• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1027/33 - WHITEMAN PARK AND ENVIRONS - DISALLOWANCE Motion Pursuant to standing order 152(b), the following motion by Hon Giz Watson was moved pro forma on 8 May – That metropolitan region scheme amendment 1027/33, Whiteman Park and Environs, published in the Government Gazette on 30 March 2007 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 4 April 2007 under the Planning and Development Act 2005, be and is hereby disallowed. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [9.13 pm]: We are dealing tonight with a disallowance motion in relation to Whiteman Park and environs. As members will know, metropolitan region scheme amendments usually include a number of specific proposals. This amendment deals with five proposals, and I intend to talk about the second proposal in some detail. This proposal has drawn opposition from a significant number of people contributing to the planning process. Of a total of 35 submissions received, 24 were opposed to the second proposal, to transfer 249 hectares of park and recreation reservation from the southern portion of Whiteman Park, referred to as the Marshall Road precinct, and 82 hectares of adjoining rural zoned land to the urban zone. It is unfortunate that when dealing with metropolitan region scheme amendment, the house has no option other than to disallow the whole amendment. It is worth noting that the first proposal in the amendment had broad support. That proposal was to transfer 1 081 hectares of rural zone land adjoining the western boundary of Whiteman Park to the parks and recreation reservation. I will talk a little more about that in a minute. That proposal seemed to have received almost universal support. It is therefore unfortunate in this process of moving a disallowance motion that that proposal will also be affected. The rezoning of this part of the area designated as part of Whiteman Park is, in my view, a breach of the trust and understanding of the original owners who agreed to sell the land that they owned back in the early 1970s. Many who arguably are in the best position to be informed say that the payments received were reduced due to the vendor’s philanthropy. That particular argument is debateable, but it certainly is clear that there was a mutual understanding that the land they were selling was to be owned and used by the community in perpetuity. Some of the land also was bought using a federal-state scheme. The purchase of at least some of this land in this southern portion of Whiteman Park was purchased under the commonwealth-state scheme whereby land purchases for specific purposes were funded two-thirds by the commonwealth and one- third by the state. Certainly, some of the land in this area that is now proposed to be rezoned urban was bought under that scheme. I will refer specifically to it. The Whittlesea Pastoral Company sold 200 acres, or 81 hectares, of land in this particular way. I must acknowledge the hard work of some of the people who have a long-term interest in and relationship with Whiteman Park. They have done quite a lot of work to look at the history of the conditions and the processes that were undertaken when the land was originally sold to the state. It is clear that part of this agreement was this portion of the land that was bought under this federal-state agreement. Some correspondence dates back to the 1970s and refers to this agreement. For example, I have a letter with me from the then Acting Premier of Western Australia, back in June 1988, addressed to the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, indicating that the government was reconsidering the use of this land and was wanting to be released from the requirement that if it used the land for something other than the non-urban purposes for which it was originally purchased, it would have to repay the commonwealth money. That was certainly the state government’s understanding, and the then Acting Premier - 1 - was seeking an assurance from the then Prime Minister that the state could be relieved of that requirement. The letter states - Land in the Santa Maria - Mussell Pool area of the Perth Metropolitan Region was purchased during the late 1970’s by the Urban Lands Council of Western Australia with Commonwealth grant assistance under programmes approved pursuant to the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act, 1974. It goes on to say - The purpose of the programmes was to acquire land for essentially non- urban purposes and the provisions of the agreements were and have been complied with. It is therefore very clear from the outset that the intention was that this land was for non-urban purposes and, indeed, early in the 1970s it was firmly zoned parks and recreation. It was taken from its rural zoning into parks and recreation. The letter concludes on the urgency of the matter - that is, state cabinet wanted to look at the potential for the land to be used for residential purposes. It states - In view of the urgency of this matter I am approaching you direct - It is lousy English, but I will let him get away with that - to request your assistance in varying the terms of the original agreements with the Commonwealth. Further correspondence took place. I have not been able to trace anything that indicated that that agreement was formally relinquished. I have spoken with the minister and the parliamentary secretary, and the advice indicates that there is more recent correspondence between the state government and the commonwealth government again seeking reassurance from the commonwealth government that the state government would not be required to pay back any money. The letter to which I referred is a letter from the then Premier Gallop to the Prime Minister, John Howard, seeking that assurance. There was no correspondence back to the then Premier to say that that has been ticked off on. The argument is that because the commonwealth government has not written back to the state government, the commonwealth government is not fussed about it. I still think a question arises. That is one aspect of this proposal. The proposed rezoning is seen by many to be profiteering from what was clearly understood to be a public asset. As I have pointed out, in 1975 it was indicated that the area was to be rezoned from rural to parks and recreation. In June 1975, it was announced in the Government Gazette that the Minister for Urban Development and Town Planning had given preliminary approval to the amendments to the metropolitan region town planning scheme 1959-1974 relating to the land in the Shire of Swan currently zoned rural to be reserved for parks and recreation. That process was finally completed in 1977. It is clear that this land has been earmarked for parks and recreation since that time. The current move by the government to rezone the land urban raises a question about the government keeping faith with the commitment given to the original vendors. I have met a number of the descendents of the original owners of the land, who showed me around the site. It is clear that they understood that the purchase was agreed to on the condition that the land would be used for public purposes. As I understand it, if this rezoning goes ahead and the land is used for urban purposes, the government stands to gain about $90 million, which is the estimated value of the land in the current market. - 2 - Part of this package provides that in exchange for the proposed removal of the southern portion of Whiteman Park, an additional portion of land is to be added to the western side of Whiteman Park. That is good. That is proposal 1, which everybody seems to be happy with. However, it has been suggested to the public that that is a trade-off. There are two issues to do with the land that is currently zoned rural that adjoins the western boundary of the park. This has been on the books of the improvement plan since the 1970s. It is also interesting to note that in the report the vegetation is described as being of variable quality, although it must be acknowledged that 500 hectares of it has been identified in as a Bush Forever site and it therefore has regional significance. That is what a Bush Forever site is. Significantly, it is also under the priority 1 ground pollution control area. Page 4 of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s document on submissions on this MRS amendment with regard to proposal 1 states - The 1081 ha area contains native vegetation of varying quality and is a ‘Priority One’ Underground Water Pollution Control Area . ‘Priority One’ indicates that the highest level of protection is necessary for the area. The only land uses compatible with ‘Priority One’ areas are national parks and nature reserves. All other land uses are deemed restricted or incompatible. I would argue that there is no other purpose that the land could legitimately be designated for other than to be co-joined with Whiteman Park. It is logical. It is the only land use designation that it should ultimately have. As much as it is a welcome asset as an addition to the park, it should not be seen as a trade-off for the loss of the southern portion. The other thing is that, having Beechboro Road running through the middle of it, its value is compromised for the rest of Whiteman Park because that major road will separate the area to be added in from the existing park.

Load more

  9

Copy Link