LOANCOPY Western Australian Planning Commission
Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1114/33
Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 1- Mandogalup
Town of Kwinana
Report on Submissions Submissions Transcript of Hearings
September 2009
Perth W( stet n Australia
Vt( An tic illrn lonnInfl t e
= Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1114/33
Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 1Mandogalup
Report on Submissions Submissions Transcript of Hearings
Town of Kwinana
W,Irtn Athtro'Inn Pronn Inci ( 0{I11111 '101-1
September 2009 0 Stale of Western Australia Internet; http://wwwiwa,gov,au
Published by the Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth Western Australia 6000
MRS Amendment 1114/33 Report on Submissions Submissions Transcripts File 809-2-264 Pt, 1 Published September 2009
ISBN 0 7309 9609 3
Internet: http://www.plannin9mogov.au corporateeplanninswa.gov.au Phone: (08)92647777 Fax: (08)92647566 TTY: (08)92647535
Copies of this document are available in alternative formats on application to the disability services co-ordinator. Introduction to Metropolitan Region Scheme major amendments
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Is responsible for keeping the Metropolitan Region Scheme under review and initiating changes where they are seen as necessary.
The Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) sets out the broad pattern of lane use for the whole Perth metropolitan region. The MRS is constantly under review to best reflect regional planning and development needs.
An amendment proposal to change land use reservations and zones in the MRS is regulated by the Planning and Development Act 2005. That legislation provides for public submissions to be made on proposed amendments.
For a substantial amendment, often referred to as a major amendment (made under section 41of the Act),the WAPC considersall the submissions lodged, and publishesits recommendations in a report on submissions, This report is presented to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and to the Governor for approval. Both Houses of Parliament must then scrutinise the amendment before it can take legal effect.
In the process of making a substantial amenement lo the MRS, information is published as a public record under the following titles:
Amendment report This document is available from the start of the public advertising period of the proposed amendment,Itsets out the purpose and scope of the proposal, explains why the amendment is considered necessary, and informs people how they can comment through the submission process.
Environmental review report The Environmental Protection Authority must consider the environmental impact of an amendment to the MRS before it can be advertised.Should it require formal assessment, an environmental review is undertaken and made available for information and comment at the same time as the amendment report.
Report on submissions The planning rationale, determination of submissions and the WAPC's recommendations for final approval of the amendment, with or without modification, is documented in this report.
Submissions This document contains a reproduction of all written submissions received by the WAPC on the proposed amendment.
Transcript of hearings A person who has made a written submission may also choose to appear before a hearings committee to express their views. The hearings proceedings are recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts of all hearings are reproduced in Ibis volume
Contents
Report on submissions
Introduction 1
2 The proposed amendment 1
3 Environmental Protection Authority 2
4 Call for submissions 2
5 Submissions... ,,,,,,,, . ,,,,,, .
6 Main issues raised in submissions 3
7 Hearings 8
8 Determinations 8
9 Conclusion and recommendation ,,,,,,,,,, . ,,,,,
Addendum 11
Schedule 1 Alphabetical Listing of Submissions
Schedule 2 Summay of Submissions and Determinations
Schedule 3 The Amendment Figure as Advertised
Schedule 4 The Amendment Figure as Modified
Appendix 1 List of Detail Plans as Advertised
Appendix 2 List of Detail Plans as Modified
Submissions
Trouser' t of He
Report on submissions
Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1114/33
Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 1- Mandogalup
1 Introduction
At its December 2005 meeting, the Metropolitan Region Planning Committee (MRPC) acting under delegated authority from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), resolved to proceed with this amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) In accordance with the provisions of section 41 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (previously section 33 of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959).
2 The advertised amendment
Purpose
The purpose of the amendment is to rezone the area shown on figure 1, generally bounded by:
Rowfey Road to the north; Anketell Road to the south; Kwinana Freeway to the cast; and other regional roads reservation to the west. in Mandogalup from the rural zone lo the urban deferred zone,
This willfacilitate detailed planning of this part of Mandogalup for urban development, generally in accordance with;
the Jandakot Structure Plan; the Town of Kwinana's Eastern DisIncl Residential Inlonsi 'cation Concept; the Jandakol Water Resource Management Strategy and any other water management related requirements or strategies to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation, Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Water (DoW) that may be required to be incorporated into any level of structure plan; and any other relevant planning, environmental or infrastructure requirements.
Background
The WAPC's Jandakot Structure Plan (expected to be published mid 2007 at the time of writing) was prepared in order to coordinate and plan development of rural land on Lithe; Tdi of the Kwinana Freeway from Mandogalup and Wandi in the north to Wellard in Ituouth Areas in the structure plan area on the western side of the freeway are largely elf,trig gm, d urban, except for the Mandogalup cell. The structure plan relates to the land surroundino the southern portion of tire Jandakot public groundwater supply mound, not the locality of Jandakot.
The structure plan provide- a guide to the future development of the area and management of key environmi nl it i w II includes potential development areas, road networks, major community fir iliti« 011,10° rant, and Bush Forever areas, and a neighbourhood structure. It also provid( elkson implbmontation aspects of the plan such as the NIRS amendment process, more detailed structure planning and water resource management strategies and requirements.
The structure plan was subject to extensive community consultation at major stages of the process, these being identification of issues, discussion of preferred options and presentation of the preferred option prior to its adoption by the WAPC.
Discussion
The amendment proposal was described endillustratedinthe previously published amendment report, This amendment is one of five MRS amendments grouped together for the purpose of progressing them through the major amendments process:
Amendment 1114/33, Cell 1 Mandogalup Amendment 1115/33, Cell 2Wandi Amendment 1116/33, Cell 3Ankelell Amendment 1117/33, Coll 4Casuarina Amendment 1118/33, Cell 5Welted (East)
Flowev r, should the individual circumstances of a particular amendment in the group cause that amendment to be delayed, the WAPC has the option of removing it from the group. The remaining amendments in the group would then continue to be processed together, while the Issues related to the other amendment are addressed.
3 Environmental Protection Authority advice
The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in accordance with section 38 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (previously section 33E of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 7059) for advice as to whether an environmental assessment was required.
After consideration of the likely environmental factors related to the amendment, the EPA decided that the overall environmental Impact of its implementation would not be severe enough to warrant assessment under the Envegnmentai Protection Act 1066, the preparation of an environmental review and the subsequent setting of formal environmental conditions.
The full text of the EPA advice was published in the WAPC amendment report.
4 Call for submissions
The amendment was advertised for public submissions for three months from 27 June 2006 to 29 September 2006.
The amendment was made available for public inspection during ordinary business hours at:
i) the Western Australian Planning Commission, Wellington Street, Perth;
ii) the offices of the cities of Perth, Fremantle, Cockburn and Rockingham, and the Town of Kwinana; and
Hi) the State Reference Library, Northbridge.
2 During the public inspection period, notice of the amendment was published in The West Australian and Tha Sunday Times newspapers and relevant local newspapers circulating in the locality of the amendment.
5 Submissions
Twenty four submissions (including two late submissions) were received for this amendment. An alphabetical index of alt the persons and organisations who lodged submissions is at schedule 1.
Eleven submissions supported or had no objection to the amendment. Six submissions objected to the amendment and seven offered neutral comments.
A summary of each submission with WAPC comments and determinations is at schedule 2. A complete copy of all written submissions is also contained in this publication.
Main issues raised in submissions i) Timing of development in rotation to Alcoa bauxite residue storage area buffer zone (late submissions 1 and 2).
Alcoa advises that it does not object to urban development in the amendment area per se, but is concerned that residential development will occur before itis clearly demonstrated that residents will not he adversely affected by dust, noise, light or other factors during operations and site remediation of storms F. This relates to Alcoa's commitment to protecting public health and wellbeing, Further Alt on is concerned that the amendment proposal and planning controls in general do not adequately protect its existing industrial land use.
Alcoa has advised that the use of these areas will continue until 2010 after which remodiation is expected to commence and continue until 2015. Commencement of remediation works may have greater noise, light and dust adverse Impacts than current operations. Accordingly, Alcoa considers that planning controls need to be enforced to ensure development does not occur until 2015. However, the extent of adverse impacts cannot be determined conclusively until a remediation strategy is finalised in 2008.
The submission of the Technical Working Group for the Review of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffer generally supports Alcoa's view. The technical working group Includes representatives of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), DEC, Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR), Land Corp, Water Corporation, Town of Kwinana, City of Cockburn, Alcoa and the Kwinana Industries Council,
The 2002 draft review of the Kwinana Air Quality Huffer Study 2002 stated although the draft Jandakot Structure Plan depicted a 1kilometre buffer for Alcoa, further investigations are required to better define the extent of the impact of Alcoa's operations.
Dust modelling already carried out by Alcoa, has led it to request that a buffer should extend east to the freeway and north to Rowley Road. That is, Alcoa would not support any development in that area unlit 2015. However, the technical working group considered that more work is required to validate tho dust modelling to aid in determination of a buffer,
Alcoa states that although generic buffer (llamas are specified by the EPA, these are not necessarily accurate and may not be sufficient to address allresidents concerns and sensitivities. Therefore, buffers should be based on more accurate monitoring and modelling, which will be carried out.
WAPC response
Alcoa advises that the following dates currently apply to operation and remediationof the residue area:
2008: detailedremediationstrategyfinalised(followingcompletionof modelling and monitoring in relation to adverse effects).
2010: use of storage area F ceases and remediation commences - air quality, noise and visual amenity potentially remain issues during this time.
2015: estimated end of remediation period for storage area F.
The Alcoa submission suggests that the proposed amendment will allow for premature urban development and states that Alcoa does not support such development prior to 2015. However, the urban deferred zone itself does not allow for urban development to occur. The urban deferred zone makes no change to the land uses and activities currently permitted on the land under the Town of Kwinana local planning scheme. For development to occur, the land is required to be transferred from the urban deferred zone to the urban zone. followed by finalisation of structure planning and submission of subdivision applications.
The anticipated sequence of events would be as follows:
1. The amendment site is transferred to the urban deferred zone - no change to land uses and activities currently permitted under the local planning scheme.
2. Investigations take place/continuo into the appropriate extent of a buffer for the operational and remediation life of the residue area - urban deferred zoning has no effect on those deliberations.
3. WARD and relevant government agencies, with Alcoa, come to a decision on the final extent of the buffer.
4. Land in the designated buffer remains in the urban deferred zone.
5. Land outside the buffer area can be transferred to the urban zone, provided all other relevant issues are resolved.
Accordingly, the transfer of land in the Mandogalup cell from the urban deferred zone to the urban zone will only occur when planning and environmental issues, of which the buffer extent is one, are resolved.
The WAPC's Guidelines for the Lifting of Urban Deferment (June 2000) specify the criteria to be satisfied and information requirements before land is transferred from urban deferred to urban. One of the requirements is for identification of environmental issues which may impact on future development such as noise and air pollution. Matters related to theAlcoa buffer clearly fall within that requirement meaning that issue will need to be addressed beforethe urban deferment can be lifted,
The EPA commented that generic separation distances to development should be maintained unless specific studies demonstrated that a lesser distance will not causeunacceptable amenity Impacts. Further, any development proposed later in the planning process maybe
4 subject to environmental assessment in relation to impacts on adjoining land uses, That is, Ih EPA will make decisions in relation to any future potential planning decisions that may resu in residential development in the vicinity of the Alcoa residue area and buffer.
The urban deferred zone is a valuable and useful mechanism by which land that is potentially suitable for urban uses, subject to resolution of outstanding planning and environmental issues, is Identified as such welt in advance in the MRS. The status of the land gives certainty to state and local government, commerce and industry, landowners, land developers and the public, for long-term planning for residential land supply. Further, designation of most of the Mandogalup cell as urban deferred encourages comprehensive planning of the whole cell by majority landowners and government agencies,
In summary, the WAPC is progressing this amendment on the basis that the lifting in whole or part of the urban deferment at a later date is subject, inter elle, to the agreement of slate and local government agencies and relevant parties that there will be no adverse impacts on areas proposed for urban development arising from Alcoa's activities.
Accordingly, itis recommended that the Iwo late submissions be dismissed and the urban deferred zone as advertised proceeds.
II) Lot 1 Rowley Road sand pit (submission 4)
DoIR advises that the north-west corner of the amendment site adjoins a sand resource area as defined on the Resource Protection Working Plan for Perth.
DoIR advises that natural sand resources are declining as Perth expands, particularly on the southern margins. Sand mining locations are limited from Perth to Sunbury due to planning and environmental restrictions. The expansion of Perth and maintenance of infrastructure is dependant on supply of materials such as sand,
Sterilisation of re-Duress results in Increased transportation distances and associated higher construction co tc7hi., results In Increased pollution and negative effects from additional road transportation. Au ordingly. DoIR's strong preference is for sequential land use, ie extraction followed by Lab in development.
DOIR requests that the amendment be modified to exclude The upper north-west corner of the proposed urban deferred zone - approximately one third of the amendment area - to create a buffer zone around current and possible future sand extraction areas, untilminingis completed. This would reduce the impact of mining on proposed residential development. wAtga The sand resource area is predominantly outside the amendment area so that the amendment itself does not facilitate urban development of the sand resource prior to extraction. The request being made by DoIR is for land in the amendment area to be excluded from the proposed urban deferred zone in order to provide a residential development-free buffer area to sand mining.
The urban deferred zone does not itself allow for residential development but identifies this use as the appropriate and eventual use of the land subject to any relevant planning and environmental issues being resolved.
The EPA advised that the amendment silo abuts certain land uses that y require pollution management and buffers to protect sensitive land uses such as residential development. The EPA recommends generic separation distances be maintained unless sitespecific studies indicate otherwise. Therefore, appropriate provision for a buffer for the sand pitsshould be provided in accordance with EPA requirements. The land in the buffer would remainin the urban deferred zone until that constraint is addressed. The buffer would be consideredduring the structure planning process.
Accordingly, in progressing this amendment, the WAPC would not expect the deferment tobe lifted over any areas that need to be retained for a buffer to sand mining operations. The same arguments relating to the value and importance of identifying land as urbandeferred and the certainty this provides for parties involved in the residential development processalso applies,
Accordingly, it Is recommended the submission by DoIR be dismissed.
Submission 11 to this amendment is from the owners of the sand pit referred to by DoIR, Islot 1 Rowley Road. The adjoining lot 2 is in the same ownership and within theamendment area but not within a sand resource extraction designated area. Lot 2 is withinthe area Della requests be removed from the proposed urban deferred zone.
The owner of lots 1 and 2 supports the latter remaining in the amendment and also requests that lot 1, the sand pit, be included in the amendment as urban deferred. However,that submission is also recommended to be dismissed for reasons discussed in schedule 2. iii) Water management requirements (submissions 12 and 22)
The Water Corporation and the Parks and Conservation Service of the DEC (formerlypart of the Department of Conservation and Land Management) submissions relate to drainageand wetland issues, ie water resource management and the need for these to be included in more detailed structure planning for the subject areas.
The Water Corporation and the DEC were both concerned when urban and urbandeferred zones were proposed some two years ago. Although the subject land hadbeen included in the draft Jandakot Structure Plan as future urban, It was considered that appropriatedetailed water management planning and the monitoring needed for that purpose had not occurred.
Discussions between representatives of the Water Corporation, DEC, DoW and DPI, with limited landowner representation resulted in agreement to the subject land proceeding to urban deferred, rather than urban. This agreement was on the basis that appropriate studies and monitoring of water quality and quantity occur to the satisfaction of the listedagencies, contributing to finalisation of the Jandakot Water Resource Management Strategy, as referred to in the final version of the Jandakot Structure Plan.
The transfer of the land from urban deferred to urban would be dependant onfinalisation of the water resource management strategy and inclusion of the strategy's requirementsIn subsequent more detailed water management and infrastructure planning to the satisfaction of the relevant agencies. Water resource management requirements may limit theamount of land ultimately available for residential development in the amendment area. That is,the broad-brush urban deferred or later urban zone does not imply or allow for housing and associated development over the entire amendment area. Those areas are determined through later detailed structure planning. WAPC response
The WAPC agrees with the Water Corporation's position and will consult with the relevant agencies prior to considering transferring the subject land to the urban zone and prior to considering structure plans and subdivision applications in the amendment area, iv) Environmental issues (submissions 13, 15, 21 and 22)
Environmental Issues raised in several submissions include: a. The need to protect conservation category wetlands, b. Drainage should not adversely effect the Peel Inlet - a drainage management plan should have been prepared prior to application for rezoning to show how the Peel- Harvey system will be protected from pollution. c, Acid sulphate soils are a potential risk, d. Special rural zoning with much lower densities of development and requirements for clearing and drainage is a better option for the subject land.
Remnant vegetation, declared rare flora and threatened ecological communities should be protected.
The Jandakot Structure Plan requires a water resource management plan but this has not boon produced.
The amendments may not comply with environmental objectives of land clearing, and water quality and quantity relating to the Peel-Harvey Estuary and protection of lakes, wetlands and groundwater.
h. Subdivision design should elect several criteria including mandatory use of water sensitiveurban designprinciples, mandatoryinstallationof grey water reuse technology, voluntary and subsidised use of composting toilets, a complete ban on local groundwater bores and water soluble teasers, mandatory minimum species representation of plantings of endemic plant species, protection of Bush Forever sites, wetlands and damplands and protection of good quality remnant bushland in local reserve with adequate and representative functional buffers and corridor between reserves.
WAPC response
a. The protection of wetlands in accordant nt ent agency requirements will be incorporated into detailed Structure planning in hr accordance with usual practice,
b. The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council supports the amendment subject to compliance with relevant water resource management requirements.
The potential for acid sulphate soils will be addressed later In the planning process, in accordance with DEC and WAPC requirements for investigation and conditions,if required. d. The subject land has been identified in the Jandakot Structure Plan as being suitable for urban development, after government agency requirements for infrastructure have been appropriately taken into account In detailed structure planning,
e. Vegetation issues, including retention and buffers, will be addressed during more detailed planning for the subject areas. f. The final version of the Jandakot Structure Plan contains a framework for preparation of the Jandakot Water Resource Management Strategy. Other relevant comments are outlined in the WAPC response in the water management requirements section. g. These issues are all matters to be addressed according to state government agency requirements at structure planning stage. h. Structure planning and subdivision will be in accordance with the relevant slate government agency and local government requirements.
7 Hearings
The Planning and Development Act 2005 requires the WAPC to offer to all persons making a submission the opportunity of being hoard by a committee formed by the WAPC for that purpose,
The WAPC considered the issues raised in the submissions and resolved to form a hearings committee comprising:
Cr Elizabeth Taylor (Chair) Member of the Statutory Planning Committee and Chair of the Eastern Districts Planning Committee
Cr Richard Graham Chair of the South-West Districts Planning Committee
Or lEtruco Hamilton Independent, with environmental expertise
The hearings occurred on 31 January 2007. The hearings were for all five MRS amendments concerning the Jandakot Structure Plan. In relation to Mandogalup, six hearings were conducted. Speakers elaborated on the issues referred to in their submissions, as indicated in schedule 2 of this report. A transcript of the hearings is contained in a separate publication.
Alcoa lodged a late submission and was therefore not offered a formal hearing. However, in view of the important issues raised, it was agreed that Alcoa could address the hearings committee to explain Its position on the amendment. This discussion is not published in the hearings transcript, as it is not considered to be a formal hearing.
8 Determinations
The objecting submissions are recommended to be dismissed as discussed in section 6 and In the summary of submissions and determinations at schedule 2.
No modifications to the amendment are recommended as a result of the submissions.
8 9 Conclusion and recommendation
This report summarises the background to MRS amendment 1114/33 and examines the various submissions made on it.
The WAPC, after considering the submissions, is satisfied that the amendment as shown on figure 1 and in detail on WAPC plan 3/023 should be approved and finatised,
The WAPC recommends that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure present the amendment to His Excellency the Governor forhis consideration and approval, and subsequently commend the amendment to both Houses of Parliament.
ADDENDUM
MRS AMENDMENT NO. 1114/33 - CELL 1 MANDOGALUP (AS MODIFIED)
ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS
This Report on Submissions was adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission in March 2007 and passed to the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure as required by the Planning and Development Act 2005,
However, Cabinet did not approve the amendment for passing to the Governor and Parliament for finalisation. Although no reason was stated, it is understood the lack of approval was related to the concerns expressed by Alcoa in its submission to the WAPC, as set out in this Report on Submissions, as to the possibility of future residential development being too close to Alcoa's operations area, directly west of the Mandogalup amendment area.
Since that time the amendment has been in abeyance. However, in early 2009, a landowner in the amendment area requested the Department of Planning and the Minister for Planning to support a reduced version of the amendment, The reduction in area is from the original 235ha as shown on WAPC Plan No. 3.2023 to 181 he as shown on WAPC Plan No. 32032/1. The reduced area avoids areas shown in the October 2008 Kwinana Buffer Review Position Paper as being subject to further investigation in relation to a future buffer.The WAPC had no objections to the reduced amendment and advised the Minister accordingly.
Section 53 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 allows the Minister to recommend modifications to an MRS amendment to the Governor.In this case the Minister for Planning has recommended that the modified and reduced amendment be approved by the Governor and proceed to Parliament.In proposing the modified and reduced amendment, the following direction under Section 17 of the Planning and Development has been made by the Minister for Planning,
"No decision to transfer land in the Mendogolup locality from the Rural or Urban Deferred zone to the Urban zone is to be made without the approval of Cabinet and the Minister responsible at the time for the Metropolitan Region Scheme and till)017(1/11011iS or changes proposed to be made to it. No such decision will be made until the Kwinana Air Quality Buller has been finalised, clearly indicating what land is within a buffer and should remain in the Rural or Urban Deferred zone and what land is outside a buffer area arid therefore could be transfoned to the Urban zone, subject to whatever other planning circumstances may apply to the site at Ito time."
Tony Evans Secretary Western Austral Planning Co Sian
Schedule 1
Alphabetical listing of submissions
Alphabetical Listing of Submissions
MRS Amendment 1114)33
Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 1 Mandogalup
Submission NumberName
5 Alinta 6Cala lang, Jaime 7Carbone, Catherine 10 Carbone, Elizabeth 8Carbone, Jim 14 Carbone, Mario 9Carbone, Nancy 1 Cassettai, Emi 21 Conservation Council of Western Australia 22Environment and Conservation, Department of 3 Fremantle Ports 2Indigenous Affairs, Department of 4Industry and Resources, Department of 13James, David 20Main Roads Western Australia 18Mandogalup Land Development Company Pty Ltd (Cardno USD on behalf of) 16Peel-Harvey Catchment Council 11 Questdalo Holdings Pty Ltd (Porter Consulting Engineers on behalf of) 19Saiva Maha Sabai of WA 17Satterley Property Group and Wandi Anketell Landholdings Pty Ltd (Greg Rowe & Associates on behalf of) 12Water Corporation 15Wetlands Conservation Society
Late Submissions
Alcoa (Urbanplan on behalf of) Technical Working Group (Kwinana Air Quality Buffer Study)
Schedule 2
Summary of submissions and determinations
Submission: 1
Submitted by: E Cassette'
Summary of submission: Support
The amendment is supported as it is an asset to Kwinana and ther need for more land for housing.
Planning comment:
Support noted.
Determination:
Submission noted.
Submission: 2
Submitted by: Department of Indigenous Affairs
Summary of submission: Comment
1. Prior to any proposed development or activity occurring on the subject land,itis recommended that suitably qualified consultants are engaged to conduct ethnographic and archaeological surveys of the area, including consultation with Aboriginal interest groups.
2. Development plans should be modified to avoid damaging or altering any she. If this is not possible, in order to avoid breaching the Aboriginal Her' loge Act 1972, the landowner should lodge a notice undo- section 18 of that act seeking consent lo use of the land.
Planning comment:
These matters will be addressed at later, mere detailed stages of the planning process. The urban deferred zone does not allow for any additional development than may already be permitted.
Determination:
Submission noted,
Submission: 3
Submitted by: Fremantle Ports
Summary of submission: Comment
1. Jandekot Structure Plan related MRS amendments for cell1 (Mandegalup), cell 2 (Wandi) and cell 3 (Ankeloll) adjoin Rowley and Ankotell roads, which are important freight links to nearby industrial areas Rowley Road is of particular importance to freight planning, as it Is the preferred transportlink to the Fremantle Ports outer harbour facility. of Kwinana's Eastern Residential 2. Fremantle Ports has previously supported the Town Intensification Concept, which recognises RowleyRoad and Anketell Road as important transport corridors for the region. TheMRS amendment is supported where it takes into account the protection of these criticalfreight transport corridors and the inclusion of freight network protection as documentedin the Eastern Residential Intensification Concept.
The WAPC's Freight Network Policy and theRoad and Rail Transport Noise Policy should be applied along these transport routes to ensurecontinued operation of the freight transport links.
Planning comment:
Comments noted.
Determination:
Submission noted.
Submission: 4
Submitted by: Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) Summary of submission: Comment activities and licenses. Accessible natural 1. The subject area is close to sand extraction sand resources close to Perth are declining asthe city expands, especially on the southern margins. Many sites that would otherwisebe suitable for sand mining occur in locations where planning and environmental impactspreclude or severely constrain extraction. The expansion of the Perth urban areaand maintenance of infrastructure is dependant on the supply of construction materialssuch as sand and gravel. Readily available sand supplies contribute to Perth's generallyhigh quality of housing. generations will not have the benefits present 2. If strategic resources we sterilised future generations enjoy Tian porting construction materialfrom further afield will increase pollution and negative ,ocial impacts from roadtransport and lead to increased safety concerns due to tans, truck movement onregional roads. Increased transportation distances will cause construction costs toincrease, significantly removing the advantage that Perth enjoys compared to other statecapitals. which sand extraction is followed 3. DoIR's strong preference Is for sequential land use in by urban development. The MRS and local schemes areimportant tools for managing 1114/33 be modified to this transition.Itis therefore requested that amendment exclude a 500 metre buffer zone around the currentand future sand extraction areas from the urban deferred zoning until the sandextraction is completed. This would reduce the impact of noise and dust on any residentialdevelopment from ongoing and future sand extraction.
The submission was elaborated on before thehearings committee for this amendment.
2 Planning comment:
Refer to section 6 (ii) of the main body of this report.
Determination:
Submission dismissed.
Submission: 5
Submitted by: Alinta
Summary of submission: Comment cells 1 and 1. The 30 metre Dampier to aunbury Natural Gas Pipeline corridor traverses 2. All land use in close proximity to the pipeline corridor will be requiredto comply with the WAPC's draft planning bulletin for planning and development in thevicinity of high pressure gas transmission pipelines.
2. The draft planning bulletin provides setback distances for various land uses based on EPA criteria. The setbacks can vary from 0 to 200 metres. The setbacks ensurethat risk to people and properly is within the limits stipulated by the EPA, Thesetbacks also ensure that changes In land use do not encroach on currentoperations and future expansion within the pipeline corridor.
Future development of Mandogalup and Wandi may impact on the gas pipeline. Therefore, a review of the safeguards currently applied to the pipeline will needs to be conducted. Alinta must be consulted on all future developments planned for the area.
Planning comment: These matters will be considered as part of future mere detailed structure ni for the subject area.
Determination:
Submission noted.
Submission:
Submitted by: Calalang
Summary of submission: Support
No reasons given.
Planning comment:
Support noted.
Determination:
Submission noted. Submission:
Submitted by: C Carbone
Summary of Submission: Support
No reasons given.
Planning comment:
Support noted.
Determination:
Submission noted.
Submission:
Submitted by: J Carbone
Summary of submission: Support
No reasons given.
Planning comment:
Support rioted.
Determination:
Submission noted.
Submission: 9
Submitted by: N Carbone
Summary of submission: Support
No reasons given.
Planning comment:
Support noted.
Determination:
Submission noted. Submission: 10
Submitted by: E Carbone
Summary of submission: Support
No reasons given.
Planning comment;
Support noted.
Determination:
Submission noted.
Submission: 11
Submitted by: Questdale Holdings Ply LW (Porter Consulting Engineers on behalf of)
Summary of submission: Objection
1. Questdale has operated a sand pit at lot 1 Rowley Road for several decades. The sand pitrehabilitation plan has been developed with the WAPC, former Mines Department and Town of Kwinana. The profile and reshaping of the site has been based on the premise that the site will he developed for urban purposes in the future,
2 The Town of Kwinanals Eastern Residential Intensification Concept includes both lots I and 2 Rowley Road.
The Water Corporation has included lots 1 and 2 inits water and wastewater catchments.
4. Sand pit operation has accommodated MRS requirements for Rowley Road to the north of the site,the extension of Hammond Road running north/south near the boundary of lots 1 and 2 and a parallel greenway link.
The Town of Kwinana has advised that its development approval for the sand pit operations will only be extended for a further four years as the area will be requiredfor urban development, The MRS amendment only shows the urban deferred zone extending to lot 2 and excluding lot 1. Questdale is concerned at this exclusion of lot 1 given its operations have been based on lot 1 being zoned urban in the future and that the sand pit operations would be limited by future urban development. Therefore, it is requested that the amendment be modified to include lot 1.
The submission was elaborated on before the hearings committee for tills amendment.
Planning comment:
The eastern boundary of the proposed urban deferred zone at Mandogalup alignswith the MRS other regional roads reserve for the Hammond Read extension. This was amendment required a defined, recognisable boundary, whichroads and road reserves are often seen to be.
Having made that decision, and the amendment having been advertised assuch, adding such a large area to the amendment would require it tobe readvertised, causing considerable delay to the amendment.
There is no implication that tot 1 cannot be included in a future MRS amendmentproposal.
Determination:
Submission dismissed.
Submission: 12
Submitted by: Water Corporation
Summary of submission: Support all related planning 1. The Water Corporation supports the amendment subject to documents clearly advising that drainage constraints may limit residentialdevelopment in the future. management 2. These constraints can not be fully defined until completion of local water strategies in accordance with the requirements of the JandakotWater Resource Management Strategy currently being prepared by the DoW. for the 3. Water Corporation scheme planning exists for water and wastewater servicing area covered by the five Jandakot Structure Plan cells inthe MRS amendments,
Planning comment:
Refer to section 6 (it) in the main body of this report.
Determination:
Submission upheld.
Submission: 13
Submitted by: D F James
Summary of submission: Objection protected along with 1. Remnant vegetation as shown in Bush Forever should be possible declared rare flora and threatened ecological communities. A surveyof all vegetated areas including wetlands should be a priority as unknownvaluable flora may be lost.
2. There are six wetlands listedInthe Swan Coastal Plain Lakes environmental protection policy. These conservation category wetlands should berecognised and protected by appropriate buffers. Drainage plans for the area must not affect theseetlands either by surface or subsoil drainage. Plans to protect A. Bush Forever sites 276, 273 and 347 will be impacted by urbanisation. them should include workable buffers such as roads, fencing andfirebreaks.
5. Acid sulphate soils may be an issue. and lowering 6. Groundwater drawdown from garden bores will cause acid sulphate soils of water levels in wetlands.
Planning comment:
Refer to section 6 (iv) of the main body of this port.
Determination:
Submission dismissed.
Submission: 14
Submitted by M Carbone
Summary of submission: Support
Urbanisation will make good use of existing and proposed infrastructuresuch as the Kwinana Freeway and the propOsed railway line. It will assist in alleviating theland shortage in Perth.
Planning comment:
Support noted,
Determination:
Submission noted.
