schedule of submissions · 2015. 2. 24. · schedule of submissions draft town planning scheme no.4...

TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 - SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS INDEX OF SUBMISSIONS SUBJECT OF SUBMISSION PAGE Parks and Recreation (P1-P205) 1 Rural

• Bedfordale (RB1-RB17) 43 • Wungong (RW1) 54 • Karragullen (RKA1-RKA8) 55 • Kelmscott (RKE1-RKE7) 64 • Forrestdale (RF1-RF21) 72 • Champion Lakes (RC1-RC3) 87 • Roleystone (RRO1-RRO12) 90 • Reservations (RRE1-RRE4) 102 • Araluen Golf Course Estate (AGC1-AGC3) 104 • Armadale Road Special Residential (ARD1-ARD25) 107

Erade Village and North Forrestdale (E1-E4) 124 Southern River District Structure Plan (S1-S10) 135 Industrial (IND1-IND9) 141 Residential Design Codes (RE1-RE30) 147 Commercial (C1-C20) 159 Miscellaneous (M1-M32) 170 City of Armadale Amendments

• Scheme Maps (CoA1.1 - CoA1.10) 187 • Special Control Area Maps (CoA2.1-CoA2.5) 188 • Scheme Text (CoA3.1-CoA3.24) 189 • Local Planning Policies (CoA4.1-CoA4.3) 201 • Local Planning Strategy (CoA5.1-CoA5.3) 203 • General (CoA6.1) 204

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS

DRAFT TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO.4

NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION COMMENT RECOMMENDATION

PARKS AND RESERVES (Submissions P1 to P205)

P1 R Johnson13 Waltham Rd ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Fancote Park Gwynne Park

Petition with 993 signatures prayer of which is as follows: “Creyk Park, Fancote Park and a section of Gwynne Park are all zoned Residential and this zoning permits housing development. We the undersigned hereby request that all of the abovementioned parks be rezoned by the City of Armadale to Parks and Recreation (local) to guarantee their futures as public venues for sport and recreation”.

Creyk Park Creyk Park is located in a street block bounded by Kembla St, Scruth St, Lindley Avenue, Lilian Avenue and Waltham Road. The area generally known as Creyk Park comprises Lot 141 Lilian Avenue, however, 2 other public properties abut the park being Crown Reserve 39208 and Lot 111 Waltham Road. Crown Reserve 39208 on the corner of Lindley Ave and Scruth St has an area of 2853m2 and is vested in the City for the purposes of Public Recreation. It is an existing Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local) under both the current Town Planning Scheme No 2 and draft TPS No 4. Lot 111 Waltham Road is a former Water Corporation property, which Council recently purchased for amalgamation into Creyk Park. It is an existing Reservation for Public Purposes under the current TPS No 2 and the advertised draft TPS No 4. Lot 141 Lilian Avenue is a lot of 5.4ha which is owned freehold by the City and zoned Residential R12.5 under the current TPS No 2 with this zoning density code being consistent with the surrounding residential precinct in which it is located. The existing Residential zone of Lot 141 Lilian Avenue was put in place by the gazettal of TPS No 2 in 1985. The Council of the day determining that zoning as appropriate following the community consultation associated with the draft of TPS No 2. Given the historical development and use of Lot 141 Lilian Avenue for recreational purposes, it would be appropriate to modify the Scheme 4 map to extend the Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local) to include the whole of Lot 141 Lilian Avenue. Similarly, Council’s recent purchase of the Water Corporation property allows the further extension of the Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local) to also incorporate Lot 111 Waltham Road.

That the submission be supported in part and the Scheme Map be modified to show Lot 111 Waltham Road and Lot 141 Lilian Ave, generally known as Creyk Park and the land bounded by Forrest Road, Seventh Ave and Townley Street as Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local). That the Residential zoning be retained over Lot 24 (Fancote Park) in view of the proposed Canning River Precinct study noting that the expectation is that at the completion of the study the bulk of the land would be reserved for Parks and Recreation.

1

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS DRAFT TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO.4

NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


The City’s Public Open Space Strategy, prepared during 2000 and which forms the basis for rationalising open space within the City, identifies Creyk Park as meeting the criteria for retention as open space. Accordingly the strategy recommends that the park be retained and notes the opportunity to convert the landholding into a reserve for Parks and Recreation (Local). In accordance with Council’s previous resolution, the amalgamation of Lot 141 Lilian Avenue and Lot 111 Waltham Road provides further opportunity for an expansion of Creyk Park (D214/02). TPS No 4 provides the opportunity to consolidate Creyk Park as an important local recreation facility by including the whole of Lot 141 Lilian Avenue and Lot 111 Waltham Road as a Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local) under the final scheme. The land comprising Creyk Park should be shown on the Scheme in its entirety as a reserve for Parks and Recreation as this is consistent with the Public Open Space Strategy and would accurately indicate to the public what the City’s intentions are for the land. Gwynne Park Gwynne Park is comprised of five titles (7.5ha) owned by the City and purchased between 1953 and 1977 and Reserves 21152 (8ha), and 41134 (2092m2) vested in the City for Recreation. The land is partly reserved and partly zoned Residential R15 under TPS No.4. This designation is the same as under TPS No. 2. The Public Open Space Strategy indicated that the park was of economic size to maintain, provided good surveillance and access and formed part of a multi-use complex. Accordingly it was recommended that the park be retained and converted to a reserve. The land should be shown on the Scheme in its entirety as a reserve for Parks and Recreation as this is consistent with the Public Open Space Strategy and would accurately indicate to the public what the City’s intentions are for the land.

2


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


Fancote Park Fancote Park is comprised of Reserve 29398 (3.3ha) and Lot 24 (1.8ha) purchased by the City in 1982. The Reserves are indicated under TPS No. 2 and 4 as Reserve for Parks and Recreation and Lot 24 is zoned Residential under both TPS No. 2 and proposed TPS No. 4 with the Coding changing from R10 to R15/40. The Public Open Space Strategy concluded that Fancote Park should be retained with the opportunity to convert to a reserve to enable the disposal of other reserves. Fancote Park was included in the Kelmscott Enquiry by Design study where it was concluded that there was potential to extend the Fancote / Stargate area to allow residential development by realigning Page Road to create a row of town house lots to screen the rear of the shopping centre and provide park surveillance. The City has proposed that Fancote Park be included within the Canning River Precinct Study, which is proposed to be jointly funded by the WAPC as part of the Dialogue with the City – Communities Program. This study will have a strong emphasis on public consultation. Accordingly it would be premature to reserve all the land for Parks and Recreation at this stage.

P2 G Savage 10 Irymple Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Warwick Savage Park

Questions why Warwick Savage Park (Lot 100 Simons Drive, Roleystone) is not shown as a reserve for recreation. The Town Planning Board subdivision approval of 24 September 1982 (copy supplied) requests 11ha be set aside for public recreation purposes. Requests that Council ensure that this land is set aside in perpetuity for public recreation and change the map and text to reflect this.

Lot 100 Simons Drive is an 11ha lot owned by the City. Subdivision records indicate it was transferred free of cost to the City for public recreational purposes under a 1982 subdivision approval by the then Town Planning Board of WA. The lpurpose of the original transfer was for public recreational purposes, therefore it is likely that a future reservation of the land would be appropriate. However, the consultants POS report made no recommendations on this reserve, and as the area within which Warwick Savage Park is located will be assessed under the Public Open Space Strategy Stage 7, which will be completed in the next 12 months, it would be appropriate to consider the proposed reservation in the context of the open space resource for the whole locality.

That the submission be not supported at this time in view of the impending review of public open space requirements for the Roleystone precinct to be undertaken within the next 12 months as part of Council’s seven stage POS strategy.

3


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P3 A & A Hordyk 55 Rushton Tce MT NASURA WA 6112

Lot 530 Rushton Tce, MT NASURA (Reserve 38117)

Subject land is shown on tax maps as reserve for recreation, but zoned residential under draft TPS 4. The submittee understands that this could be a carryover from the current town planning scheme. The submittee requests reserve 38117 be rezoned to Parks and Recreation because: That is obviously the intent of the land; The submittee considered the fact it was a

reserve when purchasing the adjoining property;

The land has environmental significance as it is a habitat for the native bandicoot;

It is an important connection for the public between Rushton Terrace and the adjoining reserves;

It is the natural storm water drainage outlet for the area;

It is a fire brigade access point to the reserves.

