR alignment is a fundamental element of the structure plan design, necessary to achieve planning and transportation objectives. Other road alignment options should be explored that enable the overall planning objectives for the area to be achieved in line with the community's vision for the Cockburn Coast. Approval of the MRS amendment (as-modified) fundamentally erodes the vision for the Cockburn Coast.

As an affected landowner, l am concerned about the impacts of traffic noise, glare and vibration onthe amenity of my property. In regards to State Planning Policy 5.4 "Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning" a noise assessment & management plan should be provided as a pre- requisite to any PRR route selection decision, and certainly prior to approving any amendment to the MRS. This is important in order to justify at the outset the preferred PRR alignment; to provide stakeholders with key information regarding potential adverse effects and to facilitate informed decision making.

To conclude, the reasons for objecting to MRS 1180/41 (in relation to the proposed PRR modified route alignmentnorthern portion) are as follows:

® Insufficient information regarding the potential adverse affects from potentially 20,500 vehicles per day on nearby noise sensitive uses (Ocean View Villas) and any necessary mitigation measures.

O Other road alignment options should be explored that enable the overall planning objectives for the area to be achieved in line with the community's vision for the Cockburn Coast. Realignment of the PRR westward will prevent development of the highly urbanised built form edge that would have otherwise been defined by Cockburn Coast Drive located further to the east. The resulting narrow strip of land between the western PRR reserve boundary and eastern boundary of Lot 309 (Ocean View Villas) is insufficient to develop and creates a 'dead area' encouraging anti social behaviour.

® The modified PRR alignment approaches Rockingham Road (from the south) across the highest point of the existing limestone ridge. There will be additional construction /cost implications required to achieve suitable intersection geometry. This is probably inferior to the original alignment of the PRR (as advertised) which followed the land contours down to Rockingham Road. The modified alignment brings a major, signalised intersection closer to the existing major intersection at the corner of Cockburn Road, Rockingham Road and Hampton Road. This may have adverse traffic implications. Approval of the MRS amendment 1180/41 with the revised (modified) PRR alignment amounts to ad- hoc decision making which will force a review of the adopted DSP & LPP as well as proposed TPS Amendment No.82 and give rise to an unintended planning outcome. This is not sound planning practice.

Chris Parlane 27 August 2010 14.1 Attach3

a. NOTES

k 'at, tilt::44H ..4.44,4 ,-.4",, Vern 1,,,,,144:0, r7-Jr3 S.,-.1:,4,o,t r p, Staz,,,,, Iffettta ally Co, kt-tylb aratzAtte,trottl tf,,,tt-,4 tf,,II fht9.1.1.44stfsvettnetthrth +0 L'aergt-,,,,,,,., ,Pt=r I. Cou,tv..40.=0.2A, T'4,-,,VV44...U14.- 0 F..*- 4. (4-14, 2:. 1,, o, tcta,..h ter.e ',a ate--* re ...41,e. r.,..11, 5 rtoiA ra.tartf t>tjty ,t It,tt,tr..,,?-r-r 02:3,711, dtt t t,,rt,*t td, 4.P41,13e -Ft ,t 1:44.,,...0.1P,,, !:-.^xxitz.r-x elt,,,v lVtalef to-Ktts}antlevitt,....., /taw.," IF.. P ,at..- .,e U.4711-2 0 fa.,.1 Fs+ 4*--... 4, twatrxtmatant.....a.racr.k.a,.., .'. E`,,,,,,,,F,,,c tat .,....,f7J-mrd c-tja, VoLitrsa-4 vrt-r. ne I Y pr.E.-tr,,,,, ten.,,c t ,..t -, 0 I mat sr, t, te-....111- . .0. La E:,,,,,i ..,,,- , 0 N.:.ata.r.,:t P.x.1 t t,t a1.1.-rev 'tts-vvrter -.-., wm-11-,,-.., P.m C... 24rtt5*. tr.:, r.,47-,:t r-,,, er-4 e at,. 0 rc..La rt.-...,-/-,e lwermnrr.r.-..te21'r F.. 1 -, fa nr..4 t, r-ernrflf,trt,,t, Csni,utt t.ts tt..., ,,,,t,,Irixxl-a.ced,,N.--11-

, -2,

LEGEND Pnrary Ara. Fwd

11..3J Ix 12.,

ta. S+et1 itu r 1 - - - - L

14.11FM-3,,,Frimr rp,lc. die n-or

'ft= tt E,11,1

1.4nd LER

1,11

,/,?:";:i

tixtri

Las Nt.11. .mt-.1,14 C -r rrt q,11- =.1 tio

trip 3:r to

12:3 r Proposed Heights andof Gateway Designation and Landmark SitesNEWMARKET PRECINCI DRAFT PLAN _ Cadaztro 4, Hasty Road CoaslangMRS - amonsienotlIhistOlY WA. URBAN DEFERRED 4444 44,44 F.1 A7.4_ [%NA EDPRIMARY PARKSSPECIALREGIONAL r RECREATIONCONTROL ROADS AREA A44 2009 Matta Pouf Atnlal Phologtaphy Landmark building (up to 16 storeys) 4 A, aileway building (up to 8 storeys) 3tp +11. .4 444 1114,44,44 3to4storeyssetback4 storeys provided) (up-to 5 storeys if 3m loll Aor - Beikon Drive Fbadsres.eryationRoposeci realignment of Primary ftionelNEWMARKET PRECINCT BOUNDARY 4,44444444, Scale I:2,500 74 A ,11 NB. Map ser.; to Landowners at A3 A : I I ii i i I mini F,ALY N 5 i 70 1172 731.1 7 maspe .0.9 wisigkeo .i3..,, 507 ME:4,N raillaaM 3-74I -371r \-----"-- al'300265\liailEal ,?, . M..299286 5 ';' II me2v233 ram *3'3,4 51he CARD159 STREET 10 I m EIMEal .1, 47 I 111 ig 295290 EMESEll al 2.94 a,EWEN'''f IMEMEN '4 al 293232 52 'Jo 7 1 MEM 3`9 35° lUlticf, BOYD C'',E97..EI 2' ,,,,,,,,vrearto7 g2 ' gel,E° !Hall; 3 53 ,.,.: ) NXiii NS 6E 99E11 RGE hto , 4', 351 m ,RVIIr 355 cn ...k. 356 WE 319320 -35i 378 361 353 3773V 35g dil 3m .383 AINAIE.P. S csi 1 354 351 4,141NP,.. ,S 375 I 054,- Irifailli 3773251 3E2- pg 353 iS EEEll. Vii NI 565 P.,,A1CiEA OPXE . 16 SI 386 . 15 19 51 9S0 5000 34a :s--- 52 tea 644548 Iliii, 95330 120

8

m .7., En SU 26 g ,.'..: Iiiiti I litl ;13 WAY GARsTol

I17 111 9 11 MO :3. 81 63 12 19 IT 15 04 045 '0 . .5, 7. rn . I:: ..,

61 CRSREN1 2103 iy.Pince..ter11

:-: RU 9 125 125 2165 .. li, E3 111 .6..., 06.1 PROPOSED ZONING

LOCAL RESERVES ZONES GENERAL r 1 SU I Special Use Local Road RU I :::.Reslricd Uses

« ------

TOWN PLANNINeiSCHEME No.3 AMENDMENT No.82

SCALE 1:5,000 ______From: Sean He [[email protected]] Sent: Friday,27August20104:30 PM To: mrs Subject: MRS Amendment 1180/41- submission

Attachments: img-827162930-0001.pdf

L1 img-827162930-000 1.pdf (3 MB) Submission attached.

Best regards,

Sean He Personal Assistant to the Director Builton Group PO Box 396 Belmont WA 6984 1st Flr, 90 Burswood Road Burswood WA 6100

8: 08-93612622 I %:08-93613933 www.builton.net.au www.platinum-homes.com.au

Please consider the environment before printingthis e-mail

The information contained in this message and anyattachment(s) may be privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of theaddressee designated. If you are not the addressee any disclosure,reproduction, distribution, on-transmission, dissemination or use of the communication is strictlyprohibited. Whilst any attachments may have been checked for viruses youshould rely on your own virus checking programs and procedures.

Original Message From: ApeosPort-IV C2270 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 27 August 2010 4:30 PM To: Sean He Subject: Scan Data from FX-9E507B

Number of Images: 7 Attachment File Type: PDF

Device Name: ApeosPort-IV C2270 Device Location:

1 Submission 35

Government ofWestern Australia Department of Transport

Your ref: 809-2-23-17 Pt1 Our ref : DT/10/01962 Enquiries : Yohan Nugraha (92168543)

Secretary Western Australia Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street (corner Forrest Place) Perth, WA 6000

24 August 2010

Attention: Lauren Aitken

Dear Sir / Madam

Re:Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan.

I refer to your letter dated 4 August 2010 regarding the proposed MetropolitanRegion Scheme (MRS) amendment.

The proposed MRS amendment seeks to rezone the north Coogee industrial areato urban deferred zone and revise the alignment for the PRR reservation at the intersectionof the proposed Cockburn Coast Drive and Rockingham Road, Hamilton hill.

The Department of Transport has no further comments on the proposed MRSamendment.

Yours sincerely

Rob-or lr ----Senior Manager: Travel Demand Management

441 Murray Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000 Tel: (08) 9216 8000Fax:(08) 9216 8001 www.transport.wa.gov.au ABN 27 285 643 255 Late Submission Government ofWestern Australia 36 Department ofHealth

Your Ref: 809-2-23-17 Pt 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Our Ref: EHB-00133/02 Enquiries: Michelle Vojtisek (9388 4936) 2 0 MAY 2010

FILE 6/Asooiq Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street (Cnr Forrest Place) PERTH WA 6000

Attention:Lauren Aitken

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1180/41 COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN

Thank you for your letter of 08 February 2010 seeking the Department of Health's (DOH) comment on the above.

The DOH has no objection to the proposed amendment subject to all developments being connected to reticulated sewerage and water, and the provision of buffers between residential development and incompatible land use to the satisfaction of the EPA.

Yours faithfully

Richard Theobald MANAGER WATER UNIT PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION

13 May 2010

S:\EHD\Water Unit\WASTE\Typing\2010\100513vm1.doc

Environmental Health All Correspondence: PO Box 8172 Perth Business Centre Western Australia 6849 Grace Vaughan House 227 Stubbs Terrace Shenton Park WA 6008 Telephone (08) 9388 4999 Fax (08) 9388 4955 wa.gov.au ABN 28 684 750 332 Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) Form 41 Submission Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Area

OFFICE USE ONLY

ISUBMISSION NUMBER I To:Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street Late Submission 37 Perth WA 6000

Name PALAne.g.. (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) EA,cPl_j\Lt Address AA tiQ-1 -C C -^) 11A VAILTO-A)'111t- Postcode i

Contact phone number°) Lt31--q1-5'5.- Email address ,cx h 0.16,Q t 0

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

DEPART MEAT' OF 'KAMM

2 5..MAY 7010

turn over to complete your submission Hearing of submissions

Anyone who has made a written submission on theamendment has the opportunity to personally present the basis of their submission to a sub-committee of the WAPC.You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submissionwill be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment.

For information about the submission and hearings process,please refer to the amendment report and in particular appendix D. Please choose one of the following:

0 No, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottomof the form and sign) OR

Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the followingdetails)

I will be represented by: *LID /2 S-5. MyselfMy telephone number (business hours): or A spokesperson

Name of spokesperson: Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address:

I would prefer my hearing to be conductedin: Public (members from the general public mayattend your presentation) OR Private (only the people nominated by you or thehearings committee will be permitted to attend)

You should be aware that: WAPC may be The WAPC is subject to the Freedom of InformationAct 1992 and as such, submissions made to the subject to applications for access under the act.

In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, ormaking its report on these submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, maybe disclosed to third parties. submissions, are All hearings are recorded and transcribed. Thetranscripts of all hearings, along with all written The tabled in Parliament and published as public recordsshould the Governor approve the proposed amendment. WAPC recommendations are similarly published in areport on submissions and tabled in Parliament.

To be signed by person(s) making thesubmission

11 /5/ /0/ 0 Signature Date

Note: Sub issio MUST be received by the advertised closing date,being close of business (5pm) on 14 MAY 2010. Late submissionswill NOT be considered.

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

www.albeoil,com.au

12/5/2010 Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to express our conditional supportfor the proposed amendments to Metropolitan Region Scheme1180/41, rezoning land from Industrial to urban deferred. Our support is on condition that the proposedinfrastructure requirements as outlined in the Cockburn CoastDistrict Structure Plan are budgeted for and have clear timelines forimplementation. In particular I refer to the new Proposed Cockburn CoastRoad and its link to Rollinson Rd. Without these infrastructure commitmentsbeing made we would not support the proposed amendment. As a business that currently operates inthis area we feel that without this road being budgeted for and given atimeline for implementation we will be negatively impacted,and our ability to continue running our existing business would also benegatively impacted. I note that I have been informed that at this stage nobudget and no timeframe has been allocated for this road developmentby main roads.

Kin Regards

Ashleyalmer

Director Alba Edible Oils

O_ffice: 2 Emplacement Cresent,Hamilton Hill Western Australia 6163 Postal Address: P.O. Box 385, SouthFremantle WA 6162 Australia Telephone: +61 8 9431 7255 Fax:+61 B 2431 7266 Transcript of hearings Minutes of the Committee hearing submissions on Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan

Thursday, 16 September 2010, Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth

The composition of the hearings committee was endorsed by the chairman of the Western Australian Planning Commission on 4 August 2010, in accordance with the 27 October 2009 resolution of the Commission.

Chairperson Ms Elizabeth Taylor Member of the Statutory Planning Committee

Members Cr Ian Whitfield Member of the South West Planning Committee

Mr Eugene Ferraro Independent,withlanduseplanning expertise

In attendance Ms Lauren Aitken Department of Planning

Mr Nicholas Temov Department of Planning

Ms Marija Bubanic Department of Planning

Presentations to the Committee commenced at 9.00 am.

The proceedings were recorded by 'Spark & Cannon Pty Ltd'.

The following people made presentations:

1) Mr Peter Goff (MGA Town Planners) and Mr John Schaffer for submission number 7. Messrs Goff and Schaffer represented Qube Property Group Ltd, Gosh Leather P/L, West Cape Property Group and Basilia Nominees Pty Ltd.

2) Mr Paul Garbett and Mr Philip St John for submission number 9. Messrs Garbett and St John represented the City of Fremantle.

3) Mr Derek Noakes and Ms Kerry Smulders for submission number 18. Mr Noakes and Ms Smulders represented Verve Energy.

4) Mr Hugh Hyland for submission number 32. Mr Hyland represented himself.

5) Mr Lindsay Broadhurst and Mr David Van Der Dries for submission number 24. Messrs Broadhurst and Van Der Dries represented Main Roads Western Australia.

6) Mr Chris Fitzhardinge for submission number 12. Mr Fitzhardinge represented the South West Group. 7) Mr Brett Coombes for submission number 28. Mr Coombes represented the Water Corporation.

8) Ms Carol Catherwood for submission number 10. Ms Catherwood represented the City of Cockburn.

9) Mr Nigel Parker for late submission number 37. Mr Parker represented Alba Edible Oils.

10) Mr Andrew Sullivan for submission number 23. Mr Sullivan represented himself.

The following people cancelled their appointment with the Hearings Committee:

Mr Kim Doepel for submission number 31, representing Western Salt Refinery Pty Ltd and WASS Nominees Pty Ltd trading as WA Salt Supply.

Mr Mike Hulme for submission number 27, representing himself.

Ms Elizabeth Taylor declared the hearings closed at 1.50 pm.

Chairperson: (// O 7127 //

Date: 0%74 /1)7e 62a/0 Transcripts of public hearings

Thursday 16 September 2010 MR PETER GOFF (MGA TOWN PLANNERS) AND MR JOHN SCHAFFER representing Qube Property Group Ltd, Gosh Leather P/L, West Cape Property Group and Basilia Nominees Pty Ltd

MS TAYLOR: Just for the record, I'm down here as "councillor", but I haven't been a councillor for quite a while. Maybe it should be "commissioner". My name is a bit wrong in this, but I'm here to chair the panel this morning and thank you for your submission and, as we know, what we do with this, the meeting is taped, and you have 15 minutes to tell us anything that you want to add to your submission. We can then ask you questions, and move from there. So we've got your submission, we have all read it, and I've been on a site visit.Ian is very familiar with the place, and Eugene is accounts department manager, and is very familiar with the system as well, so hopefully that gives you some confidence in us. So over to you.

MR GOFF: Thank you very much. What I'd like to do first is just explain that Schaffer Corporation is a bit of an industrial conglomerate, as well as being involved in real estate developments from time to time.

MS TAYLOR: A bit of a mix.

MR GOFF: Yes, so they own Delta Corporation, precast concrete. We've got major sort of industrial type components, like bridges and big buildings, and all that sort of thing.

MS TAYLOR: Big engineering.

MR GOFF: Also we're Urbanstone.Then there's limestone blocks and reconstituted limestone.

MR SCHAFFER: A range of building materials.

MR GOFF: So it's quite a major company in WA.It employs a lot of people. They own the Gosh Leather site down there in the Cockburn Coast area. We also represent a couple of other landowners who have basically primarily purchased the land for future development, and they have other projects in other parts of the state, going on all the time.

MS TAYLOR:It's quite a mixture.

MR SCHAFFER: They have also got the leather business, which Gosh was one of them, and Howe Leather, which is based in Melbourne, we make leather now for car seats, and they've got factories in Melbourne, Mexico, Slovakia and Shanghai, so it's quite a mixture, plus we're involved in quite a few property joint ventures.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

1 MR GOFF: So Schaffer Corporation's concerns over the Cockburn Coast Area have been sort of going on for a little while. They support the overall trend from industrial to urban, don't have a problem with the philosophy behind the proposal. The concern, however, is on more immediate matters.For example, some years ago we were advised by the then Minister for Planning that this area was going to go to urban. There were announcements made in the press.