Submission: 15
Submitted by: Wetlands Conservationocioty
Summary of submission: Objection
t Wetlands: The live Jandakol Structure Plan cell amendments will affect areas containing valuable conservation category wetlands and damplandsprotected by the 1002 Swan coastal plain wetlands environmental protection policyand the proposed 2006 Swan coastal plain wetlands environmental protectionpolicy Three of the amendment areas abut The Spr V10-1, a major wetland n uv Planning comment: Refer to section 6 (iv) of the main body of this report. Determination: Submission dismissed. Submission: 16 Submitted by: Peel Harvey Catchment Council Summary of submission: Support The Peel Harvey Catchment Council supports thefive proposed amendments 1. in tho particularlyinrelation to the water management requirements discussed amendment report. documents that are relevant to 2, The council has or is about to produce several management of water resources within the five amendment areaswithin the Peel- Harvey coastal catchment area as defined in the EnvironmentalProtection (Peel Inlet- Harvey Estuary) Policy 1992. These documents include the: Peel Harvey Water Quality Improvement Plan (public consultationdraft) soon to be released by the EPA. Model Pool Harvey Water Sensitive Urban Design LocalPlanning Policy developed under the Coastal Catchments Initiative bythe Peel Development Commission. The developmen: commission and council areworking with the relevant local governments of the Peel-Harvey coastalcatchment to have this model local planning policy adopted and implemented, The Peel Harvey Water Sensitive Urban DesignTechnical Guidelines that provide technical guidance on the implementation of watersensitive urban design to support the local planning policy consistent withDow requirements. 8 The council believes that in addition to the appropriate design ofurban development, significant opportunities exist to use MT Le tot II drainage network includingprivate, local government and Water Corporiton in In fried drains to facilitatethe stripping and assimilation of nutrients from drunagr writers in these areas with appropriatedesign and management. This would ristin the protection of the Peel-Harvey estuarine system and ensure that signifir int public investment in the DawesvilleChannel and associated catchment management u(limhr supported rather than compromised. the Peel-Harvey 4. The council is currently preparing a drainage management plan for forthe catchmentincludingproposedrelevantbest managementpractices management of drainage for water quality objectives. The submission was elaborated on before the hearings committeefor this amendment. Planning comment: Support noted. Determination: Submission noted, Submission: 17 Submitted by: Salterly Group & Wandi Anketel/ Landholdings Ply Lld (Greg Rowe & Associates on behalf of) Summary of submission: Support of the Jandaket 1, The initiation of live separate cells for the five proposed urban areas Structure Plan is supported given the extent of the area and varying sitecharacteristics and issues. DEC in order 2. The planning process agreed to by the WAPC, Water Corporation and that the subject ?and can be transferred to the urban deferred conewhite groundwater monitoring occurs, is supported. The process ensures lot production can occurin the immediate future. Thisisimperative given the current shortage of lotsin the metropolitan area. The development of the subject areas can be considered as a logicalcontinuation of Hammond Park and Aubin Grove. Development can therefore be viewed asurban infill rather than a traditional greanfields site. appropriate 4, Given the infill nature of the cells, they are also currently serviced by infrastructure for urban development. Sewer and water are located at thenorthern and southern edges of the corridor withdl rollpossessing direct access to the Kwinana Freeway and the future southi rn line. The Jandaket Structure Plan proposes some railway stations in the or h., ilsrthy increasingthe opportunity to expand patronage in relatively close pro, linty to theirly centre, Given the demand for lots in the metropolitan area, the rezoning processshould not be delayed by the train station review being carried out by the DPI andthe Public Transport Authority. buffer can be 6. Issues such as the water resource management strategy and the Alcoa addressed prior to structure planning. The submission was elaborated on before the hearings committee for thisamendment. Planning comment: Support noted. Determination: Submission noted. Submission: 18 Submitted by: Mandogalup Land Development Co. (Cardno BSD on behalf of) Summary of submission: Support 1. Disappointment expressed that the Jandakot Structure Plan was not finalised and released with the five structure plan amendments, given there is referencein the amendment reports to guidelines on drainage in the structure plan. committee 2. Cardno BSD is involved with the Jandakot Structure Plan drainage steering with the DEC, Town of Kwinana and DPI and chaired by the Water Corporation.The committees role is to oversee the preparation of regional drainage studies which were identified as being required In the draft structure plan and which will culminate in the production of the Jandakot Water Resource Management Strategy. 3. Cardno BSD understands that the guidelines for the water resource management strategy in the final version of the structure plan are consistent with thedrainage related work and investigations being overseen by the committee but cannotconfirm This until the final structure plan is seen. final version 4. It Is understood the draft structure plan has been modified so that the enables development of the Mandogalup area earlier. This is on the basis thatAlcoa have confirmed the closure and rehabilitation of F lake will commencein 2010, meaning the buffers will be removed from part of the amendment area In 2010. 5. There is concern that the amendment report refers to a portion of the amendment area being contained within a modelled dust buffer edge subject to two yearsof dust monitoring by developers to validate the model. therefore 6. However, no one can access the report which contains the model and Cardno 8SD strongly objects to such a report requiring developers ratherthan the polluter to undertake two years of dust monitoring to prove up a model thatthey have no access to and which has produced results thatthey are unable to review or question. be used 7. It is also queried on what basis the study, by Alcoa (which is confidential) can by either the Town of Kwinana or the WAPC to set policy or overridestrategic planning initiatives that have been subject to public review and which contain no referenceto this study or the constraints to developers it proposes to Introduce. 10 8. Therefore, it is requested that the WAPC have no regard to the study in regard to this amendment unless it is released. The' APC also needs to independently confirm and agree to the study's methodology and (Endings, which it is understood the WAPCis not prepared to do. 9 Cardno BSC will continue to be Involved in the Jandakot Structure Plan drainage committee and assist as necessary to finalise the required drainage studies and the Jandakot Water Resource Management Strategy. The structure plan will be reviewed on its release to confirm it reflects the work undertaken by the drainage committeeand reflects the publicly accepted position in terms of the Alcoa buffer issue. 10 The progress of the water resource management strategy should be reviewed prior to finalisation of the cell 1 amendment to determine if drainage is still an unresolved issue or whether lifting the urban deferment is solely related to the mud lake buffers. This will narrow the issues to be resolved prior to lifting urban deferment. The submission was elaborated on before the hearings committee for this amendment. Planning comment: Alcoa buffer issues are discussed in seclion 8 (I) ofle main body of this(sport Support otherwise noted. Determination: Submission noted, Submission: 19 Submitted by: Salve Mahe Saba WA (Inc) Summary of submission: Comment 1. Any residential development adjoining this organisation should be separated by a buffer of roads, parks and community facilities to minimise potential conflict with residents in relation to possible noise emanating from the site. 2. IIis requested that the organisation's land be zoned religious /community facility appropriate for churches and places of worship in the district structure plan and local town planning scheme. 3. Nearby future lots should have a notification or memorial on the title advising future landowners that noise may emanate from the site an certain days. The submission was elaborated on before the hearings Pentathlon for this amendment. Planning comment: This atafter will need to be addressed in detailed ning by the Town of kwinana There is no opportunity for resolution of the matter n MRS amendment. Determination: Submission noted, 11 Submission: 20 Submitted by: Main Roads WA Summary of submission: Comment Road 1. All future development must comply with the WAPC's draft Slat Planning Policy and Rail Transport Noise. 2. No direct access is permitted onto the Kwinana Freeway or its reservation. 3. Main Roads WA should be consulted on any drainage management plan proposed on the subject land as it may have a detrimental impact on the Kwinana Freeway. 4. Main Roads WA is aware of planning control area 76 for Rowley Road and an impending planning control area at the southern perimeter for Anketell Road. These are currently being reviewed as possible east-west links to theproposed Fremantle outer harbour proposal. All proposed road reservation boundaries and access onto these roads from cell 1 will be subject to agreement by DPI and Main Roads WA. Planning comment: These matters will need to be addressed In detailed structure planning for the subject area. Determination: Submission noted. Submission: 21 Submitted by: Conservation Council of WA Summary of submission: Objection 1, The draft Jandakot Structure Plan states that a water resource management strategy will be prepared for the structure plan area prior to its finalisation. As pad of further detailed structure planning prior to lifting of urban deferment, local area drainage and nutrient management plans will be required and will use the overall water resource management strategy for guidance. There is also a development approval sequence which illustrates the matters to be addressed and the steps to be taken to progress the rezoning.It was clear that the water resource management strategy was the vital document that would facilitate the orderly progression of the planning process. However, a water resource management strategy has yet to be drafted in a form able to be commented on by the public. 2. It is understood the Jandakot Structure Plan remains in draft form and has yet to be adopted by the WAPC and local governments. Further, that any rezoning to urban deferred would occur after the preparation of the water resource management strategy. 3. The Town of Kwinana's Eastern Residential Intensification Concept uses outdated lake and wetland mapping and continues "Wank slate" planning practices which fall to recognise the unique in situ environmental values. 4. There is concern that the amendments do not comply with the environmental objectives of land clearing within the catchment and water quality and quantity targets set by the Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet - Harvey Estuary) Policy 1992 and the protection of significant lakes, wetlands and groundwater resources. These concerns should be addressed in any water resource management strategy which should be developed and made subject topublic consultation before any amendment is considered. The amendment areas contain valuable woodland and remnant vegetation. Three Bush Forever sites will be affected by the propobal( >76 273 and 347). Urban development on the boundaries of these will crc AL edge r Ilccts such as rubbish dumping, litter, fires, fetal animals, weeds and dint, v ktht n.fore adequate buffers should be provided such as local reserves, roads, fa rising and firebreaks. 6. The area includes six wetlands listed in the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 plus numerous valuable damplands. These should be protected along with buffers in accordance with the draft WAPC policy on wetland buffers. Subsoil drainage should be prohibited in those areas as it will lower the water table and destroy wetlands. 7. The amendment areas contain large amounts of good quality vegetation mapped by Bush Forever, This is crucial for wildlife conservation and should be retained in local reserves. Bust-Land should not be regarded es a constraint but an indicator oflocal sense of place that regards endemic sr gelation and fauna as indigenous and vital to a sense of connection, belonging and at A/ trdship of the environment. 8, The amendment area is dissected by three major surface drains and many minor drains that feed into the Peel-Harvey wetlands system via the Serpentine River. The Peel Harvey-Yalgorup system is e wetland of international importance and is listed under the Ramser Convention. There is en obligation to manage it wisely and for this reason there is an environmental protection policy and slate planning policy thatapply to developments in the catchment. The proponents should have prepared a drainage management plan prior to seeking rezoning to show how they Intend to protect the Peel-Harvey system frompollution, The WAPC shouldinsist on the drainage management plan to EPA satisfaction prior to rezoning the land, The cost of treating drainage waters to prevent additional nutrients and pollutants from entering the estuary will be high and the proponents do not seem to have appreciated this. Acid sulphate soils in the area could become a problem if the water table is lowered. This has happened at Gwelup, Carina and Jandakot, causing serious environmental and health problems. Development should not be permitted in areas that have the potential to produce acid sulphate run-off The developer should be required to prepare an acid sulphate soils management plan. JO The subject area has considerable eiodiversity and contains declared rare flora. A prerequisite for any rezoning should be thorough and rigorous flora and fauna surveys and if necessary a management plan 11 Subdivision design should meet several criteria including mandatory use of water sensitiveurban designprinciples, mandatory installationof grey water reuse technology, voluntary and subsidised use of composting toilets, complete ban on local groundwater bores and water solublefertilisers,mandatory minimum species representation of plantings of endemic plant species, protection of Bush Forever sites. wetlands and damplands and protection of good quality remnant bushlandIn local reserve with adequate and representative functional buffersand corridor between reserves. Planning comment: Refer to section 6 (iv) of the main body of this report. Determination: Submission dismissed. Submission: 22 Submitted by: Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly part oftheDepartment of Conservation and Land Management) Summary of submission: Comment been 1. DEC has advised the Town of Kwinana that regional drainage issues have not adequately addressed in the Eastern Residential IntensificationConcept. it was recommended that a detailed study of regional drainage requirements and protection of wetlands was necessary prior to the finalisation of local structure plans. it wouldbe expected that future structure plans will outline drainage strategies to manage stormwater and potential impacts on environmental assets. that 2. The DEC is aware that the EPA has considered the amendments and has advised there is insufficient information provided on a number of environmentalissues including drainage. be 3. Prior to finalisation of local structure plans, declared rare flora studies need to undertaken in accordance with the EPA Guidance Statement No. 51 TerrestrialFlora Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia.These will identify environmental assets such as declared rare flora, other significant flora and threatened ecological communities which should be considered in theplanning process. Planning comment: Refer to section 6 (iii) of the main body of this report. Determination: Submission noted. Submission: Leto submission (1) Submitted by: Technical working group (Kwinana Air Quality Buffer Study) 14 Summary of submission Objection Corp, 1. The technical working group includes representation from DPI, DEC, DoIR, Land Town of Kwinana, City of Cockburn, Water Corporation, Alcoa and theKwinana Industries Council. proximity of the 2, The main issue addressed is the timing of the amendment given the area to the Alcoa bauxite residue storage area. Use of the storage areais due to cease in 2010, however, remediation of the site is due to continueuntil 2015. The amendment report notes that the buffer for the bauxite residue storage art a po.es a significant timing constraint to the potential for e change to urban uses.It al' n tales that, "no lifting of urban deferment will occur ow r theiffnclaad ire a. until tha is.ue has been addressed to the satisfaction Mr II Iry mt perks Mc amendment nport identifies the affected areas as being thn r m fig ha ¢m Residential Intensification Concept. 4. However, the area identified in intensification concept may not accurately reflect the area that has the potential to be affected by the activities ofAlcoa as part of the operation and remediation of the residue storage, to the oast of the amendment area. The draft Review of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffer study, released for public comment in 2002, stated that although the draft Jandakot Structure Plan depicts a 1 kilometre buffer to protect sensitive land uses from of fasite impacts during the operational lifeof the residue storage architis proposed that further detailed investigations be undertaken to balk r define the extent of the facility's impact. This work should also examine the long tern management practices applied to dust and noise emissions and identify mochani nito nilI no equitable outcomes for private landowners affected by any expansion of the buffer in this area. Alcoacarriedout dust modelling and monitoring andbelieves aresidential development free buffer to the freeway and north to Rowley Road is required due to the nature of the operation and remediation works to occur on the residue heap, Alcoa does not support any urban development in this area prior to 2015 or completion of remediation. 7. However, this approach was not wholly supported by the technical working group which considered that more work is required to validate the dust modelling undertaken by Sinclair Knight Mere (report of 2004) before it should be used to aid determination of a buffer. 8. Consideration must also be given to the remediation works which will commence in 2010 and are due for completion 2015, Alcoa believes the remediation works may have a greater potential for off-site impacts than the current operation works, asdust control is more difficult to achieve. However, the impact of remediation is not likely to be able to be determineuntilthe detailed remediation strategyisdeveloped (completion 2008), Future urban use is not disputed, however, it should not occur untilitis clearly demonstrated that residents will not be subject to dust, noise or light impact from the residue storage area during operation or remediation 10. Tho technical working group considered two options: of (i) support urban deferred providing there is a clear process to permit lifting urban deferment including monitoring of impacts and liaison withlocal government and Alcoa - development not to occur until it is demonstratedthat there will be no impact on areas proposed for development; (ii) oppose urban deferred until the additional dust modelling andverification has occurred and the detailed remedietion plans have been prepared provided this occurs no later than 2007 - a final decision of the locationof the buffer and timing of urban development could be made at this time to guide land use and development. permit 11. The majority of the technical working group supported option two as this would resolution of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffer study by 2007 and provide clear guidance on timing for development in the area. It was consideredthat if no development would be possible prior to 2015, rezoning to urban deferred nine years earlier wasnot necessary. Rezoning, structure planning and subdivision can becompleted in three to five years to permit development. impacting 12. Further, the EPA's assessment of the amendment did not cover emissions on adjoining land uses or noise and vibration. These issues maybe assessed in future by the EPA at the time of the local rezoning, structure planning,subdivision or development.Itistherefore important toestablish a process that adequately addresses these issues. Alcoa's views were elaborated on in a discussion with the hearingscommittee, Planning comment: Refer to section 0 (i) of the main body of this import. Determination: Submission dismissed. Submission: Late submission (2) Submitted by: Alcoa (Urbanplan on behalf of) Summary of submission: Objection Urban 1. The timing of proposed residential development near Alcoa is of great concern, development is not supported until after 2015, when remediation of the eastern flank of the residue area will be completed. Up lo 2015, air quality will remain en issuein terms of community perception. timing 2. The amendment should be postponed until consideration has been given to the of future residential development as a result of more recent dust modelling definingthe extent of potential impact from the residue area. WAPC 3. Progressing the amendment would be contrary to recent scientific evidence the and Alcoa agreed would be required to better define the extent of impactfrom the operation of the residue area. The community's acceptance or perception ofemissions is a critical aspect given the visual Impact of the residue area. The objectionrelates to 16 timing of proposed urban development near existing industrial development particularly if it does not have adequate planning controls in place. 4. The amendment report states the urban deferment will not be lifted until the Issue has been addressed to the satisfaction of relevant parties. The EPA recommendsthat generic separation distances be maintained unless adequate site specific studies have been carried out that demonstrate that a lesser distance will not cause any unacceptable amenity impactinaccordance withthe EPA's Guidance No.3 Separation Distance Between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses (Juno 2005), 5. Alcoa believes it is one of the relevant parties that needs to be satisfied along with DEC. Accordingly, should sitespecific studies be carried out by development proponents, these should be considered by the authorities in conjunction with Alcoa's monitoring and modelling assessments, 6. The EPA's recommended sop Ireton itI ince tie generic only and are used in the absence of more detailed t e mr it5rp +ration distances derived from Sinclair Knight Meris modelling should be spplif rf is it le superior to generic distances. The modelling considered noise odour Ind vi int imonity impact and the results identified potential impacts well beyond the siroriginally anticipated by Alcoa, The model dust emission contours should he interior I .d a a minimum definition of impact distances and a conservative approach L. prude t given the nature of residents' perceptions. 7, Community perceptions about air quality are likely to remain despite the application of generic separation distances. Ambient dust levels in the locality are a significant contributor to air quality regardless of the residue area and may cause the community concern. 8. Additional planning arid development controls may be warranted to ensure health and safety aspects are addressed. 9. The amendment documentation does not adequately protect the existing Industrial land use that meets its air quality parameters and licensing standards, 10. There is a need to amend and reinforce planning controls to ensure that development is withheld at least until revegetation of the residue area is complete in 2015, 11. The Kwinana Residue Area Long Term Residue Management Strategy was developed with extensive community consultation and provided the technical research and rationale for Alcoa's approach. Ai rtc of guiding principles wore produced by a stakeholder reit rt nes group and itpollees from Alcoa produced in the management strategy, TheIrak ray provith a the bander community with an understanding of Alcoa's long li rm rc, Kieft man teeny nt egalegies and commitments,If has been endorsed by Its Mini Iir for the Environment. 12. In 2002, Alcoa made a submission to the WAPC in relation to the Review of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffos requesting the proposed residential exclusion none be extended to include the area bounded by Rowley Road, the Kwinana Freeway and Ankelell Road based on dust monitoring results and complaint levels from residents. Alcoa agreed with the WAPC that "further detailed investigations are undertaken to bolter define the extent of impacts from the operation of the facility". The proposed urban deferred zone is within the area Alcoa requested as a residential exclusion zone. 13. The WAPC should modify the amendment to reflect the further detailed investigations that have bettor defined the extent of impacts. Also modification to existing planning 17 controls (e9 the Jandakot Structure Plan and proposed stateplanning policy) should be made to reflect the land use implication of detailedinvestigations. deferred zone is likely to attract 14, Residential development in the proposed urban complaints in terms of potential and perceived dust problems.Endorsing urban land in this location prior to 2015 will not adequately accountfor the National Environmental Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality (NationalEnvironmental Protection Council 1998) and will heighten the health and wellbeingconsiderations of future residents. emissions end seeks to achieve zero 15. Alcoa strives for negligible nuisance from dust exceedenco. The proposed amendment is at odds withthis and accordingly there are likely to be air quality complaints in the future. Those maybe directed to Alcoa but elsewhere if Alcoa is seen to have fulfilledits licensing requirements and the requirements of the management strategy. earlier closure of the eastern flank of 16. Alcoa has compromised its operations with the residue area F to enable progressive development ofMandogalup and Watltoup. Premature advancement of residential development willunwittingly raise expectations and introduce unnecessary awareness and intoleranceof the existing residue area and accordingly, complaints. Atcoa's views were elaborated on In a discussion withthe hearings committee. Planning comment: Refer to section 6 (i) of the main body of this report. Determination: Submission dismissed. 18 Schedule 3 The amendment figure as advertised HAMMOND AUBIN BANJUP IvAl I LEIJP PARK GROVE' HOWL! ROAD 682 51 52 683 0144549 682 1404 51 PROPOSAL 1 1 (I) 4 MANDOGALUe '112. ,, VIAND' ANKE I ELL 1IIE SPECTACLES aandakot St; detuto Han - Mandettalup Proposed M tier Amendment 1 II) n 545 r 411) , advettiset1 I 11{11 no III1111 It Schedule 4 The amendment figure as modified 1 I 1 I i 1 1 1 1 tinilirti' I I 1 P()" P RAMON() PARK 1 I I i I n(I 1 I ' I RCP( f.1 303 51 681 57 683 6o2 b A454 1004 ill tPloposal 1 MAIIDOGALUP j modal 682 01680 9000: Jandakot Stiucture F'lan Mandogalup Ptoposed Major Amendment Ill_ 11111 as modified iq 111 If (I_ I LIIIfif Appendix 1 List of detail plans as advertised JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN MANDOGALUP PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT AMENDMENT No. 1114/33 AS ADVERTISED 3.2023 DETAIL PLANS 32024 MANDOGALLIP URBAN DEFERRED Appendix 2 List of detail plans as modified JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN- MANDOGALUP PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT AMENDMENT No. 1114/33 AS MODIFIED 3.2023/I DETAIL PLANS 3.202/1/1 Mt NI URBAN DETERRED Submissions Planning and Devdopment Act 2.005 tion 41 Amendment (Substantial) MK/141 SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL I- MANDOGALUP I,Utp,sA0T4.11 To: S rlry wr MAU trIll IIIIn Cor Submission 1 464'N, Vnvllwrtrt t PI10tH /A £000 Nemo LA:/1/ 141615/2777/K AddR., 15 2 / 1/ et Postcodefd 1,7 Contact phone number./C1.70 / 5 '3 ty Ha nidic r aro nio I/ Man barn; Submission nowrt dthtt,frat par,nequIrcel for I )4.). zclt ,1,.i.:. /Ait' / / ( - 4/ (..1. /9 ( f// . . -.1, ...... ti tn '...i pi 6.. / (70 ./t.// / c t - o L./ (. r( .--.) / 4 .)/c? e i c. , i 42,( 7:- X.---), , , cc, (,i.:,..c,, K 1.,/?..b,t,14!--67-C., f. A' I o .AAz( ,/c .... e I"L.a7 ICIOCOZOVII TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions provides the opportunity for people who havemade a written The Planning and Development Act 2005 their submission to a Hearings Committee. submission to personally present the basis of will be You do not have to attend a hearing. Thecomments presented by you in this written submission considered in determining the recommendation forthe proposed amendment, Report end in For information about the submission andhearings process, please refer to the Amendment particular Appendix II, titled Preparing asubmission and for a 'hearing' presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: bottom of the form and sign) El No, I do not h to speak at the hearings, (Please go to the OR Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Pleasecomplete the following details) I will bo 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 beconducted in: RUSTIC (members from the general public may attend yourpresentation) OR PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you orthe bearings committee will be permitted to attend) You should bo aware that: WAPC) is subteen() the Freedom of Informatbn 7992(FOI Act; The Western Australian Planning Commission ( POI Act. and as such, submissions made to the WAPC maybe subject to applications for access under the copies of your In the course of the WAPC assessingsubmissions, or making its report on those submissions, submission or the substance of that submission, mayho disclosed to third parties, transcripts of all hearings, along with all writtensubmissions, are All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The records should the Governor approve the proposedamendment, The tabled in Parliament and published as public Parliament, WAPC recommendations are similarly publishedIn a Roped on Submissions and tabled in TO BE SIGNED BY PERSONISIMAKING THE SUBMISSION Dalt I.1 NOTE SUbIlliS don MUST be received by theldvertbed closing date, bring close of will NO1 be con-idured busInt (tt 00pm) on 24 SEP TEMISER ago Is Ito submission^ (08)02,1 n, Ent ,t p qn no 1st rant 11151 rvInn 'In ' In rosinmme r, Department of Indigenous Affai czj Government of Western Australia -1S7A.7-0c 005 I 05)0003517 Vault VI. 09-205-ill 11109,2- 1 81 1 109 -2-25.1 Pt I Dm A.,ffit 200 Submission 2 Mr Moshe Gilovitz Western Australian ['tannin Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTII WA 6000 1 1f;1i6 2p0 Dear I tz hie RE: T FORINFO SI LIZ SN Si hAl STRU Thank yi form:aim sites in list shove area. A snareh of ova liogister System been rt the results of the search It is possible that there arc sites that have not yet been entered on the Aboriginal Sites Register. TIm Aboriginal Heritage net 1972 (the Act) protects all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia whether they are known to this Department or not. The provision of this information is nut to be considered ON a clearance (as it is not the role of the Department to give approvals, but rather to ensure that sillthe heritage issues have been addressed). The procedures to enable all relevant parties to follow the requirements of the Act are outlined below. Prior to ally proposed developmentractibity, so that no siteis dalnaned or altered (which would result in a breach of Section 17 of the Act) it is rceortender Ihst suitably qualified consultants are engaged to conduct ethnographic and archaeological surveys of the area. This should cosine that all Aboriginal interest groups areconsulted so that all sites on the designated land are avoided or identified. Such a surveywould involve mehival research,consultations and on the ground inspections. This Deparallellt is not able to recommend individual consultants, however conned details of the impressional associations whose members do conduct surveys are enclosed.A survey 8110111d also elitinre that the provisioas or the Act arc met Itis our preference that any development plans are modified to avoid damaging or altering any site,If this is not possible and in order to avoid a breach of the Act, the land owner should submit a Notice in writing under Section IS of the Act to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Commilien To Department of buligemsna Affairs, seeking the Minister for Indigenous Affairs' prior written consent to use the land. A form to lodge a Notice under Seel ion 18 is available from the Department. 1st floor, 197 St Cintats 00 Box 7770, (Artiste Meal:one Please do not hesitate to contact Mr John Brinkman, of our Midlandoffice, ifliat can he of thrther assistance. Yours sincerely i( e-/CJVI Reins:ea 13 thchScolt Heritage Information Officer 9 August 2006 an: Professional Anthropological and Archaeological Organisations in WA. Register of Aboriginal Sites report. SOON BRINICMAN, A/Regional Almoner, Department olinfligcnotis Affairs - IvIctropolitan/Wheatbelt Regional Office, 1'0 BOX 1696, MIDLAND, \VA 6936 Phone: (08) 9274 4288 DEPAIVINIENT Olt CVDIGSNOUS AIWA MS ANTIIROPOLOC ) A(tCltAtiOLOGICAl QtGANISAT1ONSR far advice on consultants age Assessment Sury MIA does not accept any respnnsllrilily lug' the Mini or imitators./ sed dniy 211041 Mate: for advice on the conduct. of nerve" includinglegislative requirements, contact the Department ar Indigenous Allithw or refer to the web page atwww.digwa.govaril itightoutitagiglSovirlystAyaglgrabratatflovcgrolgvaaagUigolior CONTA(TT:Nis Laurel Cummins 90 Box 4024 KOMODO/ A WA 6064 Ph: (08) 9343 8130 Email: anthumsocwagUyahoo.conhau if /Titian 6)//imskIlopptcipuhli Ram igArgliggold CONTACT':Shaun Canning I IgweelICO WAY ItarrnihaWA 671 Pismo: OS 01 I '1)87 Fax: 08 914'I'M Shaun i/ IF Iilageservi Internet: Mip,fromi.conhau a oloyigg.uul Ar Ammich chug)» 01 Proleggicinal OilCOI /Min lea CONTACT: Ms Jacquelinellarrix 26 Camelia Street NO/011 PERTH WA 6006 Ph: (08)93287973 Fax: (08) 9328 7973 sz Sas-ch Criteria rrnarratraporno.Oar arenter-soannBanan7 :a- rE REGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES Eiefarealsaa RBSER Legerta as ra7aaa ..... Rs to art RasO ea -a a a -- a a e = La La777,,s ^-, a a - t e s ^ B= a o an "a az "Bar s 's 74ur B^Ona E.- I s a--c.a. S - . 007>oLP SBEET0O-ES , S C t :Er RO"E RepraProlnaaRBOROCOEB3502550 by ROB ReGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES SITE SEARCH MAP a 2 Abongmat ventage St+ts toLnd Coo jmars 03'33 ir Po ygon C33CL3-2 952 275"C3-23.033s -ass 2 93 6 -1312 3 kiGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES NO AU:D-249773 "*.,. ReGSR 5 7.ES. Search nnte..a -3333 ^.Z . Z 0 1 c-PDlsc comer -33333 er Legenc 0C.CASS{ C C , I Rest r Re.") C 33.53t 33.3.2-e3 e -3 can ',a t 3 -be a Vee 3.3 3,3 5 ,,,P53ECceC_ES rAncr P 3,,,,,e3CY.° 03e muu '3 5 i12330 005 5755:55 FM by RGE /2tzttatt4tt ISttatt. 0.1tstrt REGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES Anozcze,a,a,-- izmAIA:45 Az-± :At 5."1 tt. a SITE SEARCH MAP .2 rizi.us IIt 1 I - Legend S e 1 Is 1:1-A Sea= Aran sr' 1 I A; I1a_ 11 A if a 1 0 t st0c0C - 9W1.T.Ct 19917;-01. 3 Lk 01 t5t 'Cr 2 0 903 "C 00.' 90 1,:c 0'3 0 0: a ) 93'000'0=0,c ^' co Sp', 0. .9 . .400 -1030 00:,--0^ op, Tz.- F10, 0 on, .^ Eko, crl 00 000..c00 L000 0c00 1-.Ar= s' to- u .0000 --"." C.V4Z tzilte,00, e3-7,0 S3118 1VNI01AO9V dO 2:191S10?>1 REGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES SITE SEARCH MAP s 4: VALIS ,15,1Wit / M Legend0 TownSe:ected She 1 i ill 1 --- Search Area Map Area SAM C*SS 2 tworiginal Heritage Sues mune n Polygon Castro ,es 391864392140392621Eashog 643566864335376433539Northhig 50Zone _ULZSOVZ 3nno° , 392844392265392521393062393031 64359256435917643554164348346434876 5050 Zr Rerszi Pz:zSzszS: SSZESSOCS a:Safe Sy Roe REGISTERD OF sc sr&ABORIGINAL SITES cense -2-22.- 03 ,'S- Zc-e 27' -7 C Legeno 52.;_s Acct. Rest- cr cr R22 , I - c-aa I. 222 S 22720 C , 02, 02, rr. ,=e0ae a Iry - =-a cn re 0-rd ma ''- a ea. CC.0 P.' A ar--ata = r- e - o -0 =00 ec222 e S 0 C2,T E° COLCCO 302.22=-E Parre= 222 442, REGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES SITE SEARCH MAP 5 t 'nor 1 - Legend'7 Selected Sii ..---- 7 f\ L., Tonfl SearchAvee 3 Aoongenal Her.tage Saes round en ocetygon Caa-airatas 6-36 322943691297291800392074 24212056-359725-29E912 ,0490 5350 393949393095393057392059 6931752C,43253, 22535 50 PI,olucsa, EY0812"N"S. rage: a 3f a REGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES =a:a Search CrE7er s ' thschrar _5l 57 n Legend s.ccss I st c R_st Cuss t Rest 1...titt I_' = -a a`, s ' E ...... rt. o e sts ^seas.- eeeaa -...s s ects se c-, e - ,-.-ss.x...e 5 .e...- Sew ._C C CCerc _ * 1 F es-se C. ' . ' C y s c Is.... a e- - ^ 3 i s - _ _ t u tt t le Tr. sr, a TT_ sec r...- E-.e . - - exe -. - ..., e 5- s s e r e L's - -.V Ca e ...e Esc -.."4 c ts s . et e C...... C c or- s. -- s a -se .....a...... se ca - s I s cc- S oC .CST ZO0.7:0:10c0 i OCEOCC c OP, St e. c asr..-esteT 3 Z-2.os Casssistet OrstesementsteSestem ..0 »1114 Recctt 5 dt eStSSSZSDS S.56.2.7 AM! by RS55 2222,c;af W22erz25.:42,Tra REGISTER OF ABORIGINAL SITES 55-a55-zeqs-a-.41.5-e5a vNaLJS-5,5" -c'57 V3-5202" ... at adage,-SITE SEARCH MAP - - --1. S se Legend II , a. ', Se:ected S.te . I ,1/42 l''''" . e Town e1 > . . 0. --- Search Net ' 500050 1 : taddr.glral -tentage S see :our': in Polygon ' t Ceettd nates 391833392485Easting 4-250...264255-2' 0" -5 50Zone 422222 2 391901391335392243392074392050 8-Ci.54854305-6540-0 205335.S.:64 3"2 5050 392910392643392459392228 55-255-:,5...55..54:69' .5 CL' 5G50 50000 7.50 393048392923 ;5.55,22rt..55 83 POOr 50 2 III 2 Rol PDE.114 Submission 3 September 2006 I Its Secretary We ;tem Australian Planning 3 mattot 469 Wellington Street PERM WA 6000 Dear Sir/Madam METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME (MRS)AMENDMENT - 1114/33, 1115/33, 1116/33,1117/33 & 1118/33. AMENDMENTSwrrtuN TIME SOUTH WEST DISTRICT ti the MRS amendments within the south west Thank you for the opportunity to comment on district. Rural zoned land to Urban Deferred It is recognised the MRS amendment intends to rezone zoned land in live areas of the Jandakot StructurePlan and Eastern Residential Intensification Concept area to facilitate future development.MRS areas 1 (1114/33), 2 (1115/33) and 3 (1116/33) adjoin Rowley Road and Anketell Roadwhich are important freight links to nearby importance to freight planning as it is the industrial areas. Rowley Road is orpadicular preferred transport link to the Outer Harbourcontainer facility. Fremantle Ports has previously commented andsupported the Town of Kwinana's Eastern Residential Intensification Concept. The plamangdocument recognises Rowley Road and A aketefl Road as important transport corridorsfor the region, including the Kwinana Industrial Area, proposed new Outer Harbourcontainer facility and the Hope Valley Minima, industrial development. Fremantle Ports supports the MRS amendmentwhere the report takes into account he network protection of these critical freight transportcorridors and the inclusion of freight protection documented in the Eastern ResidentialIntensification Conceptplan. Fremantle Ports requests Hint the application ofappropriate planning measures on future land Policy and the Road and Rail Transport development, including the ) VAPC Freight Network will Noise Policy will be applied along these transportroutes at the development stage. This freight transport links to the Kwinanaindustrial help ensure the continued operation of the needs of area and overflow port facility.This approach will allow for the long term stakeholders and community, including the freight transportindustry and name residents, to best he achieved. Yours 1 a SLT 2006 51 -9-4 ' 7 Lyle13(Ii: C)6f ig 96 ci Manager PortPlumingnn r -I 44 - .4.- Sal- 6 I tet% 9.- 96 6 0 ,,l'oMal IMMorm IM has 5 Memonlio WA COM) Fromanlle Porto:I Cliff Sttut,15 man lAt v/amm3MporM5055.15 WO; w OW fremontlepmb mini MI Tofrmtmom i 61 0 9130 3555 &On*: it 9XM . 71 En e,ss,at Mal L4C00:011.0Li, v r,12,50 Cfroag ILO 0001 11:010319 OsnN11:.rial Iltritli ardSx151,C,V,4,,nkl/IMANI I.,. (11...fiO15fI.Ornsnsset,l.l Submission 4 .111 11,8097'6 61t1,30, Tuff f 11. /f ffl mm n 1,111 Oa 11 /Pt 0.. r>22, 3533 E FL TIM 111 n m 1, 11 ILE r In Mesh( Giloviiz rki u t fry WI -Irm Australian Planning Commission -16,3kviillington Street Pi 12111WA 6000 1 8 SEW 200 13? a:76- 719 809 -4',26 I 4.909 .?-26-6()1 Dear Sir/Madam Bo9-2 -aL6 -6 e METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Thank you for the invitation to comment on the proposedamendment No.'s: 1111/33, 1115/33, 1116/33, 1117/33 and 1118/33. The Department of Industry and kr our Ci (Del fil)has no objection to amendment No.'s 1115/33, 1116/1i andI 11 tit We do however, draw your attention to a number of basic rip Iin don d IC mime and C.Ir ll.tion areas that are impacted by the remaining propos1kI hi .ev1 I m ,hown on the "Resource protection working plan. of Puth in( ti F1)011,111 n111011 Ind outer areas 2002 map" as published by the Licpariniont for Plarating and Infrastructure (see Attachment 1). Speciflcatly, Amendment No. 1114/33 Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 1 Mandogalup raises concerns due to it's proximity to sand extractionactivities currently operated by Naval Base Contractors, and to Mining LeaseM70/884 held for sand by Amity Holdings Ply Ltd. Accessible natural sand resources close to Perth are declining asthe City expands, particularly on the southern margins. 