attachment 1: attendance lists

ATTACHMENT 1: ATTENDANCE LISTS

NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE No. 1 2

Milan Stefanovich Sandra Stefanovich

3 4 5 6

Ewe Teh H. Teh Yok Teh Alvin Teh

7 John Colwill 8 James Colby 9 David Webley 10 Ivan Spanijch 11 12

Colin Smith Jenny Smith

13 Eileen Simeon 14 15

Steve Brown Noelene Brown

16 David Skinner 17 18

Chris Caruso Susan Caruso

19 20 21 22 23

A. Senior M. Senior Peter Senior Elaine Senior Elaine J Senior

24 Tony Farano 25 John Farano 26 27

Kate Sayer Mike Sayer

28 29

Pauline England Lindsay England

30 Lesley Cliffe

MKSEA- Landowner Info Sessions 11th May 2011

mwallace

Typewritten Text

Addresses and Numbers have been removed for the Public Website version

mwallace

Typewritten Text

31 32

F Mazza P Mazza

33 34

T Hayes J Hayes

35 36

CR Downing DJ Downing

37 38

Karl Karu Sandy Karu

39 40

Don Davis L Davis

41 Sandra Baraiolo 42 Alan Duross 43 44

Mick McLeod Julie McLeod

45 46

June Deane Ray Deane

47 48

Angela Delpaggio Michael Delpaggio

49 Dick Lovegrove 50 51

Gordon McManus Alexandra McManus

52 53

Mark Crampton Susan Crampton

54 55

Garry Curnow Rosmarie Curnow

56 Lisa Begg 57 Robert Davies 58 59

Greg Kerr Roy Mc Innes

60 Glenda Brown 61 George Walczak 62 Nancy McKinnon

mwallace

Typewritten Text


RSVP but didn’t ATTEND NAME PROPERTY 1 Luke May

Port Cornelian Pty Ltd

2 Woon M Keong, Wai H Kong, Seik W Wong 3 Judith A Buckland

NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE No 1 2

Waldo Thomas Marjorie Thomas

3 Mou C Yum 4 5

Vie Turner Justine Turner

6 7

Tony Costa Eileen Costa

8 9

Jenny Fong Susan Fong

10 Ray Macey 11 Wendy Harman 12 13

Ian Smith Cherrill Smith

14 J West 15 J Reid 16 R Osborne 17 H Moniewski 18 Fred Sharp 19 20

Keith Agar Kath Agar

21 22

Les Turpin Gloria Turpin

23 Nella Giangiulio 24 25

Vic Cotic Senka Cotic

26 Anna Matne 27 Garry Trinh 28 Ray Baker

MKSEA- Landowner Info Sessions 12th May 2011

mwallace

Typewritten Text


29 30

Joe Rigoli Irene Rigoli

31 Michael Goode 32 A Leighton 33 34

B Thompson J Casella

35 S Gullotti 36 R Theisinger RSVP but didn’t ATTEND NAME PROPERTY 1 Gong Shan 2 Terry Isbister 3 Thomas Martinazzo

mwallace

Typewritten Text


ATTACHMENT 2: PARTICIPANT HAND OUTS

MKSEA Landowner Workshops Workshop Program

Brian Curtis Pty Ltd 08 April 2011

Purpose: • The primary purpose is to report on the outcomes and recommendations of the

Flora Vegetation and Wetlands of the Maddington-Kenwick Strategic Employment Area.

• Participants will receive information and be provided with an opportunity to ask questions and provide comment on the study and its implications

• An update on the process overall and opportunity to discuss where to from here

Time Activity By Whom 6:30 pm Registration

All

Introductions and Welcome Brian Curtis

Presentation: MKSEA and Study Findings CoG

Presentation: Interpreting Study Outcomes DEC

Workshop Session (Tables) Establishing Key Questions

Brian Curtis

7.45 Refreshment Break

Panel Feedback Session on Questions Raised

Brian Curtis CoG DEC

Summary/Where to from Here? CoG

9:00 pm Close

WATTLEGROVE

PRIMARYSCHOOL

The City of Gosnells provides the information contained herein. The

Council of the City of Gosnells shall not be liable for any loss or

damages howsoever caused as a result of reliance upon information

contained in this document.

Telephone 08 9391 3222

Facsmile

E-mail

08 9398 2922

[email protected]

CITY GOSNELLSOFV IR ERES

Copyright City of Gosnells 2007

Sustainable Communities Partnership

MADDINGTON KENWICK

GRID MGA94 (Zone 50)

MADDINGTON KENWICK STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREA

LEGEND

1:7,500@A1

WELSHPOOL ROAD

TO

NK

IN

HIG

HW

AYR

OE

HIG

HW

AY

KELV

IN

RO

AD

BICKLEY

ROAD

VIC

TO

RIA

RO

AD

CO

LD

WELL

RO

AD

BRO

OK

RO

AD

BO

UN

DA

RY

RO

AD

CONCEPT

PLAN

ONLY

BF

387

PO Box 662 Gosnells 6990 WA

2120 Albany Highway Gosnells 6110 WA

BF

53

1

DRAINAGE ROUTE / DIRECTION

PRECINCT BOUNDARIES

ECO - INDUSTRY PRECINCT

BUSH FOREVER SITES

KELVIN ROAD PRECINCT

SUBJECT TO FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

MKSEA BOUNDARY

PRECINCT NUMBER

POSSIBLE STREET BLOCK LAYOUT

EXISTING CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS

EXISTING ROUND-A-BOUT

EXISTING FREIGHT RAIL LINE

1 CONCEPT PLAN FEB 2007

RO

AD

BREN

TW

OO

D

2

1BF

53


TRANSITION PRECINCT

PRECINCT 3A

YULE BROOK PRECINCT (Precinct 3B)