At that time, the leather business at Cockburn had closed, and they had this vacant premises there, and sought to put a new tenant into those premises. That was quite hard to do, because under the Local Planning Scheme there are a large number of restrictions on the types of activities that can go in there given that it was primarily a meat processing and related industry area. So there was a lot of difficulty in finding a suitable tenant, and when that was done we made application, for example, to accommodate this tenant.

We were advised by the City of Cockburnand it also required the approval of the WAPC that this area was shortly going to go to urban, and nobody wanted to see a new industrial type activity established in this area.It took us the best part of six months to a year to negotiate an approval to put a new tenant into what is quite a valuable piece of land and infrastructure on the site, so that eventually the terms that were agreed were that we could lease the premises to this new tenant for five years. Obviously with a constraint like that on the leasing, then the amount of money you can get for the premises is reduced.

MS TAYLOR: And the set-up costs.

MR GOFF:So there's all of those issues that cost the landowner. When the first draft of the Cockburn Coast Structure Plan came out,it said the land would be going to urban. When the final Structure Plan came out, it said the land would be going to urban deferred. That has ramifications financially on the company as well, because obviously the land is not as valuable as urban deferred as it is as urban.

So in terms of a company like Schaffer Corporation, and the other players in the area, arranging finance and putting up property, et cetera, as security, particularly since the GFC, that's a task that is now harder than it was a few years ago. There is an issue with the value of your securities and therefore the amount of money that you can borrow, and continue to run the other parts of your operation.

From a sort of an immediate financial point of view, the land has not really proceeded as well and as expeditiously as it may have, it seems to us. We would be much happier if the land went direct to urban. We understand the protocols that exist within government, whereby they have milestones to be met before land would normally be zoned urban, such things as urban water management strategies, and all those sorts of things, but we would point out that thereisplenty of protectioninregard to getting those thingsinplace before development occurs.

2 Obviously the land needs to also be rezoned in the City of Cockburn Scheme. There needs to be local structure plans agreed and approved, so all of those processes have to be gone through as well as things like the urban water management strategy, so that there are plenty of steps along the way where the planning system is able to say, "We're not going to approve that until this is agreed," or whatever. You don't necessarily have to hang it all on whether the land goes to urban or urban deferred.

Constantly when we ring the department to inquire about the progress of applications these days, you get a response, "Yes, I'll get onto your proposal when I can, but we're incredibly under-resourced," and it just seems to us, in instances like this where land has to go from industrial to urban deferred and then from urban deferred to urban, there is more reporting officer time involved in having a two-step process.

I appreciate the lifting of deferment is not a major process, but it nevertheless requires negotiation with other agencies, it requires somebody to sit down and prepare a report and a recommendation to the Commission, and all of those sorts of things, so that there's an issue in just plain efficiency within the department, and we would urge you to say, "Let's just put this land to urban, forget the urban deferred process, and let the world get on with it."

MS TAYLOR: Okay, thank you for that.If you don't mind, we will have a couple of questions to ask of you, which are very important. Eugene, do you have a question?

MR FERRARO: No, I'm still gathering my thoughts.

MS TAYLOR: Maybe I can start off then, and then I will go to Ian.I'm just wondering, when did your five-year lease?What year are you into with that before you start negotiating again?

MR GOFF:I think we've got about another two years, I think.

MR SCHAFFER: Approximately two years to go.

MS TAYLOR:Yes, because I'm thinking what you mentioned about timeframes in urban deferred, that it's obviously going to have an impact on what you do next.

MR GOFF:The timing from that point of view, looking in a crystal ball, is probably about idea. We would anticipate that the structure planning, and everything, will be pretty close to being completed in about two years, which would mean that Schaffer Corporation can then make a decision whether they develop, sell or whatever, so that side of it is shaping up okay.

MS TAYLOR: That just brought me to my next question about timeframes, so that's all sort of encompassed in your answer with that. I will go to Ian, and see if you have got any questions.

CR WHITFIELD:Where specifically is the leather?If you go to your submission, is it on your submission?

3 MR GOFF: On that side there.It's an orange-shaped piece of land.

CR WHITFIELD: Okay, that's fine, yes.

MR SCHAFFER: That will show as G on your submission there.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

CR WHITFIELD: Okay, thanks.

MS TAYLOR: Eugene?

MR FERRARO: Peter, if the land were to be zoned urban, what difference would it make in terms of timing of development and getting the various other approvals in place? Would it make a difference in terms of how long it would take to get those other approvals in place?

MR GOFF:It's hard to know, but it certainly wouldn't delay the process. The only thing that it can do is to hasten the process.

MR FERRARO: You mention in your submission the surety about funds, and things.If you were urban deferred, would that actually cause you, do you think, any delays in actually getting the land developed, if it was urban deferred rather than urban, in terms of surety and finance and all that?

MR GOFF:The surety and finance is more in relation to obviously there's an asset there that's sitting there on Schaffer Corporation's books, and if they require money to develop another part of their business somewhere else, then the bank says, "What properties have you got as security for this loan that we're going to give you?" One of the properties is obviously the Gosh Leather property, so you say, "This is the property.""What's it zoned for?""It's zoned urban deferred." "What does that mean?"It's obviously not as good as saying, "This land is urban," because the answer to urban deferred is, "At some point down the track the deferment will be lifted and we'll be able to develop this land for urban purposes." It's just not as bankable as a piece of land that is zoned urban.

MR SCHAFFER:Valuers put a totally different value on that because of the uncertainty. Nobody knows when.

MS TAYLOR: In your submission you have got, "This has been in limbo for about six years," so you have been sort of trying to negotiate over that six years, when you started negotiating as urban and then it went to urban deferred. Is that what you're saying here?

MR GOFF:No, it goes back to when the leather business finished, so there was vacant premises, and fitting in a new tenant.I can't quite remember how long that took, but it took six months to a year.

MR SCHAFFER: Just to go back, in 92, we started building our factor.In 93, we occupied it and ran the business. We had well over a hundred people at one stage.

4 MS TAYLOR:Is this Gosh?

MR SCHAFFER:Gosh Leather, and then over time,I guess mainly the Australian dollar was a big factor, the business became less and less economic. Then there was the talk about the change there, so it was obvious for us that we were going to move forward, so we rationalised our involvement in the leather business, knowing this was happening, and then we had a couple of goes at tenants. We were vacant for quite a while.

MS TAYLOR: So it wasn't an easy ride.

MR SCHAFFER: It wasn't an easy ride. We found somebody, and we eventually got it through.

MR GOFF:Even when you find somebody, this process of negotiating the approval to the use means that the premises sit there, with no rent being earned for it, for six months or a year, or whatever.

MR SCHAFFER: At the same time, if this is still urban deferred and it's still urban deferred in two years, what's this tenant going to think? They've also got to shift their business.

MS TAYLOR:It's the uncertainty.

MR SCHAFFER:It's the uncertainty.I guess Peter's point is there doesn't seem to be any reason to have the uncertainty.It was going to be urban for so long, and then all of a sudden this urban deferred came.

MS TAYLOR: Right. Any other questions?

CR WHITFIELD: No, thank you.

MS TAYLOR: Eugene?

MR FERRARO: No, I have got no questions.

MS TAYLOR: We have got to go through all of these submissions, so at the end of the day we will come to a decision.There's quite a few people,I have to say, also of the same thought, that it should never have been stopped from going to urban, so at the end of the day we will make a decision on all of these submissions. How long before these people can hear, Lauren? Any idea?

MS AITKEN:It will probably take us a month to get to the Commission, and then further to that it needs to go to the Minister.

MS TAYLOR:Just so that you know how much time you have to wait. You will be sitting on the phone waiting for an answer.

5 MS AITKEN:Further to that, it has to go to the Minister, and then they will introduce it into parliament, so it's unlikely that the amendment will be gazetted until probably about February next year.

MS TAYLOR:Is there any indication before that time, that these people will know, after the Commission meeting?

MS AITKEN: Once the Commission has made a recommendation, we will probably be in a position to be able to advise landowners through the advisory group.

MS TAYLOR: Just so that you're not hanging on. I heard your comments about the Department, under-resourced, so we will try to give you

MR GOFF:It's really just the efficiency within the department. From that point of view, if you can avoid going through an extra step, then it's a good idea.

MS TAYLOR: All right. Lovely to meet you, thank you.

MR SCHAFFER: Thank you very much for your time. Thanks for the opportunity.

MR GOFF: Thank you.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.I meant to say at the beginning of that one that he had on there "public/private". We had the door shut.

CR WHITFIELD:I think Marija said they had asked for it to be private.

6 MR PAUL GARBETT AND MR PHILIP ST JOHN representing the City of Fremantle

MS TAYLOR:We had the door shut. Have we got Fremantle here? Who have we got? Paul and Phil? Thanks, Marija, we're ready. Good morning. How are you?

MR STJOHN: Very well, thank you.

MS TAYLOR:Nice to see you again.

MRST JOHN: This is Paul Garbett.

MS TAYLOR:Nice to meet you. This is Ian, Lauren and Nick. Please have a seat. Thank you so much for your submission. We are of course here to hear what you have to say. We have got your submissions, so want we want to know is if there's any extra information that you would like to give us today. My name is wrong on the beginning of the report.I am not a councillor any more, I'm just Ms, just to clear that up, because we have a councillor here on my left, Ian, who is very familiar with the site, and of course Eugene, who is also quite familiar with the site.

Just to let you know, I have had a site visit.I did actually do Coogee four or five or six years ago, but Lauren and I went around on Monday, and visited all the areas of contention or discussion, and of course these two gentlemen both are very familiar with the area as well. Submissions and the hearing this morning is being taped, as we usually do, for the Minister. It goes to parliament, and hopefully at the end of the day we might be able to come to some kind of a resolution, but we've got all these people to hear.

MRST JOHN: You've got a long day ahead of you.

MS TAYLOR:It's going to be a long day.

MRST JOHN: We will try and be as quick as we can.

MS TAYLOR:No, that's fine. We have your report here, your submission, but if you would like to maybe go through your points that you would like to discuss, because you have got 15 minutes, and we would like to have a couple of minutes for questions, if you don't mind.

MRST JOHN: Yes, of course.

MS TAYLOR:So who's going to start?

MRST JOHN:I will start. Thank you for the opportunity. Obviously we're from the City of Fremantle. You've got our submission. What we would like to do is focus really I guess on point 4 in our submission, which is about transit and the transit corridor, which I guess is the council's main area of concern.

7 MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR ST JOHN:I guess the council's (indistinct) position is that we need to embody a transit corridor into the planning of this corridor early.There are a number of reasons for that, about sustainable (indistinct) temporary planning principles, about tryingto alsolink Fremantle into a network of corridors, because of course we've got a problem. The Fremantle transit (indistinct) south-west has always been an issue, and I'm sure you're very familiar with (indistinct) trying to resolve that sort of stuff.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR ST JOHN: The council's position is one which is about saying there has to be a holistic I guess transit solution for that corridor, and is actively supporting the current project. What's it called?

MR GARBETT:The integrated transport plan (indistinct) been undertaken as part of the Cockburn Coast.

MS TAYLOR: Okay.

MR ST JOHN: So there's another thing there.There is the integrated transport plan occurring at the moment. We also recognise of course our part of the corridor, from outside of this area but in the City of Fremantle. The Council has worked out two transit corridor alignments, to actually get from the Fremantle station to this area here, and they have worked with us at Cockburn on that.

Our objective really is that at the end of this planning process we are able to identify a corridor for transit. We again obviously a local government authority will never build transit, but we think philosophically we need to build the space in the planning process. So what we're doing with our corridor planning in Fremantle is we've basically said to our engineers, "Give us sufficient space for whatever the likely transit scenarios are in 15-20 years' time, and when government is ready, there will be a corridor there to do it," but unless we identify the land now, it will never happen, or we will get transit down the middle of highways. So that's our philosophical position.

Our contention to the Commission is that this needs to be embodied in some planning for this corridor at this stage, and there are a number of things happening. There's integrated transport planning currently.There is also some refinements in our local area structure planning, which are more around a transit supported type development. There's the work we're doing jointly with the City of Cockburn, and we recognise this is a deferment question at this stage, so it's probably not appropriate, and indeed the corridor has not been determined at this point.

What we would ask the Commission to do, when we go to the next stage of planning I guess, looking at urban zoning, that that would then be embodied, we would hope, at that point.

8 The time is quite good, in the sense that the planning work would have been completed, we would have identified our preferred corridor, we would have agreed that with Cockburn, and we're having very constructive talks about that, and that would then be embodied into the planning for the corridor for the Region Scheme.I guess that's probably it.

MS TAYLOR:Yes, thank you.I guess you're probably covering some of the discussions that we had around the table this morning, when we had our briefing before we started on all this, so I think it's quite clear in all of our mind where you're actually coming from. Did you want to make any further comments?

MR GARBETT: No, thank you, Ms Taylor.I have nothing really to add, other than probably to just reinforce the point that I think the timing is quite constructive, in that the work that has been advanced through the integrated transport planning process as part of the overall moving forward of the District Structure Plan to a more detailed level of planningI think is looking very closely at the same issues, whilst that work is not yet completed.

MS TAYLOR: So you think there might be a meeting of the minds anyway?

MR GARBETT:I'm reasonably confident there would be, yes.I think just our concern is that the MRS process shouldn't prejudice the opportunities for that work to be incorporated into the statutory planning framework for the area.

MS TAYLOR:Yes, I think we understand that position quite well.Eugene, have you got questions?

MR FERRARO:Yes, I've got a couple. Do you think there will be further MRS and MS required for the transit corridors that are being looked at, based on (indistinct) or do you think that they actually can be accommodated within the urban or urban deferred zones that are being proposed?

MR ST JOHN: I guess they probably could be accommodated within urban zones, and (indistinct) Ellenbrook, for example, where at an early stage of planning a transit corridor has been identified.There's still nothing init, but itis there.I'm not sure if that's actually reserved in the Regional Scheme or not.In the end, it maybe doesn't matter that much. There is an opportunity here, given that it's going to urban deferredand we think that's appropriate and sensiblethat of course you've got an opportunity then, when you lift urban deferment, to actually put in place more detailed planning.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, it's just colouring on the map. The big picture is still

MR ST JOHN: Yes and our objective is that the corridor be identified and secured. Obviously the Region Scheme is the ultimate place where that could occur, and if that planning is done by the stage, we get to that stage of planning, then I guess our preference would be yes, it's embodied in the Region Scheme. There are sort of two broad options we're looking at. When it comes down to it, there is an option that follows the existing rail corridor, and there's an option that follows Hampton Road. There's a few little things around there, but those are broadly the options.

9 MS TAYLOR: What was your second one?

MR ST JOHN: Hampton Road, so there's a road based option, which both have advantages. Neither are easy of course. There are constraints with both of those options. The City, we're currently actually going out to our community in terms of looking at the impacts of those, in terms of getting north to Fremantle, but our Council is committed to doing that. So yes, either of those I guess could be reflected in the Region Scheme as a reservation at the appropriate time.

MS TAYLOR:Ian.

CR WHITFIELD:Just to sum up, you're not suggesting that either one is a better one, just to make sure that both are available.

MR ST JOHN:I guessing I'm saying it's both of the options that we're looking at. We would hope that between ourselves, the City of Cockburn and Landcorp and the Commission, there would be agreement about a preferred transit corridor, and then that one would then be reflected into the planning process. At the moment they're both available. As I say, neither is easy.Both have issues.The Council at this stage has said, "We want to go to our community with a sort of balanced approach."

MS TAYLOR: Yes, so you want your options open.

MR ST JOHN: Yes, but down the track we would say (indistinct).

CR WHITFIELD: So you don't expect it at this particular juncture.

MR ST JOHN: That's right.

CR WHITFIELD: Thank you.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.

MR ST JOHN: Once it had been settled, then of course you can then start structure planning around that.

MS TAYLOR: Dealing with detail.

MR ST JOHN: Yes, with the assumption you know that's where it's going to happen in time.

MS TAYLOR: Thanks, Phil.

MR FERRARO: Sorry, I have just one more question.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, Eugene?

10 MR FERRARO:Phil, you mentioned about the lifting of the urban deferment being the key to establishing these, enabling a place in the planning time, in order to establish these things.The lifting of the urban deferment itself is a simple administrative exercise and doesn't actually allow for the reservationifthat's needed. Given that there's other processes, such as local authority zonings, structure plans that need to be approved, do you see it being pivotal that it's reliant on the lifting of the urban deferment, or as long as it's picked up in the process?

MR ST JOHN:It probably isn't.It probably isn't, as long as there's a commitment by the agencies that it's picked up in the process. The council's position obviously is that it would prefer to see it in the Region Scheme, because of course it gets security and certainty, but if there were a commitment, at the end, it's a colour on the a map. Our objective is seeing transit support development. Obviously if the urban deferment is simply lifted and it goes straight to urban, then that's fine, but if there is further planning after the integrated transport study, our contention would be that the decisions on that then get integrated into the Region Scheme if deemed necessary at that time.

MS TAYLOR: Are you happy with that?

MR FERRARO: Yes, thank you.

MS TAYLOR: Thanks, Eugene. Did you want to have anything to ask?

MS AITKEN: No.

MS TAYLOR: Could you just give us a timeframe for the gentlemen, so that they know?

MS AITKEN: The MRS amendment is most likely to be gazetted around February next year, and we will be looking at taking the report to the Commission sometime over the next month, depending on their meeting cycles.

