SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY ......SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL...

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 14 MAY 2014

61


62


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73


74


75


76


77


78

11.2.2 - MARGARET RIVER PERIMETER ROAD FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION POLICY


79


80


81


82

Submissions on Initial Advertised Version

1. Margaret River property Holdings (DIAM5)

Concerned about lack of consultation in respect of affected DIAs and trust this will be addressed.

Further consultation has been undertaken.

Note.

2. Twin Ocean Margaret River Pity Ltd (DIAM6)

1. Fundamental problem that the policy doesn’t clearly articulate what the cost impost on future landowners would be.

2. The by-pass is to become a MRWA road and all MRWA roads are funded by the WA State Government. As the submitter requires the Perimeter Road to establish the (industrial DIAM4) estate, would be prepared to provide land for the alignment of the road.

3. Consider that the need to prepare a contribution plan delays the rezoning and imposes an impost on funding a regional asset.

1. Endeavoured to resolve this through provision of estimates in the policy. Final costs won’t be resolved with certainty until the land acquisition and construction processes are resolved.

2. The infrastructure serves a dual purpose and the LPS directs that a proportional contribution is appropriate.

3. This is an established position of the LPS and has a reasonable basis.

1. Note estimates included in policy and certainty to be provided.

2. Note. 3. Note.

4. Satterly Property Group (DIAM4)

1. Disagree with the requirement in the LPS that prior to rezoning and structure planning for DIAM4 a funding and implementation policy should be required, this is an unnecessary delay.

2. Doubtful about constructing a workable contribution plan.

3. Policy is premature and advice should first be sought from state government regarding funding.

4. The policy is more a discussion document and is to imprecise to stand as a policy.

5. Contend that the need for the Perimeter Road is not generated by DIAs but by the need to divert traffic.

6. Construction of road may provide some benefit for DIAs but for simplicity any contribution should be limited to ceding land.

7. Understand that MRWA is seeking to construct southern section first which will have obvious implications for the staging program of the LPS which should be reviewed.

8. Would be prepared to

1. This is an established position of the LPS and has a reasonable basis.

2. Noted. 3. No advice can be

received until such time as the allocation of funds is actually within the State Government budget.

4. Noted. Further refinement of the policy has been undertaken to provide greater certainty over what obligations are likely to be.

5. The Perimeter Road is considered to have a dual function, a position supported by both the LPS and traffic modelling.

6. The contribution from DIAs should be consistent with policy and proportional to the level of demand generated by future development.

7. There is considered to be sufficient scope under the LPS to vary the staging program if it is appropriate to do so due to a particular set of circumstances.

8. The preferable mechanism is to secure

Note responses included in body of covering report.


83

enter into a voluntary agreement to cede land for the Perimeter Road if land within DIAM4 is rezoned.

a formal contribution arrangement.

5. Stella Bella Wines (DIAM5)

1. It is the view of Stella Bella that the Perimeter Road is an item of State Government infrastructure and the responsibility of road construction and land acquisition rests with MRWA.

2. Foresee that Stella Bella’s Right to Farm will be ultimately compromised by the encroachment of residential development.

3. Stella Bella were aware of the proposed Perimeter Road location at the time of drafting the LPS and acted in good faith for the benefit of the wider community despite the risk to operations.

4. The benefit of improved ambience is derived from shifting the noise and heavy goods movements elsewhere. It is Stella Bella’s view that the Perimeter Road will materially compromise the ambience of the cellar door and believe will have to relocate this facility at a significant cost.

5. Contrary to providing contributions, Stella Bella will be seeking compensation.

6. Stella Bella have made various representations that the potential lot sizes assigned to this land (1 per 10ha) should be reduced to provide for subdivision to 1ha lots. Feel that this would provide risk mitigation to the loss of viticultural resource.

7. Shire should simply state proposed 9(i) and delete 9(ii) and (iii) unless there can be a fair differentiation between professional land developers and those whose business operations will be negatively impacted.

1. The Perimeter Road is considered to have a dual function, a position supported by both the LPS and traffic modelling.

2. The impacts on Stella Bella’s operations are a subjective issue that will be resolved through the process of acquisition and compensation.

3. Noted. 4. The impacts on Stella

Bella’s operations are a subjective issue that will be resolved through the process of acquisition and compensation.

5. Noted, it is not intended to seek contributions from Stella Bella.

6. This issue is related to a review of development potential under the LPS as opposed to funding and implementation of the Perimeter Road.

7. 9(ii) and (iii) of the originally advertised policy identified that contributions may be payable from future development. 9(i) noted that state government funding would be sought. A reasonable and proportional contribution from future development would be appropriate based on the need for the road.


6. Halsall and 1. Key principle of SPP3.6 1. The level of Note


84

Associates for Johan and Claire Cooper (DIAM3)

is that the ‘beneficiary pays’. This should be stated at the heart of the policy. The policy should take into account that contributions need to be made on behalf of all residents and users of the road, including other developers in the town.

2. The benefit of the road to this land should be balanced against the negative impact of noise, visual intrusion and privacy impacts.

3. Appears that access to the Perimeter Road directly from the Coopers land may be closed and possibly even access via Rosa Brook Road denied which may impact on the chalet business.

4. Seek Council support to ensure that access to Rosa Brook Road is maintained.

5. Policy should indicate whether use of Scheme Development Contributions framework is intended.

6. Concerned with the approach of providing land free of cost in the short term where there is no certainty over land use in the longer term.

7. Fairest method is by the Government funding the road 100% and then collecting proportionally as subdivision proceeds. Also scope to levy contributions from other residents in town via rates.

8. The policy should be vetted by the WAPC.

contribution intended is proportional to the level of demand generated by new development.

2. This land has development entitlements that are only provided due to the location of the land. The road is essential infrastructure to service future development and amenity impacts will need to be balanced against the need for this infrastructure and considered in the form and layout of future development.

3. An issue to be considered through the design, acquisition and compensation process.

4. An appropriate level of intersections is being resolved through the design process.

5. The policy has been modified to clarify that a development contribution plan under the Scheme will be required.

6. Noted. 7. Noted. The option to

implement this approach is included within the latest version of the policy.

8. The policy and subsequent development contribution plan will be subject to review by the WAPC in due course.

responses included in body of covering report.

7. Halsall and Associates on behalf of Jim Nilsson (DIAM5)

1. The landowner will receive limited benefit from the establishment of the perimeter Road.

2. The most appropriate method for establishing the Perimeter Road should be by government funding though the acquisition and construction processes.

3. The policy should also be considered and endorsed by the WAPC.

1. Noted. 2. A proportional

contribution based on development entitlements/creation of demand is considered appropriate.

3. The policy and subsequent development contribution plan will be subject to review by the WAPC in due course.


8. Margaret River Chamber of Commerce and

Have concerns with possible staged implementation of the Perimeter Road.

The availability of funding for the southern section of the road precedes the final

Note responses included in


85

Industry Constructing the southern portion only of the Perimeter Road will exacerbate main street and town centre issues.

design and tenure arrangements for the northern section. Specific provisions are to be attached to the Scheme Amendment/Structure Plan for the industrial area outlining that development cannot proceed until the full Perimeter Road is established.

body of covering report.

9. Frank Tomasi Nominees (DIAM1)

1. The owners of the landrecognise the need foran eastern PerimeterRoad but raise concernthat access for thedevelopment of this land(DIAM1) has not beenadequately catered for.

2. The policy has beendeveloped in the absence of detailed costs and resolution ofissues such as access.The need for a policy isacknowledged, howeverin its current form cannotbe supported.

3. The policy gives logicalconsideration to the extension and construction of John Archibald Drive. The policy also outlines thataccess to the PerimeterRoad will be minimisedusing internal roadconnections for futureDIAs which requirescareful considerationgiven the limited accessoptions for DIAM1.

4. MRWA have indicatedthey do not supportaccess from the Perimeter Road to DIAM1 which would be asignificant disadvantageas:a. Unless access is

resolved the landowner will be leftwith a suite of optionsthat rely on cumbersome, and possibly intractable, issues that need to beresolved with theexisting community and owners ofundeveloped land tothe south. Other DIAshave either directaccess or significantlyeasier resolution ofaccess issues.

b. The need for access

1. The issue of access toDIAM1 requires resolution. MRWA’s preference is that nodirect access will beprovided to the Perimeter Road to ensure the function ofthe road isn’tcompromised.