PRECINCT 1

PRECINCT 2

Victoria Road to Brook Road

subject to further investigation

ECO-INDUSTRY PRECINCTS


Facsmile

E-mail

08 9398 2922

[email protected]

V IR ERES



MADDINGTON KENWICK



LEGEND

1:7,500@A1

RO

EH

IGH

WA

Y

KELV

IN

RO

AD

BICKLEY

ROAD

VIC

TO

RIA

RO

AD

CO

LD

WELL

RO

AD

BRO

OK

RO

AD

BO

UN

DA

RY

RO

AD

BF

387



BF

53

1


PRECINCT BOUNDARIES


BUSH FOREVER SITES



MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

MKSEA BOUNDARY

PRECINCT NUMBER





3B

RO

AD

BREN

TW

OO

D

3A

2

1BF

53

The type and extent of future development in this precinct is dependant

upon a range of environmental, infrastructure, drainage and planning considerations.

The following matters need to be addressed:

Proposed industrial development

- amendment to Metropolitan

Region Scheme initiated.

The transition precinct is located along Bickley Road opposite existing

low density residential uses. The primary purpose of the transition

precinct is to identify the area as requiring particular land use and

design controls so as to minimise any potential conflict between

different land uses (ie - industrial v residential). Matters requiring

further investigation include:

This area is considered strategically important due to Kelvin Road’s

role as an important transport corridor within the MKSEA. Guidelines

are required to ensure a high standard of development occurs,

creating a readily identifiable image for the MKSEA.

Issues to be addressed as part of the guidelines include

landscaping, vehicle access arrangements and

built form standards

The proposed "Eco-Industry" areas have been identified

due to the potential environmental significance

of the land. It is anticipated that the precincts

will accommodate benign industrial land uses, in a manner

that will minimise negative environmental impacts

on the area. Further detailed planning is required

to address the following:

Size/extent of existing wetlands (classification)

Attributes/function of existing wetland (evaluation)

Conservation/enhancement/management of existing

wetland (mitigation)

Size/extent of buffer to existing wetlands

Specific land uses permitted

Requisite buffers to the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands (BF 387)

and existing Conservation Category Wetlands (CCW’s)

Existing wetland classification, evaluation and mitigation

Protection of significant flora and fauna including carrying

out spring surveys

Land uses permitted within wetland buffer zones

District water management (Drainage)

TRANSITION PRECINCT

Extent (depth from Bickley Road) of transitional zone

Land uses permitted in transitional zone

Vehicular access to transitional zone

Traffic management/upgrades to Bickley Road

Landscape treatment to Bickley Road

Where applicable, resolution of broader issues

affecting Precinct 2

2 CONCEPT PLAN NOVEMBER 2007

(2nd REITERATION)

3 CONCEPT PLAN JULY 2008

(3rd REITERATION)

Proposed industrial

development subject to

drainage issues being

addressed including

determination of the

amount and location of

land required for

drainage puposes.

Furthermore, the planning

for this precinct must

appropriately address any

interface and/or land

compatability issues

relating to adjoining or

nearby land within both

the City of Gosnells and

the Shire of Kalamunda

The main feature of the Yule Brook Precinct is the brook which runs

between Welshpool Road and Roe Highway. Yule Brook and its surrounds have environmental,

drainage and Aboriginal cultural heritage significance and it is therefore not considered appropriate at this time

to provide for any form of industrial development in the precinct. As such the status quo should remain

(ie. the area being used for semi-rural living purposes) until or unless further investigations warrant a review

of this position. Furthermore, given the drainage significance of Yule Brook, it is recommended

a Local Planning Policy be prepared to guide all future development within the Brook’s floodplain

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

Given the potential existence of

Aboriginal heritage within the MKSEA,

Site Identification Surveys will be required

to be undertaken on a precinct basis,

prior to Council considering any proposed

Outline Development Plan for such a precinct

3A

P:\OD\AGENDAMAPS\MKSEA_V3.DGN

CONCEPT PLAN JULY 2008

WATTLEGROVE

PRIMARYSCHOOL

The City of Gosnells provides the information contained herein. The

Council of the City of Gosnells shall not be liable for any loss or

damages howsoever caused as a result of reliance upon information

contained in this document.


Facsmile

E-mail

08 9398 2922

[email protected]

CITY GOSNELLSOFV IR ERES



MADDINGTON KENWICK



LEGEND

1:7,500@A1

WELSHPOOL ROAD

TO

NK

IN

HIG

HW

AYR

OE

HIG

HW

AY

KELV

IN

RO

AD

BICKLEY

ROAD

VIC

TO

RIA

RO

AD

CO

LD

WELL

RO

AD

BRO

OK

RO

AD

BO

UN

DA

RY

RO

AD

CONCEPT

PLAN

ONLY

BF

387



BF

53

1


PRECINCT BOUNDARIES


BUSH FOREVER SITES



MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

MKSEA BOUNDARY

PRECINCT NUMBER





1 CONCEPT PLAN FEB 2007

RO

AD

BREN

TW

OO

D

2

1BF

53


TRANSITION PRECINCT

PRECINCT 3A

YULE BROOK PRECINCT (Precinct 3B)

PRECINCT 1

PRECINCT 2

Victoria Road to Brook Road

subject to further investigation

ECO-INDUSTRY PRECINCTS


Facsmile

E-mail

08 9398 2922

[email protected]

V IR ERES



MADDINGTON KENWICK



LEGEND

1:7,500@A1

RO

EH

IGH

WA

Y

KELV

IN

RO

AD

BICKLEY

ROAD

VIC

TO

RIA

RO

AD

CO

LD

WELL

RO

AD

BRO

OK

RO

AD

BO

UN

DA

RY

RO

AD

BF

387



BF

53

1


PRECINCT BOUNDARIES


BUSH FOREVER SITES



MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

MKSEA BOUNDARY

PRECINCT NUMBER





3B

RO

AD

BREN

TW

OO

D

3A

2

1BF

53

The type and extent of future development in this precinct is dependant

upon a range of environmental, infrastructure, drainage and planning considerations.

