DOCSLIB.ORG

FREMANTLE) BILL 2004 Second Reading MR M.F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FREMANTLE) BILL 2004 Second Reading MR M.F Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 25 August 2004] p5622b-5627a Mr Mike Board METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME (FREMANTLE) BILL 2004 Second Reading MR M.F. BOARD (Murdoch) [4.51 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a second time. Today I stand before the House on a matter of overwhelming urgency and public concern; that is, the deletion of the controlled access highway reservation, known as the Fremantle eastern bypass, from the metropolitan region scheme. This transport corridor has proved to be one of the most contentious, studied and debated issues in Western Australia’s planning history. It is, without a doubt, the single largest issue that has come before our community, and, more specifically, the numerous communities that reside south of the river. Despite the widespread community support for the retention of the Fremantle eastern bypass, the Labor Government has failed to govern in the interests of the Western Australian people, but has acted upon its unilateral decision to delete this primary regional road reservation from the metropolitan region scheme. This government action threatens not only the amenities and the environment of these communities, but also the right of the people there to live in a peaceful and safe locality. The purpose of this Bill is twofold. As previously stated, there is a pressing need for all members of Parliament to be further informed on the serious implications that both the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass and the non-completion of Roe Highway stage 8 represent for the industries dependent upon sustainable access to the Fremantle port, for daily commuters on the surrounding and major route roads, as well as for the various communities south of the river that are directly impacted by the absence of this vital transport link. More importantly, this Bill is about upholding the integrity of our representative democracy. The people’s choice on this issue has been well known for some time. There is overwhelming community support for the retention of the Fremantle eastern bypass as an integral part of Western Australia’s transport system. Accordingly, this is a fundamental attempt to ensure that the culmination of more than 30 years of sustainable planning, as well as continued public consultation, is rightfully acknowledged and enacted by this Parliament. Throughout this speech I will make frequent references to the need for the completion of Roe Highway stage 8. Both roads are essential for the achievement of a sustainable transport network serving both the industry and the communities of the south west metropolitan region. As the Hearings Committee of the Western Australian Planning Commission stated, the FEB should not be looked at in isolation from Roe Highway stage 8. The Government’s recent amendment No 1055/33 has modified the MRS so as to delete this bypass reservation between High Street, Fremantle and Healy Road, Hamilton Hill, thereby transferring the land to an urban zone classification. Consequently, this has put Roe Highway stage 8 as the strategic link between the Fremantle port and Roe Highway without prospect. Currently, it is estimated that the port of Fremantle manages about 350 000 containers each year. It is projected that this figure will increase to between 800 000 and 900 000 containers per annum by 2014. Without the road reservation put aside for the future construction of the FEB, this traffic will be forced to travel through stand-in routes. As the incumbent Minister for Planning and Infrastructure should acknowledge, the only immediate and therefore probable alternative for these escalating traffic flows is to overrun onto the already incapacitated suburban streets surrounding the suburbs throughout the south metropolitan region. The impact of such a predicament has understandably outraged local governments, businesses, community groups and services, as well as concerned residential communities and individual commuters. This will no doubt impact upon the local schools, hospitals, aged care facilities and all residential developments. Prior to the inclusion of the Fremantle eastern bypass reservation in 1973, the predicted growth and development of Perth centred upon the Stephenson plan. This plan advised of the implementation of a ring-road network to be built around the outside of the Perth metropolitan region so as to cater for the increases in traffic movement, as well as the anticipated population growth and community developments. This proposed road network included not only Reid and Tonkin Highways, but also Roe Highway, which would connect to the Fremantle eastern bypass and, subsequently, the Stirling Bridge, which would link to West Coast Highway. The intended function of the FEB was to provide the primary district road access to the Fremantle port and make a connection between the northern and southern suburbs across the river. The Stirling Bridge was built in accordance with this strategic premise. Since the initial stages of the Labor Party’s campaign against the retention of the FEB reserve, the party has persistently ignored the outcomes of both planning research and community consultations on the