MS TAYLOR: Just so you know, so if you're looking for any information, you're not hanging there.Right, thank you very much for coming in.I think we're quite clear.I have taken a few notes here.At the end of the day, when we've finished all the submissions, we will make some references, and I'm not quite sure we will be changing anything, but we will look at all of that at the end of the day, when we've heard everybody, and hopefully come to a conclusion. Thank you for coming in.

MR ST JOHN: Thank you for listening.

11 MR DEREK NOAKES AND MS KERRY SMULDERS representing Verve Energy

MS TAYLOR: We have Verve, do we?

MS AITKEN: We have Kerry and Derek.

MS TAYLOR: Derek Noakes? Elizabeth Taylor, Derek. Lovely to see you.

MR FERRARO: Eugene Ferraro. How are you?

MR NOAKES: Eugene.

MS TAYLOR: What was your name, please?

MS SMULDERS: Kerry Smulders.

MR FERRARO: Hello, Kerry, Eugene Ferraro.

MS SMULDERS: Your name sounds familiar.I can't place it.

MR FERRARO:I've been around. Unfortunately I've been around.

MS TAYLOR:Okay, thank you for coming in, and we have a copy of your report, your submission.This is being taped of course.It goes back up to parliament when we're finished at the end of the day. We're here to listen to you. You've got 15 minutes.If you would just please allow us a couple of minutes at the end for questions, we might have some questions for you. So anything that you want to add to your submission, we're happy to hear about that. We will take notes, and at the end of the day, when we've finished all these submissions, we will make some recommendations. So who's going to be first?

MR NOAKES:I will lead off.

MS TAYLOR: Okay, Derek, thank you.

MR NOAKES: The Structure Plan is (indistinct) community focused initiative.It has got good residential employment, historical, environmental, leisure and transport links. So from that point of view it all looks very nice. The refurbished power station building, which is the old South Fremantle Power Station, which we shut in 1985, so it has now been shut for 25 years, is proposed under the plan to be the landmark iconic building, and the main activity hub for the whole redevelopment.

We respectfully remind the WA Planning Commission that the power station building, ie, South Fremantle Power Station, the centrepiece of this plan, is an asset owned by Verge Energy, and that Verge Energy is not an agent of the state.

12 So if the WAPC wants the site to become state ownership, we submit that the WAPC should acquire the site for a commercial outcome that is satisfactory to Verge Energy.

In terms of the power station building, which is central to this project, there's actually little consultation with Verge Energy about it, and in fact the Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment, in the implementation of the Cockburn Coast Plan is likely to have potentially major commercial implications for Verge Energy.

We believe that the zoning of the site needs to allow sufficient scope for actual development of the entire site in order to fund the refurbishment of the power station building, and the development needs to take place in a commercial environment unless of course the state intends to fully fund the restoration and development of the site.

Perhaps for the Committee's purpose, to establish where Verve Energy comes from, Verve Energy was established under the Electricity Corporations Act of 2005.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR NOAKES: It has been established with one objective only, and that is to generate purchase or otherwise acquire and supply electricity.In terms of how we operate, we're actually required to perform our functions in accordance with prudent commercial principles. We're also required to endeavour to make a profit, consistent with maximising our long-term value, and in fact the government and taxpayers (indistinct) do so.

So in terms of the MRS amendment, while the power station has some historic and potentially aesthetic value, its commercial value is severely affected under the proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment.Perhaps to share some information with the committee, the cost of refurbishment of the power station, the building remains and is just refurbished to a watertight level, so this is nothing inside, just making the building watertight, and bearing in mind of course it has been vacant for 25 years, we have had an estimate of $46 million just to make the building watertight. For the Committee's benefit,I would like to hand up ifI can some photographs.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you very much.

MR NOAKES: When you have a look at the proposed document that we have been given, it shows probably a fairly nice photograph of the building taken from out at sea, and that of course is a view that most people won't see of the power station, so what we thought, we would give you some more photographs from different elevations.

In particular the things the Committee could note is the complete absence of windows, the fact that most of the window frames are metal, and the building is in an advanced state of decay, with concrete cancer, extensive graffiti and other damage, vandalism, to the extent that from a security point of view it's a bit of a challenge for us.

MS TAYLOR: A nightmare. We did visit the site on Monday, by the way.

13 MR NOAKES:You have seen it?

MS TAYLOR:And I have seen it before.

MR NOAKES: Excellent, thank you for that.The site is already constrained by the electricity substation to the north, which actually emits a continuous audible humming noise, and has visual impact. We do understand that Landcorp have been in discussions with Western Power in relation to moving the substation, and transmission lines, and we also understand that it's about $80 million or more to actually move it.

So the imposing of the zoning public purpose as special use would wholly constrain, in our view, the future development of the power station site.It is considered unreasonable and inappropriate, and if that zoning was to occur, Verve Energy may find it impossible to attract commercial development interests, and if Verve Energy was to continue to hold the site, the precinct would remain undeveloped and the building would continue to deteriorate.

MS TAYLOR:Okay.

MR NOAKES:The proposed rezoning of the strip of land to the east of the buildings to urban deferred, it does have some long-term commercial value, but this value can't actually be achieved until a further amendment to urban, for example, so this zoning of deferred urban provides no sort of comfort to any potential owner, as no timeframe is provided for the further zoning to urban, but again the development of that strip of land with the right zoning does have the potential to partly fund the redevelopment of the building.It wouldn't be expected to fully fund it.

MS TAYLOR:Okay.

MR NOAKES:So we submit that all of the commercial and strategic issues involved in the implementation of the Cockburn Coast project, including the necessary amendment to the MRS, is likely to require further consideration by the relevant Ministers, and there's a few relevant Ministers, and given that the power station refurbishment is so critical to this Cockburn Coast redevelopment, and it also involves the significant commercial interest of a number of agencies, we would actually recommend a whole of government approach to discuss and resolve the matter, and we actually submit that it's prudent that the zoning not be amended until a decision has been made via this whole of government approach, as to the future use of the site and the funding.

MS TAYLOR:Right.

MR NOAKES: So in summary, Verve Energy requests that this Committee's report includes the commercial issues raised by Verve Energy in relation to the power station, and a recommendation that finalisation of this Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment is premature until these issues are resolved on a whole of government basis, and on the basis that these comments are included, Verve Energy recommends that the WAPC adopts the Committee report and includes it in the WAPC report on the Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment to the Minister of Planning.

14 MS TAYLOR: Okay.

MR NOAKES: That's our submission.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you. Anything to add to that, Kerry?

MS SMULDERS: Maybe the fact that property development is not our core business.

MS TAYLOR:On your first comments about the ownership status, which you have quite rightly pointed out, we do have a note here that says:

Submissions in relation to ownership status and leasehold arrangements are noted and will be removed from further iterations of reporting on the MRS.

So just to give you some comfort that your comments have been taken note of, and that's how we plan to deal with it.If you've finished, could I just ask my two gentlemen if they've got a question?I will go to Eugene.

MR FERRARO:Can I just clarify, you're asking that the amendment as it affects the old power station site, the scheme not be amended for that particular site. Your submission is that the land is currently reserved parks and recreation, and your suggestion is that we maintain that until the planning is further advanced on that. Have I got that clear?

MS SMULDERS:It's about keeping in mind that whatever subsequent zoning that may be applied provide sufficient scope that the site can be fully commercially developed.

MR FERRARO:So rather than going from one reservation to another, your preference is for the existing reservation to remain, and then when the planning is done, then that land get appropriately zoned, or however it's designated in the Metropolitan Region Scheme, at that stage.

MR NOAKES: Certainly post the whole of government approach to the funding and zoning of the entire area.

MS TAYLOR: Fair comment. Are you all right with that, Eugene?

MR FERRARO: Yes, thank you.

MS TAYLOR: Can I go to you and ask if there's any questions?

CR WHITFIELD: You haven't mentioned, andI suppose it's probably not a part of the proposal, the fact that it's still being fought over about whether it should be conserved or not. That relates to your whole of government approach?

MR NOAKES:It's certainly one part of it.

MS TAYLOR: Okay, and thank you for the photos actually.It's quite mind-boggling, isn't it?

15 MS SMULDERS: Those photos are taken several years ago.

MR NOAKES: And it hasn't improved since that time, has it?

MS TAYLOR: Not at all, no.I agree.

MS SMULDERS: We always see, even if we were to sellit, we would sellit with the building in situ. We don't see it as a demolishing job.

CR WHITFIELD: You don't see it as a demolition job?

MS SMULDERS: Simply because it is a large building, and it does have some merit.

MR NOAKES: I have been told anecdotally that it would be cheaper to demolish it and build it again.

MS SMULDERS:However, the setbacks would then come into force, so you would never get a building so close.

MR NOAKES: Unless it was designated as such in the amendment.

MS TAYLOR:Just to give you an idea of where we go from here, because that's usually the burning question, about how long you're going to have to wait for some answers, today we have to go through all of these submissions of course, and then at the end of our day, hopefully we will be able to come to some kind of a recommendation to go to WAPC, but other than that, timeframewise, I will just ask Lauren again, and she could just give us a timeframe, just so that you know.

MS AITKEN: We will be looking to report to the Commission over the next month or so, depending on their meeting cycles, in regards to the amendment. The amendment then needs to go to the minister, and to parliament, and so it's unlikely that the amendment would be gazetted until at least the end of February.

MS TAYLOR: Okay with that?I think we have got all of our questions answered. Thank you for coming in, and thank you for your submission, and pointing out some of the (indistinct).

MR NOAKES: Thank you very much.

MS TAYLOR:If you think it might help any, you're more than welcome to provide a tour to the site.

MS SMULDERS: Rather than jump through a hole in the fence.

MR FERRARO:I've actually been through the fence.

16 MR HUGH HYLAND representing himself

MS TAYLOR: I didn't go through a hole in the fence. Thank you. That's terrific. Thank you. We have Hugh here? Good morning, Mr Hyland. How are you?

MR HYLAND: Fine.

MS TAYLOR:I'm Elizabeth Taylor. I'm the chairperson of the panel this morning.

MR FERRARO: Eugene Ferraro. How are you?

CR WHITFIELD:Ian Whitfield.

MS TAYLOR:Thank you, take a seat, and thank you for coming in.This is a hearings panel and we have got a copy of your submission, and we are all familiar with the site. I went on a personal visit with Lauren on Monday, so I am very familiar with the area. This report then from today goes over to WAPC. The report is being monitored here on tape, and that actually goes to the government. What we will do, we have got 15 minutes for you to tell us any additional information on your submission, and if you wouldn't mind giving us maybe a couple of minutes before the end, so that we can actually ask you questions on your submission on this one.

MR HYLAND: Okay.

MS TAYLOR: So over to you. Thank you for coming in.

MR HYLAND: So they're the submissions that I gave you?

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR HYLAND: On an overview, I think it needs to be considered, not just that area, but the surrounding areas, and also the traffic that goes through it, so we need to (indistinct) cars from the area, and a few other things, and also the development of that area. Just a bit of history, there used to be a passenger railway that used to go from Fremantle to Armadale. Did you know that? Yes, from 1904 to 1965.

MS TAYLOR:I'm too young.

MR HYLAND: So we're not (indistinct) because I'm pushing to get rail there, because they put the rail station there anyway.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

17 MR HYLAND: The proposed tram way, some people have said that it's going to cost $15 million a kilometre, and also it needs a dedicated right of way, and when you consider a tram will carry maybe 220 passengers, buses carry 95, so you're not really saving that much. So the railway, currently they've got two tracks.They've got a standard gauge and a narrow gauge.

All we need to do is put a third rail on the standard gauge and re-sleeper, and put three rails on the other side, and then we've got a two-way dual gauge, and they don't run that many freight trains on it, and passenger trains can go, and it would be fantastic. So that would be quite easy to do, not very expensive overall.

There may be some objections to the increased trains in the area, but there's lots of suburbs around that have got trains, and clanging, you know, level crossings and things, so that needs to be managed.Retain the stations because there are currently stations at The Esplanade and Success Harbour. They were used for the Americas Cup. South Beach, that used to be used prior to 1965, and Spearwood as well.

MS TAYLOR: Can you give us those stations again?

MR HYLAND: Yes, the Esplanade and Success. You can have these notes afterwards.

MS TAYLOR: Okay, thank you.

MR HYLAND:And South Beach and Spearwood, reopen those, plus a few others along the line, and also add a station near the old power station. A railway station there would be fantastic. The key is feed of buses to the railway, and then trains, which offer speed, and the feeder buses offer the flexibility and the coverage. The lessons learnt from the past, as the choice of trains, when they reopened the Fremantle line and obviously construction of Joondalup to Mandurah lines, in fact, you've got an excellent book downstairs on the table about all of that.

There's some diagrams here which shows the railway here, and the current stations, Fremantle, The Esplanade and Success Harbour, and then that goes on around here. You've got South Beach there.I reckon a new station right there near the power station, and then reopen the one at Spearwood, and also you've got the road that goes across there, so you can have a bus interchange right there.

The roads are a problem. People are saying you're going to get 10,000 people in this area, and where they're going to go, going north to Fremantle. Hampton Road used to be four lanes.It has now narrowed down to two, with two bus lanes of 24 hours, which is a bit crazy. What you need is transit lanes. You're not probably familiar with transit lanes over here. There's T2 and T3 transit lanes, where you have to have two or three people in a car. They have them in the East, and it works very well, so it will reduce the number of cars, and then the cars can use those lanes as well.

18 Also there's a considerable volume of traffic along Hampton Road comes from south of Henderson, so the idea is instead of them coming along Cockburn Road and then through all of this new development, try and get them to go inland, along Stock Road, and then connect Stock Road to the Stirling Highway by this way here. You go just north of South Street, and then you will turn west, and you will follow this land here, which is industrial landhalf of it is vacant and then go underground, under Carrington Street, and then under the southern boundary of the golf courses, and then come up here, and that way, all the traffic will go here instead of trying to go through Fremantle.

MS TAYLOR: You have done some work. Fantastic.

MR HYLAND: The power station surrounds, refurbish the power station as boutique shops on the ground floor. Have it mixed, so have the ground floor boutique shops, food, and stuff like that, and then the next floor up you can have offices, and then above that you can have accommodation of various kinds. You can have maybe serviced apartments, or people can buy penthouses, or whatever, and also include an atrium in the middle of it.

You could get the masters of architecture students at UWA to actually do this as a project. I'm quite sure they would be quite happy to, and give you a few more ideas too.

The electricity grid, currently you've got the power station there and you've got the electricity grid right there, and the power lines come in and then go in, and then they come in from here and go in. The idea would be to move it, say, 300 or 400 metres up the hill, to the boundary, and get rid of all of that, all the wires and all the power grids, so it's relocated right up to the top of the hill, and then you can use everything around there, and that would be quite easy to do.

Then you can rejuvenate all the surrounding land, all around there, remove all the adjacent industrial properties, and convert those to residential.You've got a potato crowd there. You've got a salt crowd. You've got a drum factory, sort of thing, there. Just get rid of all of that and just make it all residential, and clean the whole area up.

With the power station being built in, what 1950-odd, or something, it's probably full of asbestos, so that will have to be cleaned out properly, and also with the ground, and everything, the concrete, et cetera, it would have had contamination through oil and other spillages. There would be hydraulics, and you name it, and that would be sunk in, so that would have to be sort of sealed over inside, and who knows what inside.

In the waterfront area, go and dredge it all out, clean it out, and make it into something like, you know, wharfs, and think of itlike Fremantle, where you can actually walk around a boardwalk and have a little mini marina thing there.

Then have a mix of high-rise and medium-rise, et cetera, inland from the power station and up the hill, to gain views without actually blocking the views above us, so that they're sort of tiered, so you don't have a curtain of high-rise in the front and everyone at the back can't get anything, and that way, you end up getting a better mix and better prices and better amenities, et cetera, and, as I said, have a rail bus interchange adjacent, right there.

19 There's plenty of room to have it there too.

MS TAYLOR: I'm amazed at the work you've done on that.It's fantastic, really good. Could I just go to my colleagues? Maybe, Eugene, have you any questions?

MR FERRARO: No, I'm okay.

MS TAYLOR: Ian?

CR WHITFIELD: I actually agree with you, that is absolutely fabulous.I wish you were running the government.I wish you were the president.

MR HYLAND:I'm half running the navy.

MS TAYLOR:It's interesting your comments about giving it to UWA students for a masters degree. That's fantastic.

MR HYLAND: My daughter is doing that.

MS TAYLOR:Is she?

MR HYLAND: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: At UWA?

MR HYLAND: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Really good.

MR HYLAND:I've got three kids, and they're all at uni.

MS TAYLOR:Fantastic. Thank you very much for your submission, and also coming in and giving us extra information today.Just to let you know the sequence of events after today, we've got to go through all of these submissions, and hopefully at the end of the day might be able to make a recommendation to go to the WAPC. So if Lauren could maybe give us an idea of the timeframe, so that you know what happens next.

MS AITKEN: We will be looking at taking the amendment to the WAPC for their consideration over the next month or so. That does require a little bit of lead-in time for their meetings, and then further to that, the amendment goes to the Minister and then to parliament, so you would be looking at gazettal of the amendment around late February next year.

MR HYLAND: Okay, that's fine. Anyway, you can have those.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you very much, that's great.

20 MR HYLAND:As I said, I'm pressing to get that railway reopened for passengers, all the way through to Thorn lie, because they had the Thorn lie to Mandurah line planned, and then you just continue it on, and then it goes everywhere.

MR FERRARO:Can you put it to Cockburn Central, please?

MR HYLAND:The thing is you have an interchange where it crosses the Mandurah line, because currently you've got a tunnel that goes through the middle, that they were going to go and put the tracks in.

MR FERRARO:The rail reservation is on either side.

MR HYLAND:Yes, so all you do is you have an interchange there, and you've got trains coming and going every few minutes, so you just get off and get on. So simple.