The following matters need to be addressed:

Proposed industrial development

- amendment to Metropolitan

Region Scheme initiated.

The transition precinct is located along Bickley Road opposite existing

low density residential uses. The primary purpose of the transition

precinct is to identify the area as requiring particular land use and

design controls so as to minimise any potential conflict between

different land uses (ie - industrial v residential). Matters requiring

further investigation include:

This area is considered strategically important due to Kelvin Road’s

role as an important transport corridor within the MKSEA. Guidelines

are required to ensure a high standard of development occurs,

creating a readily identifiable image for the MKSEA.

Issues to be addressed as part of the guidelines include

landscaping, vehicle access arrangements and

built form standards

The proposed "Eco-Industry" areas have been identified

due to the potential environmental significance

of the land. It is anticipated that the precincts

will accommodate benign industrial land uses, in a manner

that will minimise negative environmental impacts

on the area. Further detailed planning is required

to address the following:

Size/extent of existing wetlands (classification)

Attributes/function of existing wetland (evaluation)

Conservation/enhancement/management of existing

wetland (mitigation)

Size/extent of buffer to existing wetlands

Specific land uses permitted

Requisite buffers to the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands (BF 387)

and existing Conservation Category Wetlands (CCW’s)

Existing wetland classification, evaluation and mitigation

Protection of significant flora and fauna including carrying

out spring surveys

Land uses permitted within wetland buffer zones

District water management (Drainage)

TRANSITION PRECINCT

Extent (depth from Bickley Road) of transitional zone

Land uses permitted in transitional zone

Vehicular access to transitional zone

Traffic management/upgrades to Bickley Road

Landscape treatment to Bickley Road

Where applicable, resolution of broader issues

affecting Precinct 2

2 CONCEPT PLAN NOVEMBER 2007

(2nd REITERATION)

3 CONCEPT PLAN JULY 2008

(3rd REITERATION)

Proposed industrial

development subject to

drainage issues being

addressed including

determination of the

amount and location of

land required for

drainage puposes.

Furthermore, the planning

for this precinct must

appropriately address any

interface and/or land

compatability issues

relating to adjoining or

nearby land within both

the City of Gosnells and

the Shire of Kalamunda

The main feature of the Yule Brook Precinct is the brook which runs

between Welshpool Road and Roe Highway. Yule Brook and its surrounds have environmental,

drainage and Aboriginal cultural heritage significance and it is therefore not considered appropriate at this time

to provide for any form of industrial development in the precinct. As such the status quo should remain

(ie. the area being used for semi-rural living purposes) until or unless further investigations warrant a review

of this position. Furthermore, given the drainage significance of Yule Brook, it is recommended

a Local Planning Policy be prepared to guide all future development within the Brook’s floodplain

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

Given the potential existence of

Aboriginal heritage within the MKSEA,

Site Identification Surveys will be required

to be undertaken on a precinct basis,

prior to Council considering any proposed

Outline Development Plan for such a precinct

3A

P:\OD\AGENDAMAPS\MKSEA_V3.DGN

MADDINGTON KENWICK STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREA - Concept Plan The Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area (MKSEA) is an area bound by Bickley Road, Victoria Road, Tonkin Highway and Roe Highway currently being investigated for potential future industrial development.

What is the main aim of the project? The main aim of the project is to determine if future industrial development can occur whilst ensuring protection of key environmental characteristics of the area. The area has been subject to various planning studies to determine the suitability of industrial development in the future.

What has been happening? A range of planning initiatives and studies have been undertaken for the MKSEA, including:

• Infrastructure Servicing Report (GHD, 2005) • Environmental Review (Cardno, 2005) • Preliminary Transport Study (Cardno BSD, 2006) • Consultation on Draft Concept Plan (2007) • Consultation on modified Draft Concept Plan (2008) • Adoption of Concept Plan (2008) • Aboriginal Heritage Survey (ACHM, 2009) • Guidelines for Industrial Development (2009) • Interim District Water Management Strategy - Precinct 1 (GHD, 2010) • Flora and Wetland Survey (Weston & Tauss, 2010)

What is happening? Planning tasks that are currently ongoing include:

• Ground and surface water monitoring (Endemic) • Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment - Precinct 1 • Preliminary drafting of Precinct 3B Local Planning Policy • Draft State Industrial Land Strategy

What needs to happen?

• Approval of MRS Amendment - Precinct 1 • Local Water Management Strategy - Precinct 1 • Outline Development Plan (ODP) - Precinct 1

For more details on the MKSEA project, please visit the website www.gosnells.wa.gov.au > Services > Planning > Major Projects > Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area - where further information can be found with regard to the above

http://www.gosnells.wa.gov.au/�

18 April 2010

Report to the City of Gosnells,

Western Australia

C. Tauss and A.S. Weston

The flora, vegetation and wetlands of the

Maddington-Kenwick Strategic Employment Area

A survey of rural lands in the vicinity of the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands

i

Tauss, C. and Weston, A.S. (2010). The flora, vegetation and wetlands of the Maddington-Kenwick Strategic Employment Area. A survey of the rural lands in the vicinity of the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands. Report to the City of Gosnells, W.A. Version 18.04.10

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this report is solely for the use of the City of Gosnells and relevant government stakeholders, such as the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), for the purposes of planning and environmental regulation as identified in the report. This report is not intended to be used by parties other than the above (or for commercial purposes), and no responsibility is undertaken to any such parties.