'rho region from Perth toBunbury is one of the fastest growing urban areas in Australia and many sitesthat would otherwise be suitable for sand mining occur in locations where planningand environmental impacts preclude or severely constrain extraction, Mt pan ion of urban areas of Perth and the maintenance of infrastructure is de P1(Kb nt on the supply of construction materials, such as sand and gravel, TillIII/ flay of housing in Perthis generally high, and pad of that is through theIIIdily available Sand supplies. If strategic resourc( mill of Pt Ph a1 tt t- d future gem -m inns will not have benefits the pn( ut pr IlfI ALUM 11)05 I1 In potting Ion !indult t materials from locations well It inoy«I from Pi ithI dilluu 11 1 I pollutionind negative social impacts from In 1114 ti m Ix Itold h Id to IM IfII fidf ty «tocurns due to the movement of Logo bud._ on agwnrI boldInI I01 «I II in !iodation will also cause construction costs to increase, significantly removing the advantage that Perth enjoys compared to other State capital cities in Australia. Do1R's strong preference is for sequential land use in which sandextraction is followed by urban development. The Metropolitan Region Scheme and Town Planning Schemes are important tools for managing this transition. DolR request that proposed amendment No. 1114/33 be modified as shown on the attached map (Attachment 2) to exclude a 500 m buffer zone around the current and future sand extraction areas from the Urban Deferred zoning until the sand extraction is completed. This change would reduce the impact of noise and dust upon any residential development from ongoing and future sand extraction. Amendment No. 1118/33 Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 5 Wellard (East) is also problematic as it is located on a known sand resource, and is adjacent to a Priority Resource Location for clay as defined in the WAPC Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.4. Clay is an essential component for brick manufacture and as for sand, future low cost supplies are being jeopardised by urban development. Suitable buffers around both the sand and clay resources encroach upon such a large part of the Proposal area that DOR considers the rezoningofthisareatoUrban Deferredtobe currentlyinappropriate. Consequently, DoIR opposes Amendment No. 1118/33. Yours sincerely ier Tim Griffin Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WESTERN AUSTRALIA 13 September 2006 000007.Wmon,Ormay.doc End 2 of 2 II 1 , 'El 1 ° j 0 7 I ;',_i 1 i(itEl ri'lli ,II-,IIL,I__ I 7\i 0,1_ s '- _,-- 'il lo 1 ? ilt-P_'1 II II 1 -1 1 'Ill ,. 1 li r I Jj I Littj: II, 1 I ft7-"--' 7i`jr,ri , !LI ' d 7 ) 1 , 1 .Jilt r Id ,.--, J I J,-", I /f I i I 110.' 1 I h ( Xi1i01 dl ( : 11 / I Jr) 4 I 7 F I 4- Submission S Wetted Ogg I LettJA:00076 ;sasses testsity deg fOter11131165 The , in Pity It -WWI I m Commissisl Obi trip Hinton tin r Pt 1,111 WA I 000 14 &Mother 2000 hour Secretary RE: METROPOLITAN REGIONAL SCHEME AMMENDMENTS 1114133 * JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1 - MANDOGALUP 1115/33 -JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 2- WANDI The Dampier to Sunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP) corridor traverses through hells.above tio structure plans. hiall pressure (ranyunivvion gee pipe. All currant and 'rue ORNGP,r tRelor Mt trf tIdtand «Jul Fn future land in pet find; 4t eitLA11/I It WM+ IV 10110 in Ono WW1 01,0 West Australian Planning Conuniinn CPAPC ) bail PI it non I HP. finfel pl md (It zolopment in the vicinity of high pressure gas transmis5lon lint The Dia pwwgg Pull, he pm,'' h rib itI (11I notIttlitt idt [Ural and other land use based on EPA Clitoris The setback dE I tart IIdt Ot MIMI on 11,110, of I and u aid developrnont proposed as well as en the suburban location IhnP E1E ilnr iti tv, n f figIII lila piPck-le and can vary from 0 -200 meters I within acceptable limits as stipuhted In 1110 bark ft11111 Os ftV to pu,pltand Mtlin Ur I Aullo illy Gu,d met II) illt1 Ph It, is HMOs in land use, nithdLVI51011 and development Enrol Iup r ititsn t rIItIt WE{ I p nulon within the existing pipeline corridor. WSW of /110 013NGP, Imo poti t 1 f i ff a a, infirm-1;1 uf f lin(hirj Alp inti tet Mtn rip ly Impute( on 111L apt r ding en th.(yinof h 10,11 Ilint 11110 btr on Our b d If 1119111 CIO-1%4y loon ntm [finned for the OVICIW I f lht d ryuN tune fel/ 1ppin 4'1 10111, pint luuI11110Se Inc[ .11 1'111r t d to In f 011,1,00(1 t ,t n 11 Is thoroforrt awn d tat illlutur,d, v Itpnv nipl Imo d t 1 Na area mu I I in vb u, Allah prior tel boob ail of pie For a copy of the Draft Planning Bulletin, enquires oho.4Id be directed to Ken Dawson en9264 7777 Shouk..I you have any neefient reorelni.9 the ODNG1', please do net hesitate to contnct Eii0 ell thenumber above. Yours Sincerely fieaweeterde,frec4 Jonnetto Appleby LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICE Ent Diagram DENGP MRS AMENDMENTS FOR MANDOGALUP S WANDI CONTAINING THE DAMPIER TO RUN13URY NATURAL GAS PIPELINE GALUP kA0795/ Ln1 an/ a9 314 SPEtIACLES landakot Structure Plan Wendt Proposed Maya Amendment 13Vnnbrl 1001, at, advertised t nyrs 33 Ito tl FLT f WA1 MEM) N MANDOGALUP HOPE V A-Wag:0111 ,-- . _ \ 1 4LES --- Jandakot Structure Plan - Mandogalup Proposed Major Amendment DecOrtibor 2005 as advertised Logeng Propooetl: 114.lot N \LI 5,Vginrn L t_ Planning and Davelognianl Act 2005 2 6 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 2 FORM 41 ,,p91,26-5-e SUBMISSiON METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No.1114/33 JANOAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1 - MANDOGALUP r 11 11 tn 111111101J facionagoon Submission 6 le n I i I gie " r myr.Q.44Q ,,, m ostc ode: (at Ad ton 6\ h5 reiroicr tyo. .... Fined address - Contact phone 'lumber 2.1frill.5 .V./.2- 9Z I ,11,00;001+ 1.10.0 :0.10.1011y:01,1 1,0r000-0:010012010,0,12 0110011,101:00100 Subolisshin 101 111 11 1 J JO " 714-C TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions The Planning and Development Act 2006 provides the opportunity for people who have made awritten submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this writtensubmission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment. For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the Amendment Roped and in particular Appendix II, titled 'Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: eNo, i do not wish to speak at the hearings (Please o to the bottom of the form and sign) Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please iplete the following details) I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (b n s hours): ,,,,,, CR O A SPOKESPERSON Name of Spokesperson:...... ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ... ,,,,,,, ... Contact telephone number (business hours)...... ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Postal address: ...... ,,,,, . ,, I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: O PUBLIC (members from Me general public may attend your presentation) OR O PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be Permitted to attend) You should be aware that: The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is subject to the Freedom k Act 1992 (FOI Ant) and as such, submissions made to the WAPC slay be subject to app co the FOI 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 writtensubmissions, 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 and tabledin Parliament. T9 RESIGNEDP9LEPRsONINMAISINGTNELSIJIWISSLON Signature Dale 2 419 NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (S.00pm) on 29 SEPTEMSFR 2905. Late submissions will NOT be considered. Cupp owvi tv,fravia env. conmd:feluliono Pi) OM MI rax (all 926,r 160 nma arrsTaapcviirviw, Internet Pkuirung and OOewotapI ant Act 200 Section 41 Amendment (S bstat an Mino 41 SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1114133 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL I MANDOGALUP 11 T.In l r 1 1 , 1 1 fitI li i m I IT Submission 7 11 4 III III ( \I M 1Vit ( \ 'tkt 4 ; Lik Ir,dL 0 (37-1- 1444 fitment 'ono,(S;11t11i-1'c( t m Steeleinn +-I TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUHMISStON Hearing of Submissions The Planning and Development Act 2005 provides the opportunity for people who have ma submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submissionvdll considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment. For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the Amendment Reportnin particular Appendix II, titled 'Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: El No, I do not wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of he form sign) Yes, I wish to speak al the hearings. (Please complete the following details) Iwill be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours)'. OR ASPOKESPERSON Name of Spokesperson Contact telephone number (business hours): ...... ,,,,, ,. Postal address: I would prefer my bearing to be conducted in: rJ PUBLIC (members from the general public may attend your presentation) CR LI PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will he permitted to attend) You should he aware that: The Western Australian Planning Commission (WARC) is subject to the rtverlom of In lortruilion Act 1992 (ro! Act) and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the Eel Act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions. copies el your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All treetops aro 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 theproposed amendment, The WAPC recommendations are similaly published in a Report on Submissions and tabled in Parliament. IP QUIPNED @Y PEB5Plitgl MAKKg 111E SVESMIBBION rSignatureA..,.., , 09,c6 NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5.00pm) on Ss SEPTEMBER XSISfe.Late submissions will NOT be considered. sr.cvrasovlw couloduNtyptipnO(ON) oriel 77/7 rox 92541 50. Ernohnitqvapcm9svoMJ, Internet., Planning and bovelopmont Act 2005 Section 41 Amondment (Substantial) FORM 41 SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1 -MANDOGALUP ,{ 1 1 mIL 1r.11 if,111rTlii Submission 8 1 lit.1 tttjElr11,11r 1ffI It N cit WtL(l) Di 614.7 Add,. r(li(I (/:t P4.42112E14-7.1" .... 1?osIcode Cutd.t.t [Mon, nuibbt.r . .. . . Email address . Submission HEE, irLcLLL LOLlrtcLnntornd !", ,,,,W0.31H.Mat'. Hi' I) T have. olDei-litI 12,-.-pi?c50-i Ye70,11/1:-) fr.) pit; icH TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Roaring of Submissions The Planning and Development Act 2006 provides the opportunity for peoplewho have made a written submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you inthis written submission wilt be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to theAlitondmonl Renot and In particular Appendix II, Idled Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: Er 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: 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: Li PUBLIC (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will ho permitted to attend) You should be aware that: The Western Australian Planning Commission (MPG) issubject to theFreedom of Informalion Act 1992 (Fol Act) and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject toapplications for access under the 101 Act. in the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, er making its report onthese submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to thirdparties. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of all hearings,along with all written submissions, ere Milted in Parliament and published as public recordsshould the Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a Report onSubmissions and tabled in Parliament. TO.PEEIONEP_EY PERSONS) itilfiitSINP TNE.EIENVIIEEJON c2 signature CweIdeefld--' Dale p b NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being closeof business (5.00pm) on 29 SEPTEMBERflle. Late submissions will NOT he considered. niUe boohoo QA) 9264 1171 , lax. 1009 7660 LITIA futrgvapywo q55 IntVaitt I l lArenvM1pC gay au Piaui-ling and Devoropment Ad 2001 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) /- FORM 41 IIIg0 2 -h SUBMISSION C6) METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1114133 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1- MANDOGALUP nn. rrtpJuullrelie Cornrnerron Submossion 9 N\arVt Mama Nno C. ci._ C aFH Address 21.740 Crd:Crrc3e:5.17 c'r PonterAln biC-1 Contact phone number Int ieiS CI I. nuiLnddressnonciccic.):(,-.cc:c? L,-;c4)0.z.t c o -1cl t'"? :-r1/2 CY1g I 019 rte.-ted ACO (srcer ol 0 ,,, TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions The Rearming and Devolopmont Act 2005 provides theopportunity for people who have made a written submission to personally present the basis of !heir submissionlo a Hearings Committee, You do not have to attend a hearing. The commentspresented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for theproposed amendment. For information about the submission and hearings process,please refer to the Amendment Report and in particular Appendix II, fitted Preparing a submission andfor a Wearing' presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: 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 ei 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 conductedin: presentation) CI PUBLIC (members from the gcnerol public may attend your OR PRIVATE (only the people nominated by You or the hearingscommittee will be permitted to attend) You should be aware that is subject to the Flooding of Intoner nn Act 1992 (rot The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Act) and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may besubject to applications for access under the FOI Act, making its report on these SlIhMinions, copies of your in the course of the WAPO assessing submissions, or submission or the substance of that submission, may bedisclosed to third parties. of all hearings, along with all written submissions, All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The transcripts are tabled in Parliament and published aspublic records should the Governor approve the proposed published in a Roper( 00 Submissions and tablet! in amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly Parhornent. SILK SiON. RP RIERRRRROINIARRNP_TRE_RP3MiRiff2N Ds C. Signature ,SOtidrg ctigi NOTE: Submissions MUST he received by the adveriNedclosing date, being close of business (5.00pm) on 29SEPIBMSKS attent Latesubmissions will NOT be considered. vvmlvWnenv M0 le ph m .10)064 174 ryefoil) 9264 nes; romil,rrinewapOwa gOVM); Ititemot. IIpIM Planning rod D9/o1 nt Act 2000 huh Section 41 Arnow Imo))) (Substantial) FORM 41 6 S SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No 1114133 JANOAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1 ) MANDOGALUP Submission 10 n1111_ (-/arcl_f Nam,Li'11 LL) 1rr C CLL.') c IS1 Veturef- iiikk.pogicodo6,(0/ Addi 1 C /Cc)) 1 ')(A 07 11 n nmir rddi, I caypoq,e,ss>j,..,.4c4 C0111 if 11hrI, 111111111 r , , r sAppcvA she . TURNOVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions The Planning and Development Act 2005 provides the opportunity for people who have made a written submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will he 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 II, tilled Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: No, I do not wish to `pP Ikrt the he dings (Please go to the bottom of the form and sign) OR Yes.1 wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the following details) I will be represented by: MYSELF a My telephone number (business hours): CR A SPOKESPERSON Name of Spokesperson: ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Contact telephone number (business hours). Postal address' I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: PUBLIC (mmnbels Got the general public may attend your presentation) OR O PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will he permitted to attend) You should be aware that: The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is subject to the Freedom of Information AN 1992 (101 Act) and as such submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the FOI Act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, Cr 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 Imnscipts 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 an Submissions and tabled In Parliament. IP OE SJOREPRIEER5ON(0)MNSINOJIJELOWONIISSION Dale ALI/9/06 Signaturec_73Q-,, dc NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5.0(1pm) on .29 SEPTENIUR 200K Late submissions win NOT he considered Corrals TAlone r trot 52w net (On) nee Mt, retell mreeereper we ree ne Internelite itreereeeleert Ere. DIWARRd8N1 GOA PIANNINC4 AtIONIFRASTRUCIURE Planning and Development AO 2005 2 7 SEP MN :Iention 41 Amendment (Substanth FORM 41 01-2-2 b-C 1 SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1- MANDOGALUP orate tempt to Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Submission 11 450 Wallington Street PERTH WA 6000 r(01 .n Al(- f' /1) Name . 11HE F,) Addres, 1'27. t-I('A AK- 71- I _1 /1,7 Postcodo, (1.6i iU'it/Al (1/I:, (Lc CL.act phone numbcr t/0 p tj" Ira Kids -s Submission (Prom ninth indboul rum If un u/al.11isryetored IDntnny odthIsul inMoution be loom unto, I 4,/ !), I' 'eI /7! I pit ees (!!. leelSovlee / fe' S'Atit°''.""eld ice/et r (ea oe,filebef TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions he Planning and Development Act 2005 provides the opportunity for people who have made a written ',mission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. ou do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be visidered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment. or information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the Amendment Roped and In articular Appendix II, titled Preparing a submission and fore 'hearing' presentation. 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 4-10;,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 )44,9b Poe -76-72 Name of Spokesperson* Contact telephone numberusiness [mussy 915-5 Postal address: /10 QK WA- (4-aVAint/6-/34.(a6C 6153 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) on should be aware that: The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is subject to the Freedom of Intonnotion Act 1902 (FOI Act) and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access under the FOI 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 PERSONS) MAKING THE SUBMISSION 2c /ed,,,le/206" Ignature I won., MUSE bo rw Lived by the edvc tl ed cic, ing d itbr inn hie se of (5 99prn) on 29 SEP i EM0:1 mu Lit.ubm1 alone will NOT be con iderecl ontncla: Telophono 0,76-1 Mr. I An teal 92n I /AL [null pc ...t gov au. lint, mat htlp ^ van nu Porter Marking 'Otters 25 September 2006 PA Eaa, AND INPAASPAICTUR Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 2 7 SEP Z006 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 Dear Madam/Sir RE: METROPOLITAN REGION SCNEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1114/33 JANDAKOT stituctunE MANDOGALUP We write on behalf of the owners ofLots I and 2 Rowley Road, Mandogalup, being Qucsldal Inklings thy thd. Questdale has developed and opera) I Rowley Road. Mandogainp for sevens decades.In the development of their sandpit hallo) plan Ihey have eonfen'ed will Western Australian Planning Commission, the fern ines Department noel IheTown l The profile and reshaping of the site has been Miser the premise that the Bile will be developed for (inure urban purposes. The Town of Kwineee port )his 11 and required I slopes to be graded at I in I5 :Ind that re-vegetation only I I The concept of whim development of both Lois I and 2 Rowley Road iv shown in the Tovn of Kwinana Eastern Residential Intensification Concept. Refer Attachment I. The Water Corporation in their planning for future development has included Lots I and 2 ht )heir water and wastewater catchments. The current eastern boundary oldie wastewater eatchm being the former ridgeline that has now been extracted is part of the sand pit activities. W eexpeet than this catelanent boundary would move west to at least the boundary of Lot I. Refer Atauhment 2. Questdale's sand pit operation has accommodated Metropolitan Region Scheme requirementsfor Rowley Road naming east/avest to the north or the site, the extension or Hammond Road running north/south near the boundary of Lots I and 2, and at parallel greenway link. The Town oltwinana has advised, as part its Development approval for the sand pi will only be extended for a further four years as the area will be required for urban /level The Metropolitan Region Scheme major amendment for the JandaAut area shows the future deferred cone only extending to Lot 2 and excluding Lot 1.!gofer WItachownt 3. Questdale is concerned at the exclusion of Lotgiven that its platinum, and extractive industindustry operations have been based on advice that Lot I would be urban in thefuture and that its sandpit operations would be limited by that future urban development Questdale requests that the Metropolitan Region Scheme boundary for theurbandeferred area be moved westward to include Lot 1 Rowley Road. There does not appear tobe any majorservicing constraint to the iaelusiao of Lot ) in the 'urban deferred' zoning. The site isfree draining Tamale seeds and is within the planned waterand wastewater catchments. The Town ofEwinana's previous concept plans have incorporated Lot 1 and Lot 2 Rowley Road in thefuture urban area. In the matter of else overall amendment, Questdale holdings is supportive of thechange of anduse from 'rural' to 'urban deferred'. If you have any queries or require us to provide additional information supportingthis submission please contact the undersigned or the owner's representative, onci on 9410 1693. Yours Mithfully 7 DAVID PORTER m REcron District bevel Structure (Vta son as at2 ald Anon I 05)Pleas note that this represents a work in Progress and furthrl Ietinamentrinorlifirations will in ant ik we workthrough the issues. Please therefore into pr, t the to hr indir dive only subk et to change and not as the basis for corninei cid decisrons at IN. stage. I ON% n of kw mane ray, n Reatkantal Ink walk ationonaept rl 1111113311 rrtrirtIrtir n Irt) I roll° trl I rod Ilst IIn 11 I I I 1.1.0 nb I ItII II I 1111III 7 I 1 1 I I 111 1 1 ,n 11,, IIn VIII 'III SI I InII 1 "" 1, 1111 I1 Puroth, tail lItt 1 DATE RECD JOB No WATER 1)15'51(501915 2pn 201020 )I! 111 20050761) VOI (55551N5lio55556 (00) 9120 0105 n Tel 619 Ncwostre 00-cpt I September 2005 lcofpr,119 POW YlemernAraccalip PO Pox 109 David Porter lecdprv.11oWA 0902 David Porter Consulting Engineer Telephanc We) 9420 2420 PO Box 1036 etnal CANNING BRIDGE WA 6153 wpt,,,,,p9p0wmorcorporctiop 10111 Webs/cc, movmarprcorporacipncoencci LOPS !AND 2 ROW LEY ROAD, MANDOGA [UP With reference to your letter of 25 August 2(X)5 requesting the Corporationth advice o servicing the above lot, the Corporation provides the following: Water The area is within the existing Thomsons Lake Water Supply Scheme. Preliminary scheme planning for this area indicates that water supply from the Thomsons Lake Reservo it will be gravitating from the north, through a proposed ON 600 main from Bantam Road along Hammond Road, reducing to a DN400 main along Frankland Avenue. These mains are not planned for construction bethre 20 I0, at the earliest. The extension of the existing DN600 main From Hammond Road may require prefunding should development ones change without giving the Corporation sufficient notice, or sudden and accelerated growth rates occur, A minimum of 12 months notice is normally required. This is subject to the developer keeping the Corporation accurately informed of the proposed development rate, which should be reflected in the Metropolitan Development Program prepared by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Consultation with the Corporation is required at an early stage for the initial water supply, dining and prefunding requirements for the future distribution monk Wastewater Preliminary planning indicates that wasthwafir will gravitate to a future. DN 150 along the western border of Lot 2 into a future Type 10 pump station that would discharge to an existing ON 375 gravity main to the north through a proposed wastewater system of gravity mains (attached Phut A l). As a temporary measure, the pump station can pun the wastewater directly into the existing main above, at the developer's cost. The above works are not currently on the Corporation's Capital Works Programme ander/+ may require prefunding by the developer. rcnncroc The subject land is entirely within the \Valet Col por:dion' s )lslricl that flows into lie Peel Main 13rain. Any urban developmentwithin the drainage catchment must ineorp attenuation features so that atonnwnter flows into Corporal. ion drains Jr e-e current flows of the area's pre-development rate for a 100 ART Moon event. The time frame for frontal development is dependent on many factors including and timing of development in the area to (honestly Should you have any further enquiries please do not he on 9420 3165. Yours sineerel Michael Timmer A/Manager Strafe 1 Planning Land bevelopmci A &ft: t-) 47II5C PC,,W fif1,1 [ r: I 1.IT., 11.4' I la u III pi I i I."IC 1 113 1 1 I ill r I 1 ,[13,_[..,, [ 1 1 -1 ' BAR3 OP CLES OA /ftildriflogalup Jandakat Strut lure Plan Ploposed Mare Amendment f Nunn I 13 D r r ,005 re, advet used pu tr ['CD]m111,1 ti OW Au I Submission 12 0 0 0 7 809-2-20-3 to 7 01 511 2006 06706 V01 nose Crockett 9429 2013 (Facsimile 9420 3193) 029 Newcastle 0000 Department for Planning and Infrastructure 1.7017eville 6007 Albert Facey House W0770/000710 00 Bort 100 469 Wellington Street L7700717 0901 PerthW.A. 6000 110-0W010710004117 Tot 0710)7420 2420 200 September 2006 w. ",,,o o,77770000 au Attention of: Alton Sheppard Re: Metropolitan Region Scheme Proposed Amendment's 1114/33 Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 1 Mandogatup 1115/33 Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 2 Wandi 1116/33 Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 3 Anketell 1117/33 Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 4Casuarina 1118/33 Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 5 Wellard (East) I refer to your letter dated the 23fti June 2006, requesting comments onthe above proposedMetropolitanRegionScheme (MRS)Amendment'sfromthis Corporation. Thank you for giving the Water Corporation theopportunity to comment. The Water Corporation wilt support the above MRS rozoning'ssubject to all related planning documents clearly advising that drainage constraints maystill limit residential development in the area. These constraints would notbe able to be fully defined until the completion of Local Water ManagementStrategies in accordance to the requirements of the Jandakot Water ResourceManagement Strategy currently being prepared by the Department of Water. Water Corporation scheme planning exists for Water and Wastewaterservicing for the area covered by those MRS rezoning amendments, andtherefore will be capable of being serviced. If you have any further queries on these comments please phone Ross Crockett on (08) 9420 2013 ,DEOAR-----611.newrFOR RANNIN 7 1? ANaiNFRASIRUCTURE Frank Kroll 27 SEP NM Team Leader Development Planning I. Development Services Branch 304-62. 6 tome( Service, Division pit,t 0 / 509,- 0?-02-6 -6 RI - 7g I 2- DI, a-A 0 n n . 1-1 Fo aq P I 1-1 rJ OD/it/Di coop 140 It ;Iv q0Ei P2 Platinino tual Davoloproont Act 2005 0 8 SEP 100p, Suction 41 AmAmendment (Substantial) 4 0 I 2/1 22(021 Sol- z 2 G e FORM 41 ruSori42-)L SUBMISSION 0744,77/164,'///7/ METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No, 111033 ///tE//,,72. JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 2 -WANDI CI / /7/00,42.04, 0 L To art te, I 'a/o ithift tam itI motto I n III Ir Submission 13 ItIIII), A it Nan 12 0 V F virthe Atkin / 0-( C , 7lt; /TA/C/1°1C Macleod° 1 Cant I ht I it MTh I 5 ti 7 6 7 I mail MC:MSS Submission ii ruin I IIII ,21,fl.,T,,n5r,t.c..lbo kx:,:cHamil Bunt:Q.1) 4a rcf r, 1 cel 01 170 de re gin 7 e/1.. /17 c)'/' /I' 0.40/ c e / 7, /4on 1:1?.1i1412 V 0111,?) /1/I' //'/, ciao L /7 42 /7 / 2 7// , 7 / 0/t/ /4 110 (110224r // ,/ r /7 f ,0 // ce 7-ff / <, / / iff / r A a Ifa"e17 (' 16 4.74 0/14/10 /kJ Ai / , V' re, (ref ,17,v 2/4, ,7/ ,, fr-rirp 4027, /1/4,/ /470 7, Keifi / e 0,//7 :et!1, I 0 .reeK/ a el./ ir ;IC/ eq!.70e, ;err1 6,14, ("4A. 14- / pnia (7/ -74 we/Lm/ eiei;40 h c A e_ tho MC /2 A er 'e ;it 17,7 /Mir e; to? 7 G, tee it/ /ce 7 C;//A'(0y trot aw, (r/r/, 4 , A,/ , ,K r r- // ir 4( ( lip ,ript 14, tyr4' Pc,fit, /4 4r. 4. 4 46; f /, 011?/ /44, / IA /r c//,.., ,?//eoff. ere e c (1 t *44,171,- /kJ /1, dr,/ ,4>Z, yh 4/1 i; ./.1.1. 4/4 / "Li ce/.fr re, t /7 a. nit 4 it o (LI %'vnn/ itletomit y oerceee r114, cereeie k71 1/10.cc //1 /I, 7dod /n C(-4 Hearing of Submissions The Planning and Bove topcoat Act 2005 provides the opportunity for people who have made a written submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written subrnissionwill 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 II, titled 'Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. 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 owing details) I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours) OR CI ASPO(ESPERSON Name at Spokesperson Contact telephone number (business hours) Postal address:...... I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: PUBLIC (members from the general publio may attend your presentation) OR LI PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend) You should he aware that: The Western Australian Planning Commission ( WAPC) Is subject to the Freedom of Information Art 1992 (POI Act) and as such, submissions niodo to time WAFT, may be pubfeel to applications for OCCC under the POI Act. In the course of the WAPC1115SP/111/1 submissions, or rushing Its report en those submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third pestles Alt Torsions are moues] and lomscribori. The transcripts of all heartens, aloes with all written submissions, are lathed in Parliament and pubiishod as public records should 1/111 Governor approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in e Roped on Submissions and tabled in Parliament. Tbet3LiSLONLeielegeSPNIS1MN5INeitle ...... Signature G, I ome.,?.? NOTE: SubmIeelone Mel be received by tlw ICIVOIII-eri Ho Inn cha being oaf or of business (5,00pm) on 2n "FPtI morn sagaI itsfilms -Inn' will NOT be cull pricey! Ph°1"108/02(141/1/I NJ/ 1 1 / I /111tit tuIr ms hr , it'tfLA11/1", Planning and Dovelopment Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) 2 p SLP 20thi FORM 41 ojP SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 140, 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1 -MANDOGALUP to Fr II ilr in I ii mmisemo t VI troll, Submission IA I 1,1101% F ,1/4,1) Nam 1/4 't ,- tort rem Acids I Ttsc)T1L ,), Ito 12sect,) vuLopolse Itostcode 1 00111,111 pt.urnc nutilLm L14 OF `." Erna] address O'N(Ar I(dmil \ nng- (lac Pd.V) \.0(0, mm-Immimi,,, emecet 1 o Ltsc )(:At Yit) /gild r0X211rrcl YikVtit tittgi gait. I r.") (rot( (.out/ 0, 111 nom., sm.,1k m I mmmm, Xro IP` A n'IT)14, »5 tllsc Cotp. .1 TURNOVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions The Planning and Development Act 2005 provides the opportunity for people who have made a written en brIliSSiOn to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment, For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the Amend/noel Report and in particular Appendix II, Med 'Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: No, I do trot wish to speak at the hearings. (Please go to the bottom of the form and CR the hearings, (Please pl following details) I will be represented by: I MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): OR Eg A SPOKESPERSON Name of Spokesperson Contact telephone number (business hours) Poslal address' I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: I I MEWS (members from the general public may =Mend year present:it qt 11) PRIVATE (only the people norninafed by you or the bearings committee will he permitted to attend) You should be aware tha The Western Australian Planning tssion (WAPC) blest to II at In /o Act) and as such, submissions rnflde to the WAPC Ina pitealiens fo Act In the Courts e of the WAPC assessing submissions, or mating report on Mess submiSSIO15 copier of your subrosaon or the substance of that submission may be disclosed to third pathos Ail hearings are recorded and transcribed The transcripts of all lwerings along with all written submissions, are tabled 111 Parliament and published as public records 5110111(1 lha Governer approve the proposed amendment. The WAPC recommendations are similarly published in a Report on S011immesotis and tubas' al Parliament. TO BE SIGNED BY PERSON(S) MAKING THE KUBMISSIGN ZJOC Signature c NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date being close of terraces (5.90pm) on 29 SEPTEMBER 2009 Late submissions will NOT bo considered. 9,,v 4,..Hn91 r,rlilCM lerlhei-ins noel 7777, 1,,,(04) MA 7.5B, linM r Submission 15 11 u \\Iv /21,10',,I, 1\frICk{;21 Ulfnl W4\1 ';3't nr, 1 vi!') U ii Lt/1 its sr 1, tow , turnip-1in I I lit or it V A PI mono t Fenny ; ,fin W, Pin Ion At NAIL V..A pimp, Dar Sir, 01145 Aondowols 1114/33, 1115/33, 1110/33, 1117/33, 1118/33. I. Impacts on These II illle111I alb category W.1.1311.1 vu 11.1.1111 Id, Old C11111,1111ti 'nob Imtdv CPI' mill tI s I topo wi _00i, o m ls It II II nn gt,ii old veloontetg 111111)1i it ILI. 1.1111101 .11111.1It ust totItI SIVallIp. Any Ell m 1411.111kkIttr lc).I01 tit WI IL It IA._1 tt p(71-1.1.111 Weiland 1 Ilt..1111101 11 cin not :II Mit1 lot s(hi sm b. p. ..1 ri Ill to be urbanised. 2. Drainage hints; The land affected by the rezoning picots:11s has a very high water tableund this may need to he lowered if housing Irts op, to be developed, 'FEW; will deiproy the lo landchin u out; ientseni iehrd dtainagcwateis which may have to Ite di11 n .1 into thr in ow .11 WI to it lu 1 into the Peel Islet, The Peribilaivey SPP and 1,91)...vc.to Ltledu: Win II 110111 nn It1L1111)1 to control nutrient flows in tl Iti Harvey catchment Ind to pin- t Ilift I. oil11'11 uidi:1105_ thl pup, ,,t ,,zonm,boom no( be approved toll Ili Impse, , d In n tt El,IIit Ito tli tit In Will 1. 1AL III he. P. Arid SOO Sulk 111, 11111I II II.I t .1 II I,s1; nitwit sulphide, which is Itl I rot tiltIto Idpinau n d itttrdi tint I11, Indready occurred at , nit other .II.twit1°. 011 14 11010111111 An tIh Inni Idphat 011 IlilistoriJth I t 11 Iid for In tI t 1.1101111011Inn IL1-111 V101)11_111 i 0101 III 01-1-0111 1 I I seig 11.111%1. I{ Mit 11. 0111 I L 111 op lift to \ who will Is1,pop 1blfor such , I, wog IIII. 1 kolilpt11 lit 111111 t Ilk_ 111111N, We ihereror,, on, lo take Eraal enwiou svitli ill n rtlt tutl I, ' I r th,lig ; for crbon d,s,l,ritnit ,,T ,t dim F1non) ItIa won timits- i Ili,tIt Ju u t require clenring, dminurnint, too 1111 oilItotot n urapnrblu 111, c- th, dm IInd suroillancl pod Pitil ir,in olu iltdi UPI 1,1 tilliitpli nth lit Pt ti', I,1 rim reject Eller° retornitI loinit rid t th toni t till tin 11.11 tillVW: lit 11111111 II slop1.31) ni(hie appo,priiits I old u t pl !itIto Itoto nuum ill IIIto ills 14 Stone Color K;IldiElya, WA 6161 Planning And Development Act 2005 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 41 SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1 -MANDOGALUP ONLY To. Secretary Western Australian Planning commission Submission 469 Wellington Street 16 PERTH WA 6000 6,,ou4tic, Name Paid Id. tare..44MeNT in EA% mm1 NANNO Postcode ...... Address F°. 3 2F 11114 ,4 ) " Ov1/4y.ati Contact phone number(P.0 4155° 4-2-25 Email address (ACODPeg I.- liCW. Submission pears nom adedional onoodemoirod. lire oolorre mammy ndedirod bsteswrallisr Item Inns') TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION In making this submission y Cn lantern Council (PHCC) would like to emit, y its full supper of the proposed amendment to tat 7i Luta olitan Regional Silk or Jandakot Structure Plan (No, 1/33, No I I1 ih, No I1 16/33, No, 1117/ No, 1118/33) in relation to dm seaman: tothb m Uchmd and expressly in rnlidto the water management requirements tit_uussitm the intendment repo t In addition to this the PITCC would like it noted that Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment Initiative (A joint initiative of the Western Australian and Australian Governments, with the involvement of (held-ICC) has or is about to produce several outputs that are relevant to the management of water resources within the five cells included within this MRS amendment that arc within the Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment as defined in the Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet-Harvey Estuary) Polley 1992. These outputs most significantly include the: Peel-Harvey Water Quality Improvement Plan (public consultation shalt) soon to he released by the Environmental Protection Authority Model Peel-Harvey Water Sensitive Urban Design Local Planning Policy developed under the CCt initiative by the Peel Development Commission (PDC). The PDC and the PHCC ate currently working with the relevant local governments of the Peel-Harvey Costal Catchment to have this model UPP adopted and implemented. The Peel-Harvey Water Sensitive Italian Design Technical Guidelines that provide technical guidance on the implementation of Water Sensitive Design to support. the Local Planning Policy consistent with Department or Water requiramenta II is also the belief of the PHCC that,s addition to tl development, significant opportunities exist to ulllist the lot I including private, local government, and Water t otpot alga ni facilitate the stripping and assimilation 07nmtient d tutu, n. I in these areas with appropriate design and management, This would assist in the protection of the Peel-Harvey Estuarine System and ensure that significant public investment in the Hawesville Channel and associated catchment nlanagenleill activities is supported rather than compromised, The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council iset oily preparing a DrainageManagemen Plait for the PeekHarvey Catchment Melt g proposed relevant Best Management Practices for the management of drainage Bet quality objectives, 'Maillc-you for the opportunity to contribute Hearing of Submissions The planning and Development Act 2005 provides the opportunityfor people who have made a written submission to personally present the basis of their subrnission to aHearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by youin this written submission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposedamendment. For information about the submission and hearings process, pleaserefer to the Amendment Report and in particular Appendix 11, titled 'Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing'presentation. Please choose ONE of the following: 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) will be represented by: 0 MYSELF My telephone number (business hours): , OR ASPOKESPERSON PHCC. Name of Spokesperson: .SANSlik&j BfirtereillaN Contact telephone number (business hours): Postal address: R. (Pi btf$ iinlman-V2/441wet 62. to I would prefer my hearing to be conducted In: PUBLIC (members from the general public may attend your presentation) OR C PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend) You should be aware that: The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) issubject to the Freedom 0/InformationAct 1002 (F01 Am) end as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applicationsfor access under the POI Act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or making its report on these submissions, copiesof 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 writtensubmissions, are tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governor approvethe proposed amendment, The WAPC rocommendalions are similarly published in a Report on Submissions end tabledin Parliament. iDaSIPNEPSIEERSONLEIMING THE SUAMISSION Signature oats 9?00( NOTE: Submissions MUST be received by the advertised closing date, being close of business (5.00pm) on 29 SEPTUARPR MOP, Late submissions will NOT be considered. Gmach icirptmne,(00)02er ///7, Roc (0B)0264 7555, Ewa Iimsempt via gov do, LOUP,1.httl, th'inwmPC-Wa00,MU 29 September Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 Dear Secretary, Metropolitan Scheme No. 1116/33, No 1117/33 /35 Lan dakot In making this submission the PecTIlarvey Catchment Council (MCC) would like to convey its lull support Of the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Regional Jandakot Structure Plan (No. I 114/33 10 No, II 18/33 inclusive) in relation to the rezoning to Urban Deferred and expressly in regards to the water management requirements discussed in the amendment report. In addition to this the P11CC would like it noted that Peel -Harvey Coastal Catchment Initiative (A joint initiative of the W. tern Australian and Australian Governments, with the involvement °Mlle PI IttI Ii tor is about to produce several outputs that are relevant to the management of nu it sources in the areas included in this proposed MRS amendment that are within the Etelb tawny Coastal Catchment as defined in the Environmental Protection (Peel hilvt t DrveY Estuary) Policy 1992, These outputs insist significantly include the: a Peelstlarvey Water Quality Improvement Plan (public consultation draft) soot to he released by the Environmental Protection Authority Model Peed-Harvey Water Sensitive Urban Design Local Planning Policy developed under the CCI initiative by the Peel Development Commission (PDC). The PDC and the MCC are currently working with the relevant local governments of the Peel- Harvey Costal Catchment to have this model 1.1111 adopted and implemented. The Peeldlarvey Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Guidelines that provide technical guidance on the implementation of Water Sensitive Design to support the Local Planning Policy consistent with Department of Water requirenienis. eR.P1 ))ft r ,I A L r( 6 "). 041 »4 'L. if P It is also the belief of the MCC that, in addition to the appropriatedesign of urban development, significant opportunities exist to utilise the coastal drainagenetwork, including private, local government, and Water Corporation managed drains to lip:dilate the stripping and assimilation of nutrients from drainage waters in these areas with appropriate design and management. Thiswould assist in the protectionof the Peel Harvey Estuarine System and ensure that significant public investmentin the Hawesville Channel and associated catchment management activities is supported rather than compromised. The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council is currently preparing a Drainage Management Plan for the Peel-Harvey Catchment including proposed relevant Best Management Practices for the management of drainage for water quality objectives. Thank-you for the opportunity to provide this submission; As Chairman of the PHCC I would he happy to express these views at any public hearing should it berequested. Yours sincerely Jan Star Chairman hair if Frit t, Ip fI it'I 0 Of) 1111 HU. Vitt IT IBA? S'CL Peehhlarvey Catchment Council (Inc.) P.O. BOX 332 Mandurah WA 6210 dapnimpostmaPpes1219Eyo athpy Ph: (08) 9550 4225 Fax: (08) 9581 4269 Mobile: 0411 477 882 www.ppelAinrvey.OPPAII 2 n I'IUPL 701-9ru, "I 2 -07 () ) To: Sacral-My, WAPO : Darntort Portm ri 1 h Fox: 08 97A47598 t18Indusivo Phone: 09 9984 7777 Friday, 2.9 ScMomber 2008 Ro: MR8 Amendment Sobrolmion,Jandakot Sticture Plan, No. 1114/33 thttlicjil No, 1119/33 Ihnorti II Roo Review 0 cloato comment cimmo tioply RI Pleurae cooyclo commentm Dour Secretory, Moats rind aochod the PFICto cubrnL2lon Amenclmon Regardt, Oamfon Poottna Executin. btr. dbeo 161,1) C11.1. 11tAICAnn. 