2. The policy has beenfurther refined toprovide the most levelof detail possible basedon the current situation.

3. There needs to be anacknowledgement thataccess to DIAM1requires resolution. Afurther district levelstructure planningprocess will resolve thismatter, but it would beappropriate to providecertainty through acommitment to resumeland if necessary.

4. Agreed that a processneeds to be establishedto resolve these issues.

5. The Rural Hamlet Design Handbook wasn’t informed bydesign or detailedconsideration of trafficmanagementimplications for thePerimeter Road.

6. Agree that a DistrictLevel structure plancould resolve many ofthese issues.

7. Agree that mechanismsneed to be included inany rezoning andstructure planning toensure that traffic flowin the main street isacceptable in the absence of full implementation of thePerimeter Road.

8. Agree that this issueneeds to be resolved.A possible method ofresolution is contained



86

to be resolved is highlighted by the significant frontage to the Margaret River and one of the last opportunities to achieve a park similar or better than Rotary Park. If a highly visible foreshore area is created without access it will be illegible and cumbersome for visitors to town.

5. The Rural Hamlet Design Handbook used DIAM1 as a test case and found it necessary to indicate direct access to the Perimeter Road.

6. The policy is to be implemented through structure planning which is considered flawed in the absence of a District Level Structure Plan that addresses obvious concerns such as land acquisition requirements.

7. The construction of the southern section of the Perimeter Road first, to facilitate access to the proposed industrial area, will only increase traffic through the main street to and from the new industrial area.

8. Council should specifically address how DIAM1 can achieve access by a combination of direct access to the Perimeter Road combined with access over Darch Road and/or south to John Archibald Drive.

9. The policy alludes to different scenarios but doesn’t lock in a preferred option. The road is more accurately described as a “primary Regional Road’ and so the funding scenario in the policy probably isn’t directly applicable.

10. There may be an appropriate funding scenario that could see construction of the road brought forward, based on nexus between the DIA areas and the Perimeter Road.

within the covering report.

9. The Perimeter Road is considered to have a dual purpose that directs a proportional contribution is appropriate.

10. Agree; the level of ‘nexus’ is key to what is a fair and reasonable level of contribution.

11. All land has a slightly different relationship to the Perimeter Road in terms of proximity to intersections and the like, however, there is a broader need for this infrastructure generated cumulatively by the development potential of future growth areas.


87

11. Our position that DIAM1 will not derive the same benefit as other landowners that will enjoy direct access to the Perimeter Road.

Submissions on Revised Version

1. I144095 J Cooper (DIAM3)

1. Accept that some contribution should be made towards the Perimeter Road from future development areas.

2. Specific levies should be demonstrated, not just from adjoining landowners.

3. In addition, specific answers should be given as to why the following is not included: a. DIAM7 being

proposed for development by Satterley group on the west side of Bussell Highway and very close to the Perimeter Road.

b. FDA(M3c) (Brookfield East) is very close to the Rosa Brook Road access to the Perimeter Road and if Rosa Brook Road access isn’t included, traffic will still drive back through town.

c. Stella Bella cellar door will have major benefits from the Perimeter Road.

d. The MRWA owned Half Moon Chalets should be levied for the balance land left over after Perimeter Road requirements.

4. The buildings of Marri Lodge were levied a contribution for road upgrading due to increased traffic in 1993. The Shire should clarify whether this exempts this land from a contribution requirement.

5. The Policy has now been clarified and we see a contribution of around $5,000 to $8,000 per lot, which is a substantial burden for future developers.

1. Noted. 2. It is not just that

landowners are adjoining, but that demand is generated by the development potential of this land as DIA areas.

3. These areas were not included in the revised draft as: a. DIAM7 is intended

to be longer term development more aligned with delivery of the western Perimeter Road. The Council has provided ‘in-principle’ support to a limited amount of development within DIAM7 and it may be appropriate to review contribution arrangements if that land is developed earlier. This could be undertaken through the development contribution plan process.

b. Further consideration should be given to the proportional contributions to be provided from Brookfield.

c. This is a subjective issue with Stella Bella’s position the opposite.

d. MRWA has already acquired this land.

4. This contribution was to resolve a traffic situation under a historic road situation and doesn’t exempt this land from any obligation for new development.

5. The potential contribution requirements and impacts on development costs are described further within



88

the covering report.

2. I145172 Satterley Property Group (DIAM4)

1. Contend that LPP22 is a development contribution plan under State Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Contributions for Infrastructure’, and isn’t consistent with that policy in terms of need, transparency, certainty and efficiency.

2. In relation to need and nexus, MRWA has stated that the primary objective of the Perimeter Road is to provide an alternative route around town and remove heavy vehicles from the town centre. Contend therefore that MRWA should fund the road. This is the case with MRWA agreeing to fund $13M for the southern section.

3. Accept the Perimeter Road may provide some benefit to future residents of DIAs if access is provided to the road. Previously submitted that contribution should be by way of land ceded for the road, with the State Government responsible for construction. Would be prepared to support a contribution arrangement on this basis if access is provided to DIAM4.

4. Concerned that the timeframe for realisation of the contribution arrangement is likely to be too long to ensure efficient, effective and equitable administration. The timeframe for full development of these DIAs is likely to be at least 20 years and SPP3.6 recommends a maximum timeframe for a contribution regime of 5 years.

5. The adoption of a development contribution arrangement for the Perimeter Road as a policy is also not consistent with SPP3.6, which requires contribution arrangements to be incorporated within Town

1. LPP22 isn’t a development contribution plan and one will be required in due course. It is however, agreed that the principles in LPP22 should be consistent with SPP3.6.

2. It is relevant that a level of demand arises from future growth that is a proportion of the need for the Perimeter Road.

3. Noted. Access is however an issue considered through MRWA design. In the absence of the Perimeter Road it is highly likely that road infrastructure within the townsite would be insufficient to accommodate future growth in DIAs.

4. Agree that the timeframe for full collection is likely to be significant, perhaps more than 20 years. The difference however is that the collection of contributions will be reimbursement rather than collection of contributions to fund a project; the situation where the protracted timeframe introduces issues.

5. Agree that LPP22 will need to be transferred into a development contribution plan in due course.



89

Planning Schemes.

3. I144852 RPS for Veitch Property Holdings (DIAM6)

1. Object to the concept ofproviding funding for aroad that is clearlydesigned to be a by-passfor regional traffic.

2. The revised policy stillrelies on developers within a defined catchment contributing tothe construction of thesedistrict/regional roadsand not local State orCommonwealth funding.

3. Given that the policyintends to coordinate upto $75M in developercontributions, the policyneeds to be significantlyimproved in terms ofclarity, control andadministration.

4. RPS submits that LPP22is a developmentcontribution plan underSPP3.6 and should beconsistent with theprinciples of that policy.

5. In relation to need andnexus MRWA has statedthat the primary reasonfor the road is to providean alternative route andremove heavy vehiclesfrom Bussell Highway.Submit therefore that thestate should fund 100%of the Perimeter Road,which is already partlythe case with $13Mallocated to the road.

6. Landowners may beprepared to support acontribution arrangementlimited to the ceding ofland providingconstruction funding isguaranteed.

7. If direct access isn’tavailable to DIAM6 thenthe road is likely tosimply have a negativeeffect on that land.

8. Consider that thetimeframe for fulfilment ofthe contributions policy istoo long to ensureequitable administration.

9. The adoption of adevelopment contributionarrangement for thePerimeter Road as alocal planning policy isinconsistent with SPP3.6which requirescontributionarrangements to be

1. The road has a dualfunction in that futuregrowth requires resolution of traffic issues and supportinginfrastructure.

2. The policy does rely onother funding sources,the policy only sets apresumption that therewill be a proportionalcontribution bydevelopment.