MS TAYLOR:Yes, and already we've been hearing this morning about taking a whole of government approach, to see that these things are actually happening on the ground, and I think that's the important point that has been made, and of course it's also (indistinct) submission as well.

MR HYLAND:Try and get the cars off the road.

MS TAYLOR:Okay, thank you for coming in. Lovely to meet you.

MR HYLAND:All right, thank you.

MR FERRARO:Nice to meet you.

MR HYLAND:Good luck.

MS TAYLOR:Thank you.

MR HYLAND:If you need anything more, just give me a ring. My mobile's on 24/7.

MS TAYLOR:We have got your details. Thank you very much.

MR HYLAND:All the best.

MS TAYLOR:Thank you.

21 MR LINDSAY BROADHURST AND MR DAVID VAN DER DRIES representing Main Roads Western Australia

MS TAYLOR:Good morning. Thank you for coming in, gentlemen. We have a copy of your submission here (indistinct).We have some questions to ask you as well.This morning it's being taped of course (indistinct) report at the end of the day. We still have quite a few submissions to go through, so at the end of today we will be able to summarise on all of the submissions that we have had. We have had a few interesting ones this morning.

MR BROADHURST:I bet you have.

MS TAYLOR:Really interesting. Just to let you know, Ian is from the district, so he knows it really, really well. Eugene has been on the department before, so he knows the area, and I have been on the Commission for 20 years, and I did Coogee, so I'm quite familiar with it, and Lauren was very kind in taking me around to all the special sites, on Monday, so I'm very familiar with it.So what we do have now is you have got 30 minutes.I was going to ask you to give us a chance to ask you some questions after what we have heard what you have had to say. I will note too that it's a public hearing, but we don't have anyone in the gallery. There's a nice gentleman, who's taping us, at the back.

So over to you, and what we will do is we will have a listen, and then note down our questions and ask you at the end.

MR BROADHURST: No worries at all.

MS TAYLOR: Who's going to talk first?

MR BROADHURST:I'll sort of start off.I'm going to dwell into the details, but we've got a plan there just to sort of show the areas to demonstrate,I suppose, the point of our main concern, which we will point out in a little while.

MS TAYLOR: Can I just interrupt there? You have had some more discussions since your submission as well, haven't you?

MR BROADHURST: Yes, we've had sort of ongoing discussionsI suppose, particularly now that Landcorp and DOP have initiated the local transport plan,I think it's called, and I suppose I think we're sort of all trying to work together, as this is an issue for the area.It needs to be resolved.I suppose it's an issue now as to how does the MRS get managed in the meantime, until we get some resolution of that issue.

MS TAYLOR:I will shut up and let you talk.

MR BROADHURST: Thanks for that.Thanks for the opportunity to come today.This issue, I suppose, you've got our sort of submission.

22 Our main issue has been the issue with the regional connectivity sort of coming through this area, particularly the connectivity from the realigned sort of Cockburn Road or Cockburn Coast Drive back into the regional road network, particularly to the north.

I suppose it's an issue that we haven't just raised as part of the MRS process.It has been an issue that we've raised on a consistent basis since the Cockburn Coast Structure Plan sort of process kicked off in sort of about 2006.I've always been involved in recent times, and John Halleen was sort of the officer involved back then, and it was raised, a number of workshops, and a few discussions with John at the time, so it's not a new issue.

We did raise it formally when the Structure Plan was advertised inI think it was 2008.I don't know if you want a copy of that or if you've got a copy of a letter there, but that's the advice we provided at the time.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.

MR BROADHURST:I'm not going to go through that in detail, but just for your information, it confirms we went through the preparation when we raised it initially.It wasn't an issue that was addressed through that timeframe, so it was an issue we raised again when the Structure Plan was formally advertised.

MS TAYLOR: And I went to Douro Road on Monday as well.

MR BROADHURST: Okay, that's good.Obviously we've raised it through the MRS advertising process, both the original advertising (indistinct)letterin May, and then a modified version was advertised as well, and we've raised that sort of same issue, and I suppose in those letters we've referred to a more recent sort of DOP study that has looked at the area west of Stock Road, essentially, to our view, recommended that this is an issue and it's something that does need to be addressed, to resolve those regional sort of connection issues.

Our view would be that a resolution to this issue needs to be found. Otherwise it will impact on the capacity of the corridor to sort of support development in that area.

MR VAN DER DRIES: Also the access to Fremantle, that's a primary centre, and (indistinct) very strong linkages to Fremantle, so it's very important.

MR BROADHURST: Obviously there's a bit of history in this area with the Fremantle Eastern Bypass that doesn't exist any more, so obviously the planning, and there hasn't been a lot of planning in this area done since that was removed, to really sort of readdress what the alternative network should be, and the connectivity, particularly into the southern area of Fremantle.

The last point I wanted to make I suppose before we just pull out the plan and demonstrate sort of why we think it's an issue is that our understanding is that before land is rezoned to urban deferred, it essentially means that any fatal flaw issues should be addressed.

23 MS TAYLOR: Sorted out.

MR BROADHURST:Sorted out.I suppose our view would be we would probably view potentially a flaw, and whether or not the amendment should proceed as advertised until this issue is resolved, on the understanding there is now recognition that it is an issue, and work is progressing to address it, but it's an issue that should the land be rezoned for urban deferreduntilthefatalflaw issues are addressed, especially that we've got other developments around the place as well.

MS TAYLOR: Are you still absolutely not supporting the amendment at all at this stage?

MR VAN DER DRIES: North of Rollinson.

MR BROADHURST: I think our submission was, because we always like to see the support (indistinct) obviously we support the development, but I think we've got an issue in terms of how should it proceed from this point forward, on the understanding that this issue hasn't been addressed to date.I probably really haven't got an answer as to how it should occur, other than that we've got an issue there that needs to be addressed, to maintain that sort of regional connectivity, which is not only for obviously regional traffic coming from beyond this area, but it's pretty important to support the

MR VAN DER DRIES: The bigger picture.

MR BROADHURST:It's a large development, and it will bring a lot more people into this area, so it's important to resolve it from that perspective as well.

MS TAYLOR: Okay.

MR FERRARO: Can I just, while you're going, just clarify that your issue really is north of Rollinson?

MR BROADHURST: Our issue from a road network perspective is north of Rollinson, that's correct.

MR FERRARO: Are there any issues that Main Roads has south of Rollinson?

MR BROADHURST: No.

MR VAN DER DRIES: No.

MR BROADHURST: We've been very I think (indistinct) to engage (indistinct) to do all the planning concepts for the realigned Cockburn Road, or the amended sort of what used to be known as the Fremantle-Rockingham Highway, so we've been involved in that and raised issues, as drainage, and they've all been addressed, and connectivity has been addressed, so we're totally satisfied with the work that has been done, andit meets allof our requirements south of Rollinson.

24 From there northwards, how do we connect it into a network, I suppose (indistinct).If all of a sudden government advises money to come along and build this road in the next few years, based on the current sort of planning, we'd struggle to achieve that because you can't just build a road just to get a tie back into the network. So that's more our issue, in terms of north of Rollinson. We haven't got any solution to identify how that's going to connect back into the network.

MS TAYLOR: Up to this point, what we've been hearing is an all of government approach to some of these issues.

MR VAN DER DRIES:I will just give you a copy of this plan, so (indistinct) directly to that plan (indistinct).

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR VAN DER DRIES:There's no reference number on it.It's just a plan which illustrates thecurrent concept developed by Worley southofRockingham Road(indistinct) photography, plus also it shows (indistinct).It shows the contours as well as (indistinct). So basically this is Cockburn Coast Drive, heading to Rockingham Road, and this is Hampton Road, and thisis the old Cockburn Road down here, and that's the Rollinson Road connection.

Basically the concept you can see here, the number of lines it illustrates here, these two lines illustrate the two curve lines, which you need as a separator divide, so that people can walk across.The problem we have here, because of the very high demand on people turning right, we do require two double right turn pockets of double right turn lanes, because the traffic is so, so horrendous.

We managed to undertake an intersection analysis.I won't go into much detail. That's here. In addition, we need two lanes heading into the easterly direction for Rockingham Road, plus a dedicated bus lane, because obviously the Fremantle-Rockingham transit lane does have the bus lane running along Rockingham Road all the way up to Phoenix shopping centre, and beyond.

MS TAYLOR:Is there heavy transport on this?

MR VAN DER DRIES: No heavy transport, no, it's just local (indistinct) vehicle.An anything under 19-metre vehicle can utilise these roads.In the opposite direction, also in a bus lane will accommodate the cycling lane as well, and we also adopted a 5.1-metre verge in accordance with the West Australian Planning Commission verge requirements, which is about 5.1 absolute minimum, so that's what we have adopted here.

The other direction, heading towards Fremantle, we have adopted two dual traffic lanes plus a dedicated bus lane.

25 As you can see, the existing (indistinct) between Rockingham Road, for Rockingham Road just along here to here, which is normally about a 20-metre wide reservation, to develop this concept as per the analysis and as per the (indistinct) area, we now require to actually widen it to that width, which is now wiping out this new building which has been built, heritage building and this building here, plus all the new development along this edge here.

This is why we've kept saying, way back in 2006, at the very first workshop we had down at Fremantle, "Guys, you've got to be careful how you (indistinct) because the existing reservation hasn't got the capacity to cater for all the demand."If you're looking for on-road cycling, pedestrian mobility, public transport, plus the normal four lanes which are there now, you can't fit that in in a 20-metre reservation.That's why I drew this up.I got the design string from Department of Planning, which have been very, very helpful, and I just drew this up a couple of days ago, just to illustrate the point.

MS TAYLOR: How wide is it on this plan?

MR VAN DER DRIES: To be honest, I haven't got a scale rule unfortunately.

MR BROADHURST: That would be 60 metres, wouldn't it?

MR VAN DER DRIES: No, it won't be that. About 40.It would be about 40 metres.

MR BROADHURST: Because that's your six lanes in that (indistinct).

MR VAN DER DRIES: Six lanes, that's right.

MR BROADHURST: (indistinct).

MR FERRARO: (indistinct) solution.

MR VAN DER DRIES:That's what we are talking about, a solution to go out the back, to (indistinct) Hampton, directly into Hampton. That's what we're hearing, and that's why, when this came up, just recently the City of Fremantle wrote in, to increase the density of this area, to R30,I think it was, I think it's an increase to R30, we did advise them that a study was undertaken by the Department of Planning in regards to linking in Stock Road to Hampton Road, which is the (indistinct) and basically it does look at an alternative option for Cockburn Coast Drive, which may have an impact on some of this area. So we have hinted at that already in that discussion with the City of Fremantle.

MR FERRARO: Can I just summarise where I think you're at, and that is that the existing reservationisnot suitable, the existingreservation. The proposed reservation has limitations, and that there would need to be some form of review of that whole intersection.

MR VAN DER DRIES: From Rollinson Road north, that's correct.

26 MR FERRARO:I'm saying if you look at the map, the map shows the existing reservation this is the amendment mapit shows the existing reservation, and then it shows a couple of areas that will be zoned urban, proposed to be zoned urban and others that are proposed to be reserved controlled access highway; primary regional road, sorry, consistent with the plan that you've shown, and what you're saying is that there are inherent constraints with that option, and a broader plan needs to be worked up, to actually develop solutions that will probably be more acceptable to the local community and council. Have I got that right?

MR VAN DER DRIES:I would think pretty close.

MR BROADHURST:Pretty right.I think the purpose of this is to demonstrate that you're finishing Cockburn Coast Drive at Rockingham Road, and relying on Rockingham Road to get back into the Hampton Road sort of corridor isn't sort of a workable solution obviously, and David has drawn this up and said, "These are the impacts.You could do that if someone wanted to (indistinct) these impacts on the property through that area," but I suppose we're not advocating that this is a solution.This is really just demonstrating that (indistinct) essentially tying Cockburn Coast Drive into Rockingham Road doesn't provide a solution.

MR VAN DER DRIES:And also the thing you look at too is reservation (indistinct) even though it shows a red line across here (indistinct) but then the reservation drops back to your 20-metre reservation, so how do you get your road geometrics from that down to there?It's a missing link.

MR FERRARO: So am I clear at the moment, the preference should be that there should not be any change in the reservations and the zonings north of Rollinson Road until a study is completed?

MR BROADHURST: I would think that would be pretty right. We had a discussion last night with Landcorp's consultants (indistinct) and one of the things was what are we doing about the reservation linking Rockingham Road with Rollinson Road. Obviously that was once upon a time the linkage as part of the Fremantle Eastern Bypass linkages with Fremantle-Rockingham Highway, whilst linking Rockingham Road into Rollinson Road.

Obviously in this design you just wouldn't do it because obviously you've got Rockingham Road going straight through. Why would you do it?But if you are looking at an alternative route heading northwards, hang on, that may be a better solution I don't knowfrom a network analysis point of view.

MS TAYLOR: This is a modified plan that Eugene is looking at.

MR FERRARO: So the suggestion from Main Roads, and I'm looking at amendment plan (indistinct) as modified, so while you've demonstrated how it can work, or how it can be designed, Main Roads' view is that there's still work to be done, and you're actually not clear that this is the solution or the solution that should be done. The connection to Rollinson Road may be actually needed.

27 MR BROADHURST:It may be needed, yes.

MR FERRARO: If the design is such, and that until the study is actually completed and local governments have come together and done (indistinct) come together, Main Roads, that this really should be left.

MR BROADHURST: That is our view that we have provided in our response back, that we support it south of Rollinson, but north of Rollinson really shouldn't be probably changed yet until we've got an agreed solution from local government with Main Roads.

MR FERRARO:The link through to Rockingham Road remains because that's not being amended. It's simply the intersection treatments.

MS TAYLOR: And the heritage stables has also come into play, because that belongs to Main Roads as well.

MR VAN DER DRIES: That's correct.

MR BROADHURST: That's correct, it belongs to Main Roads, yes.

MR FERRARO: The heritage issue is a very minor issue (indistinct).

MR BROADHURST:Yes, we can get away with it. We can move it.Because of what (indistinct) did with the consultants that moved this further westward, there is ability now to actually extend this without affecting the heritage.

MR VAN DER DRIES: But you cannot do that on Rockingham Road without spending squillions on buying all those houses.

MR BROADHURST: That's why I kept raising this issue time and time again, but anyway.

CR WHITFIELD:(indistinct) an open question time.

MS TAYLOR: (indistinct) you've got half an hour here, so we will go along.

CR WHITFIELD: You mentioned Fremantle is in the process of doing the R30 rezoning?

MR VAN DER DRIES:I think they supported the increasing of the R code in the area even though we sent that letter in, but I'm not sure of the Department of Planning's views in regards to that.

MS TAYLOR: A 20/31 solution.

CR WHITFIELD: Ifit's going to be a situation where they rezone it, they could possibly even rezone it to higher than that.

MR VAN DER DRIES: Of course they could, yes.

28 CR WHITFIELD: As Eugene has said, the Structure Plan should be changed now, so that people don't get unexpected expectations that they are not going to have a road there, that they can subdivide their house into two lots.

MR VAN DER DRIES:Exactly right, yes.

MR FERRARO: Got to make sure that's done as quick as possible.

MR VAN DER DRIES:Exactly right, correct.

MS TAYLOR: Lauren, could you just show me on this map where you took me, where there was that (indistinct)? Just to explain to you two gentlemen, we went on a site where the trucks were actually, because of an intersection problem

MS AITKEN:The trucks servicing the southern part of the project area with the industrial operations can't use this intersection because it's far too tight for them to do that turn, so they're using Bellion Drive.

MS TAYLOR: And going around.

MR VAN DER DRIES: Round there, yes.

MS AITKEN:It's not ideal either from the residents' point or view or from the truck travel point of view because of the topography and the speed humps, and things, and they're using it really as a default.

MS TAYLOR: We have got some issues with these people here.

MR VAN DER DRIES: These people here, and these people here would be upset too.

MR NICHOLAS TEMOV: (indistinct) rezoned for an eight-storey building.

MR BROADHURST: That's why that link could be quite an important link.

MS TAYLOR: What's this study here that you've got?

MR BROADHURST: I will give you this.This is the analysis we did at the intersection, using the same volumes that was given to Worley Parsons.If we kept the design as per the Worley Parsons concept, which only had one right turn, the right turn on that movement is up to about 1.7 K's in length, and we get a lot of (indistinct) so as per the Worley Parsons analysis, it would fail straightaway. We did an adjustment. That's the reason why I had to push this out another lane, to get a double right turn, but then that makes it 320 metres in length, the double right turn, and that's exactly 320 metres in length.

Just to demonstrate the amount of volume of people, because really what you're doing is you're replacing all that volume going straight through, and now (indistinct) up here, but now they've got to turn and they've got to turn right.

29 That's where the issue is. That's a copy you can have.

MS TAYLOR:That's good. Yes, thank you, we will table that.It's the Rockingham Road, Cockburn Coast Drive intersection, and we will receive that (indistinct). Anything else?

MR VAN DER DRIES:I think that's about it, because we discussed yesterday in terms of other than this potential here, which needs further analysis, we haven't really got any other potential solutions that we can provide to you.

MS TAYLOR: Any questions?

MR FERRARO: No.I just go back to the thought that with Fremantle doing this rezoning now, there's a chance with a whole of government situation to say, "Okay, we're going to put this realignment road through there at X particular time. You now get a chance to have R60 if we take a little bit of your land."

MS TAYLOR:(indistinct).

MR FERRARO:I think it's an excellent outcome.

MR BROADHURST:There was a couple of discussions that took place, with the report done by Mr (indistinct), with the bus lanes and transit lanes on Hampton Road. The City of Fremantle had done an independent study themselves, which we didn't know anything about it, but they did it themselves, and they sort of hinted strong desire, the consultant did, using South Terrace rather than Hampton Road, but I think the Council's officers preferred Marine Terrace. So, as I said, there is capacity in Hampton Road to redirect that traffic onto those sort of roads, so that's something that maybe you need to take into consideration.