future of this bypass. In 1992, through the enactment of a minor provision by the Lawrence State Government, Labor succeeded in deleting the FEB from the metropolitan region scheme. That was despite a 1991 joint study commissioned by the roads reserve review, which advised the State Government that the retention of the FEB [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 25 August 2004] p5622b-5627a Mr Mike Board link was recommended on the basis of its strategic importance within the region and its link to the Stirling Bridge and the south west corridor. During this time, the Western Australian planning body strongly recommended to the State Government that it retain the bypass reserves, as did Main Roads and the Fremantle Port Authority. The councils of the Cities of Melville, Cockburn and Rockingham and of the Town of Kwinana also lent their strong support in favour of retaining the FEB. Further independent consultations and the evaluation of more than 1 000 submissions also found that it would be premature of the State Government to delete this controlled access highway at that time. During the 1993 election year, the Liberal Party made the commitment to reinstate the bypass as a matter of public policy, and did so through the introduction of a Bill to amend the metropolitan region scheme. In 1994, the Liberal Party also included the bypass reservation within the 1994 Fremantle regional strategy plan. Ten years on, the predominance of commissioned research, professional recommendations, local council positions and public opinion on this transport corridor has scarcely changed; yet we find ourselves with the very same discord - a discord between what the Labor Party wants and what the community needs. The premature and imprudent nature of the Government’s actions clearly reflected a decision based upon political motivations rather than any genuine attempt to provide Western Australians with a sustainable transport future. Given the potential impact that this Government’s proposal would have on the safety, lifestyle and property values of thousands of people in the southern metropolitan region, there was an overwhelming response by the wider community on this issue. The Western Australian Planning Commission received a total of 9 736 public submissions. This figure did not include the further 182 submissions that were received after the due date. Of this total, 8 290 submissions, or more than 85 per cent of the people, unequivocally opposed the deletion of the FEB, while only 14 per cent of the public submissions were in favour of the Government’s proposed deletion of the bypass. Although the Fremantle City Council lent its support to the amendment to delete the bypass, 89 per cent of the 877 public submissions received by the council fervently expressed the local community’s outrage at both council support for the deletion and the Government’s intention to press on regardless of the evident consequences to be faced throughout the Fremantle community. As I have previously put on record, both the City of Melville and the City of Canning have moved resolutions in strong support of retaining the Fremantle eastern bypass and the completion of Roe Highway stage 8. The longstanding opposition within the City of Melville against the deletion of this transport corridor is a reflection of both genuine concern and commonsense by the council. Without the FEB and with the non-completion of Roe Highway stage 8, both freight and general traffic will have no choice but to make disproportionate use of Leach Highway, High Street, South Street, Carrington Street and Hampton Road. Although the State Government has proposed its “six-step solution”, it has been widely recognised that none of the proposals has yet to be proved as adequate alternatives to the FEB. The City of Canning also fervently objects to the deletion of the FEB based on the lack of viable alternatives and the potential safety hazards resulting from an increase in traffic movements of heavy vehicles such as trucks and semitrailers down these suburban streets and throughout the residential communities. Concerns from regional Western Australia also were put forward to the commission. Given the economic importance of efficient accessibility to the port of Fremantle, both the City of Albany and the Shire of Quairading recommended in favour of retaining the FEB reservations until such time as a viable alternative could be implemented. The Fremantle eastern bypass was to act as a north-south coastal transport corridor for regional traffic movements generated by the Fremantle port and industrial areas in the south west corridor. The Government has clearly demonstrated the rhetorical nature of its community consultation process. The process so far has involved three simple steps: the minister has decided what is to be done, announced the decision and then aggressively defended the decision from any community inquiry or protest on this vital issue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Perth Freight Link: Facts and Fiction Prepared by Peter Newman and Philip Jennings for the Beeliar Group – Professors for Environmental Responsibility