3. It isn’t intended to take$75M in developer contributions. The actual figure is under20% of $75M.

4. Agree that the policyshould be consistentwith the principles ofSPP3.6.

5. It is however, a positionestablished in the LPSand supported by trafficmodelling that futuregrowth contributes tothe need for thisinfrastructure.

6. Noted.7. Direct access is

planned for DIAM6.8. It is intended that a

developmentcontribution plan will beprepared in due course.

9. The likely scenario isthat construction of theroad would be fundedby government in thefirst instance, meaningthat issues with timeframe don’t complicate the collection of contributions.

10. Market conditions varythrough time howeverdetailed considerationis given to this issue inthe covering report.

11. The policy will be madea simple as possible.

12. Agree; extent of JohnArchibald Drive is to bedescribed.

13. Agree; the total grossarea is to be defined.

14. Further traffic modellingis required to determinethe relationship ofFDAs at Brookfield andJohn Archibald Drive.

15. The term ‘limiteddevelopment potential’can be clarified.



90

incorporated within the Scheme.

10. The contributionrequirements, at around$4,000 to $7,500 per lotwill change the viabilityof development in Margaret River, especially in the currentchallenging marketconditions.

11. The policy should besimplified.

12. Section 5.0 should definethe extent of JA Drive, asit does for the PerimeterRoad.

13. The policy should definethe total gross area ofland contributing soproportions are clear upfront.

14. The extent of the catchment for John Archibald Drive is tooextensive, particularly forthe estate in thesouthern most catchment(FDA M3b and FDAM3c).

15. Section 6 needs todefine what is meant by‘limited developmentpotential’.

16. Section 6 should apply acharge on clearance ofconditions rather thanendorsement of aDeposited Plan.

17. Section 6, paragraph 16needs to specify what ismeant by ‘other forms ofdevelopment’.

18. Section 6, paragraph 17needs to specify whereother forms of fundingwill come from when the50% discount is applied.

19. Section 6, paragraph 19refers to John ArchibaldDrive having a local roadfunction whereas it has adistrict function andshould be provided bythe State.

20. Section 6, paragraph 20should include aproportional contribution.

21. Section 6, paragraph 23should include thePerimeter Road and notjust JA Drive forreimbursement.

22. The policy doesn’taddress contributions forwest of Bussell Highway.That development

16. The intention is tocharge a contributionon clearance of conditions and the provision can be clarified in this regard.

17. The term ‘other formsof development’ can beclarified.

18. The intent of the policyis to reimburse thegovernment for costsaccrued throughprovision of the road,any reduction wouldresult in lessreimbursement, ratherthan a shortfall infunding.

19. John Archibald Drivewill be a local roadunder the care andcontrol of the Shire.While an importantelement of deliveringthis road it is notentirely a StateGovernmentresponsibility. Furtherfunding could besought through theState Government tosupplementDevelopmentContributions.

20. A revised approach isset out for John Archibald Drive identifying a shortfall infunding and aproportionalcontribution fromdevelopment.

21. There appears to besomemisunderstanding thatcontributions for thePerimeter Road willfund the entire construction of the road. Contributions areonly intended to bereimbursement of thegovernment for aproportional share ofcost.

22. This will be subject to aseparate, longer termcontributionrequirement for the‘wester perimeter road’joining Bussell Highwayto Wallcliffe Road.

23. This is the secondadvertisement of thepolicy, there have alsobeen individual


91

contribution arrangement should be clarified.

23. There should have beenconsultation undertakenprior to adoption of thepolicy for advertising.

24. A proposal to enforcecontributions to a MRWAby-pass road that haslittle direct benefit tofuture development isunprecedented anddeserves to be stronglycontested.

meetings with affected landowners.

24. There is certainly precedent for such a contributions scheme and the level of benefit is described in the report covering this schedule.

4. I145193 RPS for Lester Group (Rapids Landing and DIAM2)

Strongly object. The policy is fatally flawed for the following reasons: 1. It is not tied to a financial

plan of the Shire orMRWA committing toconstruction of thePerimeter Road.

2. It is in contradiction ofSPP3.6 which states thatcontributions cannot beimposed at the StructurePlan or rezoning stage,meaning the LPS cannotbe used to givejustification to the policy.

3. There is no actualbudget for theinfrastructure as requiredin SPP3.6.

4. There is no timeline forthe road and the assumed timeline is beyond the reasonablelimits identified underSPP3.6 and planningcase law.

5. The policy purports to bea scene setting typedocument that willprovide later guidancefor the development of adeveloper contributionplan, but there is noprovision for such aninstrument in theplanning framework.

6. The policy purports toapply to land that is notwithin a developmentcontribution area and sowithout a ‘head ofpower’.

7. The policy doesn’tcontain the mandatoryarbitration and reviewprovisions.

8. The requirement for nexus hasn’t been satisfied. Primary justification for thePerimeter Road is basedon safety and amenity in

1. There is no budgetallocation forestablishment of theentire perimeter roadwhich results in costsbeing estimates only.The appropriateapproach is to set aposition and establish aformal contributionregime by way of adevelopmentcontribution plan in duecourse.

2. Contributions aren’tbeing sought at thestructure plan orrezoning stage.

3. SPP3.6 relates todevelopmentcontribution plans,LPP22 addresses theprinciples of SPP3.6,but notes that thisarrangement will needto be formalised by wayof a developmentcontribution plan in duecourse.

4. The policy approachprovides for initialfunding from alternativesources and thereimbursement of thegovernment through contributions which negates issues with thetimeframe.

5. LPS1 provides thatplanning policy can bedeveloped for any matter related to planning and development of thescheme area.

6. It is noted that acontribution plan underLPS1 will need to beprepared in due course.

7. This matter isaddressed under afuture developmentcontribution plan and



92

the Town Centre, if DIAs are to be levied, then all should be paying, including those west of town.

9. The traffic assessment is manifestly skewed and based on unpublished assumptions that need to be further published and subject to further consultation.

10. The proposal that contributions will be paid to the State in the event of State funding of the road is a significant departure from the conventional practice for such schemes. This means later subdividers benefit and earlier subdividers are penalised.

11. In the event that there is Federal, State and/or Local Government funding then the residents of DIAs will pay 3 times, through increased land prices, rates and state taxes.

12. The perimeter road is not approved by relevant agencies and does not appear on the scheme maps on in MRWA’s forward capital works program; therefore it is not a valid scheme to be funded by development contributions.

13. LPP22 is a development contribution plan under SPP3.6 and needs to be consistent with the principles of that policy.

14. The primary objective of the Perimeter Road is to remove heavy vehicles from Bussell Highway so the state should fund construction of the road entirely. There will be no measureable direct benefits to DIAs.

15. Landowners may be prepared to support ceding of land free of charge provided construction funding is guaranteed, and subject to provision of access via John Archibald Drive and directly to DIAM4 and DIAM6.

16. The development

scheme provisions. 8. There is a discussion

on nexus within the body of the covering report.

9. This will be undertaken through the development contribution plan process.

10. The debt for contributions effectively becomes a charge on future development of the land which would impact current value.

11. This issue is addressed through the discussion of nexus in the covering report.

12. The road will be included on scheme maps at such time as the relevant development contribution report is prepared.

13. Noted. 14. Growth in DIAs relies

on traffic management solutions implemented by the Perimeter Road.

15. Design to this point shows access to DIAM6 and DIAM4 (via JAD) and funding has been announced for the southern section.

16. The policy provides a mechanism to deal with an extended timeframe.

17. Noted, the issue of viability is addressed in the covering report.


93

timeframe for DIAs is likely to be well in excess of 30 years and there is considerable uncertainty that such a contribution arrangement can operate fairly and equitably over this time.

17. The cost of these contributions will be in the order of $4k to $7k per lot, significantly affecting development viability.

5. I144928 RPS on behalf of Brookfield Estate

1. Same as submission 4above.

2. Object to any contribution towards John Archibald Drive as:a. John Archibald Drive

doesn’t serviceBrookfield estate.

b. If and when JohnArchibald Drive connects to the Perimeter Road weexpect only minimaltraffic to use JohnArchibald Drive toaccess future development areas within the estate.

c. It would be a quickercommute for Brookfield Estate residents to exit thePerimeter Road atRosa Brook road.

d. Brookfield Estate hasfully funded the construction of Brookfield Ave andLeschenaultia Ave,these roads providebenefit to areas to thenorth but there is norefund back to Brookfield. It is inconsistent to treatthese roadsdifferently.