MR BROADHURST: Just I suppose one other point, we have had some (indistinct) Clontarf Hill is here, so there has been some discussion that any route through here would impact directly on Clontarf Hill.I suppose our view is you could engineer it such that it doesn't impact on Clontarf Hill, which is a sensitive issue in that sort of area. Obviously it would go down at the base of it, but it wouldn't go through the middle of (indistinct) sort of impacts or issues.

MR FERRARO: They would be keen to do it if they're getting R60.

MR VAN DER DRIES: Yes, so we are talking about on the western side of Clontarf Hill.

MS TAYLOR: Up till this point, what we have been hearing from other people this morning is an all of government approach needs to be settled on all of these big issues at the moment. However, we've still got quite a few more submissions to go through at this point. Just to let you know where we will stand with timing of events, everybody wants to know when they will hear about something or another, Lauren, would you explain the Commission, and all of that, to the gentlemen?

30 MS AITKEN:Subject to the timing of the Commission meetings, we would be looking at taking something to them over the next month or so, and further to that,it goes to the Minister and then to parliament before being gazetted, most likely in around late February next year. So that's our timeframes. Can I ask a question of clarification?

MS TAYLOR: Yes, go ahead.

MS AITKEN:With the amendment as it stands, and Main Roads' desire to keep the road reservation as it is until such time as you've got an answer, north of Rollinson Road, so that includes that spur link coming off where Bellion Drive exists at the moment, how would that affect the lines of the amendment on the plan, because the road concept that has been prepared has been done to tie into Rockingham Road? How would you see the connection, so that the amendment can proceed?

MR BROADHURST: Once we're agreed, from a government point of view, the City of Fremantle and Cockburn, and all the other governments (indistinct) connectivity here, then you've got to start looking at the role of function of Rockingham Road, in the sense of how it ties back into.Once you determine that role, and the east-west connection to a new link between Stock Road and Hampton Road, then you can start relooking at the actual boundaries associated with the area.

This concept is fine with Rockingham Road (indistinct) but it may not be ideal if you are looking at a new east-west connection from Stock Road to Hampton Road.Then this (indistinct) won't work. So therefore the adjustment, the boundary we have here, you may want to preserve, and rerationalise the actual boundaries.

MS TAYLOR: So you need some certainty before anything.

MR VAN DER DRIES:Yes,I think our view would be (indistinct) north of Rollinson, they wouldn't rezone any of that until we have a solution, because there's the north-south connection issue in terms of Cockburn Coast Drive into Hampton Road (indistinct) going to be undertaken in the next couple of months. We will be looking at east-west connectivity within we don't callit Roe Highway any more but within the primary regional road reservation that exists in that area (indistinct) connectivity will obviously have an impact on how east-west connectivity will work into Cockburn Coast Drive.

MS TAYLOR: Okay.

MR FERRARO: So is there any timing in terms of how long all this is likely to take, in terms of the resolution of road issues?

MR BROADHURST:It's anticipated the consultants will have it completed as a very, very preliminary (indistinct).There's no detailed environmental assessment.It would just be a desktop environmental assessment, which includes Aboriginal, stuff like that. That would be about two months, eight to 10 weeks, but that's still, as I say, desktop.

31 We still need to do the more detailed robustness as soon as you go through and do you (indistinct) but you also need a very detailed environmental assessment, because obviously we want to make sure that we're not going to stumble across an Aboriginal site. We don't want to stumble across special rare flora and fauna.That's located on Clontarf Hill.So we've got to be very conscious of that aspect.

MR VAN DER DRIES: We have got no impacting on Clontarf Hill.

MR BROADHURST: No, but (indistinct) you've got to be careful how you play with that, so these are things we adhere to.

MR VAN DER DRIES: So work is being scoped up at the moment, and planning will engage (indistinct) as part of the subset of the work they're doing for Landcorp on the local integrated transport plan.

MR FERRARO: So what you're saying is that the link, it may actually be needed? Sorry, that item on the (indistinct).

MR VAN DER DRIES: You mean the east-west link?

MR FERRARO:It's item 3 on the (indistinct).

MR VAN DER DRIES: The Rollinson Road extension.

MR FERRARO: The Rollinson Road extension (indistinct) shouldn't be discounted because at this stage it could be needed?

MR BROADHURST:Personally I'm looking at the link that's going east-west.It's how you integrate your road network from Phoenix shopping centre to the south of the site.The access reallyis Rockingham Road, so I really would believe that Rockingham Road potentially could run directly into Rollinson as a connection.

MS TAYLOR: Lauren, I'm not satisfied that you're satisfied yet with your questions. Would you like to ask anything else before the gentlemen go?I think you need to be clear.

MS AITKEN: I'm just wondering whether, because the proposed reservation north of Rollinson Road actually takes in all of the existing reservation, and a little bit more in terms of the earthworks requirements which would be needed no matter whether there's a northern connection or not, I'm wondering whether it's sufficient to keep number 3 there for the purpose of moving the amendment forward, because the existing reservation and the proposed reservation are sufficient in that respect, and possibly the inclusion of this little piece of land here, so that all of that area is reserved, acknowledging that that's in Main Roads' ownership already, so that in all of that, there is flexibility to be table to take into account a northern connection.

MR BROADHURST: So item number 3, we're dealing with item 3?

32 MS AITKEN: (indistinct) that we have a planning design concept that terminates at Rockingham Road, and by excluding that northern portion out of the reservation, you would have one very skinny bit of reservation to the north, and one much wider bit, which quite obviously doesn't tiein south of Rollinson Road, so for the purposes of moving the amendment forward, whether for the time beingif we retained number 3, which was proposed to be removed, and retained the reservation where you have claimed for.

MR NICHOLAS TEMOV: And go ahead with 2 and leave 3 out.

MS AITKEN: And/or possibly rezone that little triangular bit, so that there is full flexibility for any configuration of an intersection coming in there.

MR BROADHURST:I see what you're getting at, Lauren. My only concern would be that (indistinct) back in here will require the relocation of a drainage basin.I think at this stage I would be reluctant to rationalise or change the boundaries at this stage until we have more certainty on what's going to happen north of this point, because when you're moving a drainage basin, you can't just design, pick it and move it.You've got to look at the third dimension.

MR FERRARO: What Lauren's saying is that that reservation on number 3 stays in, so nothing gets changed there. We're simply going to go ahead with the reservation of that full intersection, that full triangle, and the wider portion there, so this piece, this piece and that piece will all remain.

MR BROADHURST: The whole lot (indistinct).I see.I thought Lauren was (indistinct).

MR FERRARO: So in effect the amendment gets modified to simply remove that from the amendment, so it remains as road reserve.

MR BROADHURST: Okay, that's fine, that's fine. We wouldn't have any objections to that because that's increasing the amount of land.

MR FERRARO: So when you look at the amendment, the Main Roads issue is the removal of this piece of land, which removes an option, from the reservation?

MR BROADHURST: Yes, that's correct.

MR FERRARO: Adding other pieces to it is really not an issue at the end of the day, but it's this piece there that is the issue.

MR BROADHURST:I will just clarify it, Lauren, ifI can.

MS AITKEN: So 3 would be retained?

MR BROADHURST: Retained, yes.

33 MS AITKEN: Where is was previously proposed for removal. What's happening in 2 would be consistent with what the proposed concept shows and what's shown on that as modified.

MR BROADHURST: So retained as road.

MS AITKEN: Then if necessary that triangular piece of land could be reserved for primary regional road purposes as well, because it's obviously not going to be deleted (indistinct).

MR BROADHURST: Yes, I agree.

MS AITKEN: And it's within Main Roads' ownership.

MR BROADHURST: Yes, I agree.I thought you were talking about (indistinct).I think we would support that on the understanding that that will maybe re-rationaliseitagain (indistinct) as part of any subsequent amendment to include a potential northern extension.

MS TAYLOR: Okay. Any more questions?

MR FERRARO: No, thank you.

MS TAYLOR:Are you happy? Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in. We have got your submissions, but it's better that you sit down and explain to us, as you can see, that we've come to a different approach to it now, from the understanding that we had from it before. So that's fantastic. So thank you. Are you going to leave the plan behind?

MR BROADHURST: Yes, you can take that.

MS TAYLOR: That would be terrific.

MR BROADHURST: Thanks very much. Thanks, Eugene.

34 MR CHRIS FITZHARDINGE representing South West Group

MR FITZHARDINGE:Hello, Elizabeth.

MS TAYLOR: Long time, no see. How are you?

MR FITZHARDINGE: Good.

MS TAYLOR: You did well for this South West Group.

MR FITZHARDINGE: Thank you.

MR FERRARO: Eugene Ferraro.

MR FITZHARDINGE:Hello, Eugene.

MR FERRARO: We have met.I can't remember where, but I know we've met.

MS TAYLOR: You've done hearings before I think, so we will just go through the formalities anyway. We've got your written submission, and hopefully you will be able to elaborate on some of that, and answer some of our questions for us as well, as we get to it.This morning is all being taped of course, as it has to be done and go to parliament, so you understand that. What we will do is we will have a listen to what you have to say, and if you give us just a couple of minutes at the end to ask you some questions.

As you can see from the previous one, there was some burning questions as we moved along, so if that happens, that's fine too. So over to you.

MR FITZHARDINGE: Cockburn Coast is an essential component of the south-corridor, the south-west corridor being a region that has a very productive economy, running at about $25 billion worth of output, and growing at around 3 per cent. The region is compromised by a significant amount of heavy industrial and light industrial lands in terms ofits urban development potential, and Cockburn Coast is a unique opportunity, in terms of developing high-quality, high-amenity residential development, but it has significant constraints that are reflected by the transport network that intersects adjacent, and passes through the development.

The region's economy depends on the productivity of its ports, and ultimately Fremantle Harbour will handle around 1.2 million containers a year.If you look at getting 30 per cent of those containers on rail, almost all will need to pass by this development, and possibly double stacked. So you've got a situation where to support the productivity of the region, there needs to be protection of a freight corridor past the development. So the South West Group are concerned that there be no development that compromises the capability of that freight rail link being able to handle up to half a million containers a year on it.

35 Then switching speed, the South West Group also supports the introduction of light rail within the corridor, and sees the Cockburn Coast as an opportunity to accelerate the provision of high-transport technology within the region.I cannot see that a development that has a standard of 800 metres walkability to three bus stops within the area as being an effective transit-orientated development.

Also if we visualise a family wishing to access the beach, with their shade-smart, sun-smart umbrella and all their equipment, for them to walk 800 metres to Catherine Point from the nearest bus stop, in the peak of summer, seems to me incomprehensible. So in terms of the design of Cockburn Coast, the South West Group strongly support a second transport corridor running along the waterfront, and that would necessitate a southern link from Fremantle to Rollinson Road.

So even though this MRS amendment does not identify a coastal link in Rollinson Road, there needs to be a near coastal link connecting Rollinson Road with Fremantle, which can be a rapid transit corridor, to provide access along the beach. So in essence we don't see three bus stops as being a sophisticated high-technology transport design for the area.

We're also keen to make sure that there is permeability between the development across the freight rail line, and that it's important as to how that zoning takes place, to protect access across the freight line to the coast from the development.

We're concerned also about regional connectivity, and the WAPC has recently considered a road network study west of the planned Stock Road, Roe Highway interchange, and the South West Group supports consideration of how the regional roads are going to operate, particularly at the north-eastern corner of the development, and your previous appellants very well outlined the position of the South West Group in terms of providing flexibility for a range of regional road options at that north-eastern corner.

The Fremantle-Rockingham controlled access highway continues to be a concern for the South West Group, in that its role has not been defined.The configuration between Fremantle and Rockingham has not been determined, and it's having an impact on development of projects such as Latitude 32. The consideration of the geometry as that passes this development needs to consider what its regional role is going to be. So we're keen to see a study, to identify the role of the Fremantle-Rockingham controlled access highway progressed.

The other aspect of the development that we're looking to provide significant growth within the region, we are keen to see the MRS amendment resolved despite these transport access and recreation issues, and broadly, the South West Group supports the MRS amendment.

MS TAYLOR: As it is.

MR FITZHARDINGE: As it is.

MS TAYLOR: But transport issues are the major concern.

36 MR FITZHARDINGE: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: As you have heard from Main Roads.

MR FITZHARDINGE: Yes. Okay, questions. Eugene?

MR FERRARO: Just can I clarify, is your submission that you think that the transport corridor, the rail corridor, needs to be widened? Is that part of the submission, or is that the reservation itself,if you look at the land adjacent, is your submission that the reservation itself is not wide enough and may need to at some stage go into the area that's proposed to be zoned urban deferred?

MR FITZHARDINGE:The concern I have is that there hasn't been an assessment of its capability to deal with half a million containers, and what I'm trying to flag is the importance of this link for the long-term economy.There have been concerns in other parts of the region about whether or not there is sufficient access to deal with an emergency, and whether there's sufficient access in terms of maintenance.

So whatI would like to see is the rail corridor between Fremantle Port and Latitude 32 assessed for its capability to deal with what is the projected freight loading that is expected over the next 30 to 50 years.

MS TAYLOR: Okay.

MR FERRARO: The issue that you've raised about having crossing points over the reservation, as long as there is crossing points, whether they're reserved or not really is immaterial, isn't it? The issue that you've raised is that there's going to be sufficient crossing points across the rail to enable the beach to be used, and also to enable the rail to operate safely even if it's a (indistinct).

MR FITZHARDINGE:Yes, the concernI have is that the rail effectively shifts the whole development further inland by reducing the access to the beach and increasing the travel time, the journey time. David Rice has done some very good work on identifying that. Your physical proximity may not be matched to the amenity because of the physical separation and the limited number of crossing points.

We have already had a challenge in the City of Fremantle about a desire to close a number of road crossings over the freight rail, and as it becomes busier,I see that there will be pressure. So I think that there does need to be the protection that was recommended by the City of Cockburn for these crossings, by providing

MS TAYLOR: To be urban deferred.

MR FITZHARDINGE: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Ian?

37 CR WHITFIELD: No, Chris has summed up very well. I thank you for being so well prepared.

MS TAYLOR: Fantastic. Lauren, have you got any questions? Are you happy with that?

MS AITKEN: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: As you will see, we don't have very many to go, but at the end of our day we will be making a report to the WAPC (indistinct) recommendations.Chris, just for your benefit, the timing from hereon, as everybody does know, when things are going to happen, WAPC, et cetera?

MS AITKEN: We will be looking at taking the amendment to the WAPC some time over the next month, depending on the timeframes associated with their meetings, and then the amendment goes to the Minister and to parliament for gazettal, and it will be in or around late February next year, depending on the timeframes of parliament.

MR FITZHARDINGE:There is one additional thing. At the moment, the lot residential lot yield within the region is not matching the population growth, so we're actually building up a demand within the region for land.

MS TAYLOR: So you're suggesting that it should take a higher coding?

MR FITZHARDINGE: It potentially could take a higher coding, but also, even if there is uncertainty about some elements of the amendment, we need to have certainty in terms of the development of those areas which are already agreed, so you may end up with an MRS amendment which has some unfinished bits that need to be further resolved, but simply to be able to allow development of this land to commence in a timely fashion, there may need to be some items which are resolved at a later date.

MS TAYLOR: Understood, yes. All right, thank you for coming in. We now have a copy of your report this morning to add to what we've got, and hopefully we will be able to come to some decision at the end of our day today. Okay, lovely to see you again, Chris.

MR FITZHARDINGE: Thank you, and thank you, Eugene.

MR FERRARO: Thank you, Chris.

MR FITZHARDINGE: Thank you.

38 MR BRETT COOMBES representing Water Corporation

MS TAYLOR:Nice to see you again.

MR COOMBES:Very nice to see you.

MS TAYLOR:You know who I am. This is Ian,

MR COOMBES:Shall Isit this side?

MS TAYLOR:Yes, wherever you like. They have got "councillor" on my name, but I'm not (indistinct).Actually Eugene is very familiar with the department, since he worked for how many years?

MR FERRARO:Too many, yes, too many.

MS TAYLOR:What we're here about is we've got your submission written here, and what we're going to do is have a listen to what you have to say.This is all taped, to go to parliament, as you know.

MR COOMBES:Yes, sure.

MS TAYLOR:You're probably well aware of all of that. What we wanted to do is have a listen to what you have to say, because we've got that report, but if you could possibly be good enough we have got one more submission after youto give us a couple of minutes to ask questions, if you don't mind.

MR COOMBES:That's fine,I will be brief.I have got the sort of high-tech, low-tech option, and instead of the Power Point,I just printed it out (indistinct) so I will just pass a copy of these around, and it's a few pictures just to talk to, if that's all right.

MS TAYLOR:Yes, okay then.

MR COOMBES:The main purpose of coming to talk to you today is really just to reinforce one aspect to the Water Corporation's submission on I think it's the second or third page of our letter, and this relates to a major wastewater pump station that sits at the northern end of the development area. There's an issue which is raised in the two submissions we made on the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan, and then reinforced and clarified when we put in the submission on the amendment.

There have been discussions with officers about this issue outside of the amendment. I guess I might be pre-empting an outcome to an extent, but we just thought it was important to reinforce the request that we made in the submission for the Commission to consider if possible to modify the amendment to actually reserve the pump station site.

39 It's a significant asset.There's probably hundreds of millions of dollars of capital in the infrastructure that leads to it.I just included a couple of pictures, just showing you, on the back end of the first page, the extent of the sewer district which it covers.It takes in the whole of the Town of East Fremantle, most of the City of Fremantle, and then this development area, Cockburn Coast, and the Port Coogee development.

The pump station is located towards the southern end, at the lowest point. As I say, there's quite significant sunk capital in that site, and it's a site that warrants protection we believe in the MRS.

MR FERRARO:Sorry, you said it's at the southern end?

MR COOMBES:It's at the southern end, on the red dot, on the back of the first page.

MR FERRARO:Yes.

MR COOMBES: So the northern end of the development area, but sort of towards the southern two-thirds of the whole sewer district, which is marked by that brown (indistinct) line.

MS TAYLOR: I will just clarify that.

MR COOMBES:It's actually marked on the plan.

MS TAYLOR:That bit there?

MR COOMBES:Yes.

MR FERRARO:Corner of Bellion and Rollinson.

MR COOMBES:Obviously the site has sat quite comfortably in a large industrial (indistinct) for many years, but now it's going to be surrounded by residential development, and we believe that it needs to be reflected, for public information purposes, and protected.Also there's an added benefit I guess for the Corporation in any upgrades that gets done on the site, reserving it, and the Region Scheme I guess will absolve us to an extent of the need to obtain approval from the Commission and from the local government, so there's a degree of exemption under the Region Scheme if it's reserved for public purpose.

I suppose relating back to the Cockburn Coast Structure Plan, the reason why we wanted the site protected is we did make requests to the Commission when the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan was advertised to actually correctly reflect the site.The Cockburn Coast Structure Plan, as was finalised late last year, actually showed a portion of the site as potentially having public open space overit. The Corporation has no intentionof relinquishing a portion of the site.

40 We don't have any problem with open space around it to support the buffer, but we need the whole of the site, to use for a range of things, including storage and laydown and access, and it's actually quite a problematic site to access with trucks, at the southern end, where the green is shown as actually the permanent access, because the northern end falls away quite steeply from Rollinson Road. So that's it in a nutshell. Really the purpose of our request is just to reinforce the importance of this as a long-term asset with quite a large committed asset value, and just to request for it to be protected in the MRS. Thanks.

MS TAYLOR: Any questions, Eugene?

MR FERRARO:Brett, the Structure Plan shows a buffer. Does this need a buffer, and do you need the buffer included in the reservation?

MR COOMBES:It does, and I guess the answer to your question is that would be nice, but those discussions are happening outside of the MRS amendment process.Is that fair to say, Lauren?

MS AITKEN: Yes.

MR COOMBES: Yes, in relation to how the buffer around it can be reflected or supported through the local Structure Plans around it, so no, we're not looking to pursue that in the MRS because there's issues with the definition of where the buffer is drawn from, how big it is, and reasonably what sort of land use interface you can get around it.

MR FERRARO: And your access.

MR COOMBES: And the access, yes. So yes, it does need a buffer, but it extends beyond the site and there's definition issues which we're still trying to clarify.

MS TAYLOR: Ian?

CR WHITFIELD: No, nothing.

MS TAYLOR: Can Ijust ask, Brett, it's likely that upgrades will need to be undertaken. What does that involve? Is that huge amounts of work?

MR COOMBES: In short, the land, much like the South Beach Village,I think it is, land which would have had a different previous use, the land itself on Rollinson Road has historic industrial land use, and the Water Corporation's water and wastewater planning would have been at the level of supply and capacity appropriate to industrial use.Medium to high- density residential is a much higher demand, a much higher flow. So we've actually had to redo the planning. The wastewater planning has been redone, almost included, and we're about to embark on replanning with the water system through this area, which will inform what sort of upgrades will be needed, distribution lanes, and so on, but yes, most of the large assets are in place, and it will basically be developer-constructed reticulation as and where it unfolds.

41 MS TAYLOR:Okay, fair enough.

MR COOMBES: And this pump station would serve the Cockburn Coast development area.It actually gravitates and pumps.

MS TAYLOR:Any questions, Lauren? All right, thank you for that, Brett. You have quite succinctly told us what you would like to do with your land.

MR COOMBES:Thanks.

MS TAYLOR:Today, at the end of this, we've got all these submissions to go through. Quite a range of ideas have come out. Just for your reference, you probably know, but we will tell you anyway where this goes to from here, because everybody wants to know what the outcomes are.

MR COOMBES:Yes.

MS TAYLOR:Lauren, WAPC next month?

MS AITKEN:Yes, depending on the meeting cycles, we will aim to have the amendment going to the Commission at one of their next meetings, over the next month or so, and beyond that, the amendment goes to the Minister and parliament, and ultimately we will look at gazettal around late February.

MR COOMBES: Sure.Not to pre-empt the outcome of the Commission's decision, but would there be any opportunity to know whether the main road alignment is going to change drastically through there at all as a result of the hearings, or is that still to be decided?

MR FERRARO: We have had submissions about that.We certainly haven't actually concluded that yet.

MR COOMBES:We need to feed that information into our water planning, because that's at the higher end of the catchment, so the earlier we can get that information (indistinct) if it's appropriate.

MS TAYLOR:Yes, we will keep in touch.

MR FERRARO:At this stage, we haven't finished the hearing, so it wouldn't be appropriate to comment.

MS TAYLOR:And Lauren's going on holidays, but Nick will be here anyway, so if you have got any questions, just give them a ring.

MR COOMBES:Thank you.

MS TAYLOR:Thank you, Brett. Nice to see you again.

42 MS CAROL CATHERWOOD representing City of Cockburn

MS TAYLOR: Now we've got City of Cockburn here. Would you like to come forward? We have got Carol?

MS CATHERWOOD: Carol Catherwood.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you. Elizabeth Taylor, nice to meet you.

MR FERRARO: Hi, Carol, Eugene Ferraro. How are you?

MS CATHERWOOD: Good.

CR WHITFIELD:Hi, Carol.

MS CATHERWOOD: Hi, how are you going?

MS TAYLOR:Carol, we've got your submission here, your written submission. What we would like to do is hear from you if you've got any further information on the submission. Just to let you know, I have been on site.I have actually (indistinct) many years now, East Fremantle Bypass, et cetera.

MS CATHERWOOD: Yes.

MS TAYLOR:Ian is very familiar with everything. Eugene is familiar as well, so we're all up to speed with where you're at with this.

MS CATHERWOOD: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Today we have got to get through all these hearings and have a listing of all the issues that we've come up with today. We are taping it also. That has to go (indistinct) for these MRS amendments. So if you wouldn't mind, just give us what you have to tell us extra, and if you wouldn't mind giving us a couple of questions to ask you questions as well.

MS CATHERWOOD: Sure.

MS TAYLOR:Just to summarise everything, and make sure we've got everything straight before we finalise it. So over to you.

MS CATHERWOOD:I probably don't need a lot of your time, and I know you're running a bit behind today, so it's time for catching up.

43 Most ofit was put forward in our submission, and the City agrees with the proposed amendment, and we really had one additional point that we wanted to make, and that's really what I wanted to talk about today, which was really that we were very keen to ensure that we had access available across the freight rail line, and the City feels that the best way to achieve this would be to indicate that as urban deferred along sort of crossing points that are indicated in the District Structure Plan for the area.

That really is so that we don't prejudice any of the detailed planning that needs to happen with transport movement networks, and the land use scenario that will evolve through the local structure planning process, and at this stage it's not sufficiently progressed to know exactly what that land use scenario would be, and it would be inappropriate to comment on what it should be now, but we really wanted to make sure that some of the principles that were mentioned in the District Structure Plan, such as getting that connectivity back through to the coast, could really only be achieved if we had at least looking at the option of access across the freight rail line.

MS TAYLOR:At grade separation.

MS CATHERWOOD:Yes, and whether it's at grade or grade is an issue for more detailed planning work. We understand that the rail operators, the first choice scenario would be no crossing, and that's perfectly understandable from probably a risk point of view to them, but we really think that that discussion should happen, about whether they're at grade or grade separated with a bridge over, or underpasses, and so forth. We understand the logistics of that can be difficult, with double-stacked freight trains, and so forth. We have certainly had that in other parts of the freight network, but it's not impossible, and where there's the need for it, we think that it really should be looked at, and that's not just looking at vehicular traffic, it's looking at (indistinct) cyclists.

MS TAYLOR:The whole lot.

MS CATHERWOOD:The whole lot. That's really about allI needed to say.

MS TAYLOR:Fantastic. So can we ask you some questions?

MS CATHERWOOD:Of course you can.

MS TAYLOR:Eugene?

MR FERRARO:I'm reasonably familiar with the Metropolitan Region Scheme, but I'm not familiar with, and I know that there's lots of crossings of reservations, both rail reservations and even freeway reservations. As you come into the city, you actually cross a local road over the freeway, and that happens at a few places. The practice has been to maintain the primary reservation and allow access over the top, or underneath, as part of that overall planning.

44 Other than ensuring that there is access, which is a big point that's made in the Structure

Plan, and a point that I personally agree with, other than that assurance, wanting that assurance, is there any other reason why the land should not be reserved, because the reservation is actually quite an important function of that?

MS CATHERWOOD: I suppose really the mechanism for what you do, ifit achieves the same objective, we would be satisfied.It's really what we're trying to achieve, which is important.

MR FERRARO:I think the way this amendment is being put forward, and particularly the urban zones, proposed urban zones, urban deferred zones on the west side of the rail, would indicate that there's a strong push for that, and that needs to occur. Otherwise these things would be on islands that would not be able to be accessed.

MS CATHERWOOD: Yes.

MR FERRARO: So from the City's perspective, would it be correct to say that provided that there is some assurance that access is made (indistinct) falls in appropriate places, the preference would be for the reservation to be lifted,if that's necessary, butifit's not necessary, then as long as there are other arrangements in place.

MS CATHERWOOD: As long as it's not just ruled out really is the thing.

MR FERRARO: Yes.

MS CATHERWOOD: The normal risk points that we do get from freight rail operators is, "Sorry, no, no crossings," but we do think it's vital.Ifit were to be that the Rapid Transit Group needed to go over that side of the highway, how can they possibly meet their efficiencies and the times they need to go between stops if they're sitting there waiting for a freight line to go past, for five minutes or something?It's those sort of matters that need to be not prejudiced.

MS TAYLOR: Okay. Ian?

CR WHITFIELD: No, that summed up my question.

MS TAYLOR: All right, thank you very much for coming in, Carol, and very succinct. Thank you for that.

MS CATHERWOOD: Yes, I don't talk too much.

MS TAYLOR: We have got the big picture, which is the main thing. So we will make a note of that and at the end of the day, we will talk to all of these issues and come to some reasonable conclusions. You didn't have any questions, did you, Lauren?

MS AITKEN: No.I just wondered whether maybe the Committee wanted to discuss further the City's view on urban versus urban deferred.

45 CR WHITFIELD:I did have that in the back of my mind, but I didn't know whether it was appropriate.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, we can do that.

MS CATHERWOOD: We did mention it in our Council report, which it talked about the difference being that we hadn't been sufficiently progressed with thelocal scheme amendment zoning drafting or looking at the infrastructure needs, or the structure planning process itself. So they are the normal sort of things that we would look at before we would say, "Okay to go straight to urban," but (indistinct) regardless of whether those things in other hearings have been more sufficiently dealt with.

CR WHITFIELD: I suppose the advantage that this land has is that it has actually gone through a district structure planning process that the City has been involved with.

MS CATHERWOOD: Yes.

CR WHITFIELD: So there's a level of surety that's greater here now than there was maybe six months ago.

MS TAYLOR: Previously, yes.

CR WHITFIELD: One of the questions we're being asked is whether the Commission would consider going straight to urban.

MS CATHERWOOD: Would that be across the whole area?

CR WHITFIELD: Yes.

MS CATHERWOOD: So it wouldn't make a distinction between the area closer to the power station, or any of that?

CR WHITFIELD:At this stage, we haven't turned our minds to whether it includes the land to the west of the railway line or the land to the east.

MS TAYLOR: We still have some solutions to find for some of that.

CR WHITFIELD: But if we were to look at it looks like the planning in this area is well advanced, the planning on the west side has probably still got a little bit more work to be done.

MS CATHERWOOD:Yes, that would be my concern. Ifit was to go straight to urban, I would wonder: what about that scenario on the west side of the rail line?

MS TAYLOR: Are you still thinking there might be some insurmountables ifit went to urban?

46 MS CATHERWOOD: There's a lot that's unresolved there.

MR FERRARO: There's more planning that's required here before we actually

MS CATHERWOOD:I think so, probably more so than over the other side.

CR WHITFIELD:But as far as the Council's point of view goes, if the urban deferred zone, the purple there, went to urban, you could handle the various issues regarding recycling the water, and all that sort of business, with the Structure Plan.

MS CATHERWOOD: A Structure Plan will ordinarily have to produce a serving strategy, of how it's going to be serviced, and so forth, but normallyI would expectand it doesn't always happen of coursethat that would be dealt with before the urban deferred gets lifted and it goes straight urban, but it's certainly something I personally as a planner have dealt with in other areas, and it's really just a case ofif the servicing agencies can assure everyone that the capacity can be made available.

MS TAYLOR:I guess what we're dealing with here is the certainties and uncertainties for some people, and what they have been led to believe in the past, and what we're landed with now.

MS CATHERWOOD: Yes.

CR WHITFIELD: In order to actually clarify whether we go to urban or stay at urban deferred, there's a need for infrastructure coordination, and the Council has mechanisms in place that enable that to happen.While it hasn't been developed for this site, there are mechanisms that are available to the Council to enable infrastructure to be coordinated.

MS CATHERWOOD: Some infrastructure.I think that needs to be made clear. There has been some discussion about what constitutes development contribution items, and I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of my Council without them considering it fully, and understanding what they're getting into with some of these items. Certainly Landcorp have mentioned that they want to operate as a bank for the development contribution items for all sorts of items, which are not ordinarily things that we collect money for. Things like roads, that sort of thing is quite reasonable.

MS TAYLOR: A holistic approach (indistinct).

MS CATHERWOOD:Things like relocating switch yards is a massive risk, which I would want Council to be fully informed about before they were to agree to go and do something like that. We're the ones that would end up holding the proverbial baby.

CR WHITFIELD: What about issues such as the questions about there's water and sewer infrastructure that needs to be managed?

47 MS CATHERWOOD: Again those servicing agencies have their own development contribution costs and arrangements, and as far as I'm concerned, as the person who physically administers the development contributions we have, that is outside of Council's responsibility.

CR WHITFIELD: Okay.

MS TAYLOR: Lauren, does that help you?

MS AITKEN: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Okay, thank you.I thank you for the second time for coming in.

MS CATHERWOOD: No worries.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you for having me. Nice to meet you.

MR FERRARO: Thank you.

CR WHITFIELD: Thanks, Carol.

MS CATHERWOOD: Have a good day.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you, you too.

MR FERRARO: Unfortunately you have to go by road. You can't go by rail.

MS CATHERWOOD: Not yet.

48 MR NIGEL PARKER representing Alba Edible Oils

MS TAYLOR: We have got Nigel with us now?

MR PARKER: Yes.

MS TAYLOR:Would you like to come forward now? Lauren, this is private, so could we have the door shut?

MS AITKEN: Sure.

MS TAYLOR: Nice to meet you. I'm Elizabeth Taylor, the chair.

MR PARKER: Nice to meet you too.

MR FERRARO: Eugene Ferraro. How are you?

MR PARKER: Good, thank you very much.

CR WHITFIELD:Ian Whitfield, City of Cockburn.

MR NICHOLAS TEMOV: (indistinct) Department of Planning.

MS TAYLOR: And we have Lauren.

MS AITKEN:Hi, Nigel, nice to meet you.

MR PARKER:Hi, Lauren, how are you going?

MS TAYLOR: So we have your submission in front of us, Nigel, and we have all read it. I have actually been and visited the site.I have been dealing with the site for many years now, soI am quite familiar with it, and Lauren was good enough to drive me around on Monday.

MR PARKER: Okay.

MS TAYLOR:And make me aware of more of the issues that we have had to deal with today. We are recording this of course, as we have to. The report goes in to parliament. You will hopefully have something in addition to your submission that you can give us, and if you wouldn't mind giving us just a couple of minutes to ask you questions as well, if you're happy with that, so that we can fill this all in and put this together with our report from today's submissions. So over to you.

MR PARKER: No problem.I'm a last-minute substitute,if you like.Ashley is up in Thailand on business.I have the basics of what's going on.

49 Really Alba has been a company that has been operating in the Coogee area for probably over 20 years, and it used to be down in the area where Port Coogee is, and we moved in the late nineties I think to the new land that was released there, and we took that Landcorp land and developed a new factory there, and probably about three years ago invested quite a lot of money in completely overhauling all of the factory, putting in a state of the art refining facility there for edible oils, and we're one of the biggest edible oil manufacturers in Western Australia, and we export quite a bit as well.

So obviously we have put quite a lot of investment into that piece of land that we have.It's really a 20-year plan for us, that sort of refinery.It's expensive.It's something that has got quite a long life, and we want to make sure that we obviously get good value for that.

There's really just three key areas that we really wanted to just emphasise today, and Iwill go through them one at a time. The first one really is the importance of I believe it's going to be called Cockburn Coast Drive, the extension effectively up behind our land, across the ridge line of the new road. Our plant operates 24 hours, seven days a week, and we shut down periodically for maintenance, but we basically operate all the time.

So we have trucks delivering, road trains delivering our crude oil, and then we have plenty of trucks taking away our finished product. So we want to make sure that access is high on that agenda, because we do need good access for there. There are big double road trains that come into us.It's a bit tricky now, to be honest, the Cockburn Road the way it is.

Certainly this whole rezoning is going to certainly improve things, I'm sure, but it's just a matter of making sure that it suits what our needs are as well, and that road is really critical to us, so I think we would like to see that it's budgeted for, and a timeframe for the go ahead is in the actual plan.