11.111 At PEEL WATERWAYS STNTR 29 September 2006 Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 Dear Secretary, Submission; Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1114/3, No, 1115/33, No. 1116/33, No 1111/33 nod 1118/33 Jandokot Structure Plan Cells 1 -5. In making this submission the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council (PHCC) would like to convoy its Lull support of the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Regional Scheme, landakot Structure Plan (No. 1114/33 to No. 1118/33 inclusive) in relationto the rezoning to Urban Deferred and expressly in regardsto the water management requirements discussed in the amendment report. In addition to this the PHCC would like it noted that Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment Initiative (A John initiative of the Western Australian and Australian Governments, with the involvement of the PHCC) has or is about to produce several outputs thatare relevant to the management of water resources in the areas included in this proposed MRS amendment that are within the Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment as defined in the Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet-Harvey Estuary) Policy 1992. 'These outputs most significantly include the: O Peel-Harvey Water Quality Improvement Plan (public consultation draft)soon to be released by the Environmental Protection Authority Model Peel-Harvey Water Sensitive Urban Design Local Planning Policy developed under the CC! initiative by the Peel Development COMMIWOD (PDC). The PDC and the PHCC are currently working with rho relevant local governments of the Peel-Harvey Costal Catchment to have this model L1111 adopted and implemented. o The Peel-Harvey Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Guidelines that provide technical guidance on the implementation of Water Sensitive Design to support the Local Planning Polley consistent with Department of requirements. Peet-Harvey Catchment Council Inc. elhAlnlolanlysy05940 P.O. Box 332 Mandurah WA 6210 Ph: (03) 9550 4226 Fax: (B8)9531 Waa rare/. peeklierYSYSelia9. ,writ zlinisatitv: 2:3;rL,e pcivr /9.999.2056 12:06 Yttl. IAL iL PEEL WA76 CEEB h is also the beliet of the tint,in addition to the appropriate design of urban development, significant opportunities exist toutilise the coastal drainage network, including private, local government, and WaterCorporation managed drains to facilitate the stripping and assimilation. °Nutrients frontdrainage waters in these areas with appropriate design and management.This would assist in the protection of the Peel- Usevey ITattmine System and ensure thatsignificant public investment in the Hawesville Channel and associated catchment managementactivities is supported rather than compromised. The Peel-Harvey Catchment Conn iv currently preparing aDrainage Management Plan for the Peel-Harvey Catehment includingproposed relevant Best Management Practices for the management of drainage for waterquality objectives- Thank -you for the opportunity to provide this submission;As Chairman of the PHCC I would be happy to express these views at anypublic heating should it be requested. Yours sincerely Jan Star Chairman Pe i I l trv-y CitrirrntConurIt Inc. rllthin Innutllrnynr It P 0 ho? ''JuIs 11111111111A &210 Plc (us) 0660 1/16 rt ((q3)Jai 4)69 ,^ 4st m/111 Wel crtasit PEEL WAIT '1 VS CENIR Planning and Devdoprnenl Act 200$ Section Al Amendment (Substantial) FORM 41 SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAMENDMENT No.1114133 JAMOAKOD STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL I ).MANDOGALUP To:kiecroloy VVosIon Austra lion Planning Comm ission 169 Wellington Strorot PERTI I WA 0009 tarefl Meoli Com NC I I- PE'.- 14/1-2afe Name ,suAEP.IICIEAFLO (Hub v .,6 ost,,,j0 62.j0 Addresr, 642 3321 Email address ptel-hovu--,07aq Contact phone number..(9.0 9S5°41-25 inAnod that any adcWonai hfonnation Winne ratterOm SRO Submission row: ototh communal pagan TURN OVERT() COWL YOUR SURNIISSION EC C111,12 In making this submission the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council (MCC) would like to convey its full support of the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Regional Scheme, Tandakot Structure Plan (No. 1134/33, No, 1115/33, No. 1116/33, No. 1117/33, No. 1118/33) in relation to the rezoning to Urban Deferred and expressly in regards to the water management requirements discussed in the amendment report. In addition to this the PHCC would like it noted that Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment Initiative (Aydin initiative of the Western Australian and Australian Governments, with the involvement of the PHCC) has or is about to produce several outputs that are relevant to the management of water resources within the Cave cells included within this MRS amendment that are within thePeel-Harvey Coastal Catchment as defined in the Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet-Harvey Estuary) Policy 1992. These outputs most significantly Include me: 6 Peel-Harvey Water Quality Improvement Plan (public consultation soon to be released by the Environmental Protection Authority Model Pool-Harvey Water Sensitive Urban Design Local Planning Policy developed under the CCI initiative by the Peel Development Commission (PDC). The PDC and the PIICC are currently working with the relevant local governments of the Peel-Harvey Costal Catchment to have this model LPP adopted and implemented, 'rho Peel-Harvey Water Sensitive Urban ,Desitto Technical Guidelines that provide technical guidance on the implementation of Water Sensitive Design to support the Local Planning Policy consistent with Department of Water requirements. It is also the belief of tho PlICC that, ition to the appropriate design ofurban development, significant opportunities exisa to utilise the coastal drainage network, including private, local government, and Water Corporation managed drains to facilitate the stripping and assimilation of nutrients from drainage waters in these areas with appropriate design and management. This would assist in the protection of the Peel-Harvey Estuarine System and ensure that significant public investment in the Dawesville Channel and associated catchment management activities is supported rather than compromised. The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council is currently preparing as Drainage Management Plan for the Peel-Harvey Catchment including proposed relevant Best Management Practices for the management of drainage for water quality objectives. Thank-you for the opportunity to centributs. PEEL WATERWAYS CENTR Hearin of Submissions The Planning and Development Act 2000 provides the opportunity for people who have madea written submission to personally present the basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing, the comments presented by you in this written submissionwill be considered In determining the recommendation for tho proposed amendment. For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to the Amendment Reportand In particular Appendix II, titled Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. 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, wish to speak at the (Please complete the following I will be represented by: MYSELF My telephones number (business hours) 21/".. /TSPOKESPERSON Name of Spokesperson: Pfkg C144,,n1, RN Pfria- Contact telephone number (business hours):°Li ' S2s 51 2- Postal address: PPS ililrarmPkteffl...kg:... 4,210 ivI would prefer my hearing to bo conducted in: PUBLIC (members from the general public may attend your proaentalion) PRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend) You should be aware that The Ws:atomAustralian Planning Commission ()MPG) issublect to the Freedom of InformotIonAct 1992 (POI Act) and as such, submissions mode to the VVAPC may be subjoct to application° foraccess under the FOI Act. In the course of the NAPO assessing submissions, or making its reporton those submissions, copies of your submission or the substance of that submission, may be disclosed to third parties. All Moorings are recorded and transcribed. Tho trenscripis of all hearings, alongwith so written submissions, WO tabled in Parliament and published as public records should the Governorapprove the proposed amendment. The MPG recommendation are similarly published Ina Report on Submissions and tabled in Parliament. LO_ESSIONEOMLEERS_O_NISIMEIgNMEStltampion Signature..09-t Date 9207* NOTE: submission° MUST be received by the advertised closing date, beingclose of business (9.00pm on ZUSEIPMMER _XL°. Late submissions will NOTbe considered Tagaiima.(seresc arrn ree(00) alum nub; Eanii-i gtip Phr409 n0J flov,11.4 AG 200/1 Section 41 Amendment (Su bstantI) FORM 41 SUBMISSION ib \ METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1 -MANDOGALUP 5"14"Y 1/14,44n Au4440411111445444111414141414 Submission 17 401 V.16140too :WOO PERIFI WA 6147() Morro (4/ Pm(4JP]Acocdenc tr IIINITEE Addrossjowl -V/ Natiai 10 1/ Akr41214r, Postcode it:7( hine@trrOAle ClaM Cor1111C1p110110 1114-014e1 9271 If/ nail address NT h nicolo,Set/9"4/-natict TURN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Hearing of Submissions The Plimnirw and Dove loputoot Act 2005 provides the opportunity lor people who havemade a written submission to personally present Ole basis of their submission to a Hearings Committee. You do not have to attend a hearing. The comments presented by you in this writtensubmission will be considered in determining the recommendation for the proposed amendment, For information about the submission and hearings process, please refer to theAmendment Report and in particular Appendix II, titled 'Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. 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 n) OR Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the followingdads) I will be represented by: MYSELF - My telephone number (business hotted (B/ASPOKESPERSON 0:+14 Name of Spokesperson:iag.(4 Contact telephone number (business boups) ,174iPoi... , Postal address' /1441.35toe/ NOVO :TIC ,Ie/1/417P0 I would prefer my hearing to be conducted in: PUBLIC (members from the general public may attend your {desalt:dent OR VPRIVATE (only the people nominated by you or the hearings committee will be permitted to attend) You should be aware that: Tho Western Australian Planning Cononiniiiitill(VVAPC) is subject to the Ffeni om of lnloreiallon Act 1992(Pot Act) and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be subject to applications for access odor the POI Act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or 'caking its Morn( On these submissions, ins or your submission or the substance at that submission, may be disclosed to third padies. All bearings are recorded and transcribed. The irrifinClifils of all hearings, along with at 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 Roped on Submissions and tabled in TM BE SIGNED BY PPPPON(S)MAKINO THEAUPPOSSION Signature OPTS SubmiIan MUST be ioriovad by the arlymti rid clo mu J it, being close of busito (5 00p/n) on 29 SbPft WIER J006I nor WHIM. MR will NOT by considered, !nod,' iFtTn 4 109 riIn- t ni 0I I IV Val gin 011 Our Ref: 4722 28 September 2006 Western Australian Planning Commisek Albert Facey House '169 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 Attention: Secretary Dear RE: METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.1114133 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN CELL I, MANDOGALUP We refer to the above Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No, 1114/ 33, which cornmerrced advertising on 27 June, 2006, concluding on the 29 September, 2006. Greg Rowe and Associates acts on behalf of Saliency Property Group and WandiAnketell Landholdings Ply LW, the landowner of Lot 676, 678, 679, 680, 683 Treehy Road, Wandi, identified under MRS Amendment No, 1114/ 33 and 1115/ 33 far rezoning from 'Rural' to 'UrbanDeterred', Amendment No.1114) 33 forms one of five amendments currently being progressed simultaneously for the western portion of the Jandakol Structure Plan (JSP) area, This area is also We subject at the Town of Kwinanats District Structure Plan, the Eastern Residential Intensification Concept (ERIC), which concluded its public comment period in early 2006. Itis understood the JSP/ ERIC area has been divided into five cells and separate amendments, in order to facilitate their removal if issues within a particular Cells are likely to cause delay. We confirm our support of this approach given the extent of this area, the varying sitecharacteristics and issues which potentially could arise. We also note the proposed rezoning of all live Cells to 'Urban Deferred rather than Wt. dr number of unresolved issues, including the preparation of a Water Resource Strategy (WRMS) detailing requirements for stermwater control, drainage requiron management and resolution of the Mew buffer. II is understood the completion of the WRMS was originally proposed or to the ifnalisation of the JSP and the initiation of t pm, ridno nl Ilarr grrireltrenl H 'gym{ monitoring and the lack or ffMU);by- anon' ftfilicriftr) s to (IMP / ve rprmnptod ur ,j, a revision In the planning I rid r utr Iddlt dundo rthrdraft j 4-,II r r A,0,1 the western Australian Planning Cenralion ())/Aill )IhrVhlr r Corporation Or r )rod HuItpertinent of Environment and C0119):1 r mina (1111)Olt n fop grw d to arr rn E rip1(11 r ire h ilbwed the progression of MRS and IPan r Wee el hHger tort is wniwt ten for Me preparation of the WRMS 41>,, ,[111 1 11 11 ) s s Similarly with regard to the Alcoa huller, we acknowledge a portion of the Mandan° lup Cell is also subject to a Boa buffer as noted under the JSP as well as identified for two (2) years of dust monitoring under ERIC. Whilst the lilting of Urban Deferment will likely occur at a later lime than the remaining four Cells, we support its inclusion within the amendment area. Its inclusion we believe, allows for the suitable progression of planning to this area and will ensure the coordinated development of the corridor. We therefore support the revised process identified under the JSP which allows the resolution of the above issues prior to structure planning, progressing relevant MRS and TPS processes in the interim. This consolidated of process thereby ensures lot production can occur in the immediate future. This we consider imperative, given the current shortage of lets experienced in the metropolitan area. The sites location within 25km of the Penh city centre and being one of the last large tracts of undeveloped land with efficient transport access (to troth road and future rail) also supports its immediate development. The development of these Cells can also been seen as a logical continuation of the residential areas, Flaiornond Park and /Whin Grove to the north of Rowley Road and Bertram south of Thomas Road. The development of this land can therefore be viewed as urban fault rather than a traditional greenfield site, given urban development extends north and south of the site with development being a logical continuation of the surrounding urban environment. Given the nature of the Cell, the site is also currently serviced by appropriate infrastructure for urban development, Sewer and water are located at the northern and southern edges of the Calf HOT-wills all Cells possessing direct access to the Kwinana Freeway and the future Southern Rail Line. It should he noted under the JSP a number of secondary stations are proposed within the Cells thereby providing the opportunity to expand patronage within relatively close proximity to the city centre, In tight of the above, we reiterate our support for the amendment to rezone Lot 680 to "Urban Deferred' under the MRS on the basis of the following: The development of the Cell for residential activityis a logical progression of residential development to the north, Hammond Park and Aubin Grove, and the south in Bertram; The live Cells comprise of one of the last large tracts of land with urban potential, within close proximity to the city coke: The site is serviced by efficient transport infrastructure with the Cell abutting the Kwinana Freeway and the Southern Rail Line, currently under construction; The projected population of 34,000 under the JSP will provide additional patronage to the Southern Rail Line when completed; Landownership within the Cells is sufficiently consolidated to allow for the coordinated and timely development of the land; The progression of zonings and therelore development, will assist with the shortage of lets currently being experience in the Perth Metropolitan area; and t in Ino r I The amendment farmallses and implements the re JSP and Town of Kviirtatut Eastern de I IntensiGCationo Given the crucial demand for lets within the metropolitan area, we (rust the rezoning process will not be delayed by the train station review currently being undertaken by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the Perth Transit Au homy. Similar to the WRMS and The Alcoa Boller, we consider these mailers can be appropriately addressed prior to structure planning. We (rust the above will be due consideration during the public submission process. Regards GREG ROWE AND ASSOCIATES Planning and Development Act 2095 Section 41 Amendment (Substantial) FORM 41 SUBMISSION METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT No. 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1- MANOOGALUP orncv err ONLY To:Secretary Western Assn-alien Plannlng Commis Pion Submission 18 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 Name CAE IMO...D.S.1)..0 )EY.ELO.E111M1.5.:ONPA Let Address .? V.QAP 9.U.1XTAG Postcode ..(,).Q.QM Contact phone number ...9.2.73..3 ail eddy Submission memo math odviiromtvmemirmveve is pm!eaet mm onvvedrimer Information be loose mthM than hornet ,RN OVER TO COMPLETE YOUR SUBMISSION Nearing of Submissions The Planning and Development Act 2005 provides the opportunity for people who have made a written submission to personally present the basis of their suemisslon to a Hearings Committee, 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 Roped and in particular Appendix II, titled 'Preparing a submission and for a 'hearing' presentation. Please Limo o ONE of the following: No, I do not wish topr ik at UP he Mugs (Nesse go to the bottom of the form and sign) CS Yes, I wish to speak at the hearings. (Please complete the fallowing details) Iwill be represented by: MYSELF My telephone number (business hours) 9273338.CP GR r I A SPOKESPERSON Name of Spokesperson' Contact telephone number (business hours) Postai 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) i0 a1: The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is sub to Freedom ol informallon Act 1092 (FOI Act) and as such, submissions made to the WAPC may be s II 0 applications for access under the POt Act. In the course of the WAPC assessing submissions, or m Pith IF rt port on these submissions, copies of your mibmiion or the substance of that submission m y I,di LIUri to third patties. All lit lime are recorded and transcribed. The it III r Hatof ell hrI; rigs, along with an written submissions. err1 'tilt d in Parliament and published as pubis n r nN hould the Governor approve the proposed um, idiot ta The WAPC recommendations are Annlarly in a Poona on Submissions and tabled in Parliament. PESIeNeeel,e MMINGINNAVOMISSION Signntun tiltMt/ / no II di _ill Ill o No h S111,1111 1011' tilge IIts11. rovcd Ly Hu atho di ui rla mg rt int tiring PIO, of hit nn P' Wiling on 20 sreir mur R 2006 Lib oubiullow- Wlt Nor br con Men d 111 Iri I Li{ r 11 i in hist MI I I ' 1 rE ) 17 LI s ro c3 O Out est 130040.3LS ConfessJenny SW04,n 26 September 2006 Ca18108 DSOPly8W The Secretary 31111 It Is 11000 Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington Street C3013 OSO Cenlra PERTH WA 6000 8 00835 teat Sofia, 11318984 P0 888 150. Sarno AOa0af 004 senior,, 13191888 08 1273 3000 Po :10818 08 9388 3831 13180100300l .61 8 9273 30110 Dear Sir/Madam implion5(gt1.838138,3831.03 www.803103301.1. 011 MRS AMENDMENT 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1- MANDOGALUP C03130 O111838 Orishar8 SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF MANDOGALUP LAND DEVELOPMENT Sydney COMPANY PTY LTD CaNICIIP 318138803 ronu This submission is lodged in response to the advertising of the above amendment. oana Also attached is a completed Form 41 (Submission Form). Cab; Cardno BSD acts on bch ill of the Mandogalup Land Development Company 183353118 (MLDC). The MLDC owm i significant proportion of the landholdings situated in 1838803 1103138310n the MRS Amendment area 1, shown on the attached plan. We also act for other 110tvey Bay landowners in the Jandakot Structure Plan (JSP) area and have made similar 803,1888 C0351 submissions accordingly (or 2 of the 5 JSP MRS Amendments. To838,33 a coldCOan togoill This submission supports the proposed amendment subject to the 00811118rn1111b clarifications outlined in this letter. 18011083180 03:881183 In this regard, it is disappointing that the Jandakot Structure Plan (JSP) was not 0,110 finalised and released with the 5 JSP MRS Amendments, given there is reference in the Amendment reports to Guidelines on drainage contained within the finalised Via JSP. As the Commission will be aware, we have been involved for over a year with the toot JSP Drainage Steering Committee, a committee chaired by the Water Corporation toted stns, and including the Department of Environment, Town of Kwinana and DPI. The role of this Committee is to oversee the preparation of regional drainage studies which were identified as being required in the draft JSP and which will culminate in the production of the Jandakot Water Resource Management Strategy (JWRMS). It is understood that the Guidelines for the JWRMS included in the finalised JSP endorse the work being overseen by the JSP Drainage Committee given they were derived from that Committee's work. However, until we see the final JSP we aren't able to confirm that this is the case. Similarly it is understood that the draft JSP has bean modified in its finalised version to enable the development of the Mandogalup area earlier than proposed in the draft JSP. This is on the basis that Alcoa have confirmed that the closure and rehabilitation of "F" lake will commence in 2010. The buffers will therefore be removed from parts of the Amendment area in 2010, P120451P5.0.flttlarv/p,atneumeell,P.e.,),.0,-.11:;,0,0 10 JO' ,I41 ) Canino 1350 28aapvaabor We note with concern however, reference in the Amendment report to a portion of the Amendment area being contained within a "modelled dust buffer edge subject to 2 years of dust monitoring by developers to validate model", This Is referred to by the Town of Kwinana in ERIC. However, neither the landowners, nor the consultants, nor the public at large can access the report which contains this model and we therefore strongly object to such a report requiring developers (not the polluter) to undertake 2 years of dust monitoring to prove up a model that they have no access to and which has product dr. Suit, Ora they are unable to review or question. We also query on what be athis ..tudy, commissioned by Alcoa and confidential, can be used by oda I tha Pawn or the WAPC to set policy or over'rlde strategic planning Initiatives (such ad the ISP) that have been the subject of public review and which contain no reference, to this study or to the constraints to developers that it now proposes to introduce. Therefore w ream st tint the WAPC have no regard to the findings of this study in its dubber awns on futile urbanisation unless the Commission is prepared to raises( the tudy to 02 owners affected by its recommendations. The WAPC also needs to indcpendr ntly confirm and agree to the study's methodology and findings which, s undid t and the WAPC is not prepared to do.Accordingly the study should not hive my validity in terms of influencing or impacting upon WAPC policy with regard to thc Ul b an zoning and development of any future urban land identified in the JSP area, We have requested that we be able to attend a hearing on the Amendment to elaborate on our submission and, in particular. on the issue of the timing of and constraints to urbanisation of the Mandogaiup area. Having been so closely involved with, and instrumental in, the initiation cif all 5 JSP MRS Amendments we will maintain an ongoing interest in their progress. We will also continue to be involved on the ISP Drainage Committee dad I It the various participating agcnsin. a I Us rr s..ary to finalise thr, rcquirc d dean age studies and the JWRMS. We will also Wyk_ w the JSP when it r n Ir aI d la a final document to confirm that itcontent: reflect the work unfelt-Join by the Committee in terms of dr image and accurately reflects the publicly low plc d position in terms of the Alcoa buffer a sale As in other submissions lodged by r irdno BED in respect of Wellard East MRS Amendment (1118/33) n ba have th it it is imperative that the WAR If via w tins progrcaof the JWRMS poor to Wall ration of Amendment 1114/33 and dr tr [mini if dr snap. I. 'till an ono olvud Ium Dr whether lifting the Urban r), 1111r/it I sole ly 1a5nri dr cl with thr mud I of I. buffers. This will narrow the i_ _linthat !Vial to br a OlVad to Cult. an Urban zoning. To complement expeditious (morainic, we are also currently pursuing with the Town of Kwin an r tha InItoduction of a Or 1,akiplricaltone into their local Scheme, Town Planning 9l name No. 2 ((Pct')I hia HI provide Oa option of seeking concurrent atria ridnu nt of TPS2 end+ f II time 1 'atlf tic, Act when the MRS rezoning to Utb in id finalised. In terms of compliance with ERIC, we believe the development of Mandogalup will generally comply with that strategy but we have undertaken much more detailed structure planning, a copy of which is attached Carreno P5045 B50 28 S8plernher 2006 In this regard, it should be noted that a submission has been lodged on ERIC with the Town of Kwinana with regard to some aspects of it and we would expect that ERIC may well be modified in response. It will not however, Impact on the intent or objectives of Amendment 1114/33. Thankyou for your attention to this matter. We will follow the progress of the Amendment with interest and thank the Commission for Initiating it.If you have any queries or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience, Yours faithfully rmy Smithson Director far Cardno SSD Enc. Form 41 Mandogalup Draft Structure Plan MLDC Landholdings Plan cc: Mr Mark I lector - Mandogalup Land Devolopmen1Co I r 1 1 ni,1111,1 lin It It I 111111,111 I 11111101- 5000 1,11111i11191ffilil nm1111111 of a/ oi oto040.3 o.r3 09 10 1 fl(ndo001up ( Rant I and Holtrouti lIontlaanlup 1.001 Day topcoat COIPPI ny PI/ Submission 19 SAIVA MAHA SABAI of WA (Inc) Postal Address: PO BOX 5351 CANNING VALE SOUTH WA 6155 12 MANDOGALUP ROAD MANDOGALUP WA 6167 A CENTRE FOIL WORSHIP, EDUCATION AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ABM 39 3(,1 551677 tOSMS1417,gal*Eift IUD INPUMTKUYAURU Pushkin Moshe ailovilz Uc RUojagorilau Ta (OW 9364 6747 Secretary 2 9 SEP zons West Australia Planning Commission Albert Envoy House, 469 Well/rin) Street (cur Pones! P -026 c.2 Vice Prusitlunt Mr It Uubnumulam DAM, JP Tel; (08) 9332 7036 SUMSISSIONS ON THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1114/33 -JANDAEOT smucruKE Seem:11y PLAN, CEL L- MANDAGALOUP MrVJayalcumar FROM LAND OWNER, 12 MANDAGALOUP ROAD, MANDAGALOUP Ta 0403 150 621 I refer to your letter dated 23 June 2006 inviting comments On the proposed Assistant Seautaty aMendmonl to the MRS scheme. Mr NIS Vanyasinkuu Tel:0102 975 551 Our Association, incorporated in 1996, is a non profit, community based, organisation that serves the Tamil Hindu (Salsifies) community. Its main objective 'first urn is to promote activities that will enrich the social, cultural, educational, religious and Mr M jay:Auk.. Mob: 0107 083 283 heritage of Tamil Hindus living in Western Australia. Town of Kwinana public occupancy licence for die building, on the 4 acre land we Manual Trvasurer own, for accommodating 600 persons was obtained in October 2093. We aro in the NUR Kuganantium 1e1:0439 515 798 process of bringing sculptures Kant India to complete the sculpture works. The building incorporates a Muumuu temple and the Centre for Education and Committee Menthos Mr Anus Kandla JP Cultural Development - A Performance Arts Centre for the promotion of Tamil Mr VS Vadiyalc music and dancing. It will relied die Dravidian style of architecture which was Mr NI Mumlithoutu Mr S Narenchun evolved in South India and prevalent among Tamils primarily in Tamil Nadu, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore. The 12.65m tall main entry structure wills Dravidian archilcclund feature facing Kwinana Erettway will provide an excellent entry statement to Mundognlnp From the Freeway and the Railway line. On completion, the main building wilt include a library, COlarellee room and a stage. The front garden area will incorporate a meditation hall, with a fountain feature from the top of a tail Shim: & Barvathy concrete Sculpture, Maim Vishnu sculpture and a pond with suitable sculpture works to symbolise "Saravanappoikai". Tiro facilities wilt be open to all individuals, from whatever racial or cultural origin, who wishes to acquire knowledge of Saivism and practice its doctrines. Slum'rAmIlli IGUU iy wcorni.t1 by MO It% a Alool, D.,"1141101in 15, Saklitg it ll r FORA all e.110 doduclim. For income tArt At present ponias are conducted twice a day and relypons devotional singing activities during the pooja may cause noise. This noise level could increase substantially during the special functions due to gathering of increased number of devotees. Further during special function days increased number at vehicles will he using the adjoining streets. We have the following comment on the on the theIle Mitt scheme. I.That any id intensilieation development, due to change of zoning Ruin Rural to Urban, shall takeo account community nature of our facilities and provide a separation ofresi lentiai Auvelopment buy way of locating roads, parks and community facilities including schools and ovals adjacent to OW properly. 'this would minimise potential conflicts with adjoining residents and will increase the demand Cr o the ndjoiniug residential areas. 2. We request That our land be zoned "Religious / Community facility zone appropriate for diuretics and places of worship in die District Structure Plan and the relevant Local Town Planning Scheme. 3.Being a church congregation, religious devotional singing and procession around the building on special function days may cause noise. As such we request that in any future subdivision and or amalganmli in of land adjacent to or within close proximity of the place of public worship, education and cultural development centre at 12, Mandogalup Road, Mandogalup to be considered and approved by the WAPC that a notification and or memorial on title he considered, advising immure landowners or the following: "The existence of a plane ofimatie ism-ship awl Me /and mere nearInt may cause noise at certain awes of the day". I would appreciate your due consideration of ourconmtenls On a relevant note we have provided comments to Town of Kwinana on the "Draft" District Structure Plan (Fastens Residential Intensilicatirm Concept) on 24 Feb 2006 and IP March 2006 Bier meeting with Town of Kwinana Manager Planning & Building Services f)oug Smith on 21 February 2006. Thanking you Dr 12 Rajagop m. President 28 Sept 2006 ce: Paul Nielson, Manager Plmming 13 di Submission 20 MAIN ROADS PE' Western Australia Ass: 50 800 570 PSI Enquiries: Lang Fong on EMI 9323 4244 Our Rol: 06/4409 26 September 2006 Your Ea 890-2403 PI 1; 809-2-26-4 PI I; 899,2-26-6 PI I: 20q226 ; 899424 -/ P Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission Albert Facey House 469 Wellington Street PERTH WA 6000 ATTENTION: AITON SHEPPARD Dear Sir METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBERS 1114/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 1MANOOGALUP 1115/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 2WANDI 1116/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 3ANKETELL 1117/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELL 4CASUARINA 1110/33 JANDAKOT STRUCTURE PLAN, CELLS WELLARD (EAST) Thank you for your loiter dated 23 June 2006 inviting Main Roads Western Australia (Main Roads) to comments on the above Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendments. Main Roads would liko provide the following comments with regards to these amendments; 1.For all land adjacent to Kwinana Freeway noise is an issue and hence, all future proposed developments should comply with the Western Australian Planning Commission's Draft Statement on Planning Policy - Road and Rail Transport Noise. 2.No direct access is permitted onto Kwinana Freeway or its reserve from all land abutting the Kwinana Freeway road reserve. 3. Main Roads should be consulted on any drainage management plan proposed on these land as It may have a detrimental impact on Kwinana Freeway. 4.Mein Roads is aware of 'Planningenrol Area No.76 - Rowley Road' located on the northern perimeter and an imperiling Planning Control Area at the southern perimetedAnketell Road) of Cell 1 Mindogalup. These roads are currently being review as possible east-west linkto the planned "Outer Harbour' development. All proposed road reservation hounclarivs and access onto these roads from Cell 1 will be subject to agreement by Department for Planning and Infrastructure and Main Roads Western Australia. Dori AFIkro Centro, Wo IT (Oar l 01Inkr 0 IAI1 IIIIII wo tun An r llr, (0 I) 1 I 1111 Iit!milt(Oh) n I,17 11Y Vi,19, FmnJ ni 'avoid t tit wthu TT 110 0 III I (I II Ill Vr..1 vi,.jcv.041,,,Qpr.lyl),,,, DAC,11221 n 1 01 tiItrt (11111 r1 i urf t p Ai- I iL IIor t ) riInc It you require any further information please co Long Fong on (08 ) 8323 4244. In reply please quote file reference 06/4400. Yours Ily Rob Grove MANAGER ROAD AND TRA IC EN RING Ir submission 21 CONSERVATION COUNCIL oF WESTFIIIN AUSIIIALIA int 2/ September 2006 Secretary Western Australian Planning Co 11551011 469 Wellington St Reply Paid 80011 PERTH WA 6000 -4 ocr 2006 VA- 6- S7 0.. j`&aCec..a..ti Dear Sir gal - 6pa 0'4 3 Pyerm_ a. MRS Amendment No 1111/33,1115/33,1116/33, 111/33,1118/33 landakot Structure Plan, Mandogalup, Wandi, Anketell, Casuarina, Wellard. The Conservation Council of WA wishes to inoko a submission regarding the proposed zoning chimps indicated in the above referenced document. The Conservation Conned of WA wishes to intend a I Ridings Committee to present oar concerns in person. These proposed meanings have been hi-train for many years. In the WAPC document, landakto Structure Plan (Draft October 2001) it States clearly "A WRMS [Water Resource Management Strategy] is to he formulated for the study area prior to the finalisation of the Structure Plan. As part of Outline Development Plans, local area drainage and nutrient management plans will be required, and will use the overall WRMS thr guidance." (WAPC, 2001, p. In that same document an anticipated Development Approval Sequence which illustrated the matters to be addressed and the steps to he taken to advance along the rezoning timeline. It was made clear that the WRMS was the vital document that would facilitate the orderly progression of the planning process. Despite this, a WRMS has yet to be dratted in a Porn that is able to be commented upon by the public. It is the Conservation Council's understanding that the landebot Structure Plan tenpins in Draft loon and has yet to be adopted by Me WA Planning Commission and affected local governments. It is further understood that any rezoning of land from the rural mar to urban deferred %lath occur following the preparation of a WRMS for the study area. (WAPC, 2001, p.xxi) LtMarch of this year the Conservation Cowell of WA madoa submission to the Planning Services Department of the Town of Kwimina regarding the Draft District Structure Plan: Eastern Residential Intensification Concept (Draft Only). lids DSP covers the areas subject to the current MRS Amendments. In that submission we made the strong request that a WRMS be developed prior to the rezoning of any land from the rural afflict to the urban deferred zone. In addition we remain extremely concerned over the use of obviously outdated lake and wetland mapping and the continuation othblank slate' plannintr practicethat tad to rccormiti minim ni Latt-arnica( II values. iti ti .1 III fat treat r aa ttJt) tott, \ II 111 a, I 1 IIItat I tr rra r I mar, n u ,11.1.1) ruI/Ill/ In subsugtimu phunu calla wish the Town of Kwlnnna plena Council or held up until h ,zunDieted' and that The Conservation Council of WA is very concerned that the Draft DSP and tl MRS Aniendillents do not comply with the environmental objectives of land ele, within the catchment and water quality and quantity targets set by the Etwironmontal Protection Policy (Peel- Harvey Estuary) 1992, and the protection of significimt lakes, wetlands and groundwater resources. 'these concerns should be addressed in any WRMS for the subject area, and before any MRS Amendment could possibly be considered, a WRMS for the subject area must be developed and made subject to public consultation and cumuli:lit, I, Bush Forever Sites: 'the area afl tied by these p tains valuable and remnant vegglai ion Ilan m three Bush tic (276, 273 and 347) that will be affected by Mr t ptupo Allowing gib at devcloputent to encroach up to the boundary of Me iciott sdlen a, melt i :Isle "edge effects" which will degrade these impoi tint ,,t bush edt Ito I elude robbisli dumping, litter, Ines, fend animals, weeds and dichaok. IfmI a dtve boomt is to be permitted in this circa then there should be adequate buffers paisidutl at form of local reserves, roads, lancing and firebreaks to protect the Bush Forever sites,, 2.Conservation Category Wetlands: The proposed development area containssix wetlands listed in the 1993 Swart Coastal Plain hales EPP phis numerous valuable damplands. These wetlands and dallightliclii should be protected along with appropriate functional buffers in accordanee with the drat it WAPC Policy on Wetland Balers, Sabisoil drainage should be prohibited ht Mese areas as it will lower the water tattle and destroy these wetlands. Ron-motif Vegetation: if he area affireted by thesis proposals eerie ,,,,s of good quality remnant native sr gi I gins This Imo la vcynm6 an is cabal the wiling'. ton Idigit sadit titd reserves as part of the substivi ion II d tn Bushlantto be regarded b developers as a constraint but r Oho in malt star of keral endemic vegetation and Duna tmilt tnottrind vital tonsense belonging and stewardship of tit -I tad tapt Drainage Issues: The proposed development area is dissected by threeten drains and Many minor drains that Iced into the Peeldlarvey Wetlands Systen Serpentine River, The Pcoldlinvey-YaIgorup System is a wetland of Internalionnl Impost mkt and ilisted under the Ramtar Convention. We have au obligation man let tt its m I,and for this reason there is an EPP and an Sill gm apply to dew lupin mI u Oa catchment. Rite proponents should have prepared a drainage man it Limit pi in in tor to seeking rezoning from rural to urban deferred to show how the)m atm( in InuitI ills Peel- Hervey system from pollutitm if their proposal is apprescd. Viz pout st shut the WAPC insists e drainage mans, uni.nt plan, 10 the isflieggli otlhe EPA, prior to any rezoning of this laud,'I hto t nearing the drainage Wafers to proveig ighlilioniti na i louts and pellet:Inttun tudsring rho Estuary will Inc high and the proponents do not scent to have ttpiosziated this. 5. Acid Sulphate Stalls: The area sulphate soils and these could become a major problem if the water table is lowered, allowing the iron Cu 1phides to oxidise. This has already happened in remit al parts of the Metropolitan Area including Jandakor, Cheap and Cedric and it ban caused serious environmental and health problems. We must not repeat this mistake in Kwintina. The potential for a serious problem is apparent in this area with swampy soils that may have to be drained to enable development. You must nut allow development in those areas that have the potential to produce acid sulphate runoff. This issue should be addressed directly by the Detainment of Environment and Conservation which has draft guidelines for developments on Acid Sulphate Soils. The developer should be required to prepare n management plan for acid sulphate soils. 0.Declared Rare Flora and fauna and Threatened Ecological Communities:This` area has considerable biodiversity and does euatain DRY (0thadcwth hucthaii, Draftee dastica, Dthris arthrathha) and TECs. A prerequisite for may rezoning from the rural mac to urban deferred and any StIbSIVICIII Idling of that urban defermentzoning should be subject to thorough and rigorous flora and fauna survey and, if necessary, a management plan for any DM? or TEES found in the development area. As an outcome of arose concerns, we request that the WAPC insists on full documentation in the form of a, A Water Resource Management Plan WRMS as highlighted in2001 in the Draft Jandakot Structure Plan, and again in the Town of Kwinana Draft District Stowage Plan: Eastern Residential liiWnsification Concept, to be prepared prior to any move to rezone subject land from the rural to the urban deferred zone; b. A Drainage Management Plan list shows complete statutory compliance with existing statutory instruments; e.Art Acid liti/phatc Soils MONCIg011101ti d. A ORE and TEC Management Plan; prior to agreeing to nay request no rezone this land from rural to urban deferred. In addition tire sup- divisional design should be required to meet several basic environmental and planning criteria including: a, The mandatory use of Water Sensitive Urban Design Principles that focus apartlocal retention and reuse of all storinwater etpdvalent toI in WO year storm events for gardens and open spaces; b. The mandatory installation in all residences, businesses, school buildings, of tided -pipe community-scale go:peeler reuse Icahn gardens and open spaces; e, The voluntary and subsidized installation of composting toilets; d. Complete ban on local groundwater bores and water soluble fertilizers; e. The promotion by way of subsidy and mandatory minimumspecies representation of plantings of endemic plant species; I:EI1 MHO, WEIsITESIEMISIIIEE AON .176 107 II'Me protectionofllush I` Lt.