3. With regard to the policyitself:a. The policy is difficult

to understand andshould be simplified.

b. Section 5 should define the extent ofJohn Archibald Drive,as it does for thePerimeter Road.

c. The policy shoulddefine the total grossarea of landcontributing so theproportions are clearup front for both the

1. See submission 4.2. The report removes the

contributionrequirements for JADand describes this willbe reviewed at suchtime as a developmentcontribution plan isprepared.

3. The policy:a. Has been

significantlysimplified.

b. Defines the extent ofJAD.

c. Defines the totalgross area of landcontributing.

d. Refines the catchment for JAD.

e. This is no longerrelevant.

f. This has been clarified.

g. This has been clarified.

h. This matter is to beresolved through pursuing funding agreements.

i. This matter is to beresolved through pursuing funding agreements.

j. This equivalent provision in therevised policy doesprovide for aproportionalcontribution.

k. This will be clarifieddependent on thenature of anyfunding agreementarrived at.

l. This is intended tobe a much longerterm proposition andcontributionarrangements will beresolved at the timein the future whenthat land is zoned



94

Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive.

d. The extent of the catchment for John Archibald Drive is too extensive.

e. Section 6, para 14 needs to define what is meant by ‘limited development potential’.

f. Section 6, para 15 should apply a charge on clearance of conditions and not endorsement of a DP.

g. Section 6, para 16 needs to specify or set a threshold on what is meant by ‘other forms of development’.

h. Section 6, para 17 needs to specify where the funding shortfall will come from.

i. Section 6, para 19 refers to John Archibald Drive having a local road function, whereas it has a district function and the like the Perimeter Road should be contributed to by the State.

j. Section 6, para 20 should include a proportional contribution.

k. Section 6, para 23 should include the Perimeter Road and not just John Archibald Drive in the event that funding is achieved by other means such as State or Federal funding.

l. The policy doesn’t address contributions to the western section of the Perimeter Road. That development contribution arrangement should be clarified.

4. Would be prepared to accept contributions limited to ceding of land for the Perimeter Road and for John Archibald Drive where a nexus can be demonstrated through traffic studies.

and structure planned.

4. Noted.


95

6. I144582 RPS for Twin Oceans (DIAM6)

1. Same as submission 3 above.

See submission 3. See submission 3.

7. I147494 Department of Planning

1. The contribution methodology applying a 50% discount is not really consistent with DC framework but as the road has both a state and district function it doesn’t easily fit into either category.

2. A developer contribution plan will be required to provide sufficient statutory control regarding the ability to secure contributions and what the exact amounts will be.

3. Who will prepare the District level structure plan and when will this be prepared.

4. John Archibald Drive – what will the Shire’s contribution be and have MRWA agreed to reimbursement?

5. Mapping needs to be upgraded.

6. Are MRWA to be the clearing authority for contribution requirements?

7. There should be an additional objective that recognises that the road also serves as a District Distributor and proportional contributions by developers are appropriate.

8. The term ‘carriageway’ needs to be clarified as to whether it refers to one lane or two.

9. The definition of ‘cost or providing the Perimeter Road’ requires greater clarity and cross referencing to plans/DIAs.

10. Is the reference to DIAM6 in the definition of ‘developable land’ a mapping error?

11. In the definition of ‘Development Investigation Areas’ should reference be made to all DIAs which the LPS refers to?

12. The plan of contribution areas is difficult to read and suggest that a specific plan be

1. Noted, the methodology is considered a best fit approach with the principles of SPP3.6, recognising the principle of efficiency in SPP3.6.

2. Noted. 3. It is intended that the

Shire will prepare this plan.

4. This is yet to be resolved through future funding agreements.

5. Noted, mapping has been upgraded.

6. An additional objective has been added as recommended.

7. An additional objective has been added in this regard.

8. This has been clarified to refer to one lane only.

9. This definition has been updated for clarity.

10. The mapping area has been resolved.

11. This is intended only for DIAs east of Bussell Highway, if any ‘early release’ of DIAs were proposed west of Bussell Highway consideration will be given to incorporating these within the relevant development contribution plan.

12. A new plan has been prepared.

13. Have added a new definition.

14. There is detailed discussion of this in the report for the rezoning and structure planning if DIAM6 and also discussion in the body of this report.

15. These provisions have been reworded accordingly.

16. Provision has been reworded.

17. The development contribution plan will be prepared at such time as more detail is available regarding land acquisition, funding arrangements



96

developed for the policy. 13. A new definition should

be added that subdivision – means subdivision and strata subdivision.

14. Check the LPS with regard to section relating to requirement for funding and implementation policy as a precursor to rezoning and structure planning.

15. Suggest minor rewording of provision 9.

16. Suggest a rewording or provision 11.

17. Should this not be done now or as part of the first amendment. There needs to be a statutory head of power and certainty around the amount of contributions to be paid by each landowner.

18. Condition 15 should specify that contributions will be payable as part of the subdivision clearance process.

19. The relevant clearing authority could be the Shire or MRWA, should probably be MRWA.

20. Better to refer to ‘the policy’ for cross referencing rather than specific clauses.

21. Include reference for timing of contributions where provided through development.

22. It should be clear when the proposed ‘discount’ applies which should also perhaps be time limited.

23. The policy formula should be included in the policy. Also provision 18 should not be a policy provision but a note.

24. Provision 19 is a statement rather than a policy clause and requires rewording.

25. What is the Shire’s contribution for John Archibald Drive?

26. Has MRWA agreed to the prefunding of John Archibald Drive and reimbursement to the State through contributions?

27. What are the implications

and cost. 18. Provision has been

reworded accordingly. 19. MRWA is identified as

the clearing authority. 20. Have adopted this

reference throughout the Policy.

21. Have included in the Policy.

22. Have described in the Policy (discount is available if land ceded through acquisition process of MRWA).

23. Formulae have been included in the Policy.

24. Have reworded as a footnote.

25. This is to be determined through funding agreements.

26. This is to be determined through funding agreements.

27. A number of issues have been previously raised regarding access and open space provision which are to be dealt with through the high level Structure Planning process.


97

for land tenure noted in provision 24?


98


99


100


101


102


103


104


105


106


107

11.2.3 - SCHEME AMENDMENT 6 AND STRUCTURE PLAN – LOTS 20 AND 21 DARCH ROAD, MARGARET RIVER


108


109


110


111

1. Russell & Cathy McKnight PO Box 809, Margaret River Affected Property 9978 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

1. The subdivision is in complete disregard of the scheme. “No subdivision approval will be granted or development approved until such time as funding and implementation of the Margaret River Perimeter Road ………..”

2. Inappropriate use and loss of valuable farming land. Should be encouraging the use of farmland for its purpose. Prime farming land which shouldn’t be pillaged for industrial purposes.

3. Already plenty of industrial blocks for sale in Margaret River & Cowaramup.

4. Suggest Shire approach existing landholders/tenants in the LIA to see if they would move and to see if there was a need. Know a few businesses that wouldn’t move due to the costs associated.

5. If there is a need in the future for more LIA area then it should be sited in the northern part of town in State Forest/pine plantation as there is already effluent, power and won’t interfere with residential or farming activities.

1. This provision is included in the Amendment 6 text to ensure that no subdivision or development occurs prior to certainty.

2. The land is identified in the LPS for urban growth of the townsite, the LPS identifies the vast majority of the Shire for agricultural or conservation purposes.

3. See discussion of demand in covering report, also limited supply in Margaret River and Cowaramup unsewered.

4. Agree that there are many business and landowners that have significant capital investment in existing LIA that would make relocation in the short-medium term unlikely.

5. See discussion in covering report.

1. Retain provision. 2. Note long term

allocation of land in LPS.