The second one really is just an acknowledgment for any of the new residential buildings that come into play, an acknowledgment that there is existing manufacturing businesses in the area, and maybe to the point where they have caveats that say that they recognise that we have our rights too as a manufacturer, and it has been there for quite a long time.

I believe something similar was done with the Coogee area, to do with the railway lines, that people acknowledged, "Yes, there's a railway line and I can't complain about the noise later." We don't really make an awful lot of noise and an awful lot of smells, but we're still a manufacturing business, and we have trucks, and so forth. So I think acknowledgment from anyone in residential of that, that we are there.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR PARKER:And the final thing really is just making sure that the design guidelines for anything residential in that area allow for maybe avoiding things that would expose the residents to hearing noise and seeing things, if any design guidelines can be put in place to minimise the impact on residents, because obviously if that's minimised, then there's less like to be a chance of people complaining about it.That sort of is a pre-emptive thing really. That's allI really have.

50 MS TAYLOR: Okay then. Some of the points that you have actually made are for the next detailed (indistinct) at structure planning stage, and we will make a note of your comments from today.I will just see if Eugene has got any questions.

MR FERRARO: Can you just point to me where you are?

MR PARKER: Right there.

MR FERRARO: Right in the corner, yes. So on the corner of (indistinct).

MR PARKER: Yes.

MS TAYLOR:I think we went past there, didn't we, Lauren?

MS AITKEN: Yes, we did. Questions, Ian?

CR WHITFIELD:Firstly, you haven't had any complaints to my knowledge>

MR PARKER: No.

CR WHITFIELD:Lauren, you were mentioning with the rat run, do you think this is one of the rat run people, the trucks associated

MS AITKEN: Around the back way?

CR WHITFIELD: On Bellion Drive.

MS AITKEN: I think the rat run is less associated with the trucks than itis the car movements along Bellion, but the freight movements are using Bellion Drive because of the ease of access compared to other areas.

MS TAYLOR: Okay. Anything else, Eugene?

MR FERRARO: How do you see the transition happening from this area, in your mind, or your company's mind, the transition happening from industrial to urban? How do you see that?

MR PARKER:I don't really know, to be honest with you.I'm not really fully aware of what the overall plans are, but what I'm assuming is that the developments that have commenced already, just a bit to the north of us, are going to gradually move down the coast, and obviously some of those are going to be a bit high. We are buffered to some degree, I suppose, by Fremantle Cold Stores. They're right in front of us.

MS TAYLOR: That's right.

51 MR PARKER:They've got quite a big building anyway, so I would imagine that that does potentially insulate us to some degree, but really probably my personal view would be that it's more to do with the fact that we've got trucks moving around. Like I said before, we don't make a lot of noise and a lot of smells, so we're not a particularly offensive factory. We're not pretty to look at, but it's more the access for vehicles, and so forth, that I think are going to cause any issues that I would be able to see.

MS TAYLOR:Maybe at the next level down, it could be (indistinct) development where that part is sort of left until things are resolved.

MR PARKER:Yes.

MS TAYLOR:I'm talking about design guidelines and all those kind of issues that need to be thought out when the Structure Plan is

MR PARKER: Depending on how close potential residential will be in the end, I think obviously it would have to be reasonably close to have any issues (indistinct) movement of traffic.

MR FERRARO:What do you mean by reasonably close? What does that mean? On your borders? 100 metres from your border? I'm just trying to get a feel for what you mean.

MR PARKER:Probably on the borders to within the 100 metres.I can't imagine anyone the other side of, say, where Fremantle Cold Stores is,I can't imagine them having a major issue unless they're particularly high rise.

MS TAYLOR:Okay.

MR FERRARO:Your business, you mentioned you have been going there for five to eight years, so you anticipate, for money spent, you're going to be there another 15 years.

MR PARKER:Yes, that sort of thing. We did quite a large investment about three years ago. The business has been on that particular site I think since the late nineties, and prior to that, it was further down where Coogee is. We have had a very large (indistinct).

MR FERRARO:So your business plan would have said, "We're going to be there another 15 years."

MR PARKER:Yes, of course, yes.

MS TAYLOR:Okay. Any questions, Lauren?

MS AITKEN:No, thank you.

MS TAYLOR:You're happy with that? Okay, thank you for coming in, and we have taken a note of your comments, and taking the time to put the submission together as well, thank you, we appreciate that.

52 We have still got a couple more to go for the end of the day, so we will make some kind of a report. Time wise, this will go to WAPC I believe next month and then, Lauren, after that?

MS AITKEN:Thereabouts, yes, and then subsequent to that, the amendment goes to the Minister, and then needs to go to parliament, and depending on the timing of when parliament sits, we would be looking at having the amendment gazetted early in next year, towards the end of February or thereabouts.

MR PARKER: Okay.

MS TAYLOR: In the meantime, any questions you have,if you have forgotten to (indistinct), just contact Lauren. Lauren's going on holidays, but Nick will be around, just in case you want to discuss anything else.

MR PARKER: Okay, lovely.

MS TAYLOR: Fantastic. Thanks for coming in.

MR PARKER: Thank you very much.

MS TAYLOR: Thanks for your time, and your submission.

MR PARKER: No problem.

MR FERRARO: Thank you.

CR WHITFIELD: Thank you.It's good to see an export is still going.

MR PARKER: Yes (indistinct).

53 Mr ANDREW SULLIVAN representing himself

MR FERRARO: Eugene Ferraro.

MR SULLIVAN: How are you going?

MS TAYLOR: Thank you for coming in a little bit early for us.

MR SULLIVAN: That's okay.

MS TAYLOR: We had a couple of cancellations today, so we thought we might as well move along. Thank you for sending in your submission, and coming in today.I was just having a little déjà vu, a little reminiscence from past times.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes, true.

MS TAYLOR:And all the work that you did, I'm suspecting that you have done as much work here as well. So welcome to our little Committee. We've got your written submission. As you know, you've done all this before, and so we will have a listen to what else you have to say, and we will take notes.If you could just give us a little bit of time to ask questions of well, and of course we are taping it to go to the parliament and the Minister, et cetera, as we have to do, and if you have any questions of us, please feel free to ask. We have had all these hearings today, so we're (indistinct).

MR SULLIVAN:All done in one day, yes.

MS TAYLOR:I have been over the site many times, because I did the Coogee thing, and Lauren was kind enough to drive me around on matter as well, to check all the highlights, and of course Ian is well aware of everything that's happening down there, and Eugene, as a past departmental officer, is also a full bottle. With all of that, over to you, and we will listen to what you have to say.

MR SULLIVAN: So obviouslyI won't go through all of my submission, but I really just wanted to leave you today with four key elements, and some new thoughts, some additional thoughts, on what I had made in the submission, and I'm also on the steering committee for Cockburn Coast as well, soI have been learning a little bit more and paying even more attention to it than before.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR SULLIVAN:The four things I wanted to leave you with is that in general terms I don't believe the original objectives for Cockburn Coast are really being met, and I believe fairly strongly that the actual development outcomes that are going to come from this are still a little bit undercooked, if you like.

54 The four points in that are that it really is the last significant opportunity in the Perth area, and particularly in the centre part of Perth, to create a vibrant, high-density coastal mode, one that isn't sort of on the outskirts of our city, our corridors, one that's actually quite central to Perth.It really is the middle of the Perth metropolitan area, and it really is a great opportunity because there aren't too many (indistinct) sites along our coast. This is pretty much the only one that's up for redevelopment, and it really is an opportunity that can't be in any sense wasted.

The original aim under the Mactiernan Planning Department was 20,000 people. That was I think plucked out of the sky really.As Iunderstand, Alanna just said, "Let's put 20,000 people there." Realistically it wasn't a bad punt.

MS TAYLOR:It was a dialogue thing though, wasn't it?

MR SULLIVAN:Yes,I think it was, but essentially it has fallen very short of that. We're talking I think around about 10,500 people now. Perhaps realistically 20,000 wasn't achievable once you start doingallthe investigations, but I really believe thereis opportunities to actually use the land a little bit more efficiently and effectively, and hopefully create at least maybe 15,000 people living in that area.

I think the direction that the planning is heading for Perth, with directions 20, 31, and the like, we have an obligation to actually use that land as well as we possibly can, and so that's another element I want to leave you with today.

My feeling is that the land use is a little bit wasteful, especially along the ridge line and especially around the power station and along the coast.Some of that is because the planning perhaps hasn't yet been done more down towards the coast. Some of it is primarily to do with the way in which we're continuing to run the red road through the ridge, and I will come back to that.

The third element I wanted to leave you with today is that the environmental and recreational assets that we have along this section of coast are very special. We use a lot of Cockburn Sound for industry, and yet it really is the jewel in the crown.If we were starting again from scratch, we would have recognised Cockburn Sound as the Ningaloo of the south, and actually protected it accordingly. We haven't done that.That's our history. We can't go back on that, but in terms of what's left, this is one of the jewels in the crown.

The ridge line, people talk about the ridge line.I think it's very undervalued at the moment. People in Perth perhaps don't quite yet get our bushland and its recreational assets and values, but also because the ridge line there is very hard to access anyway at the moment. It's a regional park, but it's not a very highly accessible regional park, and ifit was accessible, like Kings Park, I'm pretty confident it would be used like Kings Park.

So I don't believe the assets are being valued to the extent that they should be in terms of the overall planning for the region, and again it gets back to the separation of urban from the coast, and the separate of urban from the parks and recreation of the ridge line. So we have got great assets, but, like so many places in Perth, they are segregated.

55 The last one is that the planning, in my opinion, has failed to accommodate the transport needs of the region in a way that allows the region to be anything but a car-dependent environment. So as we are trying to move away from that scenario, that sort of outcome, we don't seem to have plans sufficiently far in advance to ensure that we can move away from that, and I will touch on those things as well.

Obviously most of those things have been covered in my report. What I thought would be more useful would be to bring a map along, and talk to a map, so ifI can indulge you with that.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.

MR SULLIVAN: The problem with maps is that they are always massive. Obviously you're all familiar with the site. What I have tried to do is essentially identify what the ridge actually is, what the Manning Park, Bee liar Regional Park actually is.It is a series of ridges and high points that run all the way along our coast, south of Fremantle, starting in fact in Fremantle, but in terms of this particular area, starting at Clontarf Hill in Fremantle, and getting up to the much higher ridges in Cockburn.

There's five points here above 50 metres, so these are the high points, and the darker green areas are the areas that I have highlighted because they're above 40 metres, and there are valleys between these little ridges, but typically they're the areas that I would describe as the ridge line.

Obviously the previous MRS had the road running more through the middle of the ridge, right up here, and the intent of this MRS amendment is to in part try and mitigate that as far as reasonably possible, but the reality isand this is the MRS red road dotted lineyou can see that it still significantly cuts through major portions of the ridge. So that knoll is gone, this one will need to be cut into, and this one is a little bit affected.

I have dotted on here the heights in the other areas, so you've got 50 metres there, 25 metres. There's quite significant elevation changes along this ridge, and you drop down into valleys which are 20 metres lower, and then you pop again. So you know that when you try and build a red road, those sorts of contours are going to be significantly challenging, and there will be a lot of cut and a lot of filling going on in these areas, and any cutting and any filling is going to be a very dramatic scarring of the landscape, and also a significant barrier between anything that we do here and everything that we have over here.

What we have over here is not just bushland. We have Manning Lake. We have the Azalea Ley Homestead. We have the outdoor cinema, which Cockburn use regularly in summer. We have Manning Park. They're great recreational assets. They're probably current utilised at a district level, at a local level, but they are really regional assets and that's obviously recognised by the fact that they're part of the Bee liar Regional Park, and they really ought to be better connected.

56 So if we're going to cut all these people off from over here and force them to get in their car and drive all the way around and come back because we create these barriers, then we're not utilising those assets. There's that aspect alone, so we are impacting very significantly on the ridge, and we will be requiring ultimately, if the road was built, significant cutting and filling of that landscape.

We've already seen that to a lesser degree at Port Coogee, and anyone that knows the road at Port Coogee just knows what a barrier it is between development and whatever's on the east side of it.You can't build roads like that and expect people to easily cross them as pedestrians or easily see where they live as being connected to the other side. Port Coogee turns its back to that road.It puts a sound wall up.It really says, "I don't want to have anything to do with this road." Development doesn't integrate with it. So that is the nature of a red road, and that is exactly the type of response that you will get from development.

So in that sense I guess I'm very concerned about the impact on particularly the higher parts of the ridge line in the southern half of this area. The other aspect is the bits that relate to the Fremantle part of the ridge, which is Clontarf Hill, which is over here. There's a massive amount of red road obviously here, where Roe Highway and Cockburn Coast Drive intersect, and there's huge amounts of land set aside for all of that becauseI guess Main Roads basically don't really know what configuration is going to be there.

But by doing that, what's underneath here, every bit of these red roads that's running through hereisessentially reasonably good vegetation, or the potential to be good connectivity to other areas of the vegetation. So some of the vegetation is degraded, largely because we're talking about, particularly on the west side of the ridge, coastal heath environments, so it doesn't look great.

It doesn't look like the tuart forest that you see in Manning Park.It looks like coastal heath, so a lot of people will automatically go, "That's pretty degraded, scrubby," but it is actually a natural part of what we have, and they are developments that you would ideally love to be able to link through and walk through from, say, somewhere like Clontarf Hill, with its mature tuarts and decipions, limestone mullocks, through these areas, to connect to all of the other areas, and we have argued fairly strongly over the years that ideally Clontarf Hill could be connected to the Bee liar Regional Park.

There are other connections. There are the stables which obviously the WAPC has now recognised in its amendment to the amendment, modification to the amendment, but there is a lot more than that.It's not just one little site.It's actually the relationship of the stables to the heritage horse park down to the heritage-listed beach, et cetera, et cetera. So there's a lot of history and linkages there.

There is also in the ridge a lot of wartime history, with the emplacements that were here, so similar to Mosman Park and Rottnest Island, major guns here, but also scattered around through all of these areas, and not always well documented, are tunnels and lookouts, and the like.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, I saw that.

57 MR SULLIVAN: Even I don't know exactly where they all are. I understand there is actually one around about in this location, but I've never been able to actually find it.People swear to me that they do know where they are, and that they are there, and they're major tunnels, just like at Mosman Park at Buck land Hill, and again I don't believe there has been enough research to properly identify and to protect those assets. We have found a colonial well over Clontarf Hill just in the last couple of years, dating back probably to the early settlement.It's a forgotten area. These things haven't been properly identified, and again we're doing MRS amendments without dealing with those properly.

So there's that aspect, and then there's the coastal aspect, which is we have a fairly limited amount of beach south of the river that's genuinely available to the community. A lot of it is only available for low-level access, so fishing beaches or the like.There's very few spots which are available for high-intensity usage in a coastal planning sense, so a regional beach, and the like.

We have a huge amount of area that's Woodman Point, which again has got to be kept low usage because it's primarily an environmental conservation area, so you can't have a regional beach in the middle of a conservation area. They just don't mix.

So the opportunity to get high-intensity type beaches, Cottesloe, Scarborough, are really only hereand I know the MRS plan only deals with the broadest possible thingsbut at the moment, the way in which everything is configured is not making the best use of the coast. By not having the resolution around the power station, by not making use of that in a much greater sense, we're actually not getting that opportunity integrated into the planning at the beginning.

The landowners that are sitting up here are all saying to me, "We don't know what the future of our land is. We can't plan while this isn't being properly planned in terms of trying to resolve the issue," and they also feel that there are other aspects around there that aren't being resolved.

So in terms of what all that means to the MRS amendment that we have in front of us, I guess the fundamental thing thatI think needs to be changed is the road planning, and a focus from the 20 or 30-year road plan of the ridge road to a focus about what is actually needed for good development right now, in the next 10-year timeframe, because that's when the whole of Cockburn Coast is going to be considered.

It seems to me, with all of what I understand, with the red road running along the ridge, most people are saying that it's not even likely to be built for 20 years if not longer, or if ever. So we will have this road there, ready to be implemented, but all the development will have to respond to it in a way, and in a way, it actually blights the way development can occur in that area, because without it genuinely being there, most of the traffic will still use Cockburn Road, which means that anything that you wanted to do with Cockburn Road in the interim is going to be blighted by that.

58 The original District Structure Plan luckily is being reinvented at the moment through the Cockburn Coast Steering Committee, and some of the things that we have talked about in terms of Cockburn Road, which was to be the Rokeby Road of this areait was to have a much more traffic calm, light rail potentially running down the middle of it, et ceterathat emphasis has been shifted thankfully to being that the real emphasis of commercial local centre elements will probably not be in the north-south direction, running along this road, but actually in the east-west direction, linking that road to the beach areas. So you will probably see a node of activity running from Cockburn Road down to a regional beach, and another node of activity running from Cockburn Road down to the power station, so two nodes, which are there and there, so doing that.

What I would like you to think about is visualising that in the context of, say, Stirling Highway in Claremont, where you have commercial activity, showrooms, those sort of things on Stirling Highway, and then you have your Bayview Terrace or your Napoleon Street, say, in Cottesloe, where you have the sorts of things that local communities gravitate to and use for shopping and entertainment, and all of those things, and at the end of that, a beach.

So I think the direction that Landcorp and Lauren and others are taking in this is actually significant improved. What it allows us to think about is Cockburn Road being different. Instead of thinking as Cockburn Road as something that we have to actually worry about slowing all the cars right down to 40 kilometres an hour, not sort of seeing it as the through route but actually thinking, "We've got to build that red road on top of the ridge at some stage, to be able to get the right environment in Cockburn Road," it actually allows us to think of Cockburn Road as being the through route, in the same way that, say, Stirling Highway is through the western suburbs.

It also then allows us to think of what are the opportunities in actually doing that.I should say too that if you look at the broader MRS map, we currently have these two red roads, Roe Highway and the Cockburn Coast Drive, coming in, arriving at Clontarf Hill, and unfortunately that plan doesn't show it, but if you pull out the broader MRS, you will find that they stop there, that there is no plan in the MRS for either a blue road or a red road running north of Clontarf Hill, because the bypass was deleted, and if McGinty had had his way and had managed to get another term of government he was, as far as I understand, planning to deal with these other matters later. So they have been left there, unresolved.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR SULLIVAN: At the moment we don't have the planningI guess documentation to suggest that we should be taking them off, and obviously Main Roads don't want them taken off, for their own reasons. What I particularly worry about is we've got massive red roads, two of them, not just one, coming into a funnel effect of Fremantle.I defy logic to understand how you can pour all of this vehicular traffic into the top of a funnel and expect it to get through Fremantle in any solid, logical planning way.

You can't take the capacity of two red roads and run them into something that is barely a blue road, which is Hampton Road.

59 It's not even a blue road on the map.It has currently got a bus-dedicated lane, so it's one lane in each direction, and the Cockburn Coast document talks about itstill being a dedicated busway into the future, and running the dedicated busway along Cockburn Road. So we will never have the capacity for those two red roads to go through Fremantle unless we actually destroy Fremantle in the process.

So I guess what I'm arguing is that at the absolute best, Hampton Road could probably be a blue road without the dedicated bus lane, so if you didn't have the dedicated bus lanes you might still be able to achieve four lanes in each direction in some areas. I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I'm just saying that as the best case scenario in terms of the traffic volume that could go through that area.It probably ought to be less.

So I would argue very strongly that there can't be a red road running through this area because it can't go anywhere, that the best that you should be planning for is a blue road or something less. Ifit's a blue road, I strongly believe that Cockburn Road, the existing Cockburn Road, can probably accommodate that.

One of the things I've been working on with some of the landowners up towards the back of the power station is indeed whether or not that road should be behind their development or where it currently is now, and what this plan is actually showing is a slight variation of the Cockburn Coast strategy, which is to actually utilise some of the red road MRS reserve and bring Cockburn Road up to the ridge line, or up to below the ridge line, and connecting straight then to the road that runs behind Port Coogee.

So it's essentially recognising I guess the philosophy that was built into this up here, and just running it a little bit further along, to enable more of this land here to be part of the coastal node environment, and that ought to significantly enhance the way in which that can be developed, but I want you to have a look at some of the things that it does.

If we're careful about where we put it, most of it could happen within the existing red road reserve. Itcould probably also free up significant areas of government landfor redevelopment.So I'm not here just saying everything that's currently green should be green.I'm actually saying we need to protect what's worth protecting and we need to develop

MS TAYLOR: (indistinct) compromises.

MR SULLIVAN:Yes, they are, and so putting the best (indistinct).So there are urban opportunities there. There is also the power lines, the power, the switch station issue. Again currently still in the MRS, we're saying, "We're just leaving the switch yard where it is," and I know that's because there hasn't been a plan developed to relocate it, but something very interesting occurred to me what I was drawing this sketch last night, was the switch yard, Landcorp are looking at perhaps putting it over here on a block that they have, so taking it from down near the coast and bringing it up here, but still utilising urban land for the switch yard.

60 If it's an open site,I think it needs two hectares.If it's a building type, it probably needs less than that from memory. What I've looked at is the possibility of actually using current MRS reserve for the road for the switch yard. What that does is it takes two hectares that would otherwise have to be found with an urban environment and allows government to use land that would otherwise be built for a red road for the switch yard. So it's actually a far more efficient way.It yields an extra two hectares of development. So it not only takes your yellow special purposes area from the switch yard down the bottom, it actually allows you to develop that, and it doesn't take another area away for the new switch yard.

The overhead power lines are coming in here. There's green lines on the map underneath. So the main overhead power lines for the whole region are coming in here, and in here, and this is right at the point where those overhead power lines are junctions, and they currently blight everything down through here obviously because you can only develop certain things underneath these power lines.So by getting that as far east as possible, and actually putting in what is essentially what is a dip in the ridge, provides a significant opportunity to utilise land in a more efficient way.

There are some really interesting pump stations and substations and switch yards around the world that are being developed at the moment that are very well integrated into landscapes, and Ithink the opportunity here could be to do that because you're basically getting the land for free in a sense, because you're not using urban land to build it, so you can probably put more into the actual facility that you're building.So it could actually be integrated into the landscape as a very interesting feature.

There are other areas obviously, benefits that come out of this.The main one, obviously because the red road currently is perhaps not impacting the ridge quite as much at this end, so that's why Ifelt the opportunity to say, "Maybe it's okay to put the blue road in that area," but this area is where the greatest impact is on the ridge, and it's also where the greatest impact is on connectivity in terms of the north-south connectivity.

So in this area, what I'm suggesting is the blue road goes back down to Cockburn Road, and that allows all the development that occurs in here to actually interface with the regional park in a way that this is a road that would be like something you would experience in Kings Park. It's a very meandering, park-like environment, follows the contours around, doesn't require digging or destroying of anything, and then you would just get development over the road, looking straight into it, using it as an asset.

It also provides opportunities to actually get greater connectivity in an east-west direction back into the existing community. So, for example, an indication is you could have this sort of tourist drive around the edge of the park, and then allow that to cross over the regional road, back down into the development. What that would do, for example, all of these people here would then have quite good pedestrian and cycling, and even vehicular access, over into Manning Park, to utilise all of those assets, but all of these people that are living in this catchment here, this area, also get good connectivity through a valley, through the low points, across down into the regional beach, down into the development.

61 So all of a sudden these people are going to be given the opportunity to actually get through this parkland to the other side in a way that actually is safe and useful, and really provides that connectivity, and there are other opportunities along there which do the same, but it's about recognising that by removing the red road you can actually achieve many of these things.

I guess another element about the transport planning that's really important is that, as I said, the roads and the planning at this stage is suggesting that Hampton Road and Cockburn Road would be a combined north-south car link, but also a transport corridor.It's not dedicating it as such, so we're not talking about T2 level trainlike transport running along Cockburn Road, which is disappointing, but we are still talking about dedicated bus lanes.

The problem with that is you're putting all of your transport into one corridor, certainly doing that into one corridor here, so you're putting your road transport and your public transport into the one road, which actually is fairly narrow. When you get to here, we're trying to do it into two corridors. We're doing it in the red road and then Cockburn Road, and that's fine for here, but it doesn't work when you get there.

So what the City of Fremantle has been working on, in terms of its public transport, is suggesting that really the rail corridor ought to continue to be used as the primary public transport corridor, not continue, it should be created as the primary public transport corridor coming out of Fremantle, because it means then in the Fremantle section you would have two corridors of transport, one which has a capacity for four lanes of vehicles, and the other which has the capacity for freight and public transport as well.

By doing that, you're probably going to make the most efficient use of the limited land that's available in Fremantle, but if we do that in Fremantle, we kind of have to do it the same way in Cockburn Coast, because the two are integrated.

MS TAYLOR: They're linked.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes, so one of the things that the MRS didn't really do, the amendment, is look at dedicating public transport routes out of Fremantle and through Cockburn and beyond, so really we haven't yet fine-tuned the MRS to facilitate that. The freight rail reserve is actually quite narrow in some areas.In some areas it's not too bad. We really ought to have, I think, got to the stage by now where we've gone through that and been able to actually say, "Do we need to widen the freightrailreserve to accommodate public transport?"

It probably is also the case that we shouldn't chop off the option of public transport in this corridor as well.In other words, this corridor still ought to be planned sufficient that it can also accommodate it might be dedicated busways or it might be light rail, or the like, so we shouldn't chop that option off, but failing to do this one means that we chop an option off in Fremantle that is the direction that Fremantle will almost certainly have to go.

MS TAYLOR: We need to probably wind you up.

62 MR SULLIVAN: That's all right.I've probably covered the main points.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, you've done quite a lot, Andrew, and I think it might be time to give us a bit of a break and ask you questions.

MR SULLIVAN: That's great.

MS TAYLOR:It's a fairly detailed and lengthy submission. So maybe, Ian, would you like to go first?

CR WHITFIELD:I just wanted to see what this road was in the plan. What's it over?

MR SULLIVAN: This one?

CR WHITFIELD: Yes.

MR SULLIVAN: So this is Cockburn Road now, so there's the old hotel.

CR WHITFIELD:Right, I'm with you.

MR SULLIVAN: There's the caravan park in Fremantle, or the chalet park.

CR WHITFIELD: Yes.

MR SULLIVAN: So this is Rollinson Road. This is Embankment Place. So coming along. Underneath it just keeps coming straight, and then it winds its way up behind Port Coogee. So around about just after the last of the big sheds, what I've done is actually diverted it up through Landcorp land. There's a little bit of private land there, but it's mainly impacted by the power lines anyway. It's undeveloped land.

CR WHITFIELD: So therefore the old Cockburn Road, or whatever you might call it

MR SULLIVAN: That section might get lost, might disappear.

CR WHITFIELD: This one comes through here, the new road.

MR SULLIVAN:Yes, that's just indicative, Ian, in the sense of just saying there probably needs to be a grid of roads through this area, and what I'm thinking is that there's the Port Coogee Road, that runs sort of in there, in the same way that that does link sort of along closer to the coast, that that might just continue all the way through, even through to South Fremantle.That's really not an MRS issue.That's more of a local planning issue, but in terms of the MRS, what I'm really emphasising is this ability to do this connectivity.

MS TAYLOR: For distribution purposes you're showing the two.

63 MR SULLIVAN: Yes, it was more about being able to indicate these linkages and also show where the direction was, in terms of Cockburn Coast at the moment, about still seeing this as a commercial road, but seeing this as the primary place where people do their shopping and their recreation, and the like, so bringing it down to the beach, opening up the beach really.

MS TAYLOR: Okay. Eugene?

MR FERRARO: Andrew, one of the reasons why the eastern road was so wide was because of the need to cut. The section that you've got to the south, it looks like a nominal 20-metre road. Itlooks likeit from here. Itlooks likeit may need to be wider to accommodate the cut and fill there.

MR SULLIVAN: The levels there, it's around about 30 metres there. There's only a spot I guess over here where we're talking about, and that line there is the 40-metre contour. There's the 30-metre contour.

MR FERRARO: Yes.

MR SULLIVAN:I did think about it running it around like that, but what I thought also is that if we actually did a cutting in that area

MR FERRARO: A tunnel type cut.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes, more like Servetus Street is, so that you actually really just plane the sides down, and then you get across it, so that your impact in terms of your parkland is actually reduced significantly, but it does get back to that's 30 metres there. So it's actually only a localised deep digging, and the same is true there, and then it's pretty much a grade.

MS TAYLOR: Would you just explain to me, AndrewI know you didn't touch on it, but it's in your reporton how this transport way that you have drawn up here, how the marina affects this transport, the suggestion of the marina affects this transport (indistinct).

MR SULLIVAN: The marina is probably completely independent of all of those things.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, it is, but you can't

MR SULLIVAN:It's a marina that would not have boat launching in it, for a start, because boat launching and high-density urban environments do not mix. You just do not try and mix them together. We already have a good facility just down the road, at Woodman Point.

MS TAYLOR: The point you were saying there was it wasn't enough.

MR SULLIVAN: It's not enough in terms of boat pens. Woodman Point has no real capacity to accommodate boat pens. It has plenty of capacity to accommodate boat launching. There's not enough available space in the Woodman Point area to allocate a lot of boat pens. What we need in the region is around about 850 boat pens.

64 We now have about 300 developed in Port Coogee, so we still have a shortage. What I'm suggesting is boat pens only out here, but also bringing the advantage that a marina brings to development.

If we look underneath what's there, we have the old cooling ponds. There's a seawall there. It's an area that has actually been changed anyway, but we also have the reality of trying to fit this building (indistinct) storey, pretty impressive building, and other buildings around it that will presumably have to respond to its scale into a beach environment. Along our coast, we typically do not have the benefit that they have over east, where you can really well integrate an urban environment onto the beach, so to create that level of urban environment immediately behind essentially what would have to be a sand dune seems to be a missed opportunity.

My belief is that the marina approach does a couple of things.It allows for high-density and possibly high-rise buildings to occur in a very urban coastal setting, not dissimilar to Dock lands in London, but it also, by projecting a little bit further out in this location, you will potentially get the opportunity for a beach that is more sheltered and more north facing, and therefore more able to allow for that level of urban integration with the actual sand, something more similar, for example, say, to what you see at Rockingham, which again is a beach that's very protected, because it's in the south.

So there are those opportunities, and by doing that you actually also get the wind protection as well from the sou-westers, so you're actually responding to the microclimate that we have. The sand draft in this area is in this direction.It all comes in at this point here, and goes in that direction. So these beaches are naturally accreting. When the power station was built, the coast was back here. When that groyne got put in, that width there, that all happened in the space of around about 10 years. That's how much accretion is occurring, and it also caused all the erosion down here, mind you.

MS TAYLOR:What my point is you have got the blue road down there, and then you've got this one coming, I take it, over the top (indistinct).

MR SULLIVAN: This was more about the east-west, and this is about coming into this development from the blue road.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, but there is an importance of that connection through to the beach.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.It was more about bringing community into the things that the community wants to get to, including the railway station.

MS TAYLOR: You've got a high-residential component there.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Any more questions?

CR WHITFIELD: No.

65 MR FERRARO: No. I'm actually quite clear.It was clear in the submission, but it's clearer now in terms of what Andrew was trying to do.

CR WHITFIELD: IfI may, just one more question.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

CR WHITFIELD:You did mention the railway reserve would have to be widened, or you just changed the track around?

MR SULLIVAN: You can see on the map that Eugene has got, I think the MRS and the MR are the same.It's actually wider in this area here, but it actually narrows down to there. I haven't done an assessment as to whether that reserve is wide enough or not wide enough, but the thing is, neither has the Planning Commission, or neither has a transport study been done to ensure that, and I guess that's the emphasis.It's probably not a big issue in this area because on one side of it is a foreshore environment.It's a little bit sensitive because it's very narrow at this pinchpoint up here where there's actually also an eroding section of beach.

MS TAYLOR:Yes. So you're generally supportive of the amendment, but there's a few transport road issues that you think could be better (indistinct).

MR SULLIVAN:Yes, obviously I'm supportive of the amendment to the extent that it's a step in the right direction, but there is a fairly big step yet to be made in terms of public transport and road planning that will give you the opportunity to reap significant benefits in terms of government assets, community assets and the way in which development responds in the Cockburn Coast.

MS TAYLOR: Lauren, did you have any queries on any of this?

MS AITKEN: No, thank you.

MS TAYLOR:Okay, you've given us plenty to think about certainly. What do you want to do with this map?

MR SULLIVAN:I would be happy to leave it with you, and perhaps Lauren can return it to me.

MS AITKEN: We have a scanner that can scan that, and we will give it back to you.

MS TAYLOR: Are you happy with that?

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Otherwise we don't have anything to show that we have discussed this plan.

MR SULLIVAN:(indistinct) coming up in two weeks' time.

66 MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR NICHOLAS TEMOV:I can arrange for that to be scanned.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, and Lauren's going on holidays, so Nick is going to be the man.

MR SULLIVAN: Okay.

MS TAYLOR: The man with the plan. Thank you, Andrew. You have done a heap of work. We really appreciate it.As you can see, we have had a lot of hearings today, so we have got to go through all of that.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS TAYLOR:You're probably well aware of where we go to from here, but Iwill just ask Lauren to make a comment about the next part of it, where we go to from here.

MS AITKEN:The amendment will be considered by the Commission and we will plan to get it onto the Commission agenda sometime over the next month or so, depending on when their meeting cycles are.It then goes to the Minister and over to parliament beyond that. We're looking at this amendment being gazetted late February next year, somewhere around that time.

MR SULLIVAN: I understand the politics ofitall as well, and I understand that it's imperative probably that this goes through, to allow the planning to continue in a productive manner, and no-one would want to be the person who said, "Okay, let's stall everything for another couple of years." What I'm asking I suppose is yes, let it go through, but

MS TAYLOR: Consider the differences.

MR SULLIVAN: that the continued plan doesn't just stop here, that we actually genuinely look at these opportunities because they are well worth looking at, and I think a lot of people, the landowners but also different agencies of government, are all recognising that.

MS TAYLOR: And I think ifI could just let you know that there are several working groups working on a day-by-day basis on all of this, and already from the submissions we have heard today, we have been updated on a few of the things that have been happening in the background, so it's a moving feast.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS TAYLOR:Certainly we wouldn't be turning our backs on any improvement plans. We are just doing the major colour-in on the map for an MRS. However, some of the detail which can be done at the next stage down, it is terribly important that it is actually recorded as such, so that the next parties that move on with this can actually work with it.

67 So don't think that your whole submission and all of that work that you have done, the plans that you have done, will just be sitting on someone's desk.

MR SULLIVAN:It's more the lost opportunities that come about by leaving the road there. If there is any possibility that it won't get built, or it won't get built for 30 years,I would very strongly suggest that the negative impact of that blight will be significant on the whole way in which the Cockburn Coast can be developed.

MS TAYLOR:Yes, and we appreciate that comment. There's a big picture you're talking about here.

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.

CR WHITFIELD:Andrew, I would just agree.I think there's some merit in looking at the road issues thoroughly. We had similar sorts of submissions from Main Roads, again being concerned about the road network and the way it works. So I think that our recommendation really is to have that in there, about that flexibility and continuing to work with the regional road network in this area.

MR SULLIVAN: Thank you. Thanks for your time.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you for coming in, and doing all that work, the plans and everything. We look forward to seeing you again.

MR SULLIVAN: Thank you.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.

MR FERRARO: Thanks, Andrew.

68