- Thu protection of an nvOnnt In. The protection of the good quality rennitm bushland within local reserves, with adequate and representative iimctional buffets and corridors beuveen reserves. This area pecea formidable environmental problems io the developers, but also id ti unique opportunities to create a malfitimetional environment that umbras dnkattinft water dcpcodant nature of t.he area and fluttering a Divtainabiilly ethic lhW Dont into the stun:tare oaany future development. Insensitive development It m de pant utial to cause widespread and costly damage m hey environmental and social asset_, and timeline WC urge ymt 10 exercise great caution in assessing these proposals. reran that you will carefully consider our concerns and adopt the measures that we have r1;00111111caded above. Please contact Chris '640i:tithe 0n 9120 7266 il'y Conservation Comeihs coneerna. Yours sincerely Club; Tatlentil0 DIRECTOR Submission 22 OFF FT It/I 01 / 1 fOff fft, 3 to 7 NI I IrFit Uff 11 11 IVOI / SC7120041,294VOI (7011Se INaL101 F , 1.. fee 1I Rime el Frlr lie'rIIfII ill910,0743 , (0 f) 0777 Ii It° ne [email protected]./tu )) Western Australian Planning mi Albert Facey I louse 409 Wellin9ton Street PERTH WA 6000 0C1 7006 Atterefon Andrew Trevor METROPOLITAN REOION SCHEME: PROPOSED AMENDE:1T Mambos q-d-d -4d I 111/1133 -Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell Mandogalup og a-c26-Gei 1115133 -Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 2 -Wandi 1116133 -Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 3- Anketoll 83'?- d-a&-7 rj 1117133 -Jandakot Structure Plan, Coll A- Casuarina 6.3 //f 1112133 -Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 5 -Wellard 8DY a- In reference to the above amendment, the Parks and Conservation Sumac of the Deparfinent of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has reviewed the amendments and provides The lapwing advice DEC has no objedion to the amendment being ffrialleed, but COnsiders More are two enportent iseum Mai need to be addressed through future stages of the planning process: Wetland- and Drainage DI C h fpreviously mend concern ',Rh the Town of KWillallat inItIft, /IIto II r I I a IIIIr Ind .1 ntI etdr d m thi n FIE,71 vy Calreat (t I IL)Ili ft r monal thfainacjn Issues had not b, Liu at strut kat pl Inift tfIt umuminf ndr d that a detailed study of ft pen d dr in I otr q or IN III It It odd he a I par CI toll of sit Rind-,I ri Ir ity Inter to the finalisation of local Oat turb pt in I Id Ib NI I Ihr Itiop that Meetkg lugII litvJl t ugate drainage efrategfee to in m laa Mt) rir impx,t7011U1WItUatat nt it r CI DEC is aware that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has considered the amendments and has advised that there is insufficient intomation provided on a number of environmental notice meluflirm dreinnae Onanaeenlent of Water queffty Mid fluantitY), Declared Rare Flora DEC's Declared Rare Flora (DRIR Database has in ad there are a number of URI/ papulattenti knottai to occur within the area covered by the amendments addition, there are also areas et ramaanLVaaCattaOn that provide tunable habitat for these ORE species, h as Colorfotto pungent and Orakca 01050co the area nit bly grnreCd prof' tenntl- rind' 021 Iti rIN ilIh it pry/ to tat IGRon of for IIFurI¢r phi tli tl dltud d I ft III til net tdElr n lirarriricnt]l nrni of felt t ml hp tug, elm hI n to, doInpmentflip I a au t.hould t ,COFICA I It Li in accord nu nth di/ f15.1 urlw No ;al h -ttIf lurr nrtl Vuy i lit .11 Sur 17 lnrl le if , t 111/10 t fInn rr rF iht i «pn Ilatt Of Mr rludic all aid le 10r ntifying t nvur all laid I t I lit It I 1 1 ctbl r or I l gild tit Crtan I ftrt tr In rr ten I purr fr rr y 'nil l Irk a nut C r Orton emmunitq tit ft f SWAN REGION: 70 DC, Pr/rry Arrtrru2,1rectrritticv "2/1 Farrar: (01) 97G3 1729 /az; (0/1)9301 1299 WribrrirrrvArr frostril Adrirer,,, PO Rex 1167, kkrirlEry DrAvery evirrrr., tterrr opportunity to provide coma 11 t a; DEC; Iv, l 11111 ri tgad a hearing, Oil It'll n forillor(4U01105on thin advice please vggii Uujijl DivEr A office on 9105 01/13 VOWSsincerely Alan Sandy Regional Manager, SWAM REGION DOpadIlielll Of Environment and consaggehon for the Director General 29 Soptember 2006 Late Submission 12 December 2006 The Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington SI PERTH WA 6000 Door Sir/modom StISMISMON: METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1114/33 This submission is made on bohalt of lho Technical Working Group for the Review of the *throttle Air Quality Buffer Study. Membership of the Technical Working Group is as follows: Deportment for Planning and Infrastructure Deportment of Environment & Conservation Department of Industry and Resources LondCorp Town of 'Donlan(' City of Cockburn Water Corporation Alcoa Kwinana Industries Council Il Is recognized that submissions closed on 2.9 September. The TechnicalWorking Group appreciates the opportunity lo lodge this late submission for consideration by the Western Australian Planning Commission MARC) This submission relates to Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No 1114133which is to rezone the Jandahol structure pion, cell I 2 Mandogalup, from Rural to Urban Deterred. The area the subject of This Amendment is bounded by: Rowley Rood to the north; Ankelell Road to the south: Kwinana rinebraY to the east; and other regional roads (ORR) reservation to the west. Ilse main Issue addressed by this submission is the liming at the Amendment proximity of the area to the Alcoa bauxite residue storage area. Use of the residue storage area is clue lo cease in 2010; however, remedialion of the silo is likelyto continue until 2015. The Technical Working Group would like to h ghlighl a few points lerconsideration by the WAPC. The Amendment Recoil notes that "Ilke buffer associated with the Alcoabauxite residue storage area pates a significant liming constraint to the potential for a Changelo urban land uses and development." II also clearly stales that "no lilting ofUrban Deferment will occur over the thIlecided Orem until the issue has been thldrthisfied to the sothfaclion or relevant parties ". This Amoridmifint Report ithithlifios !he effected areas as Iththe identified in the fawn of *Milano "thithlem kosidonlial Intensification Concept" District Structure Mon. she Technical Workingn. pnn 111, 111, lh it ihs ,r,Sr irk 111111111111 I or of Ktheinenn District Sixth fiyth ntr, nat rat' [,,-,,r ffn fir n fin], le the potential to fiu ail, rt,11 , tha I1tth of tuna n purl nt 11101 rn11nn and roineclialion at ttrcr ththfith 5ftrud. Iti_ rrporirnrn the draft Poview of the Kwii)cmo A r (kualily Suffer Stud', released forpohua tfornmcinf by the Western Australian Nanning Commission With) to 2002 stated that iithith 1,ti th imp( ift 1ln /110 nit [[1I 1 n11 (1le Ir )1) tiIntltiI rn buff, librni ri 1IL nnriarfro nr ftIliIn qv, I Jur!if In It, edit CIE firth lrlfnrnf Ital fu fly 1r r WI( r I 11 [Air ri 1 / Ora l [ tr 1 1 0 1 , IbrJ I n 1 1 r I/ 11f I [1E r cif Ifunn 11 rp nit NM (Ili 0 111,1 //ar{ bunt Julrrire'.! 1 r+ I , N11111(1114 dirt 1 L r j ttnr i nrrlrlr,l r 1, v tIfill d f, /T1E1 hl In In f1Ult rll Dry, Tr f 111 In11, , ni f Wu( F1 f 1111 I ilint 11 rilft [ hp [In n 'ono [111f 1nnd11111 fin III I' ,inn Ithtn Gnu tinrSF on lir I n hulk r Intl,F14 c 11011 q tic Ih c f u I / F ftut,rinhrcrttln rp nil, rynrdr nI til r fl ,f r h. /Irbynni 1 ,Ilrnnn I 11OF nrfs n11 ',It, 1), InE [I o) RwRii n r nnol11u nlpritrf by III l rhrnrrlr'_nnlrrr p r1111 II F 1 1 ,t, 1 in/I F I IC H u rn idI rp,1if t I Eh] If, Ili, IIdrinr I 1,11111 tici 11, riI Trintli11( 11 111,11,r111,11111 -[ f111 1' (11,1ff Iit,t, El Ii'11f mJ (LI/ 10 ir 1 rill rit mit tfl fie isit tr Nrrrrn_rl it rt it titr, h rrrrrlc ri nnlyJ1 din din null flu ft nlrr rr, nhr rila l it rif triit inn/ j[n r[ rp ofs nr.,1n1[71 11 )1_ o III) 'riff /Jib, $ /r ff ttit 111I, ninnn 1E du I nifty rill urtfor ittlif riIn c , p ifth or ffil n prof Ir n [ [ 1 loth r fl 111 I I I I, I,Iry tic nflitrill(thrift I I fr, and 11 r ri)1 ,- itrn dlrulll I t if III r1r in 0thilth.u.thuththir.rili. Ilir r ndeti p III hrrthf, I, in 11i.; cocoon:zed lhat 1110 irrithictfr nthclicition k not likely fo be obre to tie delt.rriiii.ithl until loniodolion strology is cloveloped. this is duo to be completed in ;th i t i r 1 3 11 f r , 1 1r / tr i f inn _ fi fi i f ft ifr if 1,11 nlir ill! 111f I d r f r r t r, flirt II1/ 1 nl 3[1 ill Ill El it if I To 11t I hi sir In if fli_f fli [ I Iill 1 Ilse Technical Working Group discussed severol options for consideration by the WAPC: I,Support urban deterred provided there is a clear process to permit lilting including monitoring of impacts and liaison with local government and Alcoa. Development should not occur untilil is demonstrated 'hot there will be no [meads on areas proposed far development; or 2 Oppose urban deferred until the °GO-anal dust modelling and verification has occurred and Ilse detailed remediation plans hove boon prepared, provided this occurs no later than 2007. A final decision on the location of the buffer and liming for development could be made at this lime to guide land use and development in the °road II should be noted that the majority of the committee supported option 9 CIthis would permit n (Potion of Ilse Kwinana Air Quality Buffer Study by 2007 and r IU yid. clear guidtlf1C h on liming for devolopment in the aroo.Ths ./t1largely a tip thr of liming, It was c on id, rrd 1 had if no development would be pa Liu prior to 2015 r, toning 1p Man us k in d 9 years bolero this limo was nal rsi cr. tory FE zoning .Itur II m Planning end subdivision can be completed in 3 lo 5 years lo pi unit cluvelopment, It is also noted that the EPA's assessment of the Amendment did not cove r critssion- imPecling on adjoining lanai uses or noise and vibrafion. Those issues mats tho future by the EPA at lime of local rezoning, structure planning, subdivyion r r development. II is therefore important to oslaptish a process lhat cdoguart 17 add', these Issues. Thank you for Ilse opportunity lo provide comment on proposed MRS Amendment 1114/33, Do MI hesitate to contact mo on 9244 7575 if you have any questions with regard to this submission. Yours sincerely Con Dawson A/Choir. technical Working oup Ter the Review of Ilse Y.ednano Air Qually tfufferstudy Late Submission 27 December 2006 St cret ay Wniti rn Australian Planning Commission Albr d I lorry House 460 We Ilington Street VVE5 fl RN AUSTRALIA 6000 Attention: Shortie Duggan or Andrew Trevor Dear Sir Submission in Objection to Amendment 1114/33 Town of Kwinana in consideration of Alcoa's Air Quality Results Purpose The purpose of this submission is to: 1,inform the Western Au 11 At I Planning Commission (Commission) of Alcoa's concern regarding propo7i rf the Town of Kwinana Amendment 1114/33 regarding Cell I M antlognlup; 2,inform the CommEwon of thb recent dust modelling results it requested he completed in 2002 in relation to Alcoa's Residue Area; and 3, because of the importance of the matter, request the ability for a verbal presentation on the matter to the Hearings Committee Objective The objective of this correspondence is to: orequest the Commission to reconsider the terms of the Amendment 1114/33 (Town of Kwinana) and secure adequate controls in the vicinity of the Alcoa Residue Area to ensure residential development is appropriately timed and controlled; o lodge an objection to the Amendment 1114/33 (Town of Kwinana) in the strongest terms on the basis that planning controls do not adequately address the temporal requirements relating to land released near the Alcoa Residue Area: and ooutline the reasons for that objection. Summary of Concern The timing of thL PtI oaten a ntial dr yr topment near existing industrial development rs of go it conrr InAlm o i dornot object per se to ri sidential development tftt r 2015 1111is the tam Mit the ea ti m tank of the Kwinana Residue Area will an In manor( tion 1.41/11 it contour, rl surfer c and rein qt I bon. During the period up to 2015 air qu rlity will nimEn in issue of r mar Init I, a t in a perceptual sense. Resident; it dr velopmc nt prior to 21115 is imp nth irt aidhorrid not he promoted at least until topoil rya-suing r., Hamrick to ilrhan 1 plan 10 C %Mu, AOUnl, o4FnciwnacoeelFUpinenlon P urbanplan, on behalf of Alcoa, lodges an objection to Amendment 1114/33, Town of Kwinana for an MRS rezoning from Rural Zone to Urban Deferred Zone. urbanplan requests that this MRS amendment postponed until careful consideration has been give to the timing of future residential development as a result of more recent dust modelling defining the extent of potential impacts from the Residue Area. Progressing the subject MRS amendment in the current circumstances would be contrary to recent scientific evidence that the Commission and Alcoa agreed would be required to be lit r dr fine the extent of impacts from the operation of the Residue Area. White some as quality modelling may be considered acceptable, the community's acceptance or pi rt eption of the emission is cdtical aspect, given the visual impact of the Residue Arr a Accordingly, the objection is of a temporal nature and not spatial. The objection relates to the timing of this premature residential development near existing industrial development particularly if it does not have adequate planning controls in place. Amendment 1114/33 (Town of Kwinana) The existing amendment documentation states the following in relation to the Alcoa Buffer. The buffer associated with the Alcoa bauxite re Aim storage area poses a significant liming constraint to the potential for a tit mgt to urban land uses and development This amendment proposes Ihr western boundary for the Urban Deferred Zone be Elio FrankMnd Road extent ion CPI? reservation. A relatively small area of the land within that area is nominated as part of the "modelled dust buffer edge subject to 2 years of dust monitoring by developers to validate model" in the Town of Kwinene's EasiOr17 Residential Intensification Concept District Structure Plan for the Jandakot Structure Plan area. A portion is also within the 1 km 'Alcoa Residue Lakes Buffer in the JSP". Including those areas in this amendment will facilitate planning for the whole cell by majority landowners. No lifting of the Urban Deferment will occur over the affected areas until the issue has been addressed to the satisfaction of relevant parties. The EPA recommends that generic separation distances are maintained unless adequate site specific studies have been carried out that demonstrate that a lessor distance will not cause any unacceptable amenity impacts in accordance with EPA's Guidance No.3 Separation Distances Detwo017 industrial and Sensitive Land Uses (June 2005). It is emphasised that: 1.Alcoa is a significant stakeholder and believes it forms part of the 'relevant parties that need to be satisfied' alongside the DEC. Accordingly, should site specific studies be carried out by proponents of development, than these should be considered by the authorities in conjunction with Alcoa's monitoring and modelling assessments: 2.recommended generic separation distances are just that generic. These are used by the EPA in the absence of more detailed assessment. Separation distances derived form SKM's scientific modelling should be applied given the detail of the research as generic separation is inferior, 3.community perceptions about lir gustily yr likely to remain despite the application of generic sip anther di Int., 4,ambient dust levels in the locality an prnarcia to be a significant contributor to air quality regardless of the Alr oa Recidur An a and may be cause for concern by the community; and 5,additional planning and development controls may be warranted to ensure health and safely aspects are addressed. Alcoa's commune that the r Latent amendment documentation does not adequately protect the r ei the tiadu trial I and use that meets its air quality parameters and licensing standard-T herr i, a need to amend and reinforce planning controls to ensure that developer rati athheld d le id until revegetation of the Residue Area is complete in 2015. Long Term Residua Management Strategy The Kwinana Residue Am tI ram It rm Residue Management Strategy (LTRMS) which was developed with eaten Nu community consultation, provides the technical research and rationale to Alcoaapproach and accordingly, forms the benchmark to this objection about the Amendment, The LTRMS for the Kwinana far hat ry waf rat produr r d in Dr of tatir rI 998 A dr tiled study was undertaken of the rrgins Mating ter AN. rirla purred to austrun i in as ma of alumina produi lion at the Keen In I Altman Merlin/ ryrhat pantry for uof the original Kwinan rII RMS (Alcoa IneR) lol n ri lr Met Kean mato &utensil airound environm, nt tt management of residue to the regulatory bodies, communrly and Alcoa, A Residue Planning Liaison Group (RPLG) with membership from the Department of Resources Development (chair), Department of Environment, Wafer and Rivers Commission, Department of Miner litand Energy, Ministry of Planning, Agriculture Western Australia, the Peel Developer nt Commission and Alcoa, was formed to facilitate the planning activity and to review and endorse the plans developed by Alcoa for submission to the Minister for St ate Dr v ilopment and the Minister for the Environment, The revised membership now includes the Department of Industry and Resources (chair), Department of Environment and Conservation, Department of Planning and Infrastructure, local government and Alcoa, The LTRMS detailed the antir ip fled expan ion of the rr storage facilities and dt ru, cc/ a number of r sue related to thr land tr rm rn In ferment and cyclarial clo we of the a ca poeitsThr planning moat: through Me/ afinfita ci aignite ant km I of MD holder / on ultatton with specific. t -ups, and di r u Ten of thr ota rill plan with community group ledit government and grwornment -as rat ir IN prrvrou L I KM', fiat Ka en in a was fin alttit in 199/ vnr Mom d by thr RPIO mil Minch r for the Um:donna nt. The Kwinana LTRMS via e vies rd through 1004 )004Ilk, )005 I TRW; reflects the outcome of the c vtr mama at thr holder r on ultatton pro/ r Alcoa undo dm* in developing the review/ d I 1RMS Male hold. rat temly p ate iti ilr it na the development of liarJr fir gy nett a nine month p nod aim t f0 hoick r Ni it rmTi r Group (SRC), 1 laI 1ILMS dusting nt frau Ls on Ir y r ^u r n ^rd by thr ,RC, dui erg this process. A ,;(.11Eot Guides] Prim rinkvutr predllryd by thr 9RD met f t 1)011 1_3 from Alcoa produr d m the I TPMC Thy dor ument p1 owl,the tarn r r ommunity CA ko,WullWir.C6.51or,let,,,,Nutmlissi 'AI k with the opportunity to understand Alcoa's strategies and commitments in relation to the management of bauxite residue and is designed to inform both government and the wider community of Alcoa's long term residue management strategies and commitments, The process and those involved in the SRG are indicated in Figure 2.2of the LTRMS with the Guiding Principles shown in Table 11.2. The Minister for Environment has endorsed the 2005 revision of the Kwinana LTRMS. Submission to Extend the Residential Exclusion Zone In October 2002 Alcoa made a submission to the Commission "Review of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffer" (August 2002) requesting the proposed Residential Exclusion Zonebe extended to take in the area bounded by Rowley Road (north), Kwinana Freeway (east) and Anketell Road (south). This request was based on current dust monitoringresults and complaint levels from near neighbours. Alcoa agreed with the Commission review "...Aar further detailed investigations are undertaken to better define the extent of impacts from the operation of the facility." The proposed rezonings from Rural Zone to Urban Deferred Zone as proposed in Amendment 1114/33 regarding Cell 1 Mandogalup is located within the area Alcoa requested as a Residential Exclusion Zone. It is now timely to reconsider the implications of Alcoa's further detailed investigations and reconvene conclusive discussions with the Commission and redress the implications of these scientific results,It is more than evident that air quality impacts have land use implications further afield than current buffers (hence WAPC's reference to the proposed SPP). Importantly, the Commission should withhold Amendment No. 1114(33 and consider alterations to documentation to reflect the findings of the further de tail d investigations that have better defined the extent of impacts, Furtht !more depending on the outcomes of reconvened discussions with the Commission, make tatable 1IM ndments toexisting planning controls, for example the Jandakot Structure Phil and the proposed State Planning Policy to reflect the land use Implications of the detailLd into stigatimu. Timing Alcoa's objection relates to the liming of this premature residential development represented by this Region Scheme Amt ndi ii_nt near existing industrial development that has real or perceived potential to emit advi r n environmental and health effectsthat impact sensitive uses. Asa consequence of community concerns, Alcoa brought forward the closure of the eastern residue. drys) 11 -Kea (Area F) from 2018 to 2010, at substantial cost, to accommodate future I and use options for the area to the east of the residue area. The rationale for residue deposits is based on progressive completion on the eastern front of the Residur Area and, In sequential stages, movement from east to west. Sequential plot t ment of residue deposits from east to west is based on the LTRMS and predicated on the Mention of Scheme Amendment No. 89 to finsI own of Kwinana Town Planning Scheme No. 2. This Amendment enables new residue ponds to be created during two summer months of 2007 and 2008. This amt ndment w is initiated by the Town of Kwinana in October this year and is anticipated to br adopted with final approval in September 2007. The programmed date for residue placement to be ceased on the eastern front is 2010 after which a five year programmeof surface recontouring, top soil application and contouring and revegetation is plannedfor completion in 2015. The 2015 completion of thr Rcoic tut Area pc .,nntr d in the LTRMS is anaspect that has been 'MLR belated by sone p miceEtuthrrinore, the implications of implementing the Li ICMC not fully reasons nd in Oa wet riment documentation. Thisis because it is poriaiNT for development to orr ur hi foie 2515 under the arrangements proposedby the amender nt documentation. During the period up to 2015 air quality will remain an issue of concern. Residential development prior to 2015 is imprudent and should not be promoted at leastuntil top soil contouring is complete, Alcoa is of the position it is imprudent to enableresidential development before that date or the completion of that event. Air Quality Standards It is understood that there are two policies controlling and defining air quality dards', 1. Environmental Protection Policy (relating to atmospheric waste) The Kwinena region is covered by an Environmental Protection Policy (EPP) that defines a limit not to be exceeded for Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). 2. National Environmental Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality In 1908, the National Environmental Protection Council introduced the National Environmental Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality (NEPM). It established a set of ambient air quality standards for six pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone. sulphur chute( , lead and particulates with a designated size of PM.,0)' to it hicyt. -Huhu in air qualify lha f allows for the adequate protection of human hr igh and well being'. The Department of Conservation and Environtar nt intr nds to implement NEPM through development of a state wide Envuoninental Protection Policy. In the interim it is recognised that theme standaid_ are used as guidance to achieve air quality, In 2004 Alcoa r ngs)«1",inchir Knight Matz ('KM) to conduct further studiesand modelling to bran r chars, t, not, the impact from th, r' ;idue disposal facility. A dust buffer study war rinmpiTtid along with r on identical of noise, odour and visual amenity impacts. 1 hr If.ult, of tiltt studs Rh 111111, fl pub nu al impacts well beyond the area originally Unit( epitt d to the Alt o t Oetohrt >We ulgm Jion. This report formed the basis of th, nvi ad tI EMS I If kind r kffil-J i ill"lust iE in rent t PI ionmy fr r 1111 rn I -Aft I lilt uvu.nln 14 ( I ill, Ivin tot An Ott 'It / lity in,I f-, chet 111,1,41 h r, 1,4,0''tOuttot utv DI 70 ',licit, 'n bDhotiri ti bron( hi ]1 full ItsI n,mIli+ IN It PM,5 IS pat mt ion Or I Aiv01 op ;i i,to wA The Dust Emission Modelling undertaken by SKM provides a reliable, broad indication of dust impacts as it exhibits observed patterns of dust distribution. The Model is somewhat conservative as it tends to under predict actual dust concentrations observed in the locality because of ambient or existing background dust sources. Accordingly, the modelled dust emission contours is to be interpreted as a minimum definition of impact distances. Furthermore, given the sensitive nature of residue disposal, a conservative approach is prudent given the nature of perceptions of encroaching residents. Air Quality Buffer Demonstration Regardless of the proximity of the dust emission modelling, the community's acceptance or perception of the emission is an aspect no: to be underestimated. In considering dust benchmarks of the current EPP relating to atmospheric waste and the NEPM with the location of the proposed residential land, the following diagrams clearly demonstrate that: othe proposed residential land is approaching the location of the Residue Area and Is likely to attract complaints both in terms of potential and perceived dust problems; and oendorsing residential land in this location prior to 2015 will not adequate account for the NEPM and will heighten the health and welt-being considerations of future residents; TOR TEJO C\Akoa Wolsun CounivmdencaSubmiaion to WM Ifl 6400000 6139000 0511000 10X ad propa,ed be relontrl Orb711 0o8 trod 04s7u00 61 rattan 0115000 Ph 013 400 03 0 Isla® p 9131600 masa -*Am 9140 in '90000 ant WO 10 Ion° diCt el lin Upturn 2' 1 mirth, F1, nit 111,M the non" cant rand Paha the. d Ifir d line m looslion rho In linrn immum '4-hour P oncentr hon bona of 50ootrn' na rata R¢ d in the NFPM will la sassed, d Based on t aim-ad ext ling It icapound concentration ormina' Snug/at' Olffiti, The a xl eing bar kgiound 11 sok of at uq/m'r gull- a lea I of .r5trairni This model demonstrates that the residential land proposed itoo do-to to the dust limit area. Endorsing residential in this location and not scknowli doingflat National Environmental Protection Measures may place the future ru air nts health and well-being in On unsatisfactory position. 110900 . 6.1^11 IGO IF 11IV0 b ride ^It OOP 01 /n[) 186rtU0 1 ;OM m1rCt1 0 2n4dtte Pigtva i111i Prodintedmaximum*_ I It .00rd1101 d dthin thr'I thedlin r L rt c n th ^n In 1111(111111M I hour 1'11 (0111rtt 111011 Pint of 1nuctInt r totin d 1111111 Pr Pr 1 of 1stt ttrcr dII r Int ititty/m3 1T?' trimsflu trnet c ringstun dt b yr ground t on Or mad I 01(1101? 0OF th 11 Ids )11It end IN, po Prn 1,2rto the du-t Amt. illII odortr g rt-dri it It 111011 1111 1111/1/n cl nut tv Vnnt ttdrItnq tht dr 1111 It tI bt inn tn i11 4111111111111 P(01; 1111;111i F Fill In pl rcthr future id n1 01 Ind tin vi)21)1 n.torprtivtl Alcoa's Commitment As a corporate citizen, Alcoa has a commitment to public protection and is concerned by the public perceptions. Accordingly Alcoa strives for negligible nuisance from dust emissions. If zero exceedenr ti to be achieved, Total Suspended Particulate and PMI) and PM), represent a significant Lana,In the current circumstances, Amendment 1114/33 (Town of Kwinana) tit odde with the zero r xt et de ncc and accordingly are likely to result in future air quality complaints. Thcse may be &act( d initially to Alcoa and State Government Agancit 5 alikeIf complaintmart and Alcoa isr r n to have fulfilled its licensing requirements within the parameter of the Ministerial approved LTRMS, the focus of attention may inadvertently be directed elsewhere. This can be avoided if spatial development is deferred in the temporal sense enabling completion of the LTRMS commitments or planning controls in the form of memorials on title become part of the requirements of future development implementation. Alcoa maintains high standards as exhibited by $12 million improvements to dust suppression reticulation, the instigation of the LTRMS that effects earlier development of Wattleup and Mandogolup, moving the residue disposal form the east to the south and then across to the west, Alcoa still has a concern for public protection and is concerned by the perceptions held by the public, Accordingly Alcoa strives for negligible nuisance from dust emissions. Significantly, Alcoa has compromised its operations with the earlier closure of the eastern flank of the Residue Area F to enable progressive development of Mandogolup (and Wattleup in the City of Cockburn) with the initiation of Amendment No. 89. Premature advancement of the residential development front will unwittingly raise expectations and introduce unnecessary awareness and intolerance of the existing Residue Area. Tolerance or the perception of the acceptance of potential impacts is proportionally heightened with proximity to the Residue Area. Vi u it prominence has an overriding negative impression, at least until revegetation occur requisites. of operational techniques, improvements to reticulation or the strength of t winer south westerly winds. The closer impending development become thi mole likely that visual prominence raises awareness and concerns for possible comet ants associated with dust impacts. Conclusion During the period up to 2015 air quality may well remain an issue of concern. Residential development prior to 2015 is imprudent and should not be supported by the Commission at least until top soil earthworks and contouring is complete. In relation to statements made in the Town of Kwinana Amendment document, it is stated: o Alcoa is a significant stakeholder and believes it forms part of the 'relevant parties that need lo be satisfied' alongside the DEC. Accordingly, should site specific studies be carried out by proponents of development, than these should be considered by the authorities and Alcoa in conjunction with Aiwa's monitoring and modelling assessments; o recommended generic separation distances are just tint. generic. These are used by the EPA in the abtrnre of more detailed a des ment. Separation dist wire.d_rivi d form SIKH rTorn ifir mods Ding should he applied given the dctail of tilt nt arch is gent Or rep ir anon I, inkinot o community purer ption about in qu day nr Hotly to remain despite the application of gs ileac -hp 11 Ron di t wires, O addition rl pl inning and dr velopinent t Doti nl m ly hr w wanted to ensure health and ditty sr poets ant Attu seedand tint the c sontitil may includt, Ate ratios to flu amendment documentation to reflect the finding s of the Unity r defrlcd111VE lig ton, that have better defined tin, t xtt nt of clip wits Mona I moo di pr ncling on thr outcomes of reconvened discussion with the Comer" inn Inikutoteht,imi nrtments to existing planning controls, for r Alcoa was required by the Commission to undertake further detailed investigations to better define thee extent of impacts.It is now timely to reconsider the implications of these results and reconvene conclusive discussions with the Commission and redress the implications of these scientific results.It R more than evident that air quality impacts have implications further afield than current buffers. In conclusion Alcoa has little objection to appropn nr ly Wood lit vt lopmunt in th, Mandogolup locality. Spatial proximity Inot in lotus onre the i fRMSpropuly implemented, In the interim, temporaltaut, of cluielopmitt airr concern: ri rids oti development too close too soon viii r urbanplan recommends the Commission reconsider the terms of the Amendment 1 1 1 4/33. Town of Kwinana and secure adequate controls in the vicinity of the Alcoa Residue Area to ensure appropriately timed and controlled residential development. Because of the importance of this matter, urbanpian requests the opportunity to make a verbal submission to the Hearings Committee, Yours faithfully urbanplan err fin Inns low Mini [pal CC: Andrew Trosic, Town of Kwinana Ken Dawson, DPI gable hiiniul C I)ocument,...d Whig, \ the 1Iuopora Western Australian Planning Commission HearingsCommittee Metropolitan Region Scheme 1114/33 Jandakot Structure Plan Coll 1 Mandogolup Considerations Temporal Aspect o Timing of Development Amenity Aspect o Community standards and expectations oExisting complaint levels Common Goal To avoid conflict between and enable compatible progression ofindustrial, rural and residential uses Statutory Context 1.State Planning Policy 4,1 State Industrial Buffer Policy 1997 2.Draft State Planning Policy 4.1, Slate Industrial Buffer Policy 2004 (draft) 1 Environmental Protection Policy (Kwinana) Atmospheric Wastesand its review WAPC (August 2002)1...J1/at further detailed investigations areuncleilaken to boiler define the extent of impacts from the operation of the facility. " ]Technical Working Group Committee] 4. Proposed State Planning Policy for Kwinana Industrial Area and Environs (Kwinana SPP) 5.Fremantle to Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy. Rationale Land use compatibility, and associated bufferseparation, is the mostimportant consideration when addressing this Amendment 1114/33 for Cell 1. Wbll t Alva acknowledges the need for future residential developmentin the area Alcoa does not want residential development to occur prematurely. Developmentin the area of ( ells 1 to 5 can occur without the issue of incompatible land uses.Alcoa therefore has no objection to residential development in Cells 2 to 5. Alcoa considers that it is inappropriate for Cell 1 to be approved until theCommission has considered further do/ailed investigations which better define the extentof impacts including information provided to the WAPC via the current Technical WorkingGroup for the Review of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffer established under theEnvironmental Protection Policy (Kwinana) Atmospheric Wastes (refer Chairman Ken Dawson's submission 26 December 2006 and Technical Working Group Minutes furthertechnical work as part of EPP Review implying advancement of Celli Mandogolup ispremature) and finalisation of the draft State Planning Policy Kwinana IndustrialArea and Environs. It is particularly inappropriate to intensify residential uses in Cell IMandogolup before amenity and environmental issues associated with Alcoa's residue areaclosure operations are resolved. ,,::111107521R5 Alcoa's Residue Area Clo 1110_ set I"( h itald tom Impf On Strategy (due end 2008) will insavidtI tl. 1 nl1 d info.lig Non ISIS Sp 1111011 and progi ol idle An is Hying of du 1110115)111110S le vr I,, utl ml 1011 110111 OS1t &SS, l lo u1 per r(11111 0SOS SIE II ,t ming of nti 1f d1 s !immoral Onkel to r for cone O upthithd complaintit Unit( 1and rc non 1to i The Complaints Register highlights existing causes for concern and neetl for buffer separation (refer diagrams). Implications also exist for City of Cockbu'n's Southern Districts Structure Plan Stage 3 Wathoup (August 2005) which is yet to be adopted by the Commission. Based on land use compatibility principles and current data. Alcoa anticipates the need for buffer separation until at least 2015. Recommended Criteria for Consideration Booed on the results ofAlcoa's Implementation Strategy and the Kwirono NPR agree Criteria for the following parameters: Dust concentration: by Total Suspended Particulate, PM1O & PM2.5; Odour; Noise; and 0 Visual appearance including light spit Those environmental Criteria will inform the temporal extent of necessary buffer as guided by the Implementation Strategy which will progressively close the Residue Area. Recommended Action 1. Reject the MRS Amendment 11 applicable to Cell 1 and reconsider that part of amendment when the recommendations of PPP Review and finalisation of SPP occur consequent to the results of the Implementation Strategy (end 2008). 2. Prior to resubmission, amend the Cell 1 proposal to incorporate the criteria for consideration and a staged development concept. 3. From about v015 nr n time perhaps before as established by the Implementation Strategy timing milI Ig1 d development of selected components of Cell 1 can occur. Alio 1 i ill r 00111111 liaising with properly owners anddevelopment industry to ch Iii 11111)11I111011 ul0111r ilions and progressive closure of particular Residue Mu to 'Oil and 0 brrov) andi myth) of potential residential development. Devise the timing of staged areas of development within Celli in accordance with the Criteria, tcsijiciCkF heRH 213 December 2006 TheSoca:1m brasiers) Auslralian Henning Cm Mr 469 We Ilinglon SI PERM WA 4000 Door Sid Mot lam SUBMISSION: METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1114/33 This submission is inside on behalf of the Technical Working Group for She Review of the Kwinann Air Qualify ButlesSludy. Mombeehip of Me Technical WoskIng Groupis as follows: Oopewtmeni for Plonolays and infrastructure Doporlment of Enbironmeni &Conservation Dopoilment of Industry end Resource) dandOorp Town of KwInana Oily of Cockbusn Water Comeralion Alcoa Kwinana Induslrlos Council II Is recognized Ihet submissions closed on 27 SepIember. Tim Technical Working Group cl)Procibics Iho c0PotionilY lo losielo fins lolo submission forconsideration by the Woslorn Augrolion Planning Commission SWAPO) This submission salukis to Melropolltan Region Scheme Amendment No 1114/33 whichis lo rezone rho Jandakol skuoluro plan, cell I-, Mthelossolup, from Reruns) Pam Deferred. The ore° Ille subject of PM Amendment Is bounded by: Rowley Read le lho norile AnketelI Road lo lhe sos)11); Rwinana Roomy to Me earl; and olhor regional roods IORM reservation lo rho west. The main issue addrossod by this submission Is rho liming of 1110 Aniondmon1Mboil the proxiorily of 11) area 10 lho Alcoa bauxite residue storage area. Use of I hoCOSICIUO storage ace Is duo lo coast: in 2010: however, remedirelon of the silo is likely tocontinuo unlit 2015. Cho Technical Working Group would Ilk,, le highlIghl a few points for consideralionby the WANT. WoilsirVi Group, II so futon) usl)on uso of his1 not dobafndi 1 clearly 1105Asivor 1115 imporisinl Iiin s I sbaninslion impoels from Iho dostionsliolod [hot 1101t ni /I 0011)0 y011,1001 Alcoa Ressiclue Slots Ass Es 111110(1110 0010101 /A the fochnissul Working Group dis.csAs;ed 01veialopli>r Iorcntidern, lion by I.Support minus deforred pros/Mos:111 r 0111 0111110 10 pcmd filling issith s-s ssisissys mmoni and Naas inch/ding nionilosing of imps:sr:is and hi s Development should not occur 1111W il 1 di moil in its d Ihnithese Will he 510 impacls 00 woot psoposod for day I 111 IIII 2. <>pp,whorl dofosod unIiI1110, ockfilional dust IAA,.II tics and1/011110000111105 1110 1 0.11d ibo doloilnd romediollon plows Ns bs 11prOParna provided flak fhol,s (shun of Ike huller and liming t ss us no lalor lhnn 200/. A find decision onfins tutJ use and AlsweSopmon1 Ist sIs,, topniani could ba. mad° 01 Ibislints IV, Ofills in Iho urea. ss pliers sit 111lo I ;is,'51111(1111,s nil ills sit' is s' In s tip sill Ins II °PrnArlli sr (is sly 1 (1110 111of n, 01(11f {, 0E0001 1)1,1( 'ft slats t s,, u1,111 nttln 01 111,1,Incuntsi Ilti snis is rd inism_id in ins o. r b,s10/ .111,1 id, s 1 is si Their allot SAn f Aims id()of, t bi IN,ti kris If CI Iris is of 111111111II,issill Is Is ms ins11111111,nli Oi is us ,t LITI,Is n ills Inv lsicA In tti' Im rlu uL s 15101111 0011111111 11111101 It din slur n ,ins nuIss, Isis is ss ns 51 , Atliho V' mill sit lupin iii Amonclmonl did nal saver 0111051011: II is also notocl fl sst Ill,1, A s ins sit III one I sillvalion. these Issues may he (Aso:a:el in IMPOcliss0 on as ti i sl d is I n The fissure by 11sff's ul flits fItssnl i /011111 slinclure planning, As12slivision or devestopment.111 Ins o i, 0 111101 01111110 finblish o P10001;11501 cvlessissolsily odds-es:An those Issues. Ilitsisk you for Silo °piss:Minify 10 provide csis Amoss1 onproposed MRS Amendment 1114/33.1)o not hosilolo lo contuAl my 0119264 75/5 it youhove any silisibisliOns with regard lo Ihii Subtnic1100. Your, sins:Ars:Sy 1(1111flomon A/ClAtir, ft Sy issAtinicsal Working Group Transcript of hearings Minutes of the Committee hearing submissions on the following Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendments: 1114/33 - Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 1- Mandogalup 1115/33 -Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 2- Wendt 1116/33 - Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 3 -Ankotell 1117 /33- Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 4- Casuarina 1118/33 -Jandakot Structure Plan, Cell 5 - Wellard (East) Wednesday, 31 January 2007, Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth The Committee was established by resolution of the Metropolitan Region Planning Committee (MRPC) on 12 December 2006. Chairperson Cr Elizabeth Taylor Member of the Statutory Planning Committee Members Cr Richard Graham Chairperson of the South West Districts Planning Committee Dr Bruce Hamilton Independent, with environmental expertise In attendance Mr Andrew Trevor Department for Planning and Infrastructure Mr Steve Hadley Department for Planning and Infrastructure Ms Sheree Duggan Department for Planning and Infrastructure Presentations to the Committee commenced at 6.00am. The proceedings ware recorded by 'Spark & Cannon Ply Ltd' The following people made presentations: 1) Ms Karim° Mao& represented Ayso H (Amendment 1116/33) 2) Mr David Porter and Ms Tina 12onci represented Questdalo Holdings Ply Ltd. (Amendment 1114/33) 3) Ms Jan Star and Mr Andrew Del Marco represented Peel Harvey Catchment Council. (Amendments 1114/33, 1115/33, 1116133, 1117/33 and 1118/33) 4) Mr Mahadevan Jayabalan and Mr Vic Mannar represented Salve Mahe Sabel of WA. (Amendment 1114/33) 5) Ms Lyndell Damn represented herself. (Amendment 1115/33) 6) Mr Nigel Spencer represented himself. (Amendment 1117/33) 7) Mr Terrence Adams and Mr Peter Murray represented themselves. (Amendment 1115/33) 8) Ms Jenny Smithson and Mr Graeme Perryman represented Armana Holdings. (Amendment 1118/33) 9) Mr Warren Ormsby represented the Department of Industry and Resources. (Amendments 1114/33 and 1118/33) 19) Ms Jenny Smithson, Mr Greg Rowe and Mr Darren Walsh represented Mendogalup Land Development Co, Satter ley Property Group and VVandi/Anketell Landholdings. (Amendment 1114/33) 11) Mr Greg Rowe, Mr Darren Walsh and Mr Fred Ferrante represented the following: Anketell Farms Mortimer Land Company Anketell Landholdings Moshee Bane, Tina Satterley Property Group Daleside Holdings Tokyo City Dawnllnk Trevalley Investments Donkey Well Holdings Moonapark Nominees (Amendments 1115/33, 1116/33 and 1117/33) Cr Elizabeth Taylor declared the hearings closed at 2.17pm. Chairperson: 04T/ (4/ Dale: C90t9 MR DAVID PORTER & MS TINA RONCI representing Questdele Holdings CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. MR PORTER: Morning. How are you? CHAIRPERSON: Fine, thank you. MR PORTER: Thank you for allowing us to address you. CHAIRPERSON: Please come forward. It's David, is it? MR PORTER: Yes, David Porter. CHAIRPERSON:Hello, David. Pm Elizabeth Taylor,hoeing the meeting today, MR PORTER: Hi. Pleased to meet you. MS RONCI:Hello. I'm Tina. CHAIRPERSON: Tina Lovely to meet you. MR PORTER: Tina represents Ouestdale Holdings. CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR PORTER: Who own and operate the sandpit on the land we're going to talk about. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I'd like to introduce the hearings panel. This is Dr Bruce Hamilton. DR HAMILTON:Hi, Tina. MR PORTER: Bruce, how are you? CHAIRPERSON: And Councillor Richard Graham. MR GRAHAM: Hello. Nice to meet you Hello, Tina. CHAIRPERSON: This is our DPI officer, Andrew Trevor. MR PORTER: Andrew, how are you? CHAIRPERSON: Well, welcome. Please have a seat. We have Inn David, to have a listen to what you have to say. We have received your submission, which is excellent, and 31-01-2007 i Porter, Ronci giving you the opportunity now to expand on that and perhaps an opportunity for the panel to ask you questions, if we do have any. MR PORTER: Great, yes. CHAIRPERSON: We are recording this, as the legislation provides us to do, and we hopefully can, at the end of it, you know, resolve any of the issues that you might have that you'd like to ask us about, MR PORTER: Fantastic, CHAIRPERSON: So without much further ado - the 15 minutes seems to be very quick in going - I'll hand over to you and perhaps you can expand on your submission. MR PORTER: Thanks. Just to explain Questdale's position, they own lots 1, 2 and this is part 1, but it's actually called lot 3, even though it's never been taken up, of Rowley Road, and lot 3 is now Bush Forever and that's subject to further compensation issues between the owner and the Government, so we're not discussing that at this stage. Lot 1 and 2, lot 1 has a sand source and Questdale Nominees have been operating that sand resource for the last 15 to 20 years. During the course of operating and developing the sand resource, they have been liaising with the Planning Commission and the Town of Kwinana as to what the end use of that land might be and they have structured their rehabilitation plans and their operational plans based on the advice that they've received, So to date we have a sandpit that is nearing the end of its life, though not complete, on lot 1. This is lot 2, which has less of a resource and is heavily vegetated and is not currently being considered for sand extraction. Adjacent to the land on the western boundary :s another large sandpit that's being operated by WA Limestone, I think, at the moment, and the Intention from the Town of Kwinana is both of those pits create a land form that melds together. These people have, in their end land use plan, again taken advice from Town of Kwinana and have indicated they're intending to use it for market garden, horticultural-type purposes. On lot 1, the intended land use has been urban and the Town of Kwinana's advice during various renewals of planning has been that batter slopes and the method of operation should comply with the various end uses for urban and the Town of Kwinana have consistently provided indications that the land will be for urban, and I've marked on these two plans, which are part of council's draft structure plans for the eastern region of the local authority, and that abuts the City of Cockurn to the north, who again have planned urban development on the northern boundary. So the intention in the development of the sandpit has been for urban and in the MRS amendment, the urban boundary has now been confined to the western boundary of lot 2 and has excluded lot 1, and we haven't been able to find out why lot 1 has now not been included when all the indicators, and Including the written advice that council had previously provided, that it was to create batter slopes of 1in 15 to allow for future urban development, and that 31-171-2007 2 Porter, Rand advice is embodied in several items of correspondence that Questdale has received from council to indicate that they would require the land to be developed for future urban. One item was a decision of the Town of Kwinana's planning committee to give planning approval, and that was the current approval, which is valid until 10 August 2010, and their condition number 9 says, "The finished site levels and gradient shall not exceed 1 in 15, in order to accommodate future urban development." And early advice, in August 2005, also indicated that, when we were discussing re-approvals, that council officers consider the original approved gradient of the sand out of quarries at 1 in 10 should be altered to reflect a batter slope of 1 in 15. This is in the view of the future urbanisation of the locality, so that residential development is not compromised. So in all of the work, whilst Questdale want to continue to operate as a sandpit and intend to do so for the next at least five years or the term of its planning approval, the WA Planning Commission is yet to renew the approval from a regional point of view, but the local authority has already given their consent, and in the past, it's then basically a formality that it follows on. Lot 1 also has been included in the Water Corporation planning for their sewer networks, indicating that they fully intended that area to be part of the urban development in the future as well. This boundary is limited by a ridge line, which has now been extracted, so the Water Corporation's normal planning would then be to follow a modified boundary based on changes to the topography created by the sandpit. So, in summary, whilst all the indicators in the past, including the future urban road network for extension of Hammond Road, showing again being on lot 1, the indicators have all been that lot 1 would be part of the future urban zoning and we realise there is a time frame in that, but Questdale wanted to request that, in the current MRS amendment, the boundary be moved to the west, to follow the western boundary of lot 1. So this is just background information to show the way that they conducted their affairs based on the expectation and the cost of doing 1in 15 batters when normally they could get away with one in three and extract more sand. So at this stage they've been developing and aiming to an end - land use of future urban. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I think we've got a handle on that. You've raised a few questions, at least in my mind, and perhaps other members on the committee. I did have a look at the history of your site and I have gone back into the beginning of this amendment and Andrew was explaining the blue road. As you probably know, that hard line there is the blue road on the map. MR PORTER: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: So that was the defined boandary. Andrew, am I correct in slating that? MR TREVOR:That's right, When the amendment was being put together, we had to choose some type of hard defined boundary and looking at the proposed MRS, we could see that there was already a blue road, which we call important regional road, so that was chosen as 31-01-2007 3 Porter, Rend being the boundary, and also when you look at the Town of Kwinana's Eastern Residential Intensification Concept, you can see that they stopped their residential development in around that location, so lot 1 was on the other side of the road. Now, I think the point that needs to be stressed is that because lot 1 is on the other side of the blue road and because it's not in this amendment in no way suggests that anyone is saying it's not suitable for eventual urban development, okay. MR PORTER: Yes. MR TREVOR: So in other words, what the Town of Kwinana has been saying about rehabilitation and contours, that is all fine and correct and this land is shown in the Jandakot structure plan as being future urban and it's shown In the Town of Kwinana's plan as mid to long-term urban. So if the concern is that there's some sort of total exclusion, that's not the case at all. MR PORTER:That was the original concern, particularly with the flexibility that Alcoa have managed to introduce to their buffer zone, and we were concerned that maybe, for some reason unexplained to us, the buffer zone was the reason that it was being pushed back, and we'd obviously want to challenge the validity of some of that rationale. I mean, the developers or the owners of this are concerned because their land holdings are subject to considerable land take at the moment through the regional roads and the Bush Forever, which is going through a compensation process right now, but they were concerned that suddenly they were going to have a large piece that could have been alienated when they'd been developing everything on the basis that that would be the end land use, because if it wasn't, then all of their rehabilitation programs have to change to reflect whatever the end land use is going to be. So if it is still going to be future urban, though not included in this amendment, I guess we'd be satisfied. CHAIRPERSON: Well, perhaps it's a matter of the process. MR PORTER: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: And thereis one question that did come up this morning in our discussions, and that was the four years that you have as part of your extension of the use of the site for a sandpit, MR PORTER: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: That four years, is that from the Town of Kwinana? MR PORTER: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: That's their stipulation? MR PORTER: Yes. 31-01-2007 4 Porter, Ronci CHAIRPERSON: So that's fine, What we were saying was this process of this amendment would probably take up to about two years. In the meantime, you'll be having some time lines of finally finishing your sandpit site within the next two to three years, and if that is the case, then you could start the process for an omnibus amendment for your lot 1. Andrew. MR TREVOR:Could I just ask the four year period, Is that related to the life of the resource or has Town of Kwinand MR PORTER: The Town of Kwinana have put the four years on. MR TREVOR: Do we know why they've come up with four years? MR TREVOR:I believe the City of Cockurn development scenarios and the development of the land immediately north of our site, there's pressure for the sandpits in that area to be reduced or curtailed, as it's seen as an impact by the developers of these areas here for urban. No doubt you'll be addressed by people from the former mines department to talk about the value of the sand resource. This is the business my client is in. They have several sandpits and they're all suffering similar pressure, but in this case, their intention is to maximise that and the Town of Kwinana's stipulation in the extraction plan that we blend in with the land next door means whilst the immediately available resource in this area will be extinguished, there will be a time lag as to when the common boundary between lot 1 and lot 651 over here can be developed. Currently, there's a big batter being created between the two and as these people extract, then so Ouestdale will be able to then extract to create a levet plain, but they can't do that immediately. Even though we're having some negotiations to say our extraction is more advanced than yours, let's say we take half, you take half later, there's an issue there, and there is also some resource available through a separate company. The people behind Ouestdale also own the land that's comprised of the transmission line, this line through here - in fact, they own a substantial part of that. Western power have agreed, subject to us confirming the stability of the towers in there, that they would allow the sand extraction boundary to go through into that easement and we're awaiting on a confirmation from them that that can happen, in which case we would make an application to the Town of Kw inano just to extend the extraction boundary to include some land under the towers. We estimate there's about 500,000 cubic metres of resource there. Whilst that doesn't sound a lot in the overall scale of urban development, my client's customers are more particularly the local builders, and they supply brickies' sand, general sand for lock pads and site works and some specialist sands for plastering - they do screening to separate these resources - so their continued operation is really important for a lot of the local south-ofithe-river tradespeople and builders and obviously it's becoming more difficult for all of those people to obtain a resource. 31-01-2007 5 Porter, Ronci So when you say four years, the Town of Kwinana have said four years. I think with these initiatives, we would like to think the sandpit may be able to have its life extended a little longer, but that's subject to what the approvals are going to be, because if it is four and that's it, then we have to extract as much as we can get out and then maybe leave stockpile reserves to work later on. CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR PORTER: That's not the deal, That's double handling. CHAIRPERSON: Andrew. MR TREVOR: I just had another question. Did you say you weren't going to do any extraction on lot 2? MR PORTER: At this stage, no. MR TREVOR:Is that because it's not economical or --- MR PORTER:At this stage, there's not the significant amount of resource. By the time you clear, strip and then are subject to the various controls and rehabilitation plans, you add all of those costs together versus the amount of resource you'll extract, then it's really not an economical proposition at the moment. If sand suddenly became $20 a cubic metre instead of 12 or 15, or whatever, you would turn around and say we'll have another look at it, but at this stage there's not been any intent to do that. CHAIRPERSON: Andrew. MR TREVOR: Shall I just explain the way forward, then, for this block? CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask the panel if they have any questions before we go into that bit. Richard? MR GRAHAM: No, I don't have any questions, thanks. CHAIRPERSON: Bruce. DR HAMILTON: The only question I've got is how does that four year, or whatever that time line ends up being, how does that fit in with the Department of Industry and Resources and (indistinct) a WAPC extract of industries policy. Can you explain how that fits with that longer term view that we should maximise all of these extracted industries. MR PORTER: The Department of Resources and Questdale have had a number of initiatives developed for this area over the years - I didn't bring those plans - but we had put forward to them, and to the City of Cockurn and Town of Kwinana, a modified extraction plan that, based on general contour, rationalised the extraction over lot 1, the adjoining lots to the west, Franklin Park to the north and lot 3 to the south. Now, lot 3 has been sterilised because 31.01-2007 6 Porter, Rend of the Bush Forever position.I understand the Department of Resources wish to challenge that because its been an active resource before and, through various processes, is now not able to be accessed, Franklin Park, there was a land swap arranged, which Questdale initiated, with other bushland in the area, to extract the resource on that. They have an application for a mining tenement that is still pending in the Wardens Court on that matter and that created a bit of political furore several years ago at council and Slate Parliament election time, which ended up with a bit of misinformation, but the net result was that that hasn't proceeded. However, were currently liaising with the City of Cockurn to discuss extraction from Franklin Park to suit where the regional road alignments will go, so the extension of Hammond Road - probably this plan is better to see - so the extension of this road and where the east-west extension of Rowley Road runs through and in the City of Cockurn's master plan for Franklin Park, they're showing a large active sports area on their eastern boundary and Questdale, or one of their other companies, will be discussing with the City of Cockurn how we can rationalise this extraction to tie in, create those road profiles and the active sports area at no cost to those authorities in return for being able to extract the resource. DR HAMILTON: So what you're saying is there is a good process under way between the landowners and particularly the sandpit operators. MR PORTER: Yes. DR HAMILTON: The local governments of Cockurn and Kwinar d the Department of Resources to manage this whole process so that you maximise th aunt of sand coming out. MR PORTER: Yes, DR HAMILTON: But you end up with the contours that are suitable o and urban development. MR PORTER: That's what we're trying to do, The City of Cockurn DR HAMILTON:I'm comforted by that. That sounds like a good process. MR PORTER: The City of Cockurn haven't agreed to that yet, so you shouldn't presuppose that they will - they objected before - but the modified plan I have discussed with their manager of strategic planning and he's encouraged us to pursue that, which is what we'll be doing, and Mr Ormsby, from the Department of Resources, they've been very encouraging in facilitating how we might interrelate these various extraction activities so that particularly things like boundary issues are sorted out, you don't end up with great ridge lines in the middle between extractions. DR HAMILTON: That's really good CHAIRPERSON: It sounds like the process is really going quite smoothly - probably maybe not as much of in a hurry as we'd like. 31,01.2007 7 Porter, Ronoi MR PORTER: There is an identifiable process, put it that way. DR HAMILTON: Which is better than none. MR PORTER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: This is true, this is true. Okay. After that, anything, Richard? MR GRAHAM: No. I'm fine, thanks, CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Andrew? MR TREVOR:Well, I thought in terms of the way forward, as I said before, lot 1 is included in the Jandakot structure plan and you've been told by Kwinana that it's going to be eventually urban. Cell 1is going to urban deferred under this amendment and will probably go to urban in about two years time. I think that if you keep an eye on what's happening and the progress of this and then when you get closer to the time when you will be finishing your resource extraction, which may be in four years time, or a bit longer, then you can start thinking about putting a submission In to rezone lot 1, and possibly some of the other land, the neighbouring land, to either urban or urban deferred. That will depend, to some extent, on what Alcoa has done, but hopefully in two to three years time, that will have sorted itself out. CHAIRPERSON:It will be clear. MR TREVOR: There will be something more definite, because there seems to be some uncertainty at the moment. So that's the way forward for you. CHAIRPERSON: Does that help you out? MR PORTER: That's great. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any further questions? MR PORTER:I mean, our big concern was that there may have been a longer term change in land use that predicated against what we were doing now and we needed to have that sorted out. CHAIRPERSON: I think the process seems to be following a logical consequence of the amendment today and I think that that probably gives you a bit of a tight at the end of your tunnel as well. MR PORTER: Thank you very much for that. CHAIRPERSON: So thank you very much for coming in and hopefully we've been able to explain it better and look forward to a nice future for you. MR PORTER: Thank you. 31-01.2007 8 Porter, Ronci CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, It was nice to meet you. DR HAMILTON: Thanks very much. MR GRAHAM: Nice to meet you, David. MR TREVOR: Nice to have met you. 31-01-2007 Porter,RO110i MS JAN STAR, MR ANDREW DEL MARCO & MR JESSE STEELE representing Peel-Harvey Catchment Council CHAIRPERSON: Hello Jan. MS STAR:Hi Elizabeth. CHAIRPERSON: Nice to see you again. How are you? DR HAMILTON:Hello Jan. MR TREVOR: Hello Jan. I'm Andrew Trevor, CHAIRPERSON: And we've got Andrew as well with you, have we? MS STAR: Yes. MR DEL MARCO: Hello Councillor Taylor. CHAIRPERSON: Hello Andrew, Nice to see you again. MR DEL MARCO: How are you going? Good to see you. MR GRAHAM: And I'm Richard Graham. MS STAR:And can I introduce Jesse Steele. Just for your sake, he's working with the Peel Harvey Catchment Council on our stormwater management and drainage. CHAIRPERSON: Lovely to meet you. Nice to meet you, Jesse, how are you? MR TREVOR: Hi, Jesse. MR STEELE:Hello. MR GRAHAM: Richard Graham. CHAIRPERSON: Richard Graham. MS STAR: We brought Jesse in for experience as much as anything else. CHAIRPERSON: All right. We'll give him a hard time. Right. Well, the process is this morning, that it's a hearing and we are here to listen to what you have to say and I'm sure both of you have been through this process before, so it's nothing new to you. We have our colleagues here to have a listen to what you have to say, we've got your submission, and if we have any questions to ask you or if you have any questions to ask us, it will be the appropriate time to do that. We've got about IS minutes, and already I'm running late this 31-01-2007 19 Star, Del Marco, Steele morning and I apologise for that, and, of course, the normal process is that we're being taped and you have opted for a public hearing, so that means anyone in the room can actually have a listen to what you have to say. So what we'll do, without much further ado, is over to you, as time is obvious. Jan, are you going to start? MS STAR: start the proceedings and let Andrew back me up with some -- CHAIRPERSON:All right. If we have questions as we go along, can we interrupt? MS STAR: Interrupt, do interrupt. Were talking at a fairly generic level and well get the plans and get stuck into the details, CHAIRPERSON: I guess, from your submission, youe supportive of it, but you've go couple of -- MS STAR: We're supportive of the approach being taken. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MS STAR:Our major concern, I suppose, overall with natural resource management, as we get into a lot of this urbanisation of this wetland country, is that, and especially if it's also got remnant vegetation, which is usually in a different place, is that the planning system, with its rigid 10 per cent POS, really isn't meeting the NRM needs, and so it's a general problem we have with the planning system, which we've been raising with places before. But with this, we've just been through a national program called a coastal catchment initiative and that had several outputs, one of which is due for release any moment now, but it will probably be in a few more months, as these things do, which is the water quality improvement plan, which is a set of recommendations for best management practices for all sorts of activities but land use planning amendment and this is to fulfill the requirements of the EPA, because all this land comes under the EPP and the corresponding SPP, but it's covered by the environmental review and management plan 94, Ithink, of the EPA and the EPA have made comment on this. Part of the major output of that water quality improvement plan, and the studies that to developing it, was the finding that urban development is not a beneficial use for nutrient control, it leads to greater nitrification, a greater nutrient loss per hectare than agriculture by a long way and this Peel main drain area thatall these developments feed into have a significant increase in nutrient load, so they're a major concern for us, our concern basically being the protection of the estuary, but also natural resource management in the whole area So while we need urban development, obviously, it needs to be very cognisant of the fact of how it ran reduce the nutrient load and one of the ways of doing that is through water ar n"itivtdrign. Now, this has been done in the eastern states quite successfully, they've In m d up algal blooms through strong application of water sensitive design. We're not doing ithr re yet You have an SPP water resources policy out now which is generic. We have produced, out of this coastal catchment initiative, a local planning policy that's more specific and we would advocate that the local governments concerned adopt that, there are technical 31-01-2007 11 Star, Del Marco, Steele guidelines within that, and Shelley Shepard, been melded in with the work she's doing for the WAPC. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've been working with Shelley. MS STAR: So it's all very compatible and works with everything, but you're getting into specific details, but it needs to be done, CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I agree. MS STAR: And the amendment seems to be pointing in that direction. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS STAR: We're just trying to make sure it does. There's also something that hasn't - because there's a general moratorium, of course, on drainage, any increase in drainage into the estuary, that sometimes agencies aren't well aware of up in the Peel main drain area because they don't see themselves as so linked to the estuary, but they are. One of the things that, again, the planning system doesn't cope with, but also it's only just starting to be tackled with the new agencies, the Department of Water and things, is actually using your wetland system and your drainage system as your nutrients-checking mechanisms and there are terrific potentials in that Peel main drain, but they're not doing it yet. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MS STAR: Do you want to add anything more on the drainage side? MR DEL MARCO: No - I will, but carry on. MS STAR: So it's a matter of just getting those best management practices into place. CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can make a comment on that when you're finished. MS STAR: And trying to see - because I don't think you have in the planning system a way of using your drainage system and reconfiguring it to become nutrient stripping wetlands - your main drains. I'm not sure (indistinct). The other thing that is an issue, and I'll let Andrew speak much more on this - it's a planning problem - is where you get bush plus wetlands. In this area, you've got a Kwinana biodiversity structure being done. That needs to convert to the local structure plan level so that all these things are in place before the detailed plan from the developers are entertained. CHAIRPERSON: Andrew, a few more minutes, MR DEL MARCO:I will be brief. I think the Peel Harvey Catchment Council recognises that the developers are looking for both certainty and equity in the process in terms of protection of natural resource management. That seems to be the greatest concern wherever I go, and 31-01-2007 12 Star, Del Marco, Steele my experience in the Peel Harvey has been that as well, and that's a reasonable expectation because they have money invested, but the issue with water sensitive design, which I think these tools are trying to solve, especially the local planning policy, is saying at different stages of the process, at the district structure planning level and the local structure planning level and then the subdivisional level, what needs to be provided or done to demonstrate that water quality is going to be managed and water resource is going to be managed, so it's really what needs to be done, where it needs to be done, who pays for it to be done and who maintains it, and I suppose one concern is that the district structure planning process actually doesn't set up the right mechanisms, or sufficient mechanisms, to empower the local structure planning process to do that, It's expected that would be done at the tonal structure planning level, and I'll admit I'm not that familiar with the actual amendment text, but I are concerned -I suppose there's actually a water management strategy or plan being prepared for the whole amendment area and the prr toe on the Department of Water to prepare that and I understand that that may not be pre pen ti in time to actually inform the local structure plans, because they're actually being pa plied 17 we speak, or some of them are actually being prepared, and it really suggests to mu, that we re not going to get it even half right, so that's my concern, that the amendment may go through and enable local structure plans to be prepared in the absence of a water - you know, basically at district level or a management plan. So that would be my first concern. The second one is I just bring your attention to that local planning policy, which does talk about what should be prepared at the local structure planning level and at the district structure planning hovel, and I suppose my third point is that within each of these cells, there needs to be the mechanisms established to say who pays for them. So the local structure plans being prepared under this district structure plan should demonstrate how it actually will be funded, because there will be inequities created because there needs to be certain things. IfI can just give the example that Jan alluded to in terms of we see that there's a problem already in the system, in the planning system, because the water management strategy is already suggesting that there needs to be an allocation of land for water management, okay, and some of that can overlap with protection of bushland, but my understanding of what's being prepared at the district level in terms of water management is actually wanting to use constrained POS, and that's the same constraint, POS, that the local government is able to use to protect local bushland for biodiversity reasons, So we already have a conflict established that would really be unresolved if the district structure plan goes ahead without actually saying anything about that, and this is not constrained to just this amendment area, but there needs to be some up-front admission that that 10 per cent POS may not be appropriate in all circumstances, to give the local government some ability to actually feel that they can actually negotiate fairly and equitably within State Government policy. CHAIRPERSON: i think we're probably taking it down to the next level of detail with your comments, and they are taken on board, and I would like to perhaps add a bit of information that's forthcoming that might be of interest to you, but before I do that, I'll ask Bruce, on my right, if he's got any questions of you first, Bruce is also an NRM person, so he's very familiar. I'm scribbling away there and I thought maybe Bruce has got a question for you. 31-01-2007 13 Star, Del Marco, Steele DR HAMILTON: I'd firstly like to congratulate the Peel Harvey Catchment Council on your submission because you're being proactive and looking at how these NRM and environmental Issues can be built into the planning process. My question is you've mentioned the various levels of document, from the water quality improvement plan to the local planning policy to the guidelines, the technical guidelines, that support that policy. How do you see that being built into the process - I guess Andrew particularly - where you've expressed some concerns about the timing of some of those inputs? MR DEL MARCO: A good question. I'd be paid a lot more if I had the answer to that one - not by these guys, by the Government. I'd solve the Government problem. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, MR DEL MARCO: We seem to be saying that, and ifI understand the question correctly, Bruce, that people need to demonstrate that they're going to meet a certain target, and we seem to skirt around this issue of being able to demonstrate to a third party how a development Is going to meet a target, so really, in the absence of information, it's really difficult to demonstrate that, and I think I'll come around to your answer. I think the process needs to be actually, I suppose, BMP focused, rather than number-target focused, in terms of water quality outcome. DR HAMILTON: So best practice. MR DEL MARCO: Best practice focused, and one man's best practice is another man's shoddy work, so I think the government needs to be quite clear about it. Now, that's probably one thing which these things - they give us all the right tools, but there needs to be actually some minimum standard actually that the Government says this is the minimum standard. So the process, I think, is lacking that.I think the building blocks are there, Bruce. One problem is often that we delay too much the work to determine what land is required to meet that BMP or number target, so I would bring that up as far as you can, and the LPP does that, and because I haven't read the text of the district structure plan, I don't know If that actually starts us at the right level, but that's what I'd be saying. DR HAMILTON: So essentially what you're saying is there needs to be earlier consideration of the technical issues and the best practice issues in terms of the amount of land that's needed --- MR DEL MARCO: Exactly. DR HAMILTON: --- in the planning process, and so it's essentially before the structure planning process, so you can build that in, so you can get the right land use options and land use management. MR DEL MARCO: Exactly. Can I just add one --- 31-01-2007 14 Star, Del Marco, Steele CHAIRPERSON: Very quickly. MR DEL MARCO: I'm quite familiar with ERIC and good effort, great effort, by a local government, but there needs to be some greater qualifications there, that it doesn't, for example, give site specific wetland buffers. It hasn't incorporated NRM issues in terms of land allocation, it's left that to the local structure planning level. So someone looking at ERIC will say, "Oh, beaut, that's urban development." I already know there's some areas in there which are, you know, key areas from a water management perspective, CHAIRPERSON: Okay. DR HAMILTON: Thank you for that. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Bruce. MS STAR: One thing I might just add, to meet the EPA targets out of this area, there needs to be a 60 per cent reduction in nutrient outflow -I mean, that's quite considerable - and even if you even halved that, it's still 30 per cent. CHAIRPERSON: Richard. MR GRAHAM:I don't have any questions, thanks. CHAIRPERSON:You're making life easy for me today, you really are. Thank you for your submission and thank you for covering some of the issues which are in the detailed planning area, which are just as important. What I was going to add, for your benefit, Jan and Jesse and Andrew, was that the state water plan is out at the moment - Ithink today is the last day for submissions - and the Commission is actually working on a submission and what we're trying to put into place is all of those issues, so that we can actually have some pilot programs working, some flow charts working, with the Department of Water, so that we can actually put into place all of the issues that you're discussing now. Whether or not we manage it with this amendment we might be able to manage some of it - but we're looking forward to being active in that area of the water management plan. So I hope that that maybe eases your burden a little, but it is happening, Whether we can get it to happen simultaneous to this amendment plan and what happens after with the district structure plan, fingers crossed, but it is happening. MS STAR: Thanks Elizabeth. We have been able to give the Department of Water a drainage reform plan for the whole Peel Harvey area that Andrew has done. That's where he's been --- CHAIRPERSON: Well, we discussed it yesterday at the Commission and we've amended our submission and that should go out to them some time today, hopefully, but we are working together to get the right decision made, so thank you. 31.01-2007 15 Star, Del Marco, Steele MS STAR:I look forward to reading that submission. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thanks for your time. Thanks for coming in. MR DEL MARCO; Thanks a lot. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Andrew. Nice to see you again. MR DEL MARCO: See you. CHAIRPERSON:I hope that was a hit enlightening for you, Jesse, MR STEEL: Yes, that's great. MS STAR: Thank you. 314)1-2007 16 Star, Del Marco, Steele MR MAHADEVAN JAYABALAN & MR VIC MANNAR representing Salve Mahn Saba' of WA CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. How are you? MR JAYABALAN: Fine, thanks, I'm Jayabalan, CHAIRPERSON: Nov, you are Mr? MR JAYABALAN: Jayabalan. CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth Taylor. How do you do? Dr Bruce Hamilton. DR HAMILTON:Hi, Mr Jayabalan. CHAIRPERSON: And Councillor Richard Graham. MR GRAHAM. Hello. How do you del MR JAYABALAN: Pleased to meet you. CHAIRPERSON: And? MR MANNAR: Vic Mannar. CHAIRPERSON: Hello Vic. Nice to meet you. DR HAMILTON:Hi Vic. MR GRAHAM: Hello Vic, Richard. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Have a seat gentlemen. Now, thank you for coming in and we have a copy of your submission and very glad that you could actually come and talk to us about that. We are the hearings panel on behalf of the Commission and wrire here to listen to what you have to say. We have 15 minutes allowed for this and we arc recording this - this is (indistinct) the legislation - we're recording the process. You have asked lot a public hearing, so that means that we have a lady sitting here that's going to listen. Phillaps if you can add something that you would like to say to your submission that we have already in writing. MR JAYABALAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: And if we have time for questions in the 15 minutes, we can ask you some questions as well. So thank you for coming in and who is going to speak? MR JAYABALAN:I'm going to speak, 31-01-2007 17 Jayabalan, Mannar CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to speak? MR JAYABALAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Okay, MR JAYABALAN: Thanks Madam chair. CHAIRPERSON: Bruce and Richard and, of course, this is Andrew TrevorI didn't introduce you - he is our DPI person. MR JAYABALAN: So briefly, the covering letter covers the background of our community facility and the place of worship and we also make specific points. I'm a senior project manager with Main Roads and I'm presently on secondment to the railway project with the Public Transport Authority. I would like to quote two examples in my personal experience and then reinforce the points we made and then we'll have a question to ask. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. MR JAYABALAN: The first one is my experience at Main Roads when I was a project manager there. There's a subdivision development at Bennett Springs, Reid Highway and Anketell Road. I was involved in that project. The Bennett Springs subdivision was approved by the WAPC and it went through other planning, Main Roads planning section, At that time, what was not appreciated was the increase in the level for that subdivision, which had a significant effect for the future overpass, which is about to be built, with many efforts, right now, As such, we had a prolonged negotiation and at a high cost, both financially as well as staff time and resources, in negotiation with that developer. Because he had the WAPC approval, he was in the driving seat and we had to negotiate and it took us a long time and energy and resources in coming to a resolution and also there's a future cost, high cost, for the - because of the level different, there will be more noises going to go, which was not taken care of at the development approval process by Main Roads, So that's one experience, The second experience is with the Public Transport Authority, Secret Harbour development near (indistinct) Avenue and location is Secret Harbour. The Public Transport Authority purchased the land for the railway line and development through there, Because of the existing wetlands on the eastern side, railway line is going on the existing carriageway, on the eastbound carriageway, so - sorry, existing southbound carriageway is going to be the railway line and the existing northbound carriageway is the new southbound carriageway and we are building on the western side of the road a carriageway for travelling north, so that's the whole purpose of buying the land with the developer. That was five or six years ago. What happened in the meantime, by the time we were building the road, that developer has sold the adjoining land to the public and houses have been built. Public were not at all aware of the road coming next to the brick wall developer provided and there was a significant protest from the public and again (indistinct) rail public relations staff and our staff has to spend a lot of time in dealing with the issues and through the developer as well as the public, This is the two examples I have personal experience in. As I understand it, there's already a 31-01-2907 18 Jayabalan, Mannar structure plan, draft structure plan, by the developer between Anketell Road and the road before Russell Gibbs and has planning to subdivide the whole area, with all the community facilities (indistinct) and selling it off. In fact - yes, that's right. In fact, the area - let me explain. Our building is here - that's on the A4 plan - here and surround very close to our property. The general plan they have is high-intense (indistinct) development to comply with the new transit- oriented development policy, So basically what we are trying to do in our submission is to, because we are a community association run by volunteers and a treasurer with a secretary, we all have our own - I have a big franchise-owned business. We all are busy ourselves, Once this development approval goes through - sorry. Once the planning approval goes through, and I believe the developer is also planningtoputindevelopment approval and planning to startthesubdivision development in July; that's his target at this stage. Once this goes through, our association won't have any resources in protecting ourselves the way (indistinct) resources, either physically or financially, to protect our community facility with the developer. So that's the reason behind in asking for the measures we ask as part of the residential development to consider, The first one is community facilities and maximise the separation between the public housing or land development, that's the first thing we have. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Mft JAYABALAN: That's the first point. DR HAMILTON: That actually overlaps, MR JAYABALAN: That's the first point. The second one, we asked our facility to be recognised as a religious community zone, place of worship, or whatever it is - I'm not sure what the exact terming is - that area is recognised. The third one is in case there is going to be some adjoining residential development, that landowners be notified of some sort of - entitled to some sort of process, formal process, so that they're automatically notified. Then they can't come back and complain to us this facility exists, That's the whole crunch of our submission. I also have a question I just wanted to discuss with you. We also have church belts and all ringing at certain times and some spacial function days, more frequently the bells will be ringing. We can go through the environment protection regulations. Regulation 16, activity 3 of schedule, gives us sonic form of exemption, provided we have this public place of worship zoning, which we are planning to go through once we have these measures. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I can help you out on that in a moment, yes. MR JAYABALAN: So this is (indistinct) we want to protect our facility. We have a few hundred strong congn gallon. Every week Friday evenings - Tuesday evenings and Friday evening ; ti,big% t (indistinct) around 50 to 100 on Tuesdays and 100 to 150 on Fridays and onper GI (um non days, there will be 15 to 20 or 10 to 15, around 15, throughout the 31-01-2007 19 Jayabalan, Mannar year -it varies, the days varies - around 200 to 260 people and one function every year. around 300 to 400 people. That's going to be tcmorrow for this year. Our facilities, already we have council approval for public use, licence for 600 people --- CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR JAYABALAN:- -- inside the building. So basically that's - -- CHAIRPERSON: That's it. MR JAYABALAN: That's our - -- CHAIRPERSON: Anything to add, Vic? MR MANNAR: No. CHAIRPERSON:Okay. First of all, can I say you have done the right thing, you've been in touch with the Town of Kwinana, I believe. Your land, at the present time, is zoned rural. MR JAYABALAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Now, in town planning schemes, there is an opportunity to rezone your land to religious and every town planning scheme has their own title for that, and I believe that you would have to be in touch with the Town of Kwinana to have that changed. This is the big picture, the amendment scheme for the Metropolitan Region Scheme. This is the very beginning of the process, which it takes quite a while to go through, probably up to about two years, so it's good that you're getting on the ground, able to talk to the Town of Kwinana and see if you can have your land rezoned to whatever itis that they have applicable in their scheme for religious facilities, so that's the only advice that I can give you there. Just let me ask the panel if there's any questions. Richard? MR GRAHAM: No, I'm fine, thanks CHAIRPERSON: Bruce? DR HAMILTON: No, I'm fine as well. MR JAYABALAN: One comment in that regard. We know for a fact that the developer has already - it's the same developer I dealt at Bennett Springs. CHAIRPERSON:Right, okay. MR JAYABALAN: They already have a draft district structure plan, which has gone through, and we have provided some comments and he is waiting in anticipation of this one and he will start at the earliest possible opportunity legally. CHAIRPERSON: Probably, Andrew, about two years? 31-01-2007 20 Jayabalan, Mannar MR TREVOR: Did you mention earlier something about May or July subdivision? MR JAYABALAN: July date, yes. MR TREVOR: That's not possible. CHAIRPERSON:It's not possible. MR TREVOR: Because this urban deferred zoning will probably sit for about two years or so and, as you probably know, you cannot subdivide under urban deferred zoning. The land needs to go from urban deferred to urban and the council needs to put its own local zone in the local scheme, which will include taking into account your wishes for your religious institution zone. So I don't know where that subdivider is thinking --- MR JAYABALAN: We already have a draft district structure plan. MR TREVOR: From the Town of Kwinana. MR JAYABALAN: Town of Kwinana, and we provided some comment, MR TREVOR:That's fine. That's going through the process, but that in itself does not allow subdivision to occur so early. MR JAYABALAN:That's the advice we had, one of the officers given us when we met them late last year. CHAIRPERSON: Urban deferred means that there are issues that have to be sorted out before it actually goes to urban and those issues usually take quitelong while to progress, so while we're sitting here talking about this, you've got at least o years to do what you need to do with the Town of Kwinana to make sure that you're satisfied that your land is zoned appropriately. MR JAYABALAN: The first point and third point, that will come under the planning approval process or the council point as well, the facilities to be --- CHAIRPERSON: For rezoning? MR JAYABALAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: But you can approach the Town of Kwinana - -- MR JAYABALAN: All these three points comes under Town of Kv na's (indistinct) nothing to do with - -- CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You can approach them and make note of what your requirements would be and start the process for that any time, really, as long as they're aware that you've 31-01-2007 21 Jayabatan, Mannar got issues with your land, it's rural at the moment and it would have to go through another process through the Town of Kwinana to have the - I'm not sure what they've got in their town planning scheme because thisis the Metropolitan Region Scheme, but they will have something in their own town planning scheme that will classify religious zoning for your properly, so it's a good idea to contact them again and see if you can go through that process. MR JAYABALAN:I will refer to this hearing and write to them again, asking for these three points to be considered. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, make an appointment and sit down and have a talk to them. MR JAYABALAN: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: That would be the best advice I could give you at this point. MR TREVOR: The broader issues that have to be considered for this amendment are quite complex and there's no way its going to happen really quickly. CHAIRPERSON: No. MR TREVOR: So the Chairperson's comment about two years, it's probably at least two years, so you have plenty of time. CHAIRPERSON:Plenty of time, but at least start your process now, so that they're aware of what you want to do. MR JAYABALAN:Yes. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON:Thank you very much for coming in and your time. Nice to meet you, Vic thank you. DR HAMILTON:All the best. MR MANNAR: Its nice to have met you. DR HAMILTON: See you. 31-01-2007 22 Jayabalan, Mannar MR WARREN ORMSBY representing the Department of Industry and Resources CHAIRPERSON: Warren, good morning. Elizabeth. How are you? MR ORMSBY: Okay, Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Nice to meet you. DR HAMILTON: Bruce Hamilton. CHAIRPERSON: Bruce Hamilton, MR ORMSBY: Hello, Bruce. MR GRAHAM: Hello. Richard Graham. CHAIRPERSON: And Andrew. Just for the purposes of the tape, welcome to the hearings panel. We are here to listen to what you have to say, any additional information, We have a copy of your report and discussions this morning have raised a few questions, so you might need to give us time for questions as well. MR ORMSBY: Sure. CHAIRPERSON: We have you as a public hearing, so we have some public here, and over to you to give us an update and if you'd give us time for a couple of questions. Thank you. MR ORMSBY: Okay. We largely are going to reiterate our submission, It's become probably even more evident since the submission was put in about the decline of accessible suitable sand resources close to Perth. In recognition of this fact, the government has created an inter-departmental committee to look at the issue of basic raw materials required for residential land development, in particular building sand and limestone resources, close to Perth.Building sand, particularlyfor concrete, needs to conform to certain technical specifications with regards to grain size, silt and clay content, organic material content, et cetera, so it's not just sand, it's also accessible and suitable sand. We make the point that Perth enjoys a generally high quality of housing, due to the availability of basic raw materials, including sand and clay, and that expansion of urban areas and the main& pant «if infrastructure are dependent on the supply of construction mat/ hats. If these m itr nalan not available close to Perth, they'll need to Ix Iran poll d ore r increasing di t mrrs with the consequences of increased costs, and hr me higlir rrnr tiuction costs, nu PiI «1 pollution and its effect on the environment, Goo i rd tic ty < (moon due to large tau It transporting over long distances on regional road, So Wren tiltingt long-term atom view therefore, that it's highly desirable for the (71 tinyunpin of thr. a materials lo to Frith to be fully utilised. 31-01-2007 23 Ormsby With that in mind, sequential and use, in which the sand is extracted prior to residential development, Is the preferred option. This can lead to a win-win situation for the community as a whole, in which the sand resource is fully utilised and the ground is suitablylevelled and prepared for housing, Ws the management of this transition that's important and this is where we suggest in our submission a 500-metre buffer around the existing sandminingoperations to the west of cell 1, I'm not a hundred per cent sure if that's the best way to manage it, but our concern is that once the zoning does go to deferred urban, it raises a community expectationof residential development happening fairly soon, and it's a matter of having the cart before the horse, if you like; the sand extracted before the houses go around the sandpit. So we're not saying the development shouldn't go ahead, we're just saying it should be managed in a staged way, so that we get the maximum out of the existing resources, particularly noting that there aren't many dedicated sand extraction areas, as shown on the basic raw materials resource protection working plans for Perth, close to Perth, and it just so happens that one of these is adjacent to the area that's proposed here and one is actually within it. Now, a similar logic applies to the priority clay area, and we certainly draw attention to the fact that there is this priority clay resource area immediately to the south of cell 5 and the WAPC's Statement of Planning Policy number 2.4 - Basic Raw Materials, states that under this classification,regionallysignificantresources,whichiswhat apriorityclassification acknowledges, should be recognised for future basic raw material extraction and not constrained by incompatible uses or development. We draw attention to the fact that cell 5 actually abuts part of that priority area, CHAIRPERSON: But it's out of the amendment, is it, Andrew? MR TREVOR:It's down here. MR ORMSBY:It's immediately to the south there. MR TREVOR: So it's on the south-west corner of cell 5. CHAIRPERSON: Right, Okay. MR ORMSBY: And we stress that we take the long-term view. So we don't look at it from the point of view is there someone mining there now, we're saying If we keep these enclaves of suitable areas for many years to come and dont sterilise them effectively with adjacent joining development, it will work in favour of keeping costs down and to the benefit of the whole community. CHAIRPERSON:Okay. It makes perfectly commonsense, the approach that you appear to be taking here, for, you know, good properly managed orderly planning. MR ORMSBY: Yes, 31-01-2007 24 Ormsby CHAIRPERSON: How we manage to feed that into our report will be something that well have to make a decision on. Questions? Bruce? DR HAMILTON: Yes, Warren. We were informed earlier, in relation to the sandpit issue, that the Town of Kwinana is working with the owners of those areas, that the City of Cockurn is also involved in looking at that transition that you described to the next land use, and we were informed that there's a timeline on that of approximately four years, maybe a bit longer. MR ORMSBY: Okay. DR HAMILTON: I would have thought that your department and the inter-departmental committee would be working with the local governments that are concerned with these sand and clay resources to get the best transition, so we're a little confused that your submission doesn't actually indicate that you're aware of that work that's already going on. MR ORMSBY: There is an issue, from our understanding, of timing of things, in that the legislation for mining of basic raw materials on private land is actually governed by the local shires, and hence the councils are actually more familiar with--- DR HAMILTON:I'm aware of that. MR ORMSBY: --- the later information than we are, so we're just advocating the general principle, if you like, and the detail of that is indeed managed by the shire. DR HAMILTON: So are you saying that your organisation would be comfortable with any decision that's reached by those two local governments about that sand one, in particular the sand extraction, or would you -- MR ORMSBY: As long as it's consistent with this longer-term view.I mean, the shires may have a shorter-term view or they might ever have a view that's restricted to their particular area. As long as it's consistent with the wider view. DR HAMILTON: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Bruce. Richard. MR GRAHAM: Warren, when do you foresee sand extraction would be complete at this particular site? MR ORMSBY: That I cannot say - -- MR GRAHAM: Approximately? MR ORMSBY:--- because of the fact that a's regulated by the shire, but I believe the cell 1, there's a licence issued for another five years. I'm not sure. 31-01-2007 25 Ormsby MR GRAHAM: That's our understanding, that there is a licence. CHAIRPERSON: For four years? MR ORMSBY: Four years or five years. CHAIRPERSON: We did ask that question this morning, MR GRAHAM: We did, but licensing Is one thing. The presentation you have given to us so far has not been predicated, as I understand it, on trying to make maximum use of the licence but to make maximum use of the resource. MR ORMSBY: In total, that's right. MR GRAHAM: So do you have any information in relation to the life of the resource? MR ORMSBY: No, I don't, no, MR GRAHAM: Okay. You talked during your presentation about using sand from alternative sites that would be perhaps outside of the metropolitan area and you referred to some of the negative effects of doing that. One you said was cost and safety. I was unable to make notes of the others that you mentioned. MR ORMSBY:The main one's cost, because transport costs is a large component of the overall costs of basic raw materials in general, and especially sand. The other one was increased pollution due to transport over greater distances, and the safety concerns are due to the large trucks that are required to transport the sand over those longer distances. MR GRAHAM: And from your department's perspective, of those three factors, which would be the most - have you got one that would be far more Important than the others? MR ORMSBY: The cost is the one that will have the most direct impact on the community The others are more subtle. MR GRAHAM: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON:Thanks, Richard. Andrew, nothing else to add? Okay. Look, you've given us some extra information and, as I said before,I think it has some merit in the order of properly planning solutions of the sequential events that you're suggesting that should be followed. And I do believe that the Town of Kwinana would probably be more responsible for that part of it, Andrew? MR TREVOR:I'm not entirely certain. It does seem, from what you've said, that the council actually has more effective control than your department, in terms of granting the licences, MR ORMSBY:In terms of private land. 31-01-2007 26 Ormsby MR TREVOR:And also in terms of deciding on what factors are relevant to how long the licence should go tor. So, for example, for the northern one, they've come to the conclusion that four years is it, which is not necessarily related to how much resource there is, but brings into account all sorts of factors, such as what the landowner wants to do, development pressures, and that type of thing. CHAIRPERSON:I think that's the point that Richard was making. MR GRAHAM: Five years is a very round number, so it seems that it could be --- MR TREVOR: Four. MR GRAHAM: Four. MR TREVOR: They're saying four, MR GRAHAM: Did you not say five? CHAIRPERSON:I think it's four. MR TREVOR: For the landowners it's five. MR ORMSBYI thought it was five, but as I say, because - -- MR GRAHAM: So it's actually four. MR ORMSBY: -- we're not regulating it, we -- CHAIRPERSON:Well, it sounds like life expectancy hasn't been ken into account four years, by the sounds of it. MR ORMSBY: Well, it may not. The question is has it, and I can't answer that, You know, it's a question the state really needs to ask, I'd suggest. CHAIRPERSON:I would be suggesting that you quickly talk to the Town of Kwinana and get that discussion off the ground, because, I mean, obviously this amendment is happening now and what you're saying as your preference for the land use in relation to the extraction of the materials, in the form of urban development, of course it makes perfectly good sense. So it would seem to me that my advice would be that you actually hop down to the Town of Kwinana and have a chat to them. DR HAMILTON:I'd add to that I think your ntowdepartmental committee should have local government on it as well, so that you can look at the expanding development front and treat these very valuable resources in a proper way. MR ORMSBY:It may well have. I'm not sure on that. 31-01-2007 27 Ormsby OR HAMILTON: Okay. It would be worth checking. MR ORMSBY: Its something my manager has been taking care of. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Well, we've taken all your additional information and thank you for coming in and giving us that and we look forward to some progress. Thanks for taking the time. MR ORMSBY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Warren. DR HAMILTON: Nice to have met you, MR ORMSBY: Thank you for your time, 31-01-2007 28 Ormsby MR GREG ROWE, MS JENNY SMITHSON, MR DARREN WALSH, MR MARK HECTOR & MR FRED FERRANTE representing Mandogalup Land Development Company, Satlarloy Property Group/Wandi Ankotoll Landholdings, Ankotell Landholdings, Anketell Farmt,, Moshe°. Tina Bane, Bony/Holt Trovalloy Invettmonts, Well Holdings, Moonspark Nomhites, Dalosido Holdings, Mortimer Land Company. CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, So we have Jenny, Greg and Darren, is that right, and a few others? We've got two microphones and three chairs here. So we're having two at a time, are we? MR WALSH: Greg will do most of the talking. CHAIRPERSON: Fancy that. MR WALSH: chip in briefly and Marl< Hector as well and Jenny is back-up if we miss anything. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Greg, it's Elizabeth Taylor. Nice to see you again, nice to meet you. MR ROWE: Yes, nice seeing you, Councillor. CHAIRPERSON: Dr Bruce Hamilton. MR ROWE: Greg Rowe. MR HAMILTON:Hello, Greg. CHAIRPERSON: And Councillor Richard Graham. MR WALSH: Darren Walsh. CHAIRPERSON: Darren, how are you? MR GRAHAM: Hello, Darren. CHAIRPERSON: Right. Okay. Thank you for coming in and welcome to our hearings. I sure that you could run this off by heart yourself, Greg, the amount of times that you've been here. You have asked for a private hearing ^ t wr might have to close the door. We're here to listen to what you have to say. We have gut a copy of your submission and of course it's being recorded for the purposes of the MRS imundmi nt. So we've got that and we'd like you to express any additional information or i k ngun lions and if you could possibly give us a little bit of time to ask you questions as w( II Jenny, we've got from 1 o'clock till 2 o'clock, so we need to sort of divvy this time up a little bi between everybody, so if we could limit the time to 10 or 15 minutes each. 3101-2007 20 Rowe. Smiths on MR ROWE: Yes. I'm sure we can achieve that. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Greg, over to you. MR ROWE: Thank you. Thank you for seeing us. The first presentation that we're talking to is submissions in regard to cell1. which is amendment 1114, essentially described as Mandogalup and it's the western - and it's in fact the only western cell west of the freeway M the five omnibus amendments. The submission we've made does raise some of the matters, so I don't propose to go over that, other than to say we are supportive of the submission, obviously, made by Greg Rowe & Associates and our client's landowners, but we're also supportive of the points raised by Cardno BSD in regard to the balance land ownership in that same cell, and they're respectively submissions 17 and 18 in your summary of submissions. But the additional and the pertinent points that we would like to stress today come from one particular area, and that, I'm sure, will be self-evident from the points I'm about to make, but in terms of context, we believe it's important to emphasise and stress that this MRS amendment particularly is totally consistent with where the planning process in this area has come from over the last decade. I've been involved, through our office, for nearly 12 years in this area in various scheme amendments. This is the second effort to urbanise this area through the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Ithink that clearly shows a commitment from all of the authorities, particularly the Western Australian Planning Commission, that that is the intention, to urbanise this area. It's totally consistent, as a proposal, with the Jandakot structure plan, which is a longstanding document in terms of its evolution and more recently In its finalisation and adoption by both the Commission and the Minister.It is relatively, at least from a statutory point of view, a consistent step to go from an overarching concept plan like the Jandakot structure plan, once it's adopted, to an urban zone of some sort, and in this case urban deferred. It makes eminent sense and it's simply the next logical step. So for that reason atone, we're supportive of the proposal. There seems, however, to be one issue that remains outstanding and again has arisen, in terms of how we might deal with and when we might deal with any issues associated with Alcoa, the Alcoa land use and its pertinent activities and in particular buffers and land use within, adjacent to or outside of those buffers. In reading the submissions from Alcoa - and I think we should advise you that we have met with Alcoa and had dialogue with them - it seems, at least from our perspective, that Alcoa is not understanding of the detail and the mechanism that's being employed, the notion of urban deferred and what that means. There seems to be a misunderstanding on their part, both from the submissions and in meetings with them as recently as two days ago. They just don't seem to appreciate what urban deferred is about and what it might mean for them. Their concern, in their words, is that they will lose control of the planning process, they will lose control of how they might proceed with their activities. 31-01-2007 30 Rowe, Smithson et al The very first point of, of course, is they have no control, it's not their place to have control, but I don't think they quite mean it that way. They're just concerned that the movement to urban deferred would mean simply the erd of any involvement that they may have in determining the process. We've tried to explain that's not the case, we've tried to emphasise what urban deferred is all about, and I'm not going to repeat that to you. You understand that process as well, if not better, than us. CHAIRPERSON: Can I just stop you there.I have a note here that says the land developer's representatives would be meeting before today and may have reached a mutually agreed position. MR ROWE: With Alcoa? CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR ROWE: Well, we've certainly reached a mutual agreement with ourselves, That's not been a problem. Alcoa, though, ifI had to answer that question directly, we've not reached a position, other than we believe they are now starting to understand, but have not come to the conclusion, that they should support urban deferred. What they have told us is that they are prepared to work further with us in terms of resolving issues and resolving timelines. CHAIRPERSON: That's some good news. MR WALSH: IfI could just add, I guess,I was speaking to them as late as last evening, knowing that you'd be hearing from them today. I think the more we talk to them, the more comfort they're getting that urban deferred, with appropriate very clear requirements for the lifting of the urban deferred, and a process for that, can address their concerns. CHAIRPERSON: That's right. MR WALSH: My observation is that they've really got on to th ue fairly late In the piece. CHAIRPERSON: They have, yes. MR WALSH: They're still trying to understand it, they're still receiving advice as we speak almost and, speaking on behalf of the others, my feeling is the more we talk, the closer we get to that and better they understand that what we've been attempting to do, and I think with success but not quite over the line,is to convince them that urban deferred, with clear requirements for the lifting of the urban deferred, can adequately protect their interests, and there's other mechanisms that can come into play there as well. So that's where we've been trying to get to.I think we're close. The indications are that they will say something to you. We continue to talk, we've still got some reservations, but we're happy to keep talking and get to that point. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Sorry for interrupting. 31-01-2007 31 Rowe, Smithson et at MR ROWE: No, no, that's an important expansion. Hopefully, Alcoa representatives will reiterate that to you. That's their advice as late as yesterday. The concerns they raised earlier in the week was that they felt going to an urban deferred zone was simply a statement of inevitability and that by, say, 2015, which was their original program, urban development would simply occur and they would be under pressure. We've tried to explain to them that it's not so much a time-triggered outcome but an events or a milestone outcome, where certain things must occur and those thingswould be determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission and other authorities before urbanisation or the lifting of the urban deferred could occur, and we have no problem and we've expanded to them that they can be involved in what those processes are, as would all the other statutory authorities. We've explained that there would be a very clear statement from the Western Australian Planning Commission as to what should occur before the urban deferral could lift, and we've talked about other examples in the metropolitan area to give them some degree of comfort, whether they are waste water treatment plants, poultry farms, meat processing, those sorts of things. Land goes to urban deferred. There are things to be done before the urban deferment can be lifted. CHAIRPERSON: That's right. MR ROWE:And we've tried to explain to them that they would have a role in all of that, Perhaps ifI could look at a very obvious question from Alcoa's point of view: why should it go urban deferred now, when perhaps a wait would be a better outcome; not go urban deferred, initiate urban deferred perhaps at 2015 or thereafter. We've got a very strong view on that and we think ifs founded fairly firmly in good planning logic. There is the concept of planning this entire area. For reasons of statutory convenience and mechanism, it's divided into five, However, we are treating it - and I think you've heard earlier today that effectively there are two consultancies representing all five cells. It's even more attractive in terms of urbanisation. I'll speak to you later today - there is effectively only half a dozen or less landowners looking after that entire area. So those entire five cells are capable of being delivered by half a dozen owners, and you'll hear tater today that those owners are experienced and have the capacity and capability to do that. In terms of the overall planning, though, it's essential that all of the cells move together, from the notion of an holistic structure planning exercise, services and infrastructure. We've taken the very firm view that that is why they were put together as a group, that is why they're identified in the Jandakot structure plan. The Town of Kwinana has done an enormous amount of work in dealing with it as one area in the ERIC study, and you've probably seen some of the work they've done on that. They've treated it as one combined areathere's a map of what they've been doing - and that's with the Commission for comment. We've had input into that. All of the owners have worked with the town on that. In terms of an overall planning exercise,it needs to be dealt with, for a whole range of reasons, as one entity. To leave a cell out, with no sense of certainty, will have a number of downstream ramifications, You are well aware of the drainage work that has to be done in this area, The drainage work is now, for most of it, two years in the monitoring, The results are now coming out, we're waiting on reportsthere's hardly an area that has less than one year 31-01-2007 32 Rowe, Smithson et at monitoring - outcomes of strategic drainage design, strategic drainage networks, as well as sewer strategies; simple things like pump stations in cells to service other cells. The overall master planning of the sewer system and network is already under way. Water Corporation's solutions include cell 1 to service not only cell 1 but cell 2 and some parts of cell 3, Water Corporation, for example, won't go into that area, and into finalising that, if they don't have the comfort and certainty that it is an urbanised area in the longstorm. Not proceeding to urban deferred at this time also causes significant time ramifications. We've taken in excess of 10 years to get to this point. If cell 1 is not included in urban deferred and, say, postponed to another time - on Alcoa's preferred strategy, at least 9015 - we then have the lead time beyond that to go from urban deferred through other probes scs, including local and State processes, tofinally reach the adoption of :Amniapl finalisation of local scheme amendments, finalisation of urban zone under tin Mt tropolit rn Region Scheme. It could well be five years on from that time. So to move tho timr lint from now urban deferred to 2015 urban deferred is not as simple as it sounds in termof What we'd like to do is proceed, under rennin conditions, with a lot of that work; a total structure plan exercise, a total services and infrastructure exercise. If we leave cell 1 out, not only do we suffer those penalties, time and the infrastructure planning and overall structure planning, we also face the unfortun in consequence that for cells 2, 3, 4 and 5 to continue, there will be duplicity of infrastrut tun ,r wur pump stations, schools, catchments can't be finalised. The statutory authoritit s that we deal with won't proceed in that state of uncertainty. They will take the view that if Jell1 is unknown, then provide the services in cell 2 and 3. You would then be in the unfortunate situation where cell 1 gets planned in 10 or 15 years time in isolation and we say that's totally inappropriate in terms of inefficient use of infrastructure, services and activities, and the services we're talking about are the very obvious: physical services of sewerage, stormwater, water supply, but also the other community infrastructure servia loc 11open space,regional open space strategies, rail strategies, station allocation wh Meyer that might mean -I know that there's work being done on that - other service raft irtitz ture of centres, neighbourhood district centres, all of that, in terms of cell 1 just being in laolation. Totally inappropriate, in our view, Chairman, Ithink in the interests of time, and I know that Mr Hector wants to make some observations, as well as Mr Walsh, I might stop at that point and then perhaps field any questions. Thank you for your, -- CHAIRPERSON: That's fine. Can we listen to you now? MR WALSH: We'll move straight along, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Because I do have a couple of questions, so (indistinct). MR WALSH: Just in terms of context, I'm the director of project management at the Satterley Property Group. We, as well as (indistinct) are the major landowners in cell 1 and we also own or manage the majority of the land in cell 2, so that's our interest in the area, 31-01-2007 33 Rowe, Smithson et at Again in terms of context, it's probably just worth spelling out the fact that I've recently joined Satter ley Property Group and my previous roles in government and local government give me a fair history on this issue, and prior to this,I was the appeals convenor to the Minister for the Environment. Preceding that, I was the manager of environmental planning at the EPA and preceding that,I was the manager environmental services at the City of Cockurn for a five- year period. CHAIRPERSON:I knew I knew your name. MR WALSH:Yes. The reason that's relevant is that right through that time, an issue that I was heavily involved with related to the review of the Kwinana industrial area buffer, and you'll no doubt be aware that the Commission, in August 2002, produced a draft report on that. The history of that was due to agitation by the then Cockurn council in the mid-90s, effectively further to the north, with concerns about the impact of the Kwinana environmental protection policy buffer on land development and constrained land, at cetera. What that led to was when the current government came into office, part of their platform was to undertake a review of the Kwinana buffer and having moved from local to State Government, one of the first tasks I was allocated when I moved to the EPA was to say, "Well, you better get on with this and sort this out." So we had a joint approach with the DPI and the Commission and other agencies and worked through that issue in some detail and took what had been a fairly crude historical approach to the air quality buffer in Kwinana, made it into a multilayered approach and understood the fact that there are a range of constraints. That led to the release of this report, which makes a number of recommendations for reduction of the buffer areas, and one of the things that became obvious through that was that the Kwinana air quality buffer, in the vicinity of the Alcoa mud lakes, was deficient - there's not one - and the EPP itself effectively follows the alignment of the mud lakes buffer. At the time it was recognised, and the document reflects the fact, that the Jandakot structure plan was well advanced. It had identified a nominal one kilometre buffer, and that was generally accepted as probably being the maximum, and what this report identified at the time was that further more detailed work needed to be undertaken by Alcoa to look at (a) from a more scientific basis, what would be the extent of long-term Impacts; (b) what the long-term residue management approach was, meaning, as we now understand, it's graduating further to the west, so you've got - whatever that area of influence is, it's reducing westwards and would generally go away and, thirdly, and quite deliberately, what mechanisms would be in place if in fact there was a statutory buffer provided in this, or even a non-statutory buffer, for landowners that were affected, and they were really the three conditions on which the - I guess it was a joint Commission/EPA/Department of Environment report at the time put that forward. That's sat around for about three years. There was a fair bit of heat at the time it was released, mainly because it didn't pull back the buffer as much as some people wanted. Since that time, Alcoa have done some work in terms of modelling the extent of impacts and the general extent of that modelling doesn't have an impact on the majority of the cell 1 area, but they,I guess, remain concerned that they want to do more work and have now developed a 31-01-2007 34 Rowe, Smithson et at clearer program for the closure of that mud lake and its rehabilitation. So a lot of that is moving forward, and after me, Mark will speak on his involvement and discussions with Alcoa right through this process. So there's been qu te a at of dialogue leading up to that. All of that means that the completion of the buffer review remains totally consistent with an urban deferred approach,inthat what we believe is more than appropriate and was contemplated by this, was that as further Information comes to light as the operation of the mud lake progresses west, that over time you would have a graduated reduction of the buffer. So even if at this point in time we could prescribe exactly what that buffer would be, it was acknowledged that over time it was a medium-term constraint and would eventually move and go away. So the Jandakot structure plan contemplated that, the review of the Kwinana air quality buffer contemplated that, and what we're contemplating or reinforcing, in terms of the urban deferred zone, is totally consistent with that. We understand and respect Alcoa's concerns and, in fact, we don't want to put people in houses in an area where they're going to have dust and other impacts.It would be irresponsible and it would be negative for us. We certainly have a high deal of pride in our brand and don't want to have that tarnished, so that's a key issue for us. But we believe that moving to urban deferred, for all the reasons Greg has outlined, is totally appropriate, but that provisions can be put in place that make it very clear on what basis the lifting of the urban deferment can occur on any or all of that land totally protects Alcoa's interests and there are many, many situations, and I'll touch on a local example, where that can apply. What we'd like to see is that the Commission recommends to the Minister that urban deferment proceeds, but with some very clear statements about the steps and measures and processes that need to be followed in the lifting of the urban deferment, and clearly that would be based on certainty about the long-term extent of the buffer, and that will come from further work that Alcoa had said was going to be completed this year - we're now probably looking, more realistically, at the end of 00, early 09, so that stretching - and also dovetails in with the rehabilitation, at cetera. So we again believe that's totally consistent, and despite Alcoa's nervousness, we believe that the Commission has got a very strong track record of dealing properly with urban deferred, so I think it's slightly offensive to suggest that the Commission might just run away and ignore that and allow all the development to occur. So I think as well as that, there are a number of other subsidiary mechanisms, that I don't need to bore you with, that could be brought to bear, even if you did have a rogue Planning Commission that sort of, you know, sought to do that. So we believe their interests are protected. Plenty of examples where it can occur, one very good one locally, which some of you may he familiar with, is the Woodman Point waste water treatment plant. The land on the eastern side of that treatment plant has been zoned urban deferred probably for 15 or 20 years.Idon't have the detail of the rt strmr atit the time, but I imagine it would have been along the lines that urban deferred lifting cin only occur whon all of the key parties are satisfied that the areas within thrirdof nib in (interment aren't impacted by odour. Despite strong landowner and council pu "me over ttu yk irs, that remains urban deferred because the EPA, DEC, 31.01 -2007 35 Rowe, Smithson at al Water Corp and all the key parties have not got to a point where there's been agreement that the extent of the odour Impact on that land is suitable to allow the lifting to proceed. We see this as an Identical situation and, from that point of view, believe that Alcoa's interests are protected, Obviously, from our point of view, we want to see a clear processthat's got some performance basis to it, but we accept that a graduated reduction ofthat buffer, progressively opening up land in that cell, as being more than appropriate. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MR WALSH: So that's probably me and I'll pass to Mark next. CHAIRPERSON: Maybe just sit there for just a moment because we might have questions. We're going to start with Richard this time. MR GRAHAM:Greg, you mentioned that this was the second time that there'd been an attempt to urbanise this area. I haven't got any knowledge as to when the first occasion occurred. When did that occur and why did it not proceed? MR ROWE;It occurred approximately 10 years ago, eight to 10 years ago. It was the subject of two Metropolitan Region Scheme amendments, one essentially the same as cell 1 and one essentially the same as cell 2, and we promoted both of those and they were supported by the department, and we then faced the unfortunate situation where it went to Cabinet on a Monday morning and the Saturday before, the West Australian carried an article about groundwater pollution. Some unfortunate fellow managed to let a fuel tank leak into the Gwelup Mound and Minister Lewis was told, we're told, at Cabinet that it could not go ahead and It was in fact the trigger for the Jandakot structure plan. So both of those amendments were postponed. MR GRAHAM: Right. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Richard. Bruce? MR HAMILTON: I've been involved in this area for many, many years and some of the original work that was done on the buffer zone. I'm just curious - these mud lakes have been around for a long, long time - that we still don't have definitive information on their impact on surrounding areas in terms of dust and noise and stuff like that, and we're still waiting for modelling to be done. Is there an answer to that? MR ROWE:I think historically, while there have been complaints certainly from residents in the rural areas that surround it, there hasn't been a particularly strong drive and, in fact, all of the emphasis on the Kwinana buffer, historically, has been on sulphur dioxide. MR HAMILTON: Yes. That was what I was originally involved with. MR ROWE: And that was the history to it.It wasn't until, you know, we did this review and actually started to peel it back - and when you actually look at the sulphur dioxide impacts, 31-01-2097 36 Rowe, Smithson et at you can mount a case as to not having put on an air quality buffer.I think its only in more recent times that the need to actually start to put some science into the various constraints and impacts from collectively the whole area started to come to the fore. So that triggered Alcoa to start looking at this in sort of probably early 2001, 2002, and they have done some modelling work through (indistinct) which has provided some science to it, but I think probably in answer to your question, there really hasn't been the impetus in the past to actually do it, so I think --- MR HAMILTON: We don't need to do it so we don't do it. MR ROWE: Yes, So I think it's now a point in time where that's come, for various ons. MR HAMILTON: Thanks for that CHAIRPERSON:It's come to the pointy end. MR ROWE: Yes, exactly. MR HAMILTON: There were some management issues in that buffer one as well. MR ROWE: Yes MR HAMILTON:If an ammonia tank burst, for example. MR ROWE: Yes, correct, so those risk contours are well back. There is a map in this report that actually layers all the different constraints in and in this area, it's unaffected by sulphur dioxide or other emissions. It really was recognised that the EPP was deficient because it didn't provide any buffering to the mud lakes; it was a matter of exactly what that should be. MR HAMILTON: Thanks for that. CHAIRPERSON: I just have one teeny question, and it might be a little bit premature, because it's in your submission - it's touching to the same conclusions that Bruce was coming to - you point to the study that Alcoa has been doing, and it's obviously still not accessible, but what you say is you query on what basis the study commissioned by Alcoa, and confidential, can be used by either the town or the WAPC to set policy or override strategic planning initiatives, such as the JSP, so you're alluding to the fact there that it actually has been used in some form for the structure plan. Can you explain what you mean by that? MS SMITHSON:I think that was our submission, CHAIRPERSON: Jenny? MR ROWE: Jenny is probably better placed to comment on that specific y. CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to come over? 31-01-2007 37 Rowe, Smithson at at MR ROWE:I'll swap with Jenny and allow her to --- CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I just thought I might be a little bit premature with that question. MS SMITHSON: We actually, through the same client, Mark Hector, requested the lifting of urban deferment in Wattleup, which is north of Rowley Road, it's in the City of Cockurn, it's been the subject of a district structure plan, and it was opposed or deferred by the WAPC because of the Alcoa SKM report, Both ourselves and the city have asked on what basis the Commission makes that decision when that report is not a public document, it's not a document adopted by the Commission, So that was our referenceIn that particular submission. MR ROWE: Chair, the question also arises as to whether a State agency, or number of State agencies,shouldaccept a buffer determined byaprivate landowner who's commissioned to consult and this is simply an observation of process, not of individual responsibility - but the notion of accepting buffers that are promoted by the proponent, effectively, it should only be part of the assessment and outcome, not the total picture of. CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR WALSH:I don't know whether, for the benefit of the committee CHAIRPERSON: Darren, just for the tape. MR WALSH: What these figures show - these were prepared by the Town of Kwinana - they show what's known as the SKM line, which Alcoa are saying is still preliminary, for their dust modelling, but what it does highlight is that even that modelling shows the existing impact to not be affecting this area. So Alcoa's caution is they believe they want to do more work, but there's the Jandakot structure plan, one kilometre, so as it affects the majority of this land, it's - but it does push further north, which is the --- CHAIRPERSON: Can Andrew have a look? MR WALSH: Yes, sorry. CHAIRPERSON: So what they're saying MR TREVOR:If we could get copies of that, if we can. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if we could. So they're using the cautionary principle in this case. MS SMITHSON:I think our submission made the point, and we reiterate it. The buffer that is shown in the Jandakot structure plan we have no issue with. We've never tried to go inside that. This whole amendment is outside it. We've had nothing in the public forum or otherwise to suggest Alcoa need a greater buffer, and yet their submission is suggesting they need that because they want to stop this land going to urban deferred. 31-01-2007 38 Rowe, Smithson et al It's very clear, we've said We know they have to rehab "F" lake and we've accepted their closure times. We're not trying to impact on those, I mean, our opening comment with Alcoa - their opening statement was, "We don't want houses there and this amendment will allow that and they'll be there, you know, next year," which was Grog's point about they don't understand the process. CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we need to help them along a bit with --- MS SMITHSON: And we also made the point to them, "Look, you're not the only stakeholder and you're not the only issue and the only constraint and we've spent a lot of years dealing with a lot of other issues, like water and drainage, to get to the point we've got to," The City of Cockurn and Kwinana and ourselves have consulted widely on district structure plans and throughout the Jandakot structure plan. CHAIRPERSON: There's a lot of work been done. MS SMITHSON:You know, Alcoa have never raised an issue with the one kilometre buffer until the eleventh hour on this amendment, so we'd be very concerned to have all that work parked and not proceeded with. CHAIRPERSON: Thanks for that, Jenny. MR ROWE: Chair,that's probably a good introduction for Mr Hector to make his observations, because they do relate to the discussions and dialogue with Alcoa over quite a long period of time, so if it's acceptable to you --- CHAIRPERSON: Are we still on Mandogalup then? MR ROWE: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Just a few minutes for Mr Hector to do this. Thank you, Greg. MR ROWE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: And we might have you back in a few minutes again. MR ROWE: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: Nice to meet you. How are you? MR HECTOR: Elizabeth, nice to meet you. Good to meet you, Bruce. Mark Hector. CHAIRPERSON: I might get you confused. My brother's name is Hector, so ifIcall you Hector, please excuse me, MR HECTOR: That's all right, I've been called far worse 31-01-2007 30 Rowe,Smithson CHAIRPERSON: Over to you. MR RECTOR:Thank you for listening to me. We represent a group of landowners who, in 2004, contracted to buy the majority of 145 hectares of land in the Mandogalup cell, predominantly adjoining that of Greg and Darren's group, the Satter ley Properly Group. The land had been owned by a third-generation farming family, who, in part, are still there and still actively farming the land. We had a six month due diligence period, in which to complete our necessary investigation prior to settling the contract, and during that time weundertook extensive discussions with our environmental and planning consultants, Cardno BCD, the DEC, or the relevant agency at that point in time, in 2004, the Town of Kwinana, and also very extensive discussions with the management of the Kwinana refinery and also the residue lakes, A number of those parties are no longer at the Kwinana refinery and have moved elsewhere within the Alcoa organisation. We gained, throughout that whole process, more than enough confidence that what Alcoa were intending on doing in 2010 by shutting down their "F" lake and relocating their storage operations westwards and rehabilitating the same as quickly as possible and up to 2015, if required, to proceed with the contract and, like the Satter ley Group, expended considerable tens of millions of dollars in buying this land, on the basis that it wasn't frontal at that point in time. It is, or particularly the Satterley Group's land, is now frontal, There's a train line that's been extended adjoining both of our parcels of land, we're in the State's severest shortage of land supply that's ever been seen and, accordingly, through that process, settled the land. Cardno 135D have undertaken the planning for us and have actively participated in the Town of Kwinana's structure plan, ERIC, and also through the finalisation of the Jandakot structure plan. All was proceeding welt until objections were raised to the cell 1 amendment, which we're currently dealing with. That has given us enormous concern. We have actively participated with Alcoa and their environmental improvement program over the mud lakes and have been a representative on that committee for the past two years. During all of those discussions, it has been consistent that they would be shutting down their operations on the "F" lake in 2010, rehabilitating the same and had no objection to residential development occurring very soon atter the shutting down of their "F" lakes, and to now find that that perhaps is not the case, as I said earlier, is of extreme concern. The process in which they are proposing to rehabilitate their mud lakes doesn't seem to have been finalised by them. Alcoa have indicated that they have some concern as to the element of dust that may be generated from that process. They, like ourselves, are constrained to developing land. We have certain procedures and requirements in place that we have to adhere to when we're developing land with regard to dust, et cetera. Why they are any different is beyond me, So the concern that we have is that we purchased this land with what we thought a fair degree of certainty that the planning process would proceed In a timely fashion, that we had the support of Alcoa that this land was going to proceed to urban. In 2004, or 27 October 2004, Alcoa released this statement, Indicating that they would be closing down their "F" lake, rehabilitating the same through to 2015, to then allow the DPI and the Town of Kwinana to 31-01-2007 4D Rowe, Smithson et at plan and allow the same to be developed. That doesn't now seem to he their position and, again, our utmost concern is any certainty that we had in the planning process possibly has been derailed at this point in time. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MR HECTOR: So as has been stated by Darren, Greg and Jenny, the lifting of the urban deferred has been perhaps misunderstood or they've been misguided as to what that will and won't allow us to do, and that is the whole point of what we're trying to achieve today, simply gain the support to get this MRS amendment through and allow us to proceed in an orderly fashion. MS SMITHSON. Suppose were it not to go to urban de toln d and remain rural, then there is no constraint or time or pressure for them to have to m cc stanly get on and confine to their buffers or rehabilitate and, you know, that would be of corn m to u,I know we're running out of time and I know that the next group are hem. CHAIRPERSON: We've got the next, yes. MS SMITHSON: The only thing I did want to make a brief comment on was the sand quarry issue, because I was here this morning listening to that debate. We're talking about a time frame for the development of most of this Mandogalup area not until 2010, in terms of a potential in terms of the rehabilitation, so you re talking a four-year time frame for that quarry to continue, That's well within the time before we'd he starting to develop in any event. CHAIRPERSON: We were looking at sequential, you know, development of the site, MS SMITHSON: Itis the case, though, that if you quarry the land now, you have to fillit later, develop it, and you end up trucking it .n from somewhere else, so the argument that they are putting to you is somewhat flawed in some respects, but these people control those quarries and they will use the sand that they need from those quarries as part of their development. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Questions? MR GRAHAM: I'm fine, thanks, I don't have any. CHAIRPERSON: Bruce? MR HAMILTON:No, it's made it very clear e, and you heard our continents ab department. CHAIRPERSON: Andrew, I didn't give youn opportunity last time, Have you got anything to ask? MR TREVOR: No, nothing to add, 31-01-2007 41 Rowe, Smithson et al CHAIRPERSON Okay. All right. So do you want to move on to the next one? Are you here again, Jenny? MS SMITHSON: Thank you. I'm leaving you now, CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thanks for coming in, Jenny, Nice to see you again. Thank you. So we have Greg and we have Darren and do we have Fred, do we? MR ROWE: No. Chair, it might be appropriate ifI explain where the players fit, so that might help you. CHAIRPERSON: So we're on to Wandi, Anketell and Casuarina now? MR ROWE: Well, we're certainly on to cell 2, which, as was touched on briefly in the presentation on cell 1, Satterley are a significant landowner in that group. So with the committee's agreement, Mr Walsh and I would speak to the submissions made on behalf of Satterley for the portion of cell 2 that they deal with. The one housekeeping matter I need to raise, it's not listed as a submission separately for you In your schedule of submissions summary for cell 2, and I think that's as a result of either an assumption that our submission on cell1 carries over Into cell 2 or, alternatively, the unfortunate practice of the corporate bodies that register interests, and I can understand the confusion. There are variously in these cells companies and landowners named: Anketell Landholdings Pty Ltd, Wandi Anketell Landholdings Pty Ltd, Anketell Holdings Pty Ltd, Anketell Farms Ply Ltd. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR ROWE: They are spread throughout, and the only point I'm making, and not wishing to labour, there is not a formal reference to Satterley's submission cell 2. CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to make a comment on that, Andrew? MR TREVOR:I don't do the organisation of the submissions, I just receive them, but I can mention that to the Secretariat. You're saying that there's no reference to Satterley as a separate submission? MR ROWE: That's correct, for MRS 1115. We're not in any way critical, it's a clarification point, and we will make a separate cover note to that effect. CHAIRPERSON: Because we have each of the individual submissions - -- MR ROWE: You do. CHAIRPERSON:--- in relation to all of these cells. So what we'll do is we'll make a note of it. MR ROWE: So we're looking to be recorded as a separate submission --- 31-01-2097 42 Rowe, Smithson et at CHAIRPERSON: For cell 2. MR ROWE:--- Satter ley, cell 2, and in that regard, it's just a matter, I think, of me writing to the department and making sure that --- MR TREVOR: That would be the best way to do it, so it's in writing. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes. MR GRAHAM:I can see another coloured map coming on. MR ROWE: Well, funny you should say that, member. This might he the appropriate time to table this, because I think it helps not only for this presentation but for the ones that Mr Ferrante is in attendance as well. This plan we prepared for your benefit, which outlines the cells,it outlines the various ownerships, and it might help when I'm speaking to this. Also separately, a map that shows ownership in groups. CHAIRPERSON:All right. We've got the map up there with the cells and what you've done is you've divvied that up again into the various MR ROWE: Into the main owners. CHAIRPERSON: Right. Okay, then. MR ROWE: And, in fact, anything that is coloured within those cells is represented either by Cardno 13SD, Jenny Smithson, or Greg Rowe & Associates, and the ownerships are marked, as are the various entities, but come back to all of that. It just may be useful reference material for you, CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR GRAHAM:It helps a lot. MR ROWE:All right, thank you. In terms of cell 2, MRS 1115, Satterley, firstly, we'd like to put very clearly on the record we're supportive of the MRS amendment to deferred. Clearly, that's (indistinct) again a conclusion to a logical process that's taken a long time, but it has got us there with the Jandakot structure plan and now the next logical step of the Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment. There appear to be some issues that will have to be resolved in terms of lifting urban deferred. We are conscious of those and we are aware of them and we're well across them. We've been working for a long time with the Town of Kwinana in terms of their ERIC study and where it's arrived and how it's got to that point, 31-01-2007 43 Rowe Smithson et at There's also been a significant amount of work done in terms of groundwater monitoring. Throughout all of cell 2, the groundwater monitoring is complete. Two years have been undertaken by the various owners.I'lltalk about cell 3 and subsequently in my next presentation, but for the purposes of cell 2 discussion, groundwater monitoring, under the agreed portfolio of the Department of Environment, as it was then, and other agencies, the Water Corporation included, those groundwater monitoring bores have been logged for two years and the information is now in place, its being collated by our consultants and we're awaiting their reports and the submission of their results. We are a member representing Satter ley and others on the Jandakot Structure Plan Drainage Steering Committee. We've been on that committee for in excess of 15, 18 months. We understand the brief of that committee in Its role in terms of moving towards the Jandakot water resource management strategy, and we're also aware that that strategy must be in place in terms of urban deferment lifting, so we're across those processes. We also acknowledge that the urban deferment can't be lifted until structure plans are in place and in terms of a sense of urgency and to demonstrate to the committee where we are in that process, I'm not submitting this today at all, unless you instruct me to, but we have gone a long way in terms of structure plan work already and we have done this all the way through the various cells, so we are trying to move with the pace of the statutory process. By the way, in that we have included a lot of the outcomes of the drainage management and some of the water resource management strategy. Were also across the other major Issue, which is the location and definition of wetlands throughout that area - perhaps cell 2 more than cell 1, to some degree - but cell 2 has a number of wetlands. We've made submissions to the environmental agencies, they've been mapped, there are well regarded consultants on board, a lot of research is under way. We are now in the process of determining buffers around those wetlands and again we acknowledge that work must be done as a precursor to structure plan work and again, a precursor to the lifting of the urban deferment. So those points are by way of demonstration of the effort that's gone in, the work that's been done, and an understanding of the process. We need the Commission, though, to progress with urban deferment, otherwise all of that work is not meaningless, but delayed again. We don't see major issues, we don't have major opponents, that we're aware of, in cell 2, but we would certainly emphasise that we would like cell 2 to proceed. Then the urban deferment can be dealt with and ultimately lifted when we address all those other matters. CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask a question before you move on. That's just a draft structure plan, which is, of course, the next step of the process. MR ROANE: Yes CHAIRPERSON: Andrew, did you need a copy of that? It's tabled here, but - -- MR TREVOR:I don't need a copy of it in terms of this amendment. You weren't intending to 31-91-2007 44 Rowe, Smithson et al MR ROWE: Not at ail. It's purely for demonstration. MR TREVOR: To show how far you're going and you're taking thingsto account. MR ROWE: Yes, correct. CHAIRPERSON: So that will be noted. MR ROWE: Chair, that was my comments. I'm not sureMr Walsh wishes to add to that. MR WALSH:Probably only reiteration. Satterley's,I guess, key focus and vision here is to deliver land fairly quickly, We see this as a prime site to commence helping with land supply issues, whether it's frontal, close to both existing and future rail infrastructure and certainly road infrastructure. We think we understand the constraints. We're working closely with DPI, council and the key agencies to refine our structure planning. So what we're trying to do is as the MRS process moves along, we're progressing, as far as possible, the detailed planning, so, you know, our hope would be, if we can be on the other side of approval processes in 2008, that we'd be in a position to start delivering land next year. So we see it as a key site in terms of being able to provide, you know, a reasonable number of lots in a fairly short time frame at high quality. So that's really what we're about, So from our point of view, moving forward is very important. We would hope that the lifting of the deferment nn this site could occur fairly quickly because the drainage and water management constraints aren't as significant here and the work that is being done by DOW and Water Corp on that now is becoming fairly advanced. So that's it in a nutshell for us, CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. Just for the tape, we're accepting the two plans that have been handed over with the ownership of the land on those plans, Any questions, Richard? MR GRAHAM: No, thanks. CHAIRPERSON: Bruce? MR HAMILTON:I asked a similar question earlier. DOW's involvement in this, could you just clarify that, because they're now the part of government that has statutory responsibility for drainage. MR WALSH: DOW are leading the Jandakot regional urban water management strategy or arterial drainage management plan, one or both. They have, last year, received a funding kick for that from government. This was identified as a priority drainage planning area because of the need to bring the land on. So they're coordinating that,in partnership with Water Corporation, That work is fairly advanced and we're anticipating a draft of that strategy in hopefully March this year and finalisation by the middle of this year. 31-01-2007 n5 Rowe, Smithson et al That's critical for us on two counts. One is its going to be a key factor in lifting the urban deferment, but secondly and importantly, it will define what areas of the land need to be set aside, over and above other constraints, for drainage management purposes. MR HAMILTON: Thanks for that, I'm pleased to hear that. CHAIRPERSON: And we are aware of the structure plans and the water plans and what the Commission is doing on water plans as well with the State Water Strategy, which is moving along at quite a fast pace at the moment. I don't have any other questions. Andrew, did you have anything to ask? MR TREVOR: No. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That's fine. Whore would we like to move on to? MR WALSH:I'll leave Greg with you to keep talking, but thank you very much. MR ROWE:Committee, my next presentation deals with some parts of cell 2, cell 3, cell 4 and, in an oblique way, cell 5, but Mr Fred Ferrante had joined us. CHAIRPERSON:Hello, Fred. Pleased to meet you, nice to meet you. MR FERRANTE: Good afternoon. MR HAMILTON: Bruce Hamilton, CHAIRPERSON: Bruce Hamilton. MR FERRANTE: How are you? MR GRAHAM: Hello. Richard Graham. MR FERRANTE: Richard, hi. CHAIRPERSON: And Andrew. Thank you. MR ROWE: Thank you for seeing us in the context of Mr Ferrante's ownership representation. Perhaps by way of introduction, Mr Ferrante represents various owners, and the relationship I'll explain in a moment as well, in cells 2, 3, 4 and now 5, although I will confirm in a moment we did not make submissions in cell 5 on Mr Ferrante's behalf because at the time of closing of submissions, Mr Ferrante's group did not own those particular properties. CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR ROWE: Although the map I've given you, aside from being very colourful, it appears that there is a myriad of ownership in those various cells, and I'm referring particularly to the 31-01-2007 46 Rowe, Smithson et al coloured map and the coloured legend on its left-hand side, which has a whole plethora of company names, that's purely Mr Ferranti and his group's decision in terms of land ownership. What I am able to confirm, that of all of the multiple colours there, they are effectively one group. The one group is effectively controlled by individuals within the Karrati family, and the Karrati family and Mr Ferrante, being their representative, come today in terms of submissions on all of that land. The significance of that is it's not a fragmented ownership, it's a consolidated ownership, and there is a larger significance in a moment. Having given you that introduction, though, as with the Satter ley submission I spoke to a few moments earlier, we have made various other submissions on Mr Ferrante's behalf that are not in your list of submissions, and again I think it's simply a housekeeping matter, In terms of cell 2, you have listed in your summary of submissions, submissions 6, 0, 11, 12 end 16, and they are submissions by us on land holdings under Mr Ferrante's control. There are, however, in cell 2, three other submissions we made that are not fish rland we'll deal, with your indulgence, in the same way as we discussed earlier. Like td It's not a criticism, it's very confusing down there in terms of just the ownership list I gave you, and for whatever reason, the registration entities of government don't seem to have a problem with that confusion, but there are at least four or five that almost look the same. CHAIRPERSON: Right, MR ROWE: So with your agreement, we'll clarify all of those, but we would like thorn recorded - not so much that they raise different points: in fact, they're duplicitous by nature, but we want to show the committee and the Commission that there is a strong element of support through various landowners. CHAIRPERSON: Right, MR ROWE: Chair, that's a long background as an introduction, but certainly this group is a proactive owner, there's no doubt about it. They've got experience and capacity to provide land, and Mr Ferrante will talk about that briefly, just to demonstrate that point, but they've been proactive in terms of getting involved in the statutory process as well. They were the first group to initiate the ground water monitoring some two years ago - they started that process, they've continued it - and in cell 2, it's comploii iin cell 3 and 4, it's about 50 - 60 per cent of the way through. They've also been a proactive member of all of the committees we've talked about, the Jandakot structure plan drainage steering committee, they've been in continuous dialogue with the Town of Kwinana in the preparation of ERIC, as well as ongoing, and there isa working group within the Commission, within the department's organisation, that meets regularly with Messrs Stokes, Ferraro and others. This owner is keen to get on with development. Again, clearly our conclusion is to askyou to support the Metropolitan Region Scheme urban deferred, The comments I'm makingare equally applicable in the southern portion of cell 2, the areas in cell 3, cell 4, and, toa lesser 31.01-2007 47 Rowe, Smithson et al degree, and I acknowledge no formal submission, cell 5. I don't propose to repeat each time in terms of essentially the same issues. CHAIRPERSON: For the tape's benefit, I'd just like to sayMr Ferrante, you tell me if I'm right - the consolidated ownership map that we have Is the Annette Kuhnert, Moonspark, Dawnlink, Moshee, Anketell Landholdings. Anketell Farms, Wandi Ankara!) Holdings and Satterley Property Group, Trevalley Investments, Mortimer Land Company, Tina Michelle Razz°, Denkey and Anketell Holdings, that's one consolidated group. MR FERRANTE: Yes, with the exception of Denkey, which is - -- MR ROWE: And Satterley. MR FERRANTE: And Satterley, yes. So the second - last and I think the middle one, CHAIRPERSON: The middle. So otherwise they're all consolidated? MR FERRANTE:Effectively, yes. CHAIRPERSON:I just needed to record that for the tape. Thank you. MR ROWE: Perhaps I should point out, though, and I won't be too specific about ownership details, Mr Ferrante and his interests are also a joint venture partner in the Satterley land holding as a shareholder. CHAIRPERSON: Right, okay. MR ROWE: So, effectively, they have interests from this point - I know that's hard - Rowley Road to the north, I'm sorry, all the way through to the end of cell 4/5 interface, all through there, and it's a joint venture partner in the Satterley, but as an independent agency in the balance. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MR ROWE: As Isay, a proactive owner, promoted the groundwater monitoring, promoting the environmental assessment, all of that work proceeding. The environmental assessment has included wetland works, flora surveys - they have been started, a lot of them completed - that work is now being collated as well. So again, we reiterate this owner, over such a large area, is poised to proceed as soon as urban deferred is in place. Perhaps I should add most importantly Mr Ferrante and his group have seen fit not to limit their groundwater monitoring and their environmental assessment only to the land they own. They have carried out groundwater throughout entire cells, for a very simple reason other than their perceived generosity: we did not want any criticism that the cell was not complete in terms ofitsinvestigation and assessment.If,for example, we had only carried out groundwater monitoring on land they own, then there would have, we believe, been the criticism that the cell was not complete in its investigation and it may have caused delay. So a1-01-2007 48 Rowe, Smithson et at they've taken it upon themselves to carry out the groundwater monitoring, with the consent of owners, on land they don't own, and that information will be provided as well, much the same as has been done with some of the environmental work. Perhaps, chair,I might pause there and Mr Ferrante wanted to make some observations about their involvement in the land, but certainly their capacity to bring land on quickly over a very short time frame. Thank you. MR FERRANTE: Thanks, Greg, I just plan to spend a few minutes really just to provide a bit of an overview of the ownership structure, given the parties that are listed inall those submissions, and as Greg has pointed out, there are a number of different owners and different entities listed throughout each of these cells, and whilst a multiplicity of owners and fragmented ownership has sometimes been seen as being a bit of a hindrance or a barrier to successful integrated development, the purpose today was really to sort of say look at it as one group, one entity, call it under the umbrella of the Karrati group of companies and Gucci Holdings, but essentially for assessing the submissions and determining how it may be implemented and coordinated in terms of the future,itis essentially one group that's controlling - not controlling - but has a significant interest in each of those cells, and as Greg has pointed out, the group is also a joint venture partner with the Satterley parcel further up in cell number 2. Therefore, our presence is quite strong and quite large, which provides some benefits, we see, in terms of future integration and future development. Whilst our sort of group public profile may not be very largo, we do have extensive land development oxpem nr o over many years in areas very similar to those cells in the southern suburbs. Over the I rat five years in particular -I was doing a bit of a lot count today - and we estimate that we vtprobably created close to 3000 lots over that period of time. Many of those have been in areas such as the East Wanneroo areas, where they have nine cells controlling those areas, and areas like Canning Vale, where you've had fragmented ownership, fragmented smaller parcels, and those areas did have, in their early days, very similar issues that we have to contend with in these five cells, issues such as requirement for structure planning, local detailed structure pans, regional drainage, common infrastructure works, schemes in place for implementation, infrastructure upgrades and the like. So that provides us with, I guess, invaluable experience to know what we can expect and how it all sort of works, it's not sort of foreign to us, We've performed many of those infrastructure works for councils over those years, as part of an ongoing program of creating those lots. During the last 16 months alone, the grougs fully constructed about 700 lots, both in northern suburbs and southern suburbs, and at the moment, we are currently in the process of constructing probably another 1100 lots in this calendar year, and that will be in areas such as Hocking, Canning Vale, Southern River and Byford, and we believe the majority of those lots will actually be completed by the end of the year, In addition to the land holdings demonstrated throughout thiscell, we also have other strategic land holdings throughout the metropolitan area, in particular in areas such as Forrestfield, West Swan, Cockurn Central, and Southern River, to name a few, where we see 31- 01-2007 49 Rowe, Smithson et at a further level of activity, in the order of about 1500 tots, being able to be produced over an additional sort of 18 month period, That, of course,is dependent upon, amongst other things, zonings and structure plan approvals and other things that are slightly out of our control, but that gives an Indication of our previous work and where were heading sort of now and in the next sort of 18 month period, but beyond that time frame, we've really identified this southern cell corridor as our main activity node in the southern suburbs, and our plan really is to commence construction on site as quick as the zonings and structure plans and subdivision approvals will allow us to, because we coordinate our work northern suburbs, southern suburbs. We see a lot of our southern suburbs' work completing at or about the same time that this area is projected to be suitably zoned for subdivision, so therefore we're very keen to see the advancement of the zoning process and subsequent planning processes continue, so that we can actually hit the ground, mobilise to site and commence lot construction and basically, as we've done in areas such as Canning Vale and the East Wanneroa area, once we hit an area, we basically stay there and we just continue on over many years and sort of fill out and move on from there. So our commitment to these cells has been evidenced by some of the comments that Greg has made in terms of our commitment to some of these larger strategies and so forth. We've really tried to be proactive in advancing things. We're also an integrated land development company, we don't just own land and subdivide land, we also have civil contracting companies, we have access to resources, such as limestone quarries, sandpits and other necessities that will help in terms of providing some ongoing development elements. So that just provides a bit of an overview of the group, which is reflected by these various different owners and different entities, but essentially you're dealing with one element. We certainly have the capacity and the experience and the commitment to see development occur throughout this cell as quickly as we can, to the highest of standards, as is expected, so we're fully supportive of the MRS amendments and also the Commission sort of proceeding further beyond that with support for subsequent amendments, structure plan adoption, subdivision approvals, strategies and the like, CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Questions? Richard? MR GRAHAM:I don't have any questions, thanks, CHAIRPERSON: Bruce? MR HAMILTON: No, I don't. CHAIRPERSON: Andrew? I have a question of the Secretariat, please. Steven, we don't have a written submission as such for the cell 2 and the Satter ley. We can just accept that as additional information? MR RADLEY: Yes. The submission we have for Satter ley for cell 1 does refer to owning land in the amendment 1115/33 area, but there's nothing else that refers to that particular 31-01-2007 50 Rowe, Smithson et at amendment cell or suggests that this was a submission on that amendment. Due to an administrative oversight, that hasn't been picked up. CHAIRPERSON: But we can accept-- MR RADLEY: We can go through and ensure that it will CHAIRPERSON: That's fine.I just thought while you were here, I'd ask that question. It was most important. Okay. I don't actually have any more questions for you.I think they might have all been covered. MR ROWE:I think the conclusion to that presentation is we've tried to emphasise that we're staying ahead of the game, to some degree. We've also got a client, an owner, who can deliver lots quickly and the only thing that's holding him up doing that is this next step. If that step is concluded successfully, we can deliver the balance steps and bring lots into that corridor. CHAIRPERSON: That's fine. MR ROWE:Chair, there's one other matter, which I hope Mr Ferrante won't mind me raising while he's here, There is one other submission that we made on behalf of an owner in this area, cell 2, which also doesn't appear on your schedule, and although we lodged, it's not been recognised, and again --- CHAIRPERSON:It was cell 2, was it? MR ROWE: It was. It's the land owned by the company called Donkey, which, on my coloured map, is to the south. I am under instruction to ask whether you will hear me make a few points on that, CHAIRPERSON: Steven, additional info on MR RADLEY: Yes, CHAIRPERSON: On cell 2? MR ROWE: Yes, cell 2. I would do the same - may I point at the map? CHAIRPERSON: This here? MR ROWE: That's correct, yes. As t group has also, since our submission acquired the orange piece adjacent, CHAIRPERSON: This bit? 31 -01 -2007 5i Rowe, Smithson et at MR ROWE:That's correct. So that one group controls all of that land. It is a significant land area. Again, my instructions, and we covered it in our submission, which we lodged back in September, our Instructions are we support for that owner also strenuously urban deferred. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR ROWE: The only point that we make of some concern would be to ask the Commission that urban deferred, in terms of that land and that cell, not be held up by the station review, and we don't believe it need be, because there is a station shown in that land as part of the original PTA rail strategy, but it Is also one of the stations that is being reviewed. We see no need to hold up urban deferred whilst that station review Is proceeding, and likewise we see no need to hold up the MRS process pending the station review. There is an extreme amount of urgency on the urban deferred in this area. The station review, without being critical, has come along as a latter consideration, and to prejudice either part or all of the cells, and speaking on behalf of this particular owner, to prejudice their land, they are somewhat ambivalent about the station, to be truthful, although we've already entered into dialogue with the department, on their behalf, about providing facilities and sharing facilities and shared parking and access, but we are again reiterating the request to proceed with urban deferred, and in the context of that land, not to be hindered by any review of the station's locations. We don't see that they're mutually exclusive exercises, to be candid, A station can be urban deferred, a station can be subsequently, as a structure plan exercise, included or deleted. Setting the zoning of the land, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, as urban deferred is almost irrelevant to where a station goes. CHAIRPERSON:It's part of the process. MR ROWE: Thank you, yes. CHAIRPERSON: But we can take that into account. MR ROWE: We have made that point in that submission. CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to make a comment on that? MR GRAHAM: No, I don't have anything to say. CHAIRPERSON: That's fine, We'll take that into account and make note of It. MR ROWE: Thank you for letting us speak on that item, CHAIRPERSON:That's not a problem. Okay. Well,I think that's just about it, Bruce, you're fine with everything? MR HAMILTON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Andrew? 31,01,-2007 52 Rowe, Smithson et al MR TREVOR: It would be a good idea if you could put in writing the matters about the submissions that haven't been notified, so that the secretariat people are able to clearly see what's what when we correct it. MR ROWE: Actually, what Iintend to do, and Ithink it's consistent with what Andrew has asked for, we'll give a schedule of every lot we've made a submission on and the name of that owner and a copy attached to that of the submission we have made. CHAIRPERSON: That would be fine. MR ROWE: So I think you should be able to work with that. CHAIRPERSON: Steven is happy with that, too. All right. Thank you for coming in and I think we've got lots of additional information today, which is quite helpful, and it's been very helpful for you to come and give us that information, and the maps as well. MR ROWE: Thank you for hearing us and we appreciate the time. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR GRAHAM: And congratulations for taking a proactive approach. CHAIRPERSON:It is, isn't it? MR ROWE: Thank you. These additional copies, are they of any use to you? CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to keep that one, Andrew? No, I'll just file these, so I don't need them, Right, and we've all got a copy. MR ROWE: I'm not offended if they end up somewhere other than on the file, so I'll leave them. MR TREVOR: Okay, Sure, MR GRAHAM:There's just one point there. It's mentioned in the table that some land is yet to be acquired. MR ROWE: Yes, MR GRAHAM: The yellow stuff. MR ROWE: Yes. MR GRAHAM:Is that confidential information? 31-01-2007 53 Rowe, Smithson et a MR ROWE:Not really, no because in fact some of it has been. If you were to compare this map, which was prepared in April last year, and this map, which wasprepared only a few days ago --- CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Itdifferent. MR ROWE:--- you'll see a slight difference and Mr Ferrante's groupis actually moving on and there are additional lots now. So the degree of --- MR GRAHAM: That's fine. It's just the point --- MR ROWE: That's actually been submitted to the department already, at Mr Stokes's request. MR GRAHAM: Okay. MR ROWE: So it's in your possession. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR TREVOR: Sorry, the yellow is you're going to those landowners and trying to negotiate MR ROWE:Yes, and as I say, Andrew, if yob look at that map versus this map, you'll see that they've now been picked up, to a large degree. MR TREVOR: Out presumably some of your approaches are successful and some aren't. MR ROWE: Correct, yes. MR FERRANTE:I think the ones that - the colours on the other map shows the individual owner entities. That reflects land that is either owned by those entities or are contracted with a settlement date, which might be next week, next month, or--- CHAIRPERSON: Fine. MR ROWE:It's a long answer to your question, sir, but it's not confidential. MR GRAHAM:Yes. I'm always very conscious of these sort of issues when land acquisition is being negotiated. MR ROWE: Thank you again to the committee for your time. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thanks for coming in. MR ROWE: Thank you. MR TREVOR: Thank you. 31-01-2007 54 Rowe, Smithson et at