    For Release 8 Feb 2017 The Perth Freight Link: Facts and Fiction Prepared by Peter Newman and Philip Jennings for The Beeliar Group – Professors for Environmental Responsibility The supporters of Roe 8 and the Perth Freight Link (PFL) have been spreading misinformation and half truths about the developments. Their aim is to discredit alternatives by the selective use of the facts. This analysis of the Roe 8 and PFL myths provides a more complete picture. Myth 1: The PFL has been on the books for 60 years and no one objected until recently. The PFL was a Prime Minister Abbott “Captain’s Call” presented to the former Transport Minister, Dean Nalder, at a meeting in Canberra in early 2015, along with similar highly controversial roads in Melbourne and Sydney. The Melbourne East-West Link was rejected by the Victorian people at their last election. It is extremely unusual to have a road project proposed by a Commonwealth politician and it has disrupted all planning processes since it was dropped on Perth without any history or warning. The PFL is still a vague proposal and the detailed design has never been released publicly or assessed by the EPA. Roe 8 was included in the Metropolitan Region Scheme in 1963 without any public consultation or environmental impact assessment as part of a ring road bringing traffic to the coast between North Coogee and South Beach and then north to Fremantle. The Cockburn Wetlands Study of 1975 first suggested that the road should not proceed. The first environmental assessment was carried out by the EPA in 1978 and it recommended in its System Six report in 1980 that a new route be found because the proposed route was environmentally unacceptable.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council Held
    MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY 16 JUNE 2015 AT 6.30PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS MELVILLE CIVIC CENTRE DISCLAIMER PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER BEFORE PROCEEDING: Any plans or documents in agendas and minutes may be subject to copyright. The express permission of the copyright owner must be obtained before copying any copyright material. Any statement, comment or decision made at a Council or Committee meeting regarding any application for an approval, consent or licence, including a resolution of approval, is not effective as an approval of any application and must not be relied upon as such. Any person or entity who has an application before the City must obtain, and should only rely on, written notice of the City’s decision and any conditions attaching to the decision, and cannot treat as an approval anything said or done at a Council or Committee meeting. Any advice provided by an employee of the City on the operation of written law, or the performance of a function by the City, is provided in the capacity of an employee, and to the best of that person’s knowledge and ability. It does not constitute, and should not be relied upon, as a legal advice or representation by the City. Any advice on a matter of law, or anything sought to be relied upon as representation by the City should be sought in writing and should make clear the purpose of the request. DISTRIBUTED: 19 June 2015 ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 16 JUNE 2015 CONTENTS PAGE Page Item Description Number ITEMS FROM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,
    [Show full text]
  • Perth-Freight-Link-Paper 8-June-2015
    Perth Freight Link: Making the right Investment A position paper for In Perth’s the City of Fremantle Freight Task by : Peter Newman and Cole Hendrigan Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute June 8, 2015 This Position Paper was prepared for the City of Fremantle by Peter Newman and Cole Hendrigan of Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute between April and June of 2015. Professor Newman (AO) is a globally respected expert in transport and land use planning, while Dr Hendrigan is a recent PhD graduate in the same subject matter with a decade of private and public experience. ©City of Fremantle, 2015 ii Perth Freight Link Newman & Hendrigan Contents I. ABSTRACT VII I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IX 1. Context ix 2. Understanding the Future Trends ix 3. Impacts of the Perth Freight Link ix 4. Options for the Port of Fremantle’s Freight Task xi 5. Conclusion xii II. INTRODUCTION 1 1. Fremantle: A Small Port with a Big Future 1 2. Fremantle’s Future: Change 2 3. Perth Freight Link: Consequences 3 4. Privatising the Fremantle Port Authority 4 III. THE ECONOMIC AND TRANSPORT CONTEXT 5 1. Introduction 5 2. Current Freight Task 5 3. Perth Freight Planning 5 IV. ABOUT PERTH FREIGHT LINK - ROUTES AND POLICY 16 1. Introduction 16 2. Why the PFL? 16 3. The Economics 16 4. Stated Benefi ts 16 5. Benefi t Cost Ratio 17 6. Time savings reconsidered 17 V. THE IMPACTS OF THE PERTH FREIGHT LINK 18 1. The Tollway Toll 18 2. Inner and Outer Harbour: Transport and Capacity Impacts 21 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Tony Weeks Submission Date: 2 Oct 2011 Re: Session 5: Environmental and Social Taxes