The submission requests that land on Rushton Terrace be reserved for Parks and Recreation rather than be zoned Residential R5. While Reserve 38117 was given up as a condition of subdivision under S20A of the Town Planning and Development Act it was zoned on TPS 2 or 4. The Public Open Space Strategy concluded that the land should be retained as open space and the sixth stage of the Strategy’s implementation has recently commenced to confirm this. It is recommended that the Rushton Terrace park be Reserved Parks and Recreation with the exception of Reserve 40455 (822m2) which should be investigated for possible transfer to Water Corporation. The POS Strategy recommendations for the specific reserves are as follows: Reserve 38117 (2.3338ha) is partly reserved for

Parks and Recreation (Local) and partly zoned Residential. The POS Strategy recommends its retention.

Reserve 40455 (822m²), was advertised as Reservation for Public Purpose and under the POS Strategy is recommended for either consideration for amalgamation with reserve 38117 or for transfer to the Water Corporation, as it is associated with drainage.

Reserve 38116 (281m²) is also associated with drainage and was advertised as Public Purpose, but the POS Strategy recommends it be amalgamated with reserve 38117.

Reserve 39794 (1.0165ha) is partly reserved for Parks and Recreation (Local) and partly zoned Residential. The POS Strategy recommends its retention.

It is recommended that reserve 38116 and the unreserved parts of 38117 and 39794 be rezoned to Parks and Recreation (Local).

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme maps to show reserve 38116, and the unreserved parts of 38117 and 39794 as Parks and Recreation (Local) and Reserve 40455 be investigated for possible transfer to the Water Corporation.

4


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P4 R Johnson13 Waltham Rd ARMADALE WA 6112


The submittee’s daughter is part of the dance school at Creyk Park and the submittee’s son plays tennis at Gwynne Park. The parks are important to the community and used extensively for sport and recreation. With increased housing densities they will become even more vital. Child obesity is a major issue and it is essential these local venues remain available, retained and managed by the City. Page 7 of the invitation for public comment states clearly these will be developed in the future.

See comments on submission P1.

That the submission be supported in part.

P5 R & M Loveday 13 Bamlett St MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard form-letter submission on parks as follows: “These parks are existing facilities for sport and recreation. With a growing population they become even more important to the community. It is essential they be rezoned Parks and Recreation (Local) to ensure they are retained and managed by the City”.



P6 S Bosley30 Peet Road ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee’s children use these parks recreationally. There are no other parks available in the area.

See comments on submission P1. That the submission be supported in part.

P7 I Mackay7/33 Brookside Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Leave the parks as recreational areas permanently.


P8 K Talbot7 Ellen St MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). All the green zones should be kept.


5


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P9 J WhiteLot 1 Wygonda Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These areas need to be preserved for recreational purposes as there are very few such areas left in the district. Many sporting clubs and private citizens will be affected by the proposal.


P10 K & R Ierino 10 Lund Crt ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Where do the existing sporting clubs go? Between highways, housing and roads, what is left to enjoy? Children need space, not structures.


P11 R Molson10 Lenore St ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee works in a primary school and on that basis argues how important it is for children to have somewhere to play.


P12 K Maxwell15 Westborne Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee is a mother of 2 young children and feels it is vital that children have recreation areas to be able to play and exercise.


P13 S Lewis188 Schruth St ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). With expected population increase due to concentration of housing, the decision to reduce community recreational areas appears to be a step in the wrong direction. Council should be retaining as much park land as possible close to the city centre for ease of access.


P14 S Eales16 George Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Children would loose recreation areas important for their sport and leisure. If park areas are continually reduced, it will cause them to play or hang out in the streets.


6


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P15 Y Waddell4 Leschenaultia St ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee argues that in 30 years as a resident they have used all the subject parks and feels they are an essential part of the City’s facilities. The City needs all its sport areas and should be providing more not less, in accessible areas.


P16 F Elsegood91 Soldiers Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Public open space is essential for children to be able to play sport, especially with residential blocks becoming smaller and not having back yards.


P17 V Olsen9 Jarrah Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). It is vital to maintain parklands and sporting facilities.


P18 E Blaker10 Third Ave ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). As a long term resident and sport man, a lack of sport fields is a negative for residents.


P19 M Thatcher5 Barbara Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). There needs to be public parks and open space, especially where these areas are densely populated. These areas need to be maintained by the City.


P20 S Titshall37 Derry Avenue MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Armadale is an area needing places for physical activity of our youth not a depletion of them.


7


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P21 S Snadden79 Hawkstone Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee is against the proposed residential subdivision, stating as many parks as possible need to be kept to ensure families have open space to play.


P22 S Mackenzie3 Taree Pl ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Just leave the parks alone as once they are gone, they are gone.


P23 G Martin7 Wygonda Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). There are other places to use for zoning schemes rather than parks.


P24 M Boothman44 Westborne Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Parklands are becoming a rare commodity and should not become a money making venture but kept for this generation and those to come to enjoy.


P25 R Martin7 Wygonda Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These parks should be kept as is for future generations.


P26 T Kealley103 Peet Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). No personal problem at present, but it interferes with established residents of the community. Higher densities also attract higher crime rates, which the community doesn’t need.



P27 K Hewdrie71 Raeburn Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee fully agrees that the existing parks are very important for future generations and should be rezoned so they won’t be sold for development.


8


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P28 S Mackenzie3 Taree Pl ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Coming from a 1960’s high density residential area in the U.K., the submittee states that these conditions are far from an ideal living situation. The community needs parks far more.


P29 J Martin4 Attunga Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Do not rezone these areas as the children need their play grounds.


P30 P Scott5 Taree Pl ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These parks are in the care of Council for recreation and are essential in all cities.


P31 S Salo13 Eatts Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). There is enough tar and cement. Let’s appreciate the greenery to create a balance. Let grandchildren enjoy parks and gardens in reality, not in story books.


P32 L Salo13 Eatts Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). With a general increase in working hours, recreation and sporting facilities need to be readily accessible. It has been noted world wide that high density residential areas are highly likely to become breeding grounds for stress, violence and crime. The existing lifestyle is appreciated and the parks should be there for grandchildren to enjoy.



P33 V Williams63 Valley View Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee deplores the loss of any recreational space – it is also depriving future generations. It is well documented that as population density increases so does the crime rate – ratings of R30 and R40 will ensure that Armadale is a place to be avoided.



9


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P34 V Tilbrook22/4 Andreas Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). It is essential that the parks be kept for children and should be rezoned.


P35 N Martin4 Heather Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The children need the parks to keep them off the streets.


P36 L Williams63 Valley View Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These areas should be protected for future public use.


P37 G Ashfield5 Taree Pl ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The parks should be rezoned to Parks and Recreation to be retained for all of us and future generations, and should never be subdivided or sold.


P38 J Phillips62 Holden Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Extremely concerned about the rezoning of these areas. They are designated areas where children and adults play. The submittee is worried that if this is done here, it will happen elsewhere.


P39 S Phillips62 Holden Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee asks why Council is rezoning these areas if there is no interest in developing them. Who is the developer, what is he paying you and why are you doing this?


P40 P Keast62 Holden Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Once the land is gone it can’t be returned. Don’t destroy a very important part of the community.


10


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P41 K Harland43 Tyers Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Parks are valuable for the children in the community. Build elsewhere.


P42 A Horsfield45 Ellis Rd MT NASURA WA 6112

Creyk Park

No comments provided. The submission does not provide any comment on particular issues relating to Creyk Park and as such cannot be responded to.

That the submission be noted.

P43 M Buckingham141 Clifton St KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Fancote Park

Fancote and Creyk Parks must remain public parks.


P44 S Mohsenin6 Crevalle Way ROCKINGHAM WA 6169

Creyk Park

No comments provided. The submission does not provide any comment on particular issues relating to Creyk Park and as such cannot be responded to.


P45 I Lawless3 Dale St MT NASURA WA 6112


As a private citizen the submittee is totally opposed to the change to residential of any these parks. They are concerned about the ongoing filling in of sporting and recreational facilities and wants to preserve existing parks. Requests a rezoning to Parks and Recreation.


P46 N Lori11 Dale St MT NASURA WA 6112


The submittee is horrified at the possibility of residential development at any of these parks. All are widely used by the community and they should be preserved through an appropriate zoning. Also concerned about housing density and crime with reducing block sizes.



P47 C Allen141 Brookton Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111


The submittee states we need to keep our parks. As housing blocks are getting smaller and the population is growing, they are needed for sport and recreation.