2. Don Mackay PO Box 185, Margaret River Affected Property 1007 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

1. Property has a dam where frogs and leeches live (leeches only live in the best quality water).

2. Has a drain that runs for half a mile and helps put water into dams at the end.

3. If the dam is filled in may not get as good quality water in another dam.

4. Worry about fences and gates. 5. Don’t need roundabout as it interferes

with my garden. My property also has rare white tailed cockatoos and gilgies and large karri trees in a natural bush setting, variety of wildflowers, variety of natural vegetation regrowth and a lot of

1. Noted, the protection of downstream water quality is a key consideration to be set out in the Local Water Management Strategy and implemented through a future Urban Water Management Plan.

2. Noted. 3. Noted. 4. The land in question isn’t adjacent to

the Site, however may be impact by land requirements for the Perimeter Road. These issues are considered through that process and were discussed on site.

1. Require further detail in the Local Water Management Strategy to ensure sufficient guidance is provided to the later stages of the Urban Water Management Plan and subdivision and development processes.

2. As above. 3. As above. 4. To be resolved


112

water birds and a wide variety of other birds, this is due to the large amount of trees and vegetation that’s native and provides a nesting place and natural food.

6. Roundabouts have high accident rates and is a playground for hoons, noise and makes it too urbanised.

5. As above. 6. As above.

through the Perimeter Road design and land acquisition process.

5. As above. 6. As above.

3. Ms Lynn Gill PO Box 827, Margaret River

1. Objection relates to the total lack of understanding of the motivation behind this proposal.

2. Fate of bypass road is yet to be determined.

3. Already have an industrial area which is unutilised due to the demise of the building industry.

4. Why do we need another industrial area that will take up prime farming land.

1. Noted. 2. Funding has been provided for the

southern section and provision included to prohibit subdivision and development until certainty over delivery of the entire road is obtained.

3. Industrial land demand is discussed in the covering report, however future growth of the townsite also requires provision for employment growth.

4. The land is identified in the LPS for urban growth of the townsite, the LPS identifies the vast majority of the Shire for agricultural or conservation purposes.

1. Note. 2. Retain provision

ensuring no subdivision or development prior to certainty over the Perimeter Road.

3. Note. 4. Note.

4. Robert Barnett PO Box 148, Margaret River Affected Property Location 4372 Ranson Road, Witchcliffe

1. Original LIA should have been built north of Margaret River, if this occurred we wouldn’t need a by pass as the majority of heavy haulage is between Perth and Margaret River not Margaret River and Augusta.

2. Development is on the edge of watershed which maximises any pollution generated either intentionally or accidentally by stormwater or run off.

3. Property adjoins National Park and bush block and nothing short of a vermin proof fence will protect these two properties. Mr Hindles property is one of the best protected environments within 10km of Margaret River and surely is entitled to have support to protect his property

1. The LIA is an established part of the Townsite. A significant component of heavy vehicles is through traffic.

2. The hydrology of the Site requires a response in the water management regime to address stormwater runoff issues.

3. Noted. Requirement for vermin proof fencing has been added to the requirement for future subdivision.

4. The context of refusal of subdivision is in a completely different context where the land wasn’t zoned for that purpose.

1. Note. 2. Require further detail

in the Local Water Management Strategy to ensure sufficient guidance is provided to the later stages of the Urban Water Management Plan and subdivision and development processes.

3. Include requirement for vermin proof fencing.

4. Note.


113

against dogs and cats. 4. Previous requests for subdivision have

been refused because this land has beenseen as valuable farm land, even thoughthe two lifestyle blocks were completewith caveats to protect bushland and actas a buffer between National Park.Expect the same policy to be upheld.

5. Greg Keeley PO Box 610, Margaret River

1. Relocation of the ring road seems to bepurely to allow the proponents to achieverezoning.

2. Condition 16.2 means no decision isnecessary so why is rezoning beingconsidered. If this is the case there is noreason to make any decision on theamendment until the condition has beenmet.

3. There’s no demonstrated need for an LIAexpansion in Margaret River.

1. The location of the Perimeter Road isto address traffic management,amenity and safety issues in the towncentre and to provide an infrastructuresolution for all future growth areas.

2. This provision (16.2) doesn’t providethat a decision isn’t necessary butprovides a precautionary measure toensure traffic management issues canbe satisfactorily resolved.

3. See discussion of land demand incovering report.

1. Note.2. Note that provision

addresses issue withimplementation of zoning prior to perimeter Road beingin place.

3. Note.

6. Cape to Cape Catchments Group (CCG)

1. CCG has worked extensively on Location2157 which is the adjoining property toLot 21. Recently assessed this propertyfor the Environmental StewardshipScheme and have previously assessedthe creeklines in 2009 Boodjidup BrookAction Plan. Property contains some verysignificant conservation values – nativevegetation, number of threatened andpriority fauna species and creekline hasbeen assessed as being in ‘pristine’condition.

2. Concerned amendment immediatelynorth of Lot 2157 will influence theconservation values of the lot unlessstrong conditions are placed upon anyfuture development. Following conditionsshould be considered:

Establishment and maintenance of a

1. Noted.2. The issues raised by CCCG have all

been incorporated within theamendment and Structure Plan.

1. Note.2. Incorporate the

following measures into the Structure plan:a. Vermin proof

fencing.b. WSUD principles.c. Setback and

revegetation of tributary of Boodjidup Brook.

d. Internalise FMPrequirements(currently the case).


114

feral proof fence along eastern and southern boundary.

Best practice water sensitive urban design during both construction and post development phase including water quality monitoring of outflow from the site.

Significant setback and revegetation of creeklines.

Requirement that fire management buffer zones or fuel reduction be within the development and not rely on changes to the management of existing neighbouring bushland.

7. Terry O’Leary, General Manager (Stella Bella Wines) PO Box 536, Margaret River Affected Property 205 Rosa Brook Road, Margaret River

1. Primary concern is our ‘Right to Farm’ on our land will not be compromised and will defend this right to the highest court in the land.

2. Seek assurance from Shire that our ability to operate the vineyard will not be hindered or interfered with due to the change in zoning of neighbouring land.

3. Our intention to rezone Lot 16 from ‘General Agriculture’ to ‘Priority Agriculture’ to ensure further protection of the current landuse.

4. The DIA M5 assigned to SBW as a culmination of the LPS process is of no interest to SBW and have already expressed our disappointment and disillusionment of whole LPS process.

5. SBW’s view is that false representation were made during the LPS/Perimeter Road location process and we made may representations on many levels of our position, it was in effect ignored.

6. Won’t waste any more time on the position that SBW ended up with in the

1. Noted. 2. The deferral of development on Lot 20

provides a significant separation (~600m) between future development and the Stella Bella vineyard.

3. Noted. 4. Noted. 5. Agreed that submission made to the

LPS for increased development potential were not upheld.

6. Noted. 7. Noted. 8. Suitable buffer distances and

mitigation measures are required to be implemented, however expansion of urban land use will over time change the character of areas in proximity to that expansion.

9. Noted, no contribution from SBW is intended.

10. Noted.

1. Note. 2. Provide for deferral of

Lot 20 on the Structure Plan and in amendment text.

3. Note. 4. Note. 5. Note. 6. Note. 7. Note. 8. Recognise methods

included in Structure Plan/Scheme Amendment to deal with the effects of future land use.

9. Note. 10. Note.


115

LPS and have chosen to continue viticultural pursuits on Lot 16 indefinitely.

7. As stated in all meetings and correspondence, SBW aren’t developers, we are Fine Wine Producer where key input is high quality grapes grown in appropriate land holdings.

8. Concern is that SBW Cellar Door is located on Lot 16 which is currently a pristine environment (i.e. little or no air or noise pollution or adverse visual eyesore) which is attractive to our customers with the bonus of being less than 5km from town. Hope the Shire will ensure there will be restrictions in relation to noise, height of buildings and not allow any industries into proposed development that will compromise the pristine environment that currently exists.

9. Have already stated that SBW won’t agree to provide any development contribution to the Perimeter Road which is noted as a requirement in the amendment.

10. SBW’s position is we have an existing agricultural (viticultural) operation on Lot 16 and if the amendment proceeds, it will be an incumbent on developers and subsequent landowners to acknowledge, respect and not compromise existing land uses of neighbouring properties.