    Tax Forum Oct 2011 Submission Submitted by: Tony Weeks Submission date: 2 Oct 2011 Re: Session 5: Environmental and social taxes Summary This submission relates to transport infrastructure which forms part of the Session 5: Environmental and Social Taxes discussion. It indirectly addresses the discussion question of “are there ways in which governments could use specific taxes to ensure that people take appropriate account of environmental impacts in their decision making?” After reading seven submissions from a diverse range of stakeholders I was struck by the similarities between the concerns and proposed solutions to improve infrastructure. However, none of the submissions address the fundamental issue of who controls the money. The purse strings for infrastructure projects are controlled by the State and Federal governments. Whilst it is an exaggeration to say that the tax summit is doomed because this issue is not addressed, it is probably fair to say that implementation of solutions proposed will be suboptimal as execution will be piecemeal and taken for political reasons such as election promises. Infrastructure projects cut across Federal and State lines and should be prioritised according to need and viability by an independent body which has representatives from all stakeholders and assesses projects on triple bottom line, social, environmental and economic criteria. A case study, the Roe Highway extension in Perth is attached. Whilst the final decision to proceed hasn’t been made as the project is currently being assessed by the EPA it nevertheless illustrates the folly of allowing politicians to determine which infrastructure projects should be implemented. The project is controversial and has been on the books for over 10 years as debate rages between Local Government Authorities, environmentalists and State Government over the need for the highway.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Special Meeting of Electors Held in the Main Hall, Melville Civic Centre, 10 Almondbury Road, Booragoon, Commencing 6.30Pm on Monday, 17 August 2015
    MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS HELD IN THE MAIN HALL, MELVILLE CIVIC CENTRE AT 6.30PM ON MONDAY 17 AUGUST 2015 DISTRIBUTED: 4 SEPTEMBER 2015 10 Almondbury Road Booragoon WA 6154 Postal Address: Locked Bag 1, Booragoon WA 6154 Tel: 08 9364 0666 Fax: 08 9364 0285 Email: [email protected] Web: www.melvillecity.com.au MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS HELD IN THE MAIN HALL, MELVILLE CIVIC CENTRE, 10 ALMONDBURY ROAD, BOORAGOON, COMMENCING 6.30PM ON MONDAY, 17 AUGUST 2015. 1. OFFICIAL OPENING His Worship the Mayor, R Aubrey, welcomed Ratepayers and Electors of the City of Melville and opened the meeting at 6.30pm. His Worship the Mayor advised the meeting had been called to discuss Roe 8 and the Perth Freight Link and the impacts to City of Melville Residents and that no other matter could be addressed at this meeting. 2. PRESENT His Worship the Mayor R Aubrey COUNCILLORS WARD Deputy Mayor Cr N Foxton University Cr M Reynolds University Cr R Aubrey, Cr D Macphail City Cr C Robartson, Cr R Willis Bull Creek/Leeming Cr J Barton, Cr S Taylor-Rees Bicton/Attadale Cr P Phelan Palmyra/Melville/Willagee Cr N Pazolli Applecross/Mount Pleasant IN ATTENDANCE Dr S Silcox Chief Executive Officer Mr M Tieleman Director Corporate Services Ms L Hartill A/Director Community Development Mr J Christie Director Technical Services Mr S Cope Director Urban Planning Mr L Hitchcock Executive Manager Legal Services Mr J Clark Governance & Compliance Program Manager Mr N Fimmano Governance & Property Officer Representatives from Main Roads Mr M Hazebroek Senior Project Director Ms N Walton Executive Director, Strategy and Communications Mr C Rickard Community Relations Manager There were 179 Electors of the City of Melville in attendance.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Decision to Commit Funding to the Perth Freight Link Project
    North Lake Residents Submission Inquiry into the decision to commit funding to the Perth Freight Link project Proposed Roe Highway Extension Road Reserve through North & Bibra Lakes August 2015 Committee Secretary Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Australia 20th August 2015 RE: Inquiry into the decision to commit funding to the Perth Freight Link project: Roe Highway Stage 8 extension / Kwinana Freeway to Stock Road, WA. Dear Mr. Watling, The North Lake Residents are opposed to any form of Roe Highway extension through North Lake and Bibra Lake, and the following key points of this submission should be considered in relation to this inquiry. We also ask that the committee investigate why Commonwealth funding has already been allocated to the Perth Freight Link stage 1 (Roe Highway Stage 8), prior to Federal environmental approval under the EPBC act. This stage of the freight link, clearly desecrates and violates the environmental and indigenous cultural significance of North and Bibra Lakes. Our website www.savenorthlake.com.au also forms part of this submission as it contains relevant government and community reports, videos, photos and information that support the case for the protection of this environmentally significant and cultural heritage area. The website acts as a ‘library’ to which reports referenced in this submission can be viewed or downloaded. We request that committee visit our website before reading this submission and view the short videos in the video tab www.savenorthlake.com.au/videos.shtml The videos highlight the activities and events that have occurred there, including the community and Indigenous opposition to the Proposed Roe Highway extension through North Lake and Bibra Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • To the Office of the Appeals Convener Environmental Protection Act 1986