No direct request is made by this submission for rezoning. See comments on submission P1.


11


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P48 L Allen141 Brookton Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Parks are imperative to the needs of families, sporting groups and dog owners. More are needed, not less. They act as a buffer to high density housing and provide a valuable quality of life.



P49 L Sim40 Spencer Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). No other recreational facility of this size is available within walking distance of properties within this area.


P50 M Tilley52 Waltham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Used for taking dogs for a walk.


P51 P Cullen1B Saddlers Rt KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee wants the parks protected as recreational. They want to know that the land is going to be there for their kids.


P52 R Steele8 Pascoe St KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised).


P53 Mr & Mrs R Button 5 Frye Ct KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). There is land to the south to extend building. Children will end up unfit and unsocial if this area goes to building.


P54 A Theobald11 Nash St KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Kids play football at the park. There is not enough parkland in the area.



P55 K Staines12 Tummell Ct ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Children’s football at stake. No direct request is made by this submission for rezoning. See comments on submission P1.


12


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P56 C Nicholls11 Bunney Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). This park is needed for our children and the future. The bush is beautiful and the oval / playground get used all the time.


P57 V Demris5 Aruba Ct SOUTHERN RIVER WA 6110


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Our government makes comments every day about obesity in adults and children. No park in the district should be zoned for housing.


P58 J Askew8 Netley Pl ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Need to keep areas for recreation.


P59 P Pugh39 Angelo St ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Public parks should stay as such for future generations to enjoy.


P60 D Dennis10/99 George Wy CANNINGTON WA 6107


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee encourages outdoor activities, whether it be team sports or individual recreation. It is important to preserve parks for future generations. If it were developed where would people go?


P61 J Purdy11 Banksia Rd WESTFIELD WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). This is a valued public open space and should be rezoned recreation immediately.


P62 G Watson54 Lilian Ave ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These areas need to be rezoned to safeguard their future, rather than a promise to retain them as parks when they are zoned residential, when draft TPS 4 has upgraded that residential zoning – very suspicious.


13


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P63 L Waters8 Pascoe St KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee has been using this park for walking dogs for 9 years.


P64 G Staines348 Fulham St CLOVERDALE WA 6105


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Save all our parks, save them for the kids.


P65 S Plumley Unit 6/3 Netley Pl ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Creyk Park is needed as a reserve, not residential. Used by scouts, football, dance classes ad the elderly. What right has anyone got to take this away?


P66 S Hassman81 Hawkstone Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Junior football.


P67 G & A Buttom 8 Frye Ct KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittees walks through the park twice a day with their children and dog.


P68 J Lee93 Brenchley Dr ATWELL WA 6164


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). This particular oval is used for many sporting events and recreational uses and therefore should remain untouched.


P69 E Addison5 Gilbride Cv ATWELL WA 6164


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). It would be a shame to see such a lovely piece of park land turned into yet more housing. Surely there are other pieces of land in the area that are not well utilised.


14


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P70 R Armin-Grimm9 Oakfield Pl KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). President of the Kelmscott junior football club – this is the club’s home ground.


P71 T Collard8 Kendal Ct WESTFIELD WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittees boys play football at this oval – it is the club’s home ground.


P72 F Jamieson31 Tranquil Ct KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Football interest.


P73 T Brunt100 Chidzey Dr ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Football interest.


P74 T Wenn102 Girraween St ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). As a parent with children, the submittee states parks are extremely important for children’s development.


P75 I Alexander10 Herriard Rd ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park The City will lose from excessive development and reduction in public open space. Make it a park in law. Don’t sell it but develop it for future recreational use for all.


That the submission be supported.

P76 G & J Horton 42 Lilian Ave ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park The submittee asks that this land be rezoned to park and gardens.



P77 C Greenough20 Seagrass Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee comes down to watch junior footy in this field. Kids have gone on to play in state and AFL teams.


15


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P78 K Squirrell27 Chamberlain Wy ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee has been using this park for years and asks that the park be rezoned


P79 H Elliott22 Bamlett St MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee states a family member plays football on this oval.


P80 J Elliot22 Bamlett St MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee states a family member plays football on this oval.


P81 G Sim40 Spencer Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). This park is one reason the submittee bought the subject property. The submittee uses it on a daily basis with a dog for exercise.


P82 C Mitchell49 Hilltop Pl KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P83 N Mitchell49 Hilltop Pl KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P84 M O’Neill11 Bamlett St MT NASURA WA 6112




P85 S Wright11 Bamlett St MT NASURA WA 6112




16


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P86 D Russell2 Pascoe St KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee’s family use the park when they visit. The submittee has 5 children and 8 grandchildren.


P87 S Kelly29 Flinn Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Live near Creyk Park and use it daily. Enjoy seeing youngsters with open space to play football etc. Want to see surrounding area preserved for bush. Rezone area from high density residential to public open space.


P88 T Guest5 Oberon Gr MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Creyk Park is the only park in a reasonable distance from the submittee’s father’s place to assist him walking (for health reasons, doctors orders).


P89 P Beswick4 Guava Ct FORRESTFIELD WA 6058


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Having played sport all their life, the submittee knows the importance it plays in people’s lives, medically and socially.


P90 A Squirrell27 Chamberlain Wy ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee must walk daily under doctor’s orders because of heart attacks and strokes. Creyk Park is all there is in a reasonable walking distance of their address.


P91 S Colvin7 Henderson Ave REDCLIFFE WA 6104


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee belongs to a sporting body.


17


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P92 L Beard3 Wilpon St BECKENHAM WA 6107


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Having 5 children it is very important to have an outlet, such as Creyk Park, as exercise, fresh air and well being is critical.


P93 K Halden84 Glenbawn Dr SOUTH LAKE WA 6164


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Where will the football juniors go? Will they overload other existing grounds?


P94 T Halden30 Lilian Ave ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). With residential developments everywhere, there is nowhere for football clubs, walking dogs and everyday family events.


P95 C Smith9 Banyard Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). This park is valued by many. Aesthetically speaking an estate would look ridiculous. The City is heritage living, don’t make the environment inner city living. Rezone these parks or children will be better off living in Northbridge.


P96 M Knapton161 Schruth St ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Have lived near Creyk Park for 30 years and enjoy the flora and fauna. The submittee feels we would lose all of this if it were made residential. It would be sad if children and elderly folk’s pleasure were revoked.


P97 J New23/68 Owtram Rd ARMADALE WA 6112




P98 L Swaddle45 Tyers Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Parks should remain as parks and be zoned as such.


18


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P99 S Stewart8 Reeves Ct KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Where will children play if you take the parks away?


P100 T Moody9 Lindley Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). It is necessary to keep parks for citizens and that means all parks should be classed as reserves.

See comments on submission P1. The City’s Public Open Space Strategy will eventually (it is currently at stage 6 of a 7 staged implementation program) investigate the value of all reserves to the City. It would be premature to reserve all parks until that investigation is undertaken. While it may be appropriate to reserve for Parks and Recreation those parks that meet the criteria for the provision of parks to the community, it is not necessary for such land to be reserved under the Land Act if they are currently held in fee simple by the City.


P101 S O’Leary3 Carrigg Cr MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These parks are enjoyed as a public good. At any time of the day there are people playing sport or walking. There are too few public spaces, and to further reduce these spaces to obtain a few building blocks would disadvantage more people than should be.


P102 C Ferguson67 Chestnuts Rd JARRAHDALE WA 6124


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee walks their father around the park twice a week on doctor’s advice after heart attacks and strokes. Claims it is the only place to avoid petrol fumes.


P103 L Allen141 Brookton Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111


As a private citizen with a family and a dog, the submittee considers these parks extremely necessary.



P104 L Gibson12/25 Dale Rd ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These parks are used by the public for various reasons. Where would they go?


19


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P105 J Pover14 Church St KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P106 I & A McCormick 18 Church St KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P107 K Van Rongen30 Winchester Rd ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Gwynne Park

We definitely need these free access areas to allow children in the vicinity to have somewhere to go. Without these we open the streets to more crime and teenage boredom.



P108 D Green1/101 Beatty Ave EAST VICTORIA PARK WA 6100

Creyk Park No comments provided. The submission does not provide any comment on particular issues relating to Creyk Park and as such cannot be responded to.


P109 A Clarke-Jones6 Windarra Way ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park The submittee must walk their dog twice a day. They enjoy having a park to go to relax, read and meet other people with my interests.



P110 B King11 Possum Pl KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P111 L Green1/101 Beatty Ave EAST VICTORIA PARK WA 6100



P112 D Thomas61 River Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Please don’t make Kelmscott as in-filled and cramped as other suburbs closer to the CBD have become.


20


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P113 R Thomas61 River Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee uses parks for walking a dog and feels there are already few enough parks in the area without reducing those existing.


P114 B Clements9 Arnel St KELMSCOTT WA 6111



P115 C Locke156 Peet Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111




P116 T Walker 160 Peet Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Parks are not only recreational areas but fauna refuges.


P117 D Locke156 Peet Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Too few parks and gardens and it is important to retain those existing. Community health demands all facilities for sport and recreation are vested in the public domain for all time.


P118 C Kilner4 Taree Pl ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). As a parent the threatened parks should be saved for children and their children.


P119 L Walker160 Peet Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Open space and low density housing are an attraction of the City of Armadale and the submittee would not like to see any changes that are of no benefit to the community.


21


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P120 C Gairns7 Taree Pl ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Losing too much precious green belt as it is. High density rezoning will eventually destroy communities as well as depriving future generations of recreational facilities.


P121 R Gairns7 Taree Pl ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The loss of parks for the sake of high density living is a sign of greed (developers) and stupidity (those that let it happen).


P122 J BoltingNo Address Provided ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Wish for the kids to have football on Sundays.


P123 J Anderson18 McKeown Ct ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Too many parks are being closed.


P124 J Hilgert7 Verrill Way ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). It’s necessary to keep the parks for all citizens. Parks should be classed as reserves.


P125 M Swaddle45 Tyers Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Parks belong to the people of the community and should stay parks.


P126 B James102 Girraween St ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). If the parks are going to be unaffected and left as parks, we must protect them now and zone them as parks.


22


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P127 B Kelly29 Flinn Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee enjoys the park everyday and appreciate the youth enjoying healthy fun. Rezone the area as public open space.


P128 E Moore16 Church St KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P129 W & B Penton 154 Streich Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). This park has been an important part of the submittee’s happiness and peace of mind whilst living here for the last 9 years. Being a country person the city living country life motto of Armadale hits home.


P130 D RobinsonLot 56 Rock View Pl KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P131 P Hamilton28 Paterson Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P132 M Williman99 Carawatha Ave ARMADALE WA 6112




P133 H Kelly30 Raleigh St BELMONT WA 6104




23


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P134 C Gibbs8 Beckenham St BECKENHAM WA 6107


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee watches their grandchildren play there. They attend functions and can walk their dog. It is a young persons area that is needed for recreation and sport.


P135 F & S Yeomans 50 Waltham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). A change to residential would devalue property, as there are no other facilities. The young and older people of the community need a recreational area to ensure their health, happiness and social interaction.


P136 A Clark8 Pendragon Ct WESTFIELD WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). What are we going to do without these places? These are important for the future of this area, as our kids are the future.


P137 C Chambers18 Spencer Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P138 S O’Reilly52 Seville Dr SEVILLE GROVE WA 6111




P139 B Wollert15 Coolabah Dr MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee has been using this park twice a day for the last 10 years as an exercise area.


P140 L Bradley11 Herriard Rd ARMADALE WA 6112




24


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P141 D & C Gorc 53 Doorigo Rd ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Please leave the parks alone.


P142 R Johnstone8 Frye Ct KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park

The submittee would like Creyk Park to be zoned Parks and Recreation to preclude subdivision and any subsequent development.



P143 P Regan22 Waltham Ct ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Please leave Creyk Park alone, it is for future children. The submittee wants open space, not a concrete block. Remember the City’s motto – city living country style.



P144 M McRae24 Cambell Rd ARMADALE WA 6112

All Parks & Reserves

The submittee feels concerned at the denuding of native vegetation in so many areas of Armadale, which is imperative to the future of all. Humbly request the Council to zone Creyk Park in particular to park land reserve.

See comments on submission P1 with regard to the zoning of Creyk Park. See comments on submission P100 with regard to applying the rezoning to all parks.


25


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P145 C WallyLot 9 Buchanan Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


These parks are existing facilities for sport and recreation and with a growing population they will become even more important to the community. It is essential they be rezoned Parks and recreation (Local) to ensure they are retained and returned to the rightful Nyoongah Nation land owners for ecological, social and sustainable use. Far sightedness is required to environmentally retain and maintain the quality of this region. As a mark of respect not involving tokenism, the management of the reserves by the Nyoongah nation for socio – cultural – environmental sustainability would be a small step towards concepts of reconciliation. Fancote Park should be reforested and Stargate shopping centre relocated. Gwynne Park also requires some reforestry and maintenance by a committee conversant in relevant issues. Due to submission constraints, the submittee assumes that persons are aware of the complexity of issues, such as carbon credits, water degradation, pollution, health, sport, education, human and animal rights / welfare, sustainable communities, quality of life for all.

See comments on submission P1 with regard to zoning of parks. The Town Planning Scheme does not designate the authority responsible for, or the management practices associated with these reserves. These issues, such as management by Aboriginal communities, relocating a shopping centre and general environmental concerns, are not within the purview of the town planning scheme. The town planning scheme addresses permitted uses on zones and reserves not the ongoing management of land.


P146 S MnyrrinnaLot 9 Buchanan Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Identical to submission P145, plus: Creyk Park contains endangered species such as Banksia trees and their inhabitants. As such it is more than a recreational facility and the destruction of this resource would put the local authority at risk of being sued for compensation for loss of quality of life, misrepresentation and the loss of said habitat.

See comments on submission P1 with regard to zoning of parks. See comments on submission P145 with regard to responsibility for and management of reserves.


P147 R MasonLot 9 Buchanan Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Identical to submission P145. See comments on submission P1 with regard to zoning of parks. See comments on submission P145 with regard to responsibility for and management of reserves.


26


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P148 G Mason33 Tewson Rd WESTFIELD WA 6111




P149 C MasonLot 9 Buchanan Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111




P150 B MasonLot 9 Buchanan Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Identical to submission P145. See comments on submission P1 with regard to zoning of parks. See comments on submission 145 with regard to responsibility for and management of reserves.


P151 C Kirkby49 Canning Mills Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Told there are no current plans to develop Creyk Park and have the promise of the Mayor in that regard. Records show local governments have let the community down in the past however. If Council speaks with conviction, listen to the community and rezone the land to Parks and Recreation (Local). Children need the area to play and learn.

See comments on submission P1. That the submission be supported.

P152 G Ringer2 Sidcup Wy KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Propose these parks are rezoned to parks and gardens under any future town planning scheme. The Mayor has promised that these Creyk Park will never be built on. His promise is not sufficient legally to stop any future development as they are currently zoned. The parks must be protected through the mechanism of zoning.


27


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P153 K Sarti100B Mars St CARLISLE WA 6101

Creyk Park Warwick Savage Park

Both parks should be zoned Parks and Recreation (Local) not the zoning shown in draft TPS 4.

See comments on submission P1 with regard to Creyk Park. See comments on submission P2 with regard to Warwick Savage Park.

That the submission be supported in respect of Creyk Park. That the submission be not supported at this time in respect of Warwick Savage Park in view of the impending review of public open space requirements for the Roleystone precinct to be undertaken within the next 12 months as part of Council’s seven stage POS strategy.

P154 L Moody4 Bothe Ct ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park This area should be rezoned Parks and Recreation. It is an ideal area for families to gather and enjoy each other’s company. Children play sports, dogs are walked and people get fit around the oval.


P155 J Moody9 Lindley Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee believes the parks should be rezoned Parks and Recreation. It is a way of bonding families and the community, playing sports, walking the dog, jogging etc. Thinking of buying in the area because these facilities are available.


P156 S Brennan16 Gunnamatta Pl KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Creyk Park should be rezoned as Parks and Recreation for all and for future use.


P157 S Armstrong9 Lindley Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These parks should be rezoned Parks and Recreation so all can enjoy the way of life that was chosen by moving to / buying in the area with parks and ovals as the main attraction.


28


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P158 M Bradley11 Herriard Rd ARMADALE WA 6112


Plan proposes public recreational spaces to have an increased residential density. Apparently they have been deemed unsuitable for recreation and are being zoned in anticipation of future release for residential purposes. The fact they are incorrectly zoned as residential should have been picked up by the City’s ongoing review of POS. Fundamental misunderstanding of communities needs and desires by leaving these areas residential and increasing density. Creyk Park is the only large public space between the railway and Albany Highway. Fancote Park is the only park in the Kelmscott shopping district. Gwynne Park is the largest and only multipurpose recreational facility in the Armadale area. These parks should be zoned Parks and Recreation (Local)


P159 D DeBoer28 Tyers Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111




P160 P Tanker8 Tarrawan Rd ARMADALE WA 6112




P161 D Tanker8 Tarrawan Rd ARMADALE WA 6112




P162 A Card18 Kyabram Rd ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Should be rezoned Parks and Recreation for the benefit of the community.


P163 H Card18 Kyabram Rd ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Should be rezoned Parks and Recreation as it should have been 40 years ago.


29


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P164 A Clements9 Arnel St KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee would be deprived of the park for dog walking. The shire has caused confusion in the community by supplying a map with R25 status i.e. high density development.



P165 B J Gore 3 Wyloo Pl ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The park belongs to the children and their future children.


P166 J, S, H & JJ Woolley 38 Lilian Ave ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park

Purchased home because it is opposite Creyk Park. If Council purchased the park for recreational purposes in 1960, why was it not zoned Parks and Recreation at the time? None of the Councillors can guarantee the parks’ future unless it is rezoned appropriately.


30


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P167 K Fletcher10 William Street ARMADALE WA 6112

Various a) Query why the Warwick Savage Reserve in Roleystone is not indicated by name or area. b) Query status of Pries Park, Kelmscott which is coloured Rural L2. c) Query status of John Walliston School, Kelmscott which is shown as Residential. The 3 above were at least named/shown on TPS2 although not coloured as reserves in the case of the first 2 or public purpose in the case of John Wollaston. d) None of the reserves are named on the TPS apart from the largest e.g. Bungendore Park. e) Query why a small section on Blackwood Dr, Mt Nasura is indicated as rural. f) Query lots zoned RLX in Bedfordale/ Canningdale, surrounded by State Forrest north and south of Albany Hwy as it was understood that these rural holdings had been resumed as water catchment areas. Does this mean that these blocks can be cleared and cultivated for orchards or grazing? g) Query whether the entrance to the Wungong Gorge off the South West Hwy is compromised. Questions why the entry track to the MRS land is not reserved. h) Request Bushland reserves to be given more discrete terminology and colouring because of their diversity importance and need for clear identification. i) Concern that the TP4 map is cut in half by the large blank section which represents the ARA’s Brookdale/Wungong Redevelopment area. Proposals for this area should be included for the public to consider as it impinges the whole of the City of Armadale.

a) See comments on submission P2 with regard to Warwick Savage Park. b) Pries Park was identified in the Public Open Space Strategy as being owned by the City but the land was not investigated or recommended upon in the consultant study. The land was zoned Rural D under TPS No. 2 and is proposed RL2 under TPS No.4. Without undertaking a review of the long term use of the reserve in the context of the locality, it would be pre-emptive to reserve the land for Parks and Recreation. c) John Walliston School is zoned Residential under TPS No. 4 (and under TPS No. 2) in common with other private schools. Only Public schools are reserved under the Scheme. d) The naming of reserves is useful in facilitating the use of the Scheme map, although it has no statutory implications. e) Lots 271and 272 Nasura Grove, 273 – 276 Blackwood Drive and 277 – 279 Vista Grove, Mount Nasura are indicated as Rural Living, and should be shown as Residential R5 on the Scheme maps. This area is developed for residential purposes and as a result of a mapping error was shown in draft TPS No. 4 as Rural. f) The subject lots were zoned General Rural under TPS No. 2 and have been proposed as RLX under TPS No. 4 to ensure that additional development is minimized in the water catchment. Uses in areas zoned Rural Living are more restricted than under TPS No. 2 General Rural. g) While it may not be clear from the TPS No. 4 map provided with the brochure, the more detailed TPS No. 4 do show an accessway reserved for Parks and Recreation linking the Highway with the MRS Reserve. h) The Scheme follows the normal classification as set out in the Model Scheme Text, the Scheme is not intended to provide a management regime as that is the function of management plans and other documents. i) The Brookdale/Wungong area has been omitted from TPS No. 4 in view of the impending changes to the planning regime. It is not possible to indicate on TPS No.4 what the intentions of the ARA are for this land.

That the submission be not supported at this time with respect to Warwick Savage Park in view of the impending review of public open space requirements for the Roleystone precinct to be undertaken within the next 12 months as part of Council’s seven stage POS strategy. That Pries Park Kelmscott be retained within the RL2 zone. That Lots 271and 272 Nasura Grove, 273 – 276 Blackwood Drive and 277 – 279 Vista Grove, Mount Nasura be shown on the Scheme Map as Residential R5.

31


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P168 R Fletcher117 Carawatha Ave MT NASURA WA 6112

Lot 61 Carawatha Ave, corner Albany Highway, Mt Nasura

Lot 60 should revert back to POS as was originally zoned as it belongs to the community.

Council holds Lot 60 in fee simple. Part of the property has been rezoned from Parks and Recreation to Special Use (No. 85) with 2150m2 remaining as Parks and Recreation. The Scheme Amendment (No. 163) was gazetted in November 2001. The provisions of TPS No. 2 SU 85 relate to the corner parcel and these provisions have been replicated under TPS No.4 through provisions under the Additional Use No. 17. The area reserved for Parks and Recreation under TPS No. 2 arising from the earlier amendment has been similarly reflected under proposed TPS No. 4. Council agreed in May 2003 to subdivide the lot to reflect the Special Use and Parks and Recreation division. Steps are currently being taken to subdivide the property and a proposal to develop the adjacent Lot 100 (to the north) with access through the SU zoned part of Lot 60 has been approved by Council. Arrangements are currently being made to subdivide the land to create a separate parcel for the Parks and Recreation Reserve. It is not clear from the submission whether it is argued that the whole of Lot 60 revert to POS or the reserved portion be subdivided off for use as POS.

That the submission be noted and the land identified for Parks and Recreation on Carawatha Avenue be subdivided into a separate lot.

32


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P169 J Moore61 Clifton Street KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Fancote Park

a) Fancote and Creyk Parks provide necessary space for local residents. It is of concern that the parks are zoned Residential indicating that the intent is to convert the parks to housing in the foreseeable future. This would be inappropriate as in itself would create the demand for more parks. The development of part of Fancote Park for housing would result in the balance being secluded, more difficult to access and difficult to maintain. Antisocial activities would also result. The parks should be reserved for Parks and Recreation. b) It is understood that land east of the Canning River in Kelmscott will be subject to further study. Submittee expects to be notified when such studies commence. c) Does not support increasing the land requirement for two dwellings on one lot to 40 hectares. To encourage extended families, particularly in rural areas, two houses should be permitted. Propose allowing a second dwelling where the lot size exceeds the minimum in a particular area.

a) See comments on submission P1 with regard to Fancote and Creyk Parks. b) Land east of Canning River is zoned Rural under the MRS – it is proposed that this land be subject to future study but no change is proposed under TPS No.4. c) See comments on submission RKA5 with regard to second residences on one lot.

That the submission be supported in part by modification to clause 5B.8 of the text, deleting the 40ha minimum size for a second dwelling in the General Rural zone providing it is for a legitimate rural productive use and substituting a minimum 8ha lot size for a second dwelling the Rural Living zone providing it is also for a legitimate rural productive use. That the submission be noted in respect to the need to consult on any proposals to rezone land in the Canning River Precinct.

33


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P170 T GeppDepartment of Conservation and Land Management Estate Planning Branch PO Box 1167 BENTLEY WA 6983

Various Comments on Scheme Text a). Request Clause 5.11 – Effluent disposal – be used to apply appropriate setback distances to Nature Reserves, National Park or State forest areas. b). Appropriate setbacks from reserves should be considered through the local planning process. c). Propose clauses to restrict planting of invasive plant species, particularly near conservation areas. d). Clause 5B7 relating to remnant vegetation and Special Control areas supported. e). Suggest changes to clause 6A.2.3(b) to refer to Declared Rare Flora, Threatened Ecological Communities, Threatened Fauna, remnant vegetation and other conservation values. f). Suggests adding “biodiversity” and “environmental protection” to interpretations in Schedule 1. Comments on Local Planning Strategy g). Noted that section 4.4.1 does not explain the different types of open space or land tenure within the City. For instance differentiation could be made between MRS, State forest and Crown reserves. h). CALM supports wildlife corridors under 4.4.5, remnant vegetation protection under 4.4.6, and measures to manage the environment under 4.7.3. i). Recommends adding “Stinton Cascades Nature Reserve” and “the proposed Canning National Park” to dot point 10 of section 5.4. j). Recommend that section 5.4.8 Environment under Action ii be amended to “provide for rehabilitation, using endemic non-invasive species, where appropriate.” k). Recommend that the title of Figure 4 be amended to Parks and Recreation reservation and Conservation Areas and differentiation to be made between the conservation reserves and the map could include State forest and proposed National Parks. l). Figure 8 should be amended in the key to reflect Regional Parks, Conservation and Recreation Areas.

Scheme Text a). Clause 5.11.3 provides Council with power to require additional setbacks as appropriate to protect environmental values. b). No need for change to provisions relating to setbacks. c). Restriction on invasive plant species should be controlled through other legislation. d). Support for remnant vegetation provision and Special Control areas noted. e). Clause 6A2 relates to matters to be considered in preparing structure plans and the matters listed by CALM are relevant. f). “Biodiversity” is not mentioned in the Scheme and therefore does not need defining and “environmental protection” has the meaning of its Act. Local Planning Strategy g). Section 4.4.1 is intended to provide a broad overview of open space in major categories, not precise details relating to tenure. The purpose is also to guide the scheme in terms of the reservations – whether they are to be for conservation or recreational development. It would be more appropriate to include these details in the State of the Environment Report. h). Noted. i). It would be appropriate to include the proposed Canning National Park and the Stinton Cascade Nature Reserve. j). Amendment to 5.4.8 to refer to non-invasive species would be appropriate. k). There may be merit in showing the State forest on the Figure 4, although the request to rename Figure 4 and differentiate the type of reserves could be a complex task particularly if the plan includes areas not managed by the City. The provision of reserve types would provide a finer grain of detail than would be required as input into the Strategy (which shows the single category of “Regional Parks and Recreation Areas”. The State of the Environment Report would be the document that would include information about conservation values of reserves. l). The amendment to Figure 8 to distinguish between Regional Parks, Conservation and Recreation Areas would clutter what is meant to be a conceptual strategic plan.

That Scheme Text Clause 6A.2.3.(b) be amended to replace “vegetation” with “Declared Rare Flora, Threatened Ecological Communities, Threatened Fauna, remnant vegetation”. That the Local Planning Strategy be amended by: • adding “Stinton

Cascades Nature Reserve” and “the proposed Canning National Park” to dot point 10 of section 5.4.

• amending section 5.4.8 Environment under Action ii to “provide for rehabilitation, using endemic non-invasive species, where appropriate.”

• referring to Stinton Cascades Nature Reserve and the proposed Canning National Park at dot point 10 of section 5.4.

• including State forest in Figure 4;

• including in Figures 4 and 8 Stinton Cascades Nature Reserve and the proposed Canning National Park.

P171 P Holdcroft, 1/33 Serls St, ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Creyk Park should be zoned Parks and Recreation (Local) rather than Residential R25 as it is an oval that is well used.


34


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P172 B O’Halloran75 Schruth North St KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Creyk Park should not be zoned Residential R25 as it is well used for casual and formal (i.e. sport club) activities. Please consider rezoning it to Parks and Recreation (Local).


P173 M Creyk87 Schruth North St KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Strongly oppose Creyk Park being turned into a housing estate. There are few enough playing areas. This oval has produced 1 hockey player to represent Australia and 3 people to represent the state in sport. The submittee considers it an honour to have it named after her family and would be disappointed to loose it.


P174 B Ingham 23 Waltham Crt ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Creyk Park is zoned as Residential R25 in draft TPS 4. Don’t want to lose this park to high density houses. The park should remain public open space for future generations and should be zoned accordingly.


P175 G Baddeley 75 Butcher Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Creyk Park Could consideration be given to rezoning Creyk Park as Public Open Space? It is used by many ratepayers and rezoning it to R25 puts it under threat from developers. There is good quality bush there as well. Please protect this environment for all permanently.


P176 I Hilgert Dale Cottages, 7 Verrill Wy ARMADALE WA 6112 On behalf of the Armadale Happy Club

Creyk Park Petition in the form of a submission, signed by 34 people, reading - Could Creyk Park please be listed as a reserve to prevent any subdivision?


P177 D Bolin 99 Schruth North St KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park Creyk Park is enjoyed and used by hundreds of adults and children in the area. Wish to keep it that way.


35


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P178 C Gill 36 Lilian Ave ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Full support to rezone Creyk Park from R25 to Parks and Recreation.


P179 N Wilson 26A Lilian Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park The submittee grew up in the area playing sport on Creyk Park and bought into the area for a daughter to do the same. Believe it should be rezoned to Parks and Recreation.


P180 M Wilson 28 Lilian Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park The submittee has lived in the area for 25 years. Creyk Park is used for sports and the local school uses it. Feel it should be rezoned to Parks and Recreation.


P181 R & D Button 5 Frye Crt KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park The submittee has lived in the area for 37 years. The submittee’s boys played sport on Creyk Park and now their grandchildren are. Believe it should be rezoned to Parks and Recreation for others to enjoy.


P182 D Allen14 Tredale Ave ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Creyk Park is valuable for recreation and the remnant bushland would be threatened. Nesting sites for the Rainbow Bee Eater and other fauna would be lost.


P183 S & E Buggins 8 Waltham Rd ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park The submittees attended the public rally on 13 June 2004 and wants this park to remain a park. The submittees have lived in the area all their lives and walk around the park most days, often taking grandchildren and neighbours children to play there.


36


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P184 P Elsegood Principal, Kingsley Primary School Lathwell St ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park As a school in close proximity to Creyk Park, the submittee requests it be rezoned to Parks and Recreation. The school uses the park on a number of occasions throughout the year for sporting fixtures. It is an excellent facility of great benefit to students and educational programs. As an educator the submittee is aware of the minimal physical activity children engage in outside of the school program. The facility is also used for football, dog walking and informally by the community, behaviour that is positive in terms of lifestyle choices. Rezoning will secure the facility for the foreseeable future.


P185 I Richter4 Lindley Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Creyk Park a) The R25 zoning in draft TPS No 4 means that it can be legally redeveloped as residential dwellings.

b) The park is used extensively by sporting groups and the community and is the only really usable park in the area.

c) As a senior citizen, the submittee uses the park for exercise and many dog owners use it and any loss of the park will affect every member of the community.

d) The zoning should be changed to Parks and Recreation under TPS No 4


P186 G de Jonge 10 Messenger St KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). It is the only facility available that is reasonably safe for kids and grandkids to play and for people to walk their dogs.


P187 J Wickham11 Lund Court ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee notes that Creyk Park is a great place to exercise, walk the dog and meet people. States it is no good as a housing development.


37


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P188 D Sellers 563 Canns Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee notes that 2 daughters love to play at Creyk park with the submittee’s dogs and enjoy sports days. The submittee would hate to see any change.


P189 P Jackson-Mauchel 28 Ecko Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111




P190 M Kinloch54 Lilian Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee has lived in area for 20 + years and enjoys Creyk Park and sport on weekends.


P191 M Creyk87 Scruth North St KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). These parks are definitely needed for the children of the area who have not even a footpath to skate on, especially Creyk Park.


P192 L Smith171 Scruth St Sth ARMADALE WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The submittee uses park for exercise and a safe place for small children to plan and has used scouting facilities on park and believes park is an essential area for sporting and recreational activities in the area.


P193 P F Ralph 171 Scruth St Sth ARMADALE WA 6112

Creyk Park Gwynne Park Fancote Park

Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). The park is for public use not for selling off for monetary gain to the wealthy. This park must be retained and maintained for use by the ratepayers and their families.


38


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P194 J James 11 Pries Pl KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Fancote Park Request Fancote Park be rezoned from Residential to Parks and Recreation (Local). This was discussed at the public meeting. Kelmscott’s only park should be preserved at all costs. It is Kelmscott’s equivalent of Minnawarra Park.

See comments on submission P1. That the submission be noted and while the Residential zoning is not recommended to be modified, it is to be reviewed following the future study of the Canning River precinct currently proposed.

P195 M Apol 5/143 Railway Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Tollington Park Tollington Park should not be rezoned to residential as it improves the quality of life for many people. If units are built, no one will be able to enjoy it anymore.

The park itself is reserved as Parks and Recreation (Local), however, a drafting error has resulted in the boundary between the adjoining R15/40 Residential precinct and the Parks and Recreation area being inadvertently continued over Tollington Park. This error in the draft needs to be corrected prior to adoption of draft TPS 4.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to ensure that all of Tollington Park is reserved for Parks and Recreation.

P196 H Anderson2/143 Railway Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Tollington Park Tollington Park should not be rezoned as children play there and people walk pets.

Refer to comments for submission P195. That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to ensure that all of Tollington Park is reserved for Parks and Recreation.

39


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P197 G Powell 2 Henson St MANDURAH WA 6210

420 (Pt lot 9) Nicholson Rd, Forrestdale

The submittee argues it is not necessary to touch their land and feels it is being taken to tidy the reserve border up. No water would be on the subject land if drains were maintained and Council will not get any of the subject land without a huge fight in court. This is totally mad planning when Council has enough land already.

Pt lot 9 Nicholson Rd is a lot of approximately 3.9ha located on the west side on Nicholson Road and just south of Armadale Road. Approximately 45% of Pt lot 9 has been previously reserved under the MRS as Parks and Recreation Reservation. Under TPS No 2 the balance of the lot is General Rural with a smaller area subject to a Special Use zone (No 40) for a “Wholesale Butchers Shop” limited to 60m2 Gross Floor Area. It is understood this facility is not operational (and the Special Use is one of those considered redundant and not proposed to be continued under TPS No 4). Under TPS No 4 the part of Pt lot 9 that is not affected by the MRS reservation is proposed as Rural Living X zone. The submittee may be under the misapprehension that the Parks and Recreation Reservation (MRS) is a new matter under the TPS No 4, however this is not the case. The local Scheme is required to reflect existing Parks and Recreation MRS Reservations. For information purposes, the normal procedure for acquisition of reserved land is for the WAPC to purchase the reserved part of the lot in due course. The City is not proposing to take any land from the subject property in connection with draft TPS 4 and the submittee should discuss the purchase with the WAPC.

That the submission be noted and the submittee be advised that the Reservation of Pt lot 9 is provided under the Metropolitan Region Scheme not the City of Armadale town planning scheme.

P198 A Bullock9 Valencia Grove MT NASURA WA 6112


Standard Form-letter submission on parks (previously summarised). Where will the sport teams play? Indoor sports are not the same as outdoor. Isn’t Fancote Park a part of ‘heritage country’? Supposed to be encouraging children to be health conscious?



40


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P199 C Raeburn42 Rushton Tce MT NASURA WA 6112

Lot 530 Rushton Tce, Mt Nasura (Reserve 38117)

Should retain as a reserve for recreation. See comments on submission P3. That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme maps to show reserve 38116 and 40455 and the unreserved parts of 38117 and 39794 as Parks and Recreation (Local), and Reserve 40455 be investigated for possible transfer to the Water Corporation.

P200 J Grabner 59 Rushton Tce MT NASURA WA 6112


Identical to submission P3. See comments on submission P3. That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme maps to show reserve 38116 and 40455 and the unreserved parts of 38117 and 39794 as Parks and Recreation (Local), and Reserve 40455 be investigated for possible transfer to the Water Corporation.

P201 T Laird 48 Rushton Tce MT NASURA WA 6112



41


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P202 G & R Oselton 46 Rushton Tce MT NASURA WA 6112



P203 B & J Waterfield 44 Rushton Tce MT NASURA WA 6112



P204 R Smith 34 Bromfield Drv KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Reserve 36215 Balgor Crt, abutting Churchman reserve

It is in the interests of the City to have a healthy population and walking is a simple and effective method. Access to Churchman reserve is very limited at the moment, from Stocker Rd or Beeloo Cl, both of which require vehicular travel. A logical entry point would be Balgor Crt. It is requested the City consider constructing some entry steps down the steep 12-15m drop from the street.

This matter relates to works on public land and while it is not a scheme issue recreational opportunities are and therefore it is appropriate to refer the works request to the City’s Parks department for consideration.

That the submission be supported by referring the request to the Technical Services Directorate for consideration of improving pedestrian access to the Churchman Reserve. No modification is required to the scheme.

42


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


P205 S Aldersea 84 Amethyst Cres ARMADALE WA 6112 On behalf of the Armadale Wildflower Society

Creyk Park Fancote Park Warwick Savage Park

The submittee objects to any changes to the TPS relating to the possible rezoning of these parks, due to the impact on the nature reserves adjoining them.

See comments on submission P1 with regard to Creyk Park and Fancote Park. See comments on submission P2 with regard to Warwick Savage Park.

That the submission be supported in part. That the submission with respect to Warwick Savage Park be not supported at this time in view of the impending review of public open space requirements for the Roleystone precinct to be undertaken within the next 12 months as part of Council’s seven stage POS strategy.

RURAL – BEDFORDALE (Submissions RB1 to RB17)

RB1 N & J Garvey 36 St. Vincent St BEDFORDALE WA 6112

Lot 18 (36) St. Vincent St, Bedfordale

Pleased with changes as we seem to be the only ones who haven’t subdivided. Looking forward to new changes.

The subject lot is currently zoned Rural E under TPS No 2 (minimum 1 ha and average of 2ha) and is proposed to be RL1 under scheme No 4. This has changed requirements slightly in that there will be no average requirement under scheme No 4, whereas under TPS 2 an average of 2ha was required, in addition to meeting the minimum of 1ha (i.e. 4ha would be required for two lot subdivision). Lot 18 at over 2ha is the largest lot in the RL1 zone precinct west of Collingwood St. An application would still be necessary to ensure that the lot is appropriate for subdivision into two lots.

That the submission’s support for the scheme be noted.

43


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB2 E & G O’Shaughnessy Lot 106 Carradine Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112

Lot 106 Carradine Rd, Bedfordale

a) The property is zoned D1 and is proposed as RL2 however submittee argues that Lot 106 and the six properties fronting the southern side of Carradine Road running east from the intersection of Carawatha Avenue / Carradine Road, would be more appropriately zoned RL1.

b) Each of the six properties fronting the southern side of Carradine Road are adequately serviced with reticulated water, phone, electricity and gas and have access to a well serviced road network and adequate on-site effluent disposal.

c) The properties are close to the Armadale City Centre (approx. 1.5km) and the facilities it provides – health, public transport, recreational, schools, restaurants, business precinct and Council offices. The properties are located on gently undulating land and their proximity to roads, services and infrastructure means they are capable of supporting higher density development than that which is proposed under the draft TPS No 4 and therefore would be capable of sustaining an RL1 zoning. It would at least preserve the environmental status quo and at best enhance the immediate environment and all of its constituent elements.

d) The suitability of the Carradine properties is supported in a comparison with the geographical and situational characteristics of

The subject land is part of a larger area that was rezoned under Amendment No 181 to TPS No 2 from Rural C (4ha Min./ 5 ha Ave.) to D1 (Min. 2ha) in April 2003. The six subject lots range from 2ha to 3.5ha. The Current Rural D1 zone requires a minimum lot size of 2ha and so does the proposed RL2 zone, which means that the proposed RL2 zone simply maintains the status quo in respect to subdivision. As 4ha would be required for a simple two lot subdivision, none of the subject lots fronting Carradine Road are indicated as having subdivision potential either under the current TPS No 2 or the proposed TPS No 4. Under the submissions proposal for 1ha lots a total of 8 more new lots could be created from subdivision of the 6 subject properties (i.e. total of 14 lots). The properties have a Class 3 Fair Capability for rural residential development. It is considered that the visual prominence of the subject land indicates the minimum 2ha lots proposed under the proposed RL2 zone is appropriate and a modification to allow 1ha lots is not recommended. It is noted that the estates referred to under d) as comparisons have all been confirmed as Special Residential small lot areas or RL1 areas through previous rezoning amendments under TPS No 2 and are not being newly proposed under TPS No 4 (it should be noted that RL1 density coding of a small area along Albany Highway in the vicinity of Springfield and Cross Roads under the advertised draft of TPS No 4 is proposed to be modified to acknowledge the currently approved lot density and structure of 2ha lots in this well established area and accordingly an RL2 code, is also recommended for that

That the submission not be supported.

44


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


several surrounding areas that have been designated RL1 (or higher density land uses) under draft TPS No 4 and it is difficult to reconcile the different zonings that have been applied to these areas by the draft scheme. Several proposed RL1 areas appear significantly less suited to or deserving of (or at least no more deserving of) the RL1 (or higher density) zoning than Carradine properties e.g.

The lots bounded by Springfield and Admiral Road (RL1)

The Churchman Brook Special Residential Area (Special Residential Area)

The Camfield Estate Development (Special Residential Area)

Elizabethan Village (Group Dwelling); and Mt Nasura (Residential).

e) There is no objection to the zonings of the above properties but these examples demonstrate that these areas have been granted higher density land use zoning designations notwithstanding that:

These areas (on the face of it) are no better suited to RL1 and other higher density uses than the Carradine properties and in fact are less suited by virtue of their comparative lack of infrastructure. In terms of topography and environmental

considerations these areas are no better suited to RL1 and other higher density uses than the Carradine properties. Some of these areas are more removed from

the Armadale City Centre than the Carradine properties. Some of these areas are located among

lower density land use zones than the Carradine properties (e.g. Springfield Rd, Churchman Bk., Camfield) and therefore a higher density RL1 zone on the Carradine properties would be less incongruous.

part of the Bedfordale estate, reflecting the current zone and existing lot sizes under TPS No 2 in the same manner as is proposed for the subject Carradine Road area).

45


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB3 D BowdenPO Box 141 KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Identical to submission RB2. Refer to comments for submission RB2.


RB4 P D & J A Williams and M D & M L Kolbe 456 Canns Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112

456 (lot 12) Canns Rd, Bedfordale

Can the Council advise why this area is RL10 when the majority (by numbers) of the properties are below this threshold?

Lot 12 Canns Road is approximately 5.6ha and is zoned Rural B under TPS No 2, which directly equates with the proposed RL10 under TPS No 4. In terms of potentiality for further subdivision the minimum lot size of 10 ha is the same in TPS No 4 as it is in TPS No 2. Lot 12 Canns Road is included in the Special Control Area for the Churchman Brook Special Residential Zone (Development Area No 11). Lot 12 Canns Road is located in a new precinct of RL10 which combines several zoning precincts under TPS No 2 including zones Rural B (10ha minimum), Rural X (no subdivision i.e. the minimum lot area equates with the existing lot size) and Rural AP (12ha minimum), Notwithstanding the large minimum lot sizes of existing zones, historical lot creation has produced a range of lot sizes as is the case in many of the rural areas of the City. The variation in existing lot sizes in rural areas means that in most cases TPS No 4 cannot tailor precincts of standard uniform lot sizes. Accordingly most precincts will have some lots that are already much smaller than the minimum size and others over the minimum size. The primary principle in formulating TPS 4 has been respecting the status quo in terms of further subdivision and ensuring any significant subdivision development proposals proceed by the scheme amendment and structure planning processes whereby they will be subject to a detailed environmental and servicing assessment that can be scrutinised through the public consultation process. The subject land is part of a valley landform and RL10 precinct that extends to the west adjacent to Carradine Road. This precinct has Land Capability landform units ranging from Class 2 High Capability to Class 5 Very Low Capability. Given the predominance of lots in the 4ha to 10 ha interval it is proposed to modify the scheme map to recode the area as far west along Carradine Road as Lot 50 (306) as RL4 zone. Given that the averaging requirement has been dropped from TPS 4, subdivision of existing lots including lots 101 and 102 Waterwheel Rd would only allow the creation of approximately 3 lots under the proposed RL4 zone.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to recode Lot 12 as part of the wider area currently proposed as RL10 zone including lots 101 and 102 Waterwheel Rd as RL4 zone and extending as far west along Carradine Road as Lot 50 (306) inclusive.

46


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB5 M Bormelini322 Carradine Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112

322 Carradine Rd, Bedfordale

The submittee’s neighbours have subdivided 5 acres and less in the past and considers it discrimination that the subject property cannot be subdivided. The property is a deceased estate left to four people and is on the market but is difficult to sell at a reasonable price because of no subdivision potential.

The area is zoned Rural AP under TPS No 2 which requires a minimum lot size of 12ha (i.e. 24ha to subdivide into 2 lots). Under TPS No 4 the proposed zone is Rural Living 10 which requires a 10ha minimum lot size, a slight reduction on the minimum under Scheme 2. The City’s records indicate lot 7 (No 322) is 6.7ha, which is not sufficient to subdivide under either the existing or the proposed scheme. Its immediate neighbouring lots are 9.5ha and 2.3 ha respectively. The circumstances of the smaller adjacent lots is likely to be historical and the result of appeals on subdivisions, and not subdivisions supported by the City in the Rural AP zone, or an example of “discrimination”. It is proposed to modify the scheme map to identify this area as an RL4 zone (see comments on submission RB4) Subdivision into 2ha lots would require a formal rezoning from RL10 to RL2 including detailed environmental and servicing assessments (which would permit at 2 to 3 lots to be created). It is noted that the financial circumstances of landowners are not recognised town planning criteria justifying subdivision.

That the submission not be supported, however, it should be noted that the scheme map is recommended to be modified to recode 322 Carradine Rd as part of the wider area currently proposed as RL10 zone to RL4 zone.

47

48


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB6 Roger SteinTaylor Burrell Barnett PO Box 8186 SUBIACO EAST WA 6008 On behalf of the owners of the Churchman Brook Estate and Lot 101 Waterwheel Rd Bedfordale

Lot 101 Waterwheel Rd, Bedfordale

a) The Churchman Brook Estate is proposed as Special Residential zone in TPS 4 and Clause 5.3.1 sets out provisions for the zone which include controls on: Development Envelopes Setbacks.

However, the clause does not make the two methods of defining building areas mutually exclusive. It is suggested that the clause be modified to clarify requirements as follows: “Where development envelopes have been identified on an approved Development Envelopes Plan the setbacks prescribed in Clause 5.3.1 (b) do not apply”. b) Lot 101 is shown a Rural Living 10 zone whereas Lot 52 and Lot 100 are zoned as Special Residential zone. While Lot 101 is not part of the Churchman Brook Estate it does form part of the Deed of Agreement with Council for the purpose of securing performance of the agreement such as construction of Waterwheel Road and provision of various community facilities, all of which are close to completion. Lot 101 is also included in the structure plan adopted by Council in 1993 and while the impetus for Lot 101 became focussed on other matters related to the subdivision of Lot 52, it is considered that Lot 101 should also be zoned as Special Residential. Reasons include the following: The 1993 structure plan; Various other subdivision concept plans

have been provided to Council in the past showing the links and relationship to Lot 100 and a development of approximately 20 lots; There is sufficient capacity in the

Churchman Brook Reticulated scheme water to supply Lot 101 subdivision and extend the water supply main from Waterwheel Road north southwards to Lots 101 and 100.

a) . Setbacks in the areas zoned Special Residential are established by the reference to the R Codes (under clause 5.3.1(b) (i.e. either as R5 for 2000m2 lots) or R2 for 5000m2 lots etc) on a Structure Plan or by a Development Envelope established for the estate. In other words a standard or default setback can be established by refercenc to the R Codes under clause 5.3.1(b) orsetbacks can be tailor-made for each lot in the estate by means of the precise location of a development envelope on the lot in an approved development plan for the estate. It would be beneficial to modify the scheme text to clarify that where a Development Envelope is specified for a particular lot, the setback or building line established by the Development Envelope will have precedence over any generic reference to an R Code which may be indicated for the estate as a whole. b) Structure plans and subdivision development concepts previously prepared for the vicinity including lot 101, are strategic in nature and are not attributable as plans conferring any statutory approval to develop. The primary difference between the Special Residential zone lots adjacent to Lot 101 being Lots 52 and 100 are that they underwent formal processes of environmental and servicing assessment through the scheme amendment process under TPS No 2. Accordingly the Special Residential zone proposed for TPS 4 reflects the development rights attributed by those amendments. Under TPS 4 Lot 101 forms part of a precinct of proposed Rural Living 10 zone and this accords with its current size of just over 10ha. While it is proposed to modify the coding for the area to RL4, it should be noted the general area is subject to environmental constraint stemming from soil and groundwater conditions and specialist agencies (EPA, WRC and Health WA) should have statutory opportunity to assess development proposals for further small lot Special Residential subdivision and have input into the specification of any scheme provisions to ameliorate potential impacts. Accordingly