8. Possum Centre Busselton PO Box 281, Busselton Affected Property Lot 2157 Darch Road, Margaret River

1. The SW is one of only 2 biodiversity hotspots in Australia. On 20% of bushland in our region remains and is often far less than pristine condition.

2. Incomprehensible to us that an industrial area is now being planned immediately next to National Park, State Forest and one of the last ‘near pristine’ bush lots.

1. Noted. 2. Noted. 3. Suitable mechanisms need to be

established to ensure impacts on the integrity of surrounding bushland is mitigated.

4. Vermin control fencing is proposed to be specifically required by the

1. Note. 2. Note. 3. Note the mechanisms

proposed in Structure Plan, including vermin proof fencing, buffer industry along the southern boundary


116

3. While development won’t destroy adjacent bush, it would destroy some of its most important habitat values.

4. Emissions generated by industry (noise, dust, odours, establishment of major infrastructure, potential water contamination) are highly concerning and are likely to cause serious interference with neighbouring areas. However, more concern for us is the high number of vermin present in industrial areas, which will attract predators (feral cats) and cats are often use intentionally for vermin control in those areas.

5. If development goes ahead without major protective measures it presents a severe conflict with fauna conservation management principals for the conservation estate (National Park, State Forest) and adjoining privately owned bush.

6. The Structure Plan doesn’t address any protective measures even though the TPS document claims that ‘due regard will be given to EPA Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental factors …..

7. Definition of ‘sensitive land use’ in the paper applies to ‘human activities’ such as schools or shopping centres and even states ‘the generic distances do not take into account the protection of natural resources and significant elements of the natural environment”.

8. There is major contradiction in the TPS document in that bush areas are either regarded as sensitive and due regard is given or they don’t and the claim is misleading.

9. Buffer distances to ‘sensitive land use’ for

Structure Plan. 5. Protective measures are included in

the Structure Plan and proposed revisions.

6. As above. 7. The ‘sensitive use’ definition relates to

EPA Guidance Statement 3 for the purpose of specifying buffer distance requirements.

8. For the purpose of the sensitive use definition the buffer distances aren’t intended to apply to bushland, but a suitable response should be demonstrated.

9. Buffer distances have been significantly revised.

10. Agree, suitable mechanisms are included to ensure buffers are provided and these issues are also considered through later detailed planning processes in relation to specific forms of development.

11. Noted. 12. Noted. 13. The hydrology of the Site requires a

response in the water management regime to address stormwater runoff and hydrological issues.

14. Industrial waste products should be retained within the future industrial area.

15. The total water balance will need to be carefully managed through subdivision and future development.

16. Noted. 17. Revisions are proposed to increase

buffers to Location 2157 to the south. 18. There is no description of why such a

significant separation is required

and implementation of a fire resistant vegetated buffer.

4. As above. 5. As above. 6. As above. 7. Note. 8. Note. 9. Note. 10. Note. 11. Note. 12. Note. 13. Note. 14. Note. 15. Note. 16. Note. 17. Note. 18. Note. 19. Note. 20. Note.


117

the considered ‘General Industry’ (Point 16) are between 200 and 1000m while Structure Plan basically doesn’t consider any buffer at all – merely a 20m road reserve and fire management buffers.

10. Without knowledge of the nature of the industry, its challenging to set an adequate buffer size. Agreed size would have to limit the choice of industry and exclude all that require larger buffers.

11. Since November 2011 fires fauna habitat has been severely reduced and some of the best Western Ringtail habitat patches were destroyed. Rescued animals displaced through 2011 fires were relocated to the best habitat we knew of in Margaret River – property immediately to the south of the proposal.

12. Property also has healthy kangaroo and brushtail possum population, bird life and frequent sitings of the Southern Brown Bandicoot and Brush tailed Phascogale, that’s been recently added to WA threatened species list. Presence of the WRP population on Darch Road property prior to relocations indicate its highly likely that adjacent areas (National Park and State Forest) are home to the endangered species and need protection from the effects of the proposed development. Confident DEC has been asked for comments on protective measures for the conservation estate.

13. Concerned about possible groundwater contamination or spill which would have devastating effects on high quality bush area.

14. Industrial waste products are incompatible with sensitive bushland.

however the mechanisms proposed in the covering report are considered an appropriate response.

19. Noted. 20. The Structure Plan has been

modified, there are mechanisms in the Structure Plan and further processes to establish appropriate environmental management in future development.


118

15. Area is close to being wetland in winterand a large development could alter thisenvironment.

16. It will not only be necessary ‘to mitigatethe threat of fire from adjacent land’ asstated but also the risk through theindustrial area for the adjacent sensitivebush. Healthy wildlife habitat need tocontain dead trees and undergrowth forprotection and shelter. Long unburnedareas are vital for the persistence ofWRP.

17. Wide buffer made up of fire resistantspecies would be minimum requirementand this vegetation buffer needs to beestablished on the development site notthe adjacent bush.

18. A several hundred metre wide, preferablyhigh (noise) and in parts fire resistantbuffer needs to be a non-negotiablecondition for approval.

19. Effective predator control (cats/foxes) isessential for establishment andpersistence of any WRP populations.

20. Comprehensive long-term environmentalstrategy and protective measures(including a complete reworking of theStructure Plan) would be needed.

9. David & Rebecca McInerney 249 Rosa Brook Road, Margaret River

Affected Property 249 Rosa Brook Road, Margaret River

1. Own Lots 26 & 27 of Location 2665 for 20years and have established a number ofsmall businesses on these propertiesincluding – tourist accommodation,vineyard for commercial grapeproduction. These businesses rely on thesurrounding environment being healthyand non-polluted. The creation of anindustrial area in close proximity to ouraccommodation will be catastrophic toour business.

1. Noted, mechanisms are to beincluded to ensure impacts areappropriately mitigated.

2. The industry along the Nationalpark/State Forest boundary has nowbeen removed from the proposal.

3. The buffer to Rosa Brook Road is nowaround 600 metres. Suitablemechanisms are included in theamendment and Structure plan toensure that impacts of future

The Council needs to be comfortable that sufficient protective mechanisms are included in the proposal to mitigate impacts suitably.


119

2. Structure plan shows a number of uses/setbacks that are potentially problematic and provision of ‘general industry’ along adjoining National Park and State Forest comes with the potential to create problems.

3. South of this easternmost area is the POS drainage, EPA lists numerous light industries (nurseries, tyre sales) that require minimum buffers varying 50-1000m. ‘General Industry’ activities listed on the Structure Plan include cement production, fuel/gas storage etc. EPA gives these industries setback of 500-1000m. There is NO scope for such setbacks on this plan. To provide adequate setbacks according to EPA guidelines will require the industrial area to shrink to a size making it unfeasible. Given sensitivity of State Forest/National Park, would expect EPA to require far greater setbacks than those proffered. Suggest buffer along Rosa Brook Road be also made to these minimum standards.

4. There is a multitude of unexplored problems with an industrial area adjoining not only sensitive land areas, but pre-existing local businesses that rely on maintaining the rural character. This development is presented with total disregard for the adjoining sensitive land uses, neighbours, businesses and people’s homes.

5. If development does proceed then our family business will be ruined and there will be other tourist based businesses directly affected.

6. Why hasn’t the western end of the

development are acceptable. 4. The response in the proposed

Structure Plan and Scheme Amendment is considered appropriate with regard to adjoining sensitive land use. Sensitive uses on the land in question are over 1.2km from future development.

5. As above. 6. Alternative sites have been

investigated through the LPS process.


120

Perimeter Road where it meets Bussell Highway and has no sensitive land uses been investigated. Believe further investigations need to be undertaken as the proposed site is encumbered with too many risks and variables not investigated or presented in the documentation.

10. Cherie Hindle PO Box 188, Margaret River Affected Property Location 2157 Darch Road, Margaret River

1. Believe if not properly planned this development has the potential to detrimentally effect our business and livelihood and will depreciate surrounding land.