In accordance with the policies of the DEC, the locations of Rare and Priority Flora and Threatened Ecological Communities have been supplied to the DEC but are withheld from publication.

Summary ii


Summary The City of Gosnells is currently involved in investigating, and planning for, future industrial development within a 585 ha area of rural land (that is known as the Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area or MKSEA), in the north-east of its jurisdiction. The area proposed for development (City of Gosnells, 2007a) is located on the eastern side of the Swan Coastal Plain (SCP) and has been shown to include values of national conservation significance listed under the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (Cardno BSD, 2005). Within the boundary of the MKSEA, but not proposed for development, there are two Bush Forever sites (BFS 387, the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands, and BFS 53, the Clifford Street Bushland). The Bush Forever sites include multiple conservation values that are listed as nationally significant (Government of Western Australia, 2000). BFS 387, the most species-rich Bush Forever site on the SCP and one of the most important conservation reserves on the SCP, is located downslope from much of the MKSEA and is influenced by groundwater and surface water drainage from the MKSEA. BFS 387 is currently subject to high levels of stress from threats within its boundaries and from the surrounding MKSEA. These threats are not addressed currently by any coordinated management efforts and will require considerable effort to resolve. The local Bush Forever sites are closely coupled with the adjoining MKSEA rural areas via ecological and biological processes and the proposed development is likely to impact, at least indirectly, on their important conservation values. Environmental and engineering studies of the MKSEA (Cardno BSD, 2005; GHD, 2005) found that, apart from some areas of dunes in the south east, most of the area proposed for development is an extensive, gently sloping, seasonally-waterlogged plain (palusplain) that is part of the Bickley Brook and Yule Brook catchments. These preliminary reports also indicated that the legislation and policies of Federal and State environmental regulatory agencies with regard to the high conservation values found in parts of the proposed development area would significantly constrain the extent of industrial development in the MKSEA. The current Level 2 flora, vegetation and wetlands survey of the MKSEA was commissioned by the City of Gosnells in early September 2007 to provide more detailed guidance to the MKSEA planning process. Pending the outcomes of this study, and the results of other investigations (such as an Aboriginal heritage study), the City of Gosnells has issued two modified Concept Plans for the MKSEA (City of Gosnells, 2007b, 2008). The current flora, vegetation and wetlands survey found numerous conservation values of national, state and regional significance within the MKSEA (Table A). Some of the values found in the current survey were not identified in the MKSEA in previous studies (Government of Western Australia, 2000b; Cardno BSD, 2005; Trudgen and Keighery, 1995) and are not represented in the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands or the Clifford Street Bushland (Government of Western Australia, 2000b). In accord with Western Australian State Government and Local Government criteria regarding the conservation value of natural areas (Government of Western Australia, 2000; Lamond, 2009) all areas of remnant vegetation assessed as being in good or better condition within the MKSEA in this study were considered to be of, at least, regional conservation significance. These areas of eastern Swan Coastal Plain remnant native vegetation in the MKSEA are considered to be rare biodiversity resources that are poorly represented in the conservation estate and are thus eligible for protection.

Most of the flora and vegetation of high conservation significance found in the MKSEA in the current survey are highly dependent on surface waters and/or groundwater. However, the extensive wetland ecosystem of the alluvial fan system that encompasses most of the MKSEA and the two Bush Forever sites of the area has been somewhat compromised by existing development. There is now reduced recharge of rainfall into groundwater and increased surface run-off due to the clearing of vegetation and the compaction of soils. There is also localised dewatering of wetlands by excavated drains that intersect superficial aquifers and export groundwater, along with run-off, to Yule Brook and Bickley Brook. Yule Brook and Bickley Brook have been converted from high quality water sources (that previously sustained the rich biodiversity of the adjoining floodplains, including BFS 387, by annual flooding and sediment deposition) to water sinks that convey polluted, nutrient-enriched water out of the local wetlands and into the Swan-Canning River system. The complex hydrogeology of the MKSEA and the Bush Forever lands needs to be more fully understood so that any proposed development does not reinforce the current problems (locally and downstream in the Swan

Summary iii


Canning River system) and exacerbate adverse environmental impacts. The importance of the restoration of the hydrological regime of the area is particularly highlighted by predictions of continuing rainfall decline in the region and the threat that this poses to regional biodiversity.

Recommendations This survey provided significant new information about the natural values of the MKSEA that should be considered in the planning process. However, there are major shortfalls in the current understanding of the biological, ecological and physical processes (such as the hydrological maintenance of wetlands; the reproductive strategies, demography and genetics of threatened flora species; and the use of the area by fauna and their migration patterns) and in the definition of the basic habitat requirements of the Threatened Flora and the Threatened Ecological Communities of the area. There have been no threshold values defined for key variables (such as the ecological water requirements of Threatened Flora Species and Threatened Ecological Communities) that should form the basis of any assessment of the potential effects of various planning scenarios on the important conservation values of the area. Further study into these aspects would be required to ensure that the proposed rezoning and development of the MKSEA will not contribute to the further degradation and loss of environmental values in the MKSEA, BFS 387 and BFS 53. The current survey identified and mapped areas of high conservation significance that should be excluded from development and proposed a number of general recommendations to assist in the prevention of some of the ongoing current and anticipated degradation and loss of conservation values in the MKSEA, BFS 387 and BFS 53. These recommendations (Section 7.1) include the urgent need to implement recovery actions for most of the Threatened Flora Species populations in the MKSEA and the Bush Forever Sites; the enforcement of native vegetation clearing regulations and wetland conservation measures; and the identification and control of existing land uses that are currently impacting on groundwater quality. A number of changes to the management categories of wetlands in the MKSEA are recommended. Appropriate buffer zones around Conservation and Resource Enhancement Category Wetlands and Ecological Linkage Corridors between high conservation value areas within the MKSEA, BFS 387, BFS 53, the Darling Range and Canning River are also proposed and mapped. Three major recommendations are presented below that summarise the most important conclusions of the current survey with regard to the proposed development in the MKSEA.

Recommendation 1 Given the significant conservation values within and adjacent to the proposed MKSEA and the potential for these values to be adversely impacted by the proposal, the City of Gosnells is advised of its obligation to refer, for assessment, the proposal to re-zone and develop these rural lands to:

• The Federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) under the statutory requirements of the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999; and

• The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority under the statutory requirements of the Western Australian Environmental Protection Act, 1986.

Recommendation 2 The City of Gosnells is advised that further detailed studies are required to understand the hydrogeology of the highly water-dependent ecosystems of the MKSEA and the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands and to provide the data required to remediate the hydrological regime of the area. The scope, methods and low intensity of the current wetlands survey and the water monitoring programme recently commissioned by the City of Gosnells are considered insufficient to adequately map the major wetland boundaries, to characterise the factors that maintain important conservation wetlands in the area and to define the environmental water requirements of the remnant native vegetation. Detailed mapping of the Muchea Limestone aquifers of the area and an invertebrate study of the active Muchea Limestone mound spring in the MKSEA (and possibly

Summary iv


other areas) are also recommended. These studies are necessary before appropriate planning proposals can be scientifically justified and also to provide a rigorous basis for the long term, ecologically-sustainable management of the water, nutrient and sediment resources of the area and of the biodiversity supported by these resources. Planning for the MKSEA should be carried out in accordance with a comprehensive plan and specific objectives designed to conserve, restore and manage sustainably (for the long term) the natural and cultural heritage of the Bush Forever sites, the MKSEA and any other areas of high conservation significance in Kenwick - Wattle Grove - Maddington that are part of the local alluvial fan complex. Such objectives should be developed by a scientific panel in consultation with various stakeholders (including the City of Gosnells, Federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Western AustralianDepartment of Environment and Conservation, University of Western Australia, Kings Park, Shire of Kalamunda, Swan River Trust and the community.)

Recommendation 3 In the absence of a long-term comprehensive plan to conserve and manage the natural heritage of the area (as above) the City of Gosnells is advised to consider the recommended revisions (below) to the Current Concept Plan for the MKSEA (Figure 3; City of Gosnells, 2008) in order to incorporate, into planning, some of the issues raised by the data obtained in the current survey. Precinct 1 (southeast of Victoria Rd)

This precinct includes a number of areas of high conservation significance. These areas require reservation, protection from development by revegetated buffer zones that are free of all development or infrastructure and linkage with each other and with the conservation areas in Precinct 2 and BFS 387 via an ecological linkage corridor.

One of the areas indicated as an “Eco-industry Precinct” in the current Concept Plan (City of Gosnells, 2008) is located within REW 8050, a wetland that is recommended in the current survey as eligible for CCW status. The second Eco-industry Precinct in the amended plan is located within the buffer zone of Bush Forever Site 53 (City of Gosnells, 2008). The City of Gosnells is advised that development of any type is not appropriate in CCW or other areas of high biodiversity and in the buffer zones of CCW wetlands.

Similarly, as wetland 8050 and BFS 53 are of high conservation significance, and they (and their buffer zones) should not be used for drainage purposes. These wetlands should be protected from industrial development by buffer zones about 200 m in width that are revegetated and do not include drainage facilities or other infrastructure.

Development in Precinct 1 should be confined to the areas of deep Bassendean Sands, in the eastern part of the precinct, where run-off can be successfully infiltrated (at source) into the adjoining deep sands (above any wetland buffer zones). Such infiltration will support the natural recharge of the high conservation significance wetlands along the Bassendean Sands/Guildford Formation interface. Precinct 2 (Brook Rd to Victoria Rd)

A number of nationally significant conservation values (that are linked ecologically with the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands) were found in the current survey in the extensive wetland between Boundary Rd and Victoria Rd. Nationally significant areas of high biodiversity, including EPBC listed flora, TECs and CCW wetlands, are located in this wetland. Wetlands listed on the Register of the National Estate (with similar values as the MKSEA areas above) are located in BFS 387 between Brook Rd and Boundary Rd. The City of Gosnells is advised that most of Precinct 2 will need to be managed in such a way as to reserve important conservation values and to protect these values.

Precinct 2 is linked to BFS 387 by the flow of groundwater and superficial aquifers. The areas of high conservation significance in this precinct found in the current survey are mostly unrepresented in BFS 387; they should be reserved as part of BFS 387 and managed for conservation. The remainder of Precinct 2 should be managed as part of a groundwater control area and buffer zone for BFS 387.

Summary v


Most of Precinct 2 (including some areas in BFS 387) is currently very poorly managed. Some unregulated problems in the area include the dewatering of superficial aquifers and the salinisation of land by the excavated drainage system; the dumping of fill, refuse and hazardous materials in wetlands; the over-stocking of paddocks with horses and other animals; the incursion of stock into BFS 387; groundwater and surface water pollution and nutrient enrichment; excavation of wetlands; unregulated clearing and burning of native vegetation, and weed proliferation.

The existing land uses within this precinct should be audited to determine the activities that are currently incompatible with the objectives of conservation and restoration of native vegetation, the improvement of groundwater quality and the maximum infiltration of rainfall into groundwater. There should be no additional development in Precinct 2, and existing land uses that are incompatible with conservation and resource enhancement wetland management (and acceptable landuses in wetland buffer zones) should be regulated and phased out. Precinct 3A and Precinct 3B (Yule Brook)

The City of Gosnells is supported in its Concept Plan (City of Gosnells, 2008) to exclude Precinct 3B from development. Yule Brook was fundamental to the development of the complex natural habitats of the alluvial fans of the area and the biodiversity they support. The natural history of Yule Brook parallels the indigenous cultural beliefs that are held about this wetland ecosystem. The areas bordering Yule Brook (in or near to the southwest part of Precinct 3A) were found in this survey to include significant conservation values.

The Concept Plan for the south west end of Precinct 3A and for Precinct 3B should be revised to allow for the protection of these values, the restoration of the floodplains of Yule Brook, the improved linkage of Yule Brook with BFS 387 and initiatives related to the general remediation of the hydrological regime of the MKSEA and BFS 387 that will contribute to the reinstatement of Yule Brook as a living stream. This area represents an important opportunity to fulfil objectives of the Swan-Canning River system Water Quality Improvement Plan (Swan River Trust, 2009) in this regard and to improve the ecological connectivity between conservation reserves of the Darling Range, the Swan-Canning River system and other conservation reserves (including, most importantly, BFS 387) as envisioned by the Perth Biodiversity Project (Del Marco et al., 2004). Table A: A Summary of the Conservation Values in the MKSEA

Values Description of Values

National Significance Threatened Flora Species (listed under the Federal EPBC Act)

Calytrix breviseta subsp. breviseta (Endangered), Conospermum undulatum (Vulnerable) and Lepidosperma rostratum (Endangered)

National Significance Threatened Ecological Communities (listed under the Federal EPBC Act)

1. Shrublands and Woodlands on Muchea Limestone of the Swan Coastal Plain (Endangered). This TEC is not currently represented in the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands conservation estate.

2. Corymbia calophylla – Kingia australis Woodlands on Heavy Soils of the Swan Coastal Plain (Endangered) (FCT 3a).

State Significance Declared Rare Flora & Priority Flora (listed under WA Wildlife Act or by WA Department of Environment and Conservation)

Eremophila glabra subsp. chlorella (DRF), Schoenus pennisetis (P1), Lepyrodia curvescens (P2), Trichocline sp. Treeton (B.J. Keighery & N. Gibson 564) (P2), Baeckea sp. Perth Region (R.J. Cranfield 444) (P3), Cyathochaeta teretifolia (P3), Calothamnus rupestris (P4), Grevillea thelemanniana (P4) and Verticordia lindleyi subsp. lindleyi (P4). [Note: Grevillea thelemanniana is considered eligible for DRF status by B.J. Keighery, B. Makinson, and P. Olde pers. comms.]

State Significance Threatened Ecological Communities (listed by the WA Department of Environment and Conservation)

Herb-rich Saline Shrublands in Claypans (FCT 7) (Vulnerable) Herb-rich Shrublands in Claypans (FCT 8) (Vulnerable) Shrublands on Dry Clay Flats (FCT 10a) (Endangered) Eastern Banksia Woodlands (FCT 20a) (Endangered)

Significant Vegetation of the Eastern SCP in Good Condition and other significant flora (Government of Western Australia, 2000)

Riparian vegetation adjacent to the Yule Brook and ALL other native vegetation in good condition in the MKSEA.

Summary vi


Values Description of Values

Conservation Wetlands (CCW) and Resource Enhancement Wetlands (REW) listed by the WA Department of Environment and Conservation

There are about 70 wetland areas in the MKSEA (including four CCWs) that are currently identified under Unique Function Identifiers (UFIs) in the WA DEC SCP Wetlands Dataset. In the current survey, 17 of the wetlands in the MKSEA were assessed as CCWs. There were also 17 wetlands in the MKSEA that were assessed as REWs. Parts of UFI 13362 adjacent to Yule Brook that are currently MUW were recommended for REW status in this survey (as part of a restoration of the Yule Brook floodplain, local hydrological regime amelioration and to support catchment management objectives of the Swan-Canning River system).

Ecological linkages including waterways and their buffers that connect high conservation areas (EPA, 2008). Linkages that connect National Parks, Bush Forever sites (BFS) and Regional Parks of the Eastern Swan Coastal Plain and Darling Range as proposed by the Bush Forever Project (Government of Western Australia, 2000) and the Perth Biodiversity Project (Del Marco et al., 2004).

1. Yule Brook – BFS 387 Greenway The Yule Brook and its buffer zone (some of which was found to retain

significant native flora and vegetation) forms a natural ecological linkage between the Canning River Regional Park, The Greater Brixton Street Wetlands (BFS 387), Hartfield Park (BFS 320), Welshpool Road Bushland (BFS 50), the Darling Range Regional Park and the Lesmurdie Falls National Park. There is sufficient undeveloped land flanking Yule Brook west of Welshpool Rd to reserve a substantial foreshore buffer and to restore some of the Yule Brook floodplains. This will increase the connectivity of BFS 387 to Yule Brook and other reserves, maintain and restore some of the ecological processes of the alluvial fan complex that are important in maintaining long term viability of BFS 387, allow for the protection of indigenous heritage areas and support catchment management objectives of the Swan-Canning River Water Quality Improvement Plan.

2. BFS 387 – BFS 53 Greenway The Yule Brook – BFS 387 Greenway (as above) can also be linked, to

wetlands of high conservation significance (including Muchea Limestone springs) along the interface of the Bassendean Sands and Pinjarra Plain in the MKSEA, to the Clifford Street Bushland (BFS 53), the White Road Bushland (BFS 51) and the Darling Range Regional Park. This will require the revegetation of wetland buffer zones along the interface of the dunes and the plain in Precincts 1 and 2 of the MKSEA.

Significant trees and other natural resources not classed as ‘bushland’

Stands of native trees or scrub with little or no native understorey such as Flooded Gum (Eucalyptus rudis), Marri (Corymbia calophylla), Modong (Melaleuca preissiana), Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala), Freshwater Paperbark (Melaleuca rhaphiophylla) and the conifer Actinostrobus pyramidalis), seasonally flooded paddocks and some dams within the MKSEA, whilst not classed as ‘bushland’, have important ecological functions and augment regionally scarce native fauna habitat.

FEEDBACK FORM

Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area (MKSEA) Landowner

Information Sessions May 2011

If you have any further questions or comments about the ongoing planning for MKSEA, please

return completed form to: PO Box 662 Gosnells 6990 WA or fax to (08) 9397 3333 or scan and email to [email protected] by Friday 3 June 2011

Additional forms are available to download from www.gosnells.wa.gov.au

Attendee Information Name: Address of Property in MKSEA: Phone: Email: Questions/Comments

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.gosnells.wa.gov.au/�

ATTACHMENT 3: PRESENTATIONS

ATTACHMENT 4: QUESTIONS RAISED

MKSEA - Responses Given by Panel 11th May 2011 1. What is the current and future costs of the project? - Spent up to $ 500,000 so far - ODP- big cost- $100,000 2. Time Frames- How much longer is it going to take? - Hard to answer - CoG does not control all processes - CoG will do what we can to expedite the process - Level of cooperation between landowners would expedite the process - No difference in time frames between Residential or Industrial zoning 3. What would landowners have to do to get the ODP process started? - Either landowners of City could do ODP - The City would be obliged to assess an ODP proposed by landowners 4. Is council going to do the ODP, is there a possibility that is can run in parallel to the MRS Amendment? - MRS Amendment time frames- 12 months - ODP time frames- 12 months - Both processes can run parallel to one another 5. How to challenge the findings of the reports? - You can not really challenge the findings of the report - This report is just recommendations of a professional - High calibre of consultant makes report hard to challenge - Can challenge with personal funds 6. If 3A is not suitable for Industrial, what other uses will it be appropriate for? - Residential - Rural Living - Depends on environmental reports and their outcomes - CoG is open to other uses 7. What is the WAPC's position on precinct 3A? - 8. MRS Amendment 3A? - Guidelines - DWMS- water management -servicing- need to demonstrate capability - Traffic study 9. DWMS for Precinct 3A- Why is there only one for Precinct 1- can there be a DWMS for 3A?

MKSEA - Responses Given by Panel 12th May 2011 1. Time Frames? - we're still asking "if" questions - can not put a time frame on this process - needs to be a review of studies- funding- council? - If we were certain, tie frames are still difficult - CoG can not control all the processes/ agencies involved - state government are ultimately the decision makers 2. Is there any compensation for landowners who have rare flora or a Wetland classification on their property, if so, what is the process to get this compensation? -PROCESS- if it exists on private property- does not necessarily mean compensation. If the land needs to be brought into public ownership, then Government decides if and how the landowner is compensated, not the council -LAND USES- zoned general rural- 1 house and low key business not- industrial or more than one dwelling - general rural is quiet a restrictive zoning - contact Planning Implementation to enquire about what land uses can occur - if your property has declared rare flora or a wetland classification, it does affect activity on that property- e.g. you can not park a truck in a wetland - authorisation needs to be granted on each separate occasion Why isn’t everyone on the street equal? - too many trucks going down the street to have horses - want to sell property to multiple truck owner, but cant have 3 trucks in this zoning - Review of Commercial Parking Policy - CoG recognises people drive trucks, part of the local economy - Landowners are advised to make Parking a condition of property purchase - conclusion- according to the studies the land can not be Industrial, therefore, what can it be used for? - can you permit additional activities for general rural? 3. Multiple Use Classification? - Multiple Use Classification is a lower end wetland classification - it does not necessarily affect development - no constraint to present or future land uses 4. What are the land uses for the other categories of wetlands? - Multiple Use- AS ABOVE - Resource Enhancement - is to conserve and restore - considered on a case by case basis - If areas are degraded might be classified down as multiple use - If areas are conserved might be classified up as conservation category -Conservation Category- set aside - if land remains in private ownership- not an issue - if not, land needs to be set aside and reserved- only conservation activities can occur

Subdivision on Resource Enhancement Category? - Not a policy - WAPC has the ultimate decision - Council would probably not support because subdivision will only complicate an already difficult process Subdivision on Conservation Categories? - Leaving landowners abandoned - can not do anything- what is CoG going to do to help rate payers? - When is CoG going to support us? - This is a waste of time- we are always told NO! - This is a frustrating process for all involved - CoG has done more for MKSEA landowners then in any other area within the City - already spent up to $600,000 - we are not responsible for the constraints in the area - we have only done studies to investigate these constraints - landowners could go through the same process themselves if they wanted to The problem is that CoG isn’t giving us a clear view of how to get to a developer? - We are not the decision makers, WAPC is - We can not guarantee to a developer that the land will become Industrial - frustrating for all parties involved Why weren’t the studies done before the community was engaged? - CoG have never given commitments on time frames - there was never a promise this land would become Industrial If I put my property on the market, what would be the chances of it actually selling? - CoG does not advise about real estate matters When are we going to hear from the State Government then? - we had an officer from DoP last night - It is hard to get a representative when they are not convinced the land is suitable for development yet 5. 200m Buffer Zones? - Conservation Category is 100- 200m maximum - this is the worse situation - needs to be separation between incompatible uses- residential is 50m, high density is 30m Does Yule Brook have a buffer zone? - yes, there should be a 30m buffer zone either side, depending on the land use How come past development is not even 10m from the Brook? - environmental requirements are different now. We live in an era of heightened environmental awareness. Requirements are now different to what they were 20- 30 years ago.

ATTACHMENT 5: FULL QUESTIONS RAISED BY PARTICIPANTS

LANDOWNER INFORMATION SESSION 11 MAY 2011 QUESTIONS

Table 1 • When? • How long? • 200m buffer or 50m? • Who is paying? • How much? • What precinct is 3-5 years? • Sinking ship – SS Precinct 1 • How long before it is advertised for public comment? • If owners contribute $$’s will the Council do the organising? • Why cant the area on the southern side of Kelvin Road be re-zoned now? Table 2 • What are the restraints on #A having the MRS amended concurrently with

Precinct 1? • Will we be informed if decisions regarding 3B affect 3B? • How long has Landcorp been involved and when will the report to Cabinet

become public? • 3A have submitted a petition to Council of 100% unanimity of support for

rezoning, how do Council then believe support is fragmented? • Why do you require our names and addresses? • What is the timeframe for 3A? • What are the implications of the buffer zones? • What is the relevance of soil and water studies to be extended when sites are

engineered in development? • What are the implications for 3A if the MRS is changed to residential not

industrial? • Is the WAPC in favour of rezoning 3A to industrial being the area north of 3A up to

Welshpool Road and west of Coldwell Road is recommended by WAPC to be rezoned industrial?

Table 3 • Has the F,V and W report been adopted by EPA? Is it open to challenge? • How long will it be for residential compared to industrial ? Time frames? • Which type of development suits the F,V and W report best? Has the Council

developed a particular view? • Can any type of development – ind or residential occur in 3A without landowner

contribution/participation? • Can the government pre-fund? • Edward St (3A) – no comment (get on with it)

Table 4 • How are the study and planning costs allocated to each precinct? • How are areas known as “Bassendean sands” identified on the map? • When is it envisaged that the 3 month public comment will happen? • Precinct 1 – at what stage will the Shire fund the ODP? • Proposals referred to Federal Environmental Agency. Has this been approved like

WA Env protection? • Is there a consideration to partition Precinct 1 into A&B by Kelvin Road once ODP

commences? Table 5 • How much money is allocated to this project by the Council? • Do the owners of Precinct 1 have to wait until all studies completed in relation to

Precincts 2 and 3? • What if any rare species have been identified in Precinct 1? (BF53?) • Is the photo (black box etc) actually taken of the area in question? Table 6 • Process of 3-5 years is too long – we waited 10 years!! • How does one challenge the accuracy and recommendations of the flora

report? • Who, how and when compensates landowners who are affected by CCW? • When will the last legislative hurdle be cleared? • What do the landowners have to do to get the ODP started? Table 7 • Is Council prepared to help get ODP to work parallel with MRS? • Anyway an landowners to get things moving faster. • As individual landowners we don’t have the capacity to work on our own. Have

any developers made enquiries to get thing rolling?

LANDOWNER INFORMATION SESSION 12 MAY 2011 QUESTIONS

Table 1 • Rare species restricts development of the property. To what extent is the

restriction? • Can the rare species be relocated? • What are the options to perform development around the species or other

restrictions? • What is the impact on land values, and what can you do with your property with

rare species? Table 2 • We are lost as to why it has taken till now for Landcorp to help fund a priority

project. • We have asked time and time for someone to answer openly. • 3B to compensate A • Subdivide to 5 or 1 acre lots • Industrial dev to help Brook maintenance • For 3 months asked to clean asbestos from the drains in the area of brook • Is there an indicative timetable of what the development steps are? 2yrs? 5yrs? • Buffer: Please tell us the land over from Mills Park where the Yule Brook flows

against the land heights in 3B? • As no buffer to speak of in Mills Park area but you take 200m in 3B – WHY? Table 3 • Busy Rd Bickley Rd – What controls are going to be put in place for more safety? • What compensation does the property owner get for conserved land? • Areas deemed “flood plain” – Impact of insurance? (re Queensland floods) • Any area of wetland affected by salt? • How much longer for final resolution – Precinct 2? • With new environment study report released this will lower the land value of

Precinct 2. How will the City deal with this? Table 4 • What is the point of paying rates if there is no potential for development in the

future? • Are landowners allowed to keep livestock in Precinct 2? • If property has rare flora do government/Council acquire theland and

compensate the landowner? Table 5 • If permits are granted for land use why cant the permits be transferable to make

properties more saleable?

• Does CCW land as shown on map include the 200m buffer zone? • We are on the north side of Victoria Road, with the development of Precinct

1does this mean we will be looking at the rear of industrial properties? Table 6 • Allow landowners to sub-divide to 5 acre lots. • Did any of the photos of Brook Road are of Bush Forever? • Why if all this flower and fauna is so important – why wait 3 years? • Where in 3B is aboriginal heritage signficance? • Yule Brook Drainage special as you are we know hold letters to sugest change of

directions? Table 7 • Are we going to get resumed? (Boundary Road)? • Whats the path forward long term since “phased out” and regulated terminology

is used? • Please clarify para 2 on page 5? • Why have rates more than doubled on Rew Brentwood Rd area and land taxes

gone up too? • Has MKSEA contributed to these increases? Table 8 • If blue MU wetland what will/could the zoning get classified use? • If light green resource E wet – If not upgraded what will the use classified as? • When will the resource EH wet be decided ie upgraded to cons category? • Resource wet – what does it mean??!! • Revegetation to make it into cons category. Time frame? • If so, does government buy or compensate property owners? • Buffer 200m! Is this inclusive of the creek?!! Yule Brook has less than 5m and

housing. • Brook re-directed and dug out so not a natural water way!!Culverts run into from

the areas?! Table 9 • DEC info a lot of bureaucratic bullshit (buffer zones) • We should all be looking to keep the recommendations that have been

prescribed (in the summary) • Is the State government or City of Gosnells that overriding these silly

recommendations?

attachment 1: attendance lists

Documents