    To the Office of the Appeals Convener Environmental Protection Act 1986 Appeal form 1. Name: Senator Scott Ludlam 2. Proposal to which appeal relates Proposal description: Roe Highway Extension Location: Jandakot to Coolbellup Name of Proponent: Main Roads Western Australia 3. Type of appeal Environmental Protection Authority Report Number Report 1489 Date published September 2013 Appeal to the EPA Report 1489: Approval of the Roe Highway Extension OVERVIEW This appeal covers 19 reasons for appeal. The first 17 are described in detail. The final two are self-explanatory: 1. The EPA made its decision before the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Perth and Peel has been completed 2. The EPA made its decision before the critical Population Viability Assessment of Carnaby’s Cockatoos report was released, due in late September 3. Misleading information about Aboriginal consultation and heritage and cultural values 4. Cumulative environmental impacts have not been measured 5. Key environmental factors were inadequately and incorrectly addressed 6. Human health impacts were not considered 7. The offsets program is unacceptable: it is not based on scientific evidence that it will work or even be possible to implement 8. The precautionary principle has not been considered or applied 9. The principle of intergenerational equity has not been considered or applied 10. The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity has not been considered 11. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms were not considered adequately 12. The project assessed by the EPA was falsely and misleadingly described by the proponent as the Preferred Option 13. The rationale for the project and a substantial number of justifications are inaccurate or misleading and remain unquestioned by the EPA report 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41
    Western Australian -1111 Planning Commission January 2011 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Submissions Transcript of Hearings Shire of Cockburn GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1180/41 Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan Submissions Transcript of Hearings City of Cockburn Western Australian Planning GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Commission February 2011 © State of Western Australia Internet: http://www.wa.gov.au Published by the Western Australian Planning Commission, Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth Western Australia 6000 MRS Amendment 1180/41 Submissions Transcript of Hearings File 809-2-23-13 Pt. 2 & 3 Published February 2011 ISBN 0 7309 9688 3 Internet: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au e-mail: corporate @planning.wa.gov.au Phone: (08) 9264 7777 Fax: (08)92647566 TTY: (08)92647535 Copies of this document are available in alternative formats on application to the disability services co-ordinator. Contents Submissions Transcript of Hearings Submissions Submission 1 Government of Western Australia Department of Planning Our ref: 805/2/1/40P247 Queries: Brianna Sharp (9264 7759) 24th February 2010 Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission 469 Wellington St PERTH WA 6000 Dear Mr Evans, METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1180/41: COCKBURN COAST DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AREA Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Metropolitan Scheme Amendmentfor the Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan. The Proposed MRS Amendment is to rezone the Industrial area of North Coogee to Deferred Urban, and to realign the Primary Regional Road Reservation. State Strategic Policy previously commented on the Environmental analysis that was undertakenfor the proposed Cockburn Coast Structure Plan, and made a number of recommendations inSeptember 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Leach Highway (High Street) Fremantle Upgrade (Carrington Street to Stirling Highway)
    Leach Highway (High Street) Fremantle upgrade (Carrington Street to Stirling Highway) urail suomisston inTrascrumure /Australia or reaerat Tunaing August 2012 — • -.1111•111K1 mainroads vir WESTERN AUSTRALIA SUBMISSION COVERSHEET This coversheet should be included with all submissions to Infrastructure Australia. Please complete all fields. Organisation: Main Roads Western Australia Date: 10 August 2012 Submission title: Leach Highway (High Street) Fremantle Upgrade (Carrington Street to Stirling Highway) Author(s): Main Roads WA Contact person: Maurice Cammack Position: A/Manager Project Programming Postal address: PO Box 6202, EAST PERTH State: Western Australia Postcode: 6892 Email address: [email protected] Telephone: - --- Please email your submission to: submissionsinfrastructureaustralia.dov.au Two (2) hard copies (one marked as the original) to: SUBMISSIONS Infrastructure Australia GPO Box 594 Canberra ACT 2600 Ph: 02 8114 1900 CONFIDENTIALITY If this submission contains material which you believe is confidential, this material should marked as confidential on this coversheet and the reason for claiming confidentiality must be provided. The material must also be marked as confidential in the body of the submission. Infrastructure Australia may review claims of confidentiality with the proponent. Document: Reason: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Please acknowledge the following submission guidelines: • This submission conforms with Infrastructure Australia's requirements as set out in Better Infrastructure Decision- Making: Guidelines for making submissions to Infrastructure Australia's infrastructure planning process, through Infrastructure Australia's Reform and Investment Framework (available at www.infrastructureaustralia.qov.au ), • Where any third party material has been incorporated into the submission, the appropriate rights to use this material have been obtained. • Infrastructure Australia may review claims of confidentiality with the proponent.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinary Meeting of the Council
    MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY 21 JULY 2015 AT 6.30PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS MELVILLE CIVIC CENTRE DISCLAIMER PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER BEFORE PROCEEDING: Any plans or documents in agendas and minutes may be subject to copyright. The express permission of the copyright owner must be obtained before copying any copyright material. Any statement, comment or decision made at a Council or Committee meeting regarding any application for an approval, consent or licence, including a resolution of approval, is not effective as an approval of any application and must not be relied upon as such. Any person or entity who has an application before the City must obtain, and should only rely on, written notice of the City’s decision and any conditions attaching to the decision, and cannot treat as an approval anything said or done at a Council or Committee meeting. Any advice provided by an employee of the City on the operation of written law, or the performance of a function by the City, is provided in the capacity of an employee, and to the best of that person’s knowledge and ability. It does not constitute, and should not be relied upon, as a legal advice or representation by the City. Any advice on a matter of law, or anything sought to be relied upon as representation by the City should be sought in writing and should make clear the purpose of the request. DISTRIBUTED: 24 JULY 2015 ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 21 JULY 2015 CONTENTS PAGE Page Item Description Number URBAN PLANNING P15/3644
    [Show full text]
  • Decision to Commit Funding to the Perth Freight Link Project
    The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Decision to commit funding to the Perth Freight Link project May 2016 © Commonwealth of Australia 2016 ISBN 978-1-76010-414-6 This document was prepared by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/. Membership of the committee Members Senator Glenn Sterle, Chair Western Australia, ALP Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan, Deputy Chair New South Wales, LP Senator Joe Bullock (to 13 April 2016) Western Australia, ALP Senator Alex Gallacher (from 18 April 2016) South Australia, ALP Senator Sue Lines Western Australia, ALP Senator Peter Whish-Wilson Tasmania, AG Senator John Williams New South Wales, NATS Other Senators participating in this inquiry Senator Chris Back Western Australia, LP Senator Scott Ludlam Western Australia, AG Senator Linda Reynolds Western Australia, LP Senator Dio Wang Western Australia, PUP iii Secretariat Mr Tim Watling, Secretary Ms Bonnie Allan, Principal Research Officer Ms Erin East, Principal Research Officer (to 24 November 2015) Mr Nicholas Craft, Principal Research Officer (from 12 October 2015) Ms Trish Carling, Senior Research Officer Ms Erin Pynor, Senior Research Officer (from 26
    [Show full text]
  • The City of Cockburn - Local Planning Strategy
    THE CITY OF COCKBURN - LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 REQUIREMENT This Local Planning Strategy is in support of the Council's proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and is to be read in conjunction with the Scheme. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STRATEGY 1.2.1 Approach At the Core of the Local Planning Policy Framework of Model Scheme Text is the Local Planning Strategy which sets out the long-term planning directions for the municipality and provides the rationale for the zones and other provisions of the scheme. In addition to the Local Planning Strategy, the Scheme provides for Local Planning Policies which set out the general policies of the Council on matters relevant to the scheme. 1.2.2 Local Planning Strategy The Local Planning Strategy is intended to become a central feature of the scheme setting out the Council's general aims and intentions for future long-term growth and change. Whereas the scheme has a 5 year timescale, the strategy will look ahead 10 to 15 years into the future. The Local Planning Strategy includes the basic structure in terms of future population and employment; the broad strategies for housing, employment, shopping and business activities; and proposals for transport, parks, regional open space and other public uses, reflected in the Scheme Map. Refer to Figure 30. The Council has adopted a Local Planning Strategy which most suits the needs of its district and local issues and includes, but is not limited to the following matters:- • a description of the key characteristics of the municipality, its regional
    [Show full text]