2. Will limit/restrict future possible landuse or ecotourism ventures on this property.

3. Will have a negative impact on the environment if guidelines set by governing bodies aren’t adhered to and concerns aren’t addressed now.

4. Majority of visitors use Glenbrook Estate for its ecotourism qualities.

5. Visitors to the Estate utilise the bushland bordering the proposed LIA for bushwalking, ecotourism purposes, wildflower and flora identification and wildlife spotting. These activities will be adversely affected by the noise generated by the development. Guests staying at the estate are attracted to the serenity of our surrounds and the environment.

6. Hope that noise will be restricted to reasonable hours so that guests don’t get disturbed.

7. The proposal needs to take into account the seasonal wetlands and the protection of existing waterways and creeklines is essential. Have been unconfirmed sightings of white bellied frogs on nearby properties and in the past evidence to suggest burrowing crayfish.

1. Noted. 2. In general terms the development

potential of land within the vegetated portion of the site are limited by the stringent controls on clearing of remnant vegetation in LPS1, which would make clearing of vegetation and replacement with sensitive use very unlikely to obtain planning approval in any event. This issue is reasonable use of this land and cleared areas suitable for development are ~500m from future industrial land use.

3. Noted. 4. Noted. 5. Noted, measures are to be included to

ensure that impacts of future industrial land use are reasonably mitigated.

6. Noise limits are applied through the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations which set what are considered to be reasonable levels of noise.

7. Noted. 8. Noted. 9. Agreed. 10. Noted, suitable buffer arrangements

are required. 11. Agreed. 12. Noted, buffers are to be implemented. 13. The Amendment and Structure Plan

1. Note. 2. Note. 3. Note. 4. Note. 5. Include measures to

ensure that impacts of future industrial land use are reasonably mitigated.

6. Note. 7. Protection of

significant creekline is included in the proposal. Further details on hydrological regime are to be included in revisions to LWMS.

8. Note. 9. As above. 10. Note. 11. Note and support

requirement for revisions to LWMS.

12. Vegetated buffers are included in the proposal.

13. Note environmental management measures incorporated into Proposal.


121

8. Wetlands of the south west of WA are being lost or degraded at an alarming rate. Existing South West Environmental Protection Policy sets out to prohibit activities that degrade or destroy wetlands.

9. According to DoW Light Industrial facilities shouldn’t be located in areas that are prone to waterlogging or may be flooded during a 100 year frequency storm event.

10. Its more alarming that the development is for Industry not just Light Industry.

11. Care should be taken to ensure protection of creek systems and seasonally wet areas, so no industry run off or contamination occurs. Trust shire has effective measures in place so that this does not happen.

12. Vegetated buffers may help reduce contamination to sensitive water areas.

13. Shire needs to have in place environmental quality objectives to be achieved and maintained under the plan with indicators and criteria to be used for measuring environmental quality. Plan needs to minimise possibility of pollution or environmental harm.

14. Proposed development should accept responsibility for and manage environmental impacts.

15. High conservation value of surrounding bushland needs to be recognised.

16. Is a significant variety of Cockatoos, colonies of Possums, bandicoots etc and more common species, bird life, owls and all these may be affected by the proposal.

17. Surrounding areas are frequently baited to control foxes and cats and

set out mechanisms to ensure appropriate environmental management outcomes.

14. Agreed. 15. Noted. 16. Noted. 17. Noted. Vermin proof fencing should

be required. 18. A revised approach to buffering is

included in the Proposal. 19. A requirement has been included to

define these lots for ‘buffer industry’. 20. Noted. 21. Noted, FMP response general

appropriate (subject to modification/additional detail).

22. Agreed, this is a standard requirement of reticulated development.

23. Agreed, southern section of Darch Road wouldn’t connect to perimeter Road.

24. Area of land is sufficient for future medium to long term industrial land requirements.

25. The Structure Plan and LPS1 provide detail in this regard.

26. Noted. 27. Noted.

14. Note. 15. Note. 16. Note. 17. Note, include

requirement for vermin proof fencing.

18. Note revised buffer measures.

19. Require lots along southern boundary to be included in the ‘buffer industry’ designation.

20. Note, vegetated to be buffer included along southern boundary.

21. Note. 22. Note. 23. Note. 24. Note. 25. Note further detail on

revised Structure plan. 26. Note. 27. Note.


122

consequently this area is a suitable release area for rehabilitated wildlife. To protect surrounding bushland and wildlife will not only require a more adequate buffer but vermin proof fencing. Fence will ensure wildlife don’t have access to the proposed bypass road and would lead to safer driving conditions for road users as well.

18. Appropriate measures need to be undertaken to avoid conflicting land uses. There are tourism and eco tourism ventures on both sides of the industrial development and the plan should ensure that the industrial area is visually unobtrusive from surrounding properties and land uses not just the perimeter road.

19. Lots bordering southern boundary bordering Location 2157 should be at least light industry. This may help minimise the likelihood of conflict along the boundary.

20. Buffers should include earthwalls, bunds and fire retardant vegetation screens as this would reduce noise and emissions and will provide a more aesthetic quality for affected properties.

21. Development should demonstrate appropriate fire measures to mitigate threat of fire to / from adjacent land, given there is an extremely high risk area on two sides of the industrial development and should comply with FESA’s recommendation of minimum 100m buffer.

22. Industrial development should supply fire hydrants and easy access to fire fighting equipment along the boundary.

23. Southern section of Darch Road should


123

be closed and only used for local traffic, not heavy use and shouldn’t be used as an access road for developments. This section of Darch Road should be retained for use as a cycleway and walkway to connect up with the northern section of Darch Road.

24. If proper buffers were provided planning for future industrial development may find area allocated might not be big enough, given there’s nowhere to expand. Lot 20 & 21 is valuable land in terms of quality and environmental value. More suitable location would have been the pine plantation north of town, as it already has buffers and no conflicting land uses.

25. Current proposal has little consideration for existing land use and will lead to conflicting land use issues which may be ongoing. Shire/Developer need to establish and define exactly what will be included in ‘General Industry’.

26. Shire has stewardship responsibility to care for and conserve the environment.

27. Hope the Shire looks at it’s own planning provisions and policies

11. Jason Donnachy PO Box 188, Margaret River Affected Property 38 Darch Road, Margaret River

1. There are a number of groups and people who enjoy the pristine bushland for a variety reasons i.e. bird watching etc.

2. Industrial area within 40m of our boundary near our pristine preserves would have an unmeasurable detriment on this environment and consequently our business.

3. EPA & DEC reports can’t be ignored and their buffer distances must be enforced. Shire has an absolute duty of care to insist buffers comply with best practice.

4. Industrial area is likely to cause and

1. Noted. 2. The buffer distances to sensitive land

use and measures contained in the Amendment and Structure Plan provide mechanisms for mitigating future impact. Some further measures are required as included in the covering report.

3. Due regard has been given to EPA advice and EPA GS3.

4. As above. 5. The proposal isn’t located ‘on’

important watercourses. Buffer

1. Note. 2. Note. 3. Note. 4. Note. 5. Note. 6. Note. 7. Note. 8. Note. 9. Note. 10. Note. 11. Note. 12. Note. 13. Note.


124

create pollutants to air, land and water. 5. To situate the proposal on such important

watercourses and next to sensitive bushland areas somewhat beggars belief.

6. Shire’s responsibility to ensure best practice to the proposed industrial area to avoid potential downstream costs being incurred.

7. Buffer zones, sewerage works, fencing and pollutant control must all be world class.

8. The neighbours should not incur any costs.

9. Bushland and its biodiversity must be protected as a priority.

10. Fire hazard must be addressed fully to reduce the ever present risk associated with industrial areas and their surrounds.

11. Again it’s the shire’s responsibility to ensure safety of all neighbouring properties and suggest at least 150m buffer be enforced for safety and protection of all neighbouring properties and their water and environment.

12. Buffer zone shouldn’t be considered outside the boundary of the proposals precinct. The proposed 40m buffer is inadequate.

13. Structure plan fails completely in its obligations to the surrounding sensitive land and needs to be reconsidered as a priority.

14. Failure to enforce a best practice approach, with safety as a priority to this plan would be irresponsible.

requirements are included to mitigate impacts on bushland.

6. Noted. 7. The proposal is to be connected to

reticulated services. 8. Noted. 9. Noted. 10. Noted, the response in the FMP is

generally acceptable subject to further modifications as specified in the covering report.

11. Buffer requirements and water management are specified in the Proposal utilising accepted standards.

12. Noted. 13. Noted. 14. Noted.

14. Note.

12. John Cooper PO Box 818, Margaret River Affected Property

1. Proponents current proposal seems to ignore 3 neighbouring properties concerns and seems to flaunt EPA setback requirements for ‘sensitive uses’

1. Revised buffer requirements and land use controls are consistent with EPA setback requirements.

2. The site is identified for industrial land

1. Note. 2. Note. 3. Note. 4. Note.


125

167 Rosa Brook Road, Margaret River

and state reserves. 2. Small size of the site makes it

inappropriate for ‘Industry’ zoning. 3. Site needs to anticipate all EPA setbacks

for that industry class of businesses. 4. At best, the proposed ‘Industry’ zoning

should be extended south and south-west to provide for improved setbacks from sensitive areas.

5. Disagree that the rezoning approval should proceed before the by-pass alignment is set and land acquisition has commenced by MRWA.

6. Disappointing that only a 30m vegetation buffer is proposed to hide workshops and processing industries. Whilst Rosa Brook Road facing land has a tree line, without an understorey the back of buildings will be exposed. Before sale of any lots exposed to external roads a solid barrier should be erected, and not just chain wire security fences along the outer edge of each lot.

7. Proposal claims that the light industry premises would face inwards for those closest to external roads to minimise noise carrying problems.

8. Wonder what ‘Industry’ noise can be generated so close to the edge of the site. Solid fencing should be recommended and erected above a low earth bund, and made of noise abatement grade material.

9. Roof areas will generate massive water flows onto Lot 15 from our southern boundary. For all problems like run-off, chemical effluent, air pollution/odours want reassurance this won’t affect my business or my lifestyle quality.

use in the LPS and is over 40ha. 3. See point 1. 4. With the removal of Lot 20 the

industrial area is now significantly in this direction.

5. Agree; mechanisms included on the Structure Plan in this regard.

6. With the removal of Lot 20 this issue falls away to a degree, but requires an interim measure to the north of Lot 21.

7. Noted. 8. Buffer requirements are sufficient to

address this issue. 9. This land is now outside of the

catchment of the proposed development area.

5. Include mechanisms to ensure that proposal doesn’t proceed prior to certainty over delivery of the perimeter Road.

6. Note, including deferral of development adjacent to Rosa Brook Road.

7. Note. 8. Note. 9. Note.


126

13. Marjorie McInerney

Affected Property Lots 26 & 27 Rosa Brook Road, Margaret River

1. Chose this property as it is an ideal placeon which to develop a business in tourismand other associated activities.

2. Spent 18 months clearing paddocks andplanted over 10,000 native trees. Allthese trees were planted to providepeaceful, natural, rural setting foroverseas and local tourist visitors.

3. Most visitors have returned because ofthe peaceful and relaxing surrounds.Visitors experience the wonders of livingin a rural setting by collecting eggs,feeding chooks, feeding lambs, dogs etc.

4. Feel its important that visitors see all thebeauty of what Margaret River is all aboutand tourists would find that having totravel to some of these tourist placesthrough an industrial area less thanpleasant, visually.

5. Hate to feel that this development wouldbe detrimental to me personally, but alsoreduce my business to a point of notbeing viable any longer.

6. Question the adequacy of the bufferzones shown on the map with respect tothe housing and businesses so close toRosa Brook Road.

7. Why was this particular area chosen forthe proposed development. As the officehas already stated, Margaret River is adeveloping area. Putting a light industrialsite where its been proposed seems veryshort sighted in terms of growth of thetown.

8. With a National Park at its doorstep thissite poses environmental problems,health issues for those living close to thetype of industrial activities listed in theproposal. Hope that suitable

1. Noted.2. Noted.3. Noted.4. Noted.5. With the deferral of Lot 20 this land is

now over 1.2km from future industrialdevelopment.

6. Addressed through removal of Lot 20from the proposal.

7. This issue has been resolved throughthe LPS process.

8. Noted.

1. Note.2. Note.3. Note.4. Note.5. Note.6. Note.7. Note.8. Note.


127

investigations into the above issues has or will be made.

14. John Hindle PO Box 188, Margaret River Affected Property 38 Darch Road, Margaret River

1. The proposed site is inappropriate. 2. An area where the pine forest was

situated north of the town is a preferred site as airport and sanitary depot are already in the area. Area also allows for future development.

3. Area being considered is bounded by forest on two sides and major thoroughfares on the remaining sides, this will restrict future development.

4. The proposed area is fertile, attractive farmland with good supplies of surface and underground water.

5. Its south east of town so delivery traffic will need to travel further and negotiate additional traffic. Better alternative would have been to deposit their load north of town and then continue their journey.

6. Our property if 60ha in size (of natural bush) which is quite rare in such a built up area, this land has been classified by the Cape to Cape Catchments group as a pristine environment.

7. This bushland has been used for feral animal baiting control, a release point for the ring tailed possum and also since 1985 a camp school which allows children to study and appreciate flora and fauna in a natural environment.

8. The land has been designated as Land for Wildlife and is home to many rare and endangered species.

9. I submit that the land south of the proposed industrial development be deemed special and sensitive and should not be utilised as a buffer for the industrial area.

1. See discussion within covering report. 2. As above. 3. As above. 4. The land is also close enough to town

to provide for expansion of urban areas of Margaret River. The LPS identifies significant areas that are protected for agricultural and conservation use.

5. Access is proposed via the Perimeter Road.

6. Noted. 7. Noted. 8. Noted. 9. Noted. 10. In practical terms given the stringent

controls on land clearing and quality of the vegetation it is unlikely that land in proximity to the industrial area would be appropriate for future development in any event. It is not known whether or to what degree this would impact someone’s willingness to pay for the land.

11. Noted. 12. Specific points:

a. Visual management is to be addressed through screen planting.

b. It is unlikely that at the distances proposed earth bunds would have any practical impact.

c. Noted, a vermin proof fence is proposed to be required.

d. Noted, fire hydrants are a standard requirement in reticulated areas.

e. Agreed, further detail to be included in LWMS.

1. Note. 2. Note. 3. Note. 4. Note. 5. Note. 6. Note. 7. Note. 8. Note. 9. Note. 10. Note. 11. Modifications are to be

included in the Proposal to ensure: a. Visual and

landscape buffering through planting adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site.

b. Note. c. Implement

requirement for vermin proof fencing.

d. Note. e. Require further

revision to LWMS.


128

10. I have been advised by Councils Planning Officers that development of this land would restrict future development of my land and possibly devalue it.

11. Specific points to be submitted for consideration: a) Buffer zone: the EPA recommendation

is 50m to 5km depending on the types of industry. As the types industry are not known a minimum of 100m is necessary for Light Industrial.

b) Provision of Earth Bunds: would help the screen the LIA from my land and guest and would reduce visual and noise distraction.

c) Feral Fencing: I have conducted baiting for 38 years to reduce the risk to wildlife. With the increase of LIA more domestic animals will be brought into the area, I propose the best solution is to construct a feral proof fence to control domestic pets and feral animals.

d) Fire Control: an increased buffer is required to protect the both residents and the LIA in case of fire emergency, with dense bushland and industrial work this is apparent. Mains powered fire hydrants is also required.

e) Protection of the Watercourse and groundwater is vital as my business and residence utilise this source. Serious attention is required to address runoff and pollution to this watersource.

Government Agencies

15. Department of Health 1. All development is required to comply with the provisions of draft Country Sewerage Policy.

1. Development is proposed to be fully serviced.

2. No unsewered subdivision is

Note.


129

2. Must be demonstrated that an unseweredsubdivision is suitable for on-sitewastewater disposal, and furthermore, anunsewered industrial development islimited to a daily wastewater production ofnot more tha

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY ......SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL...

Documents

Transcript of SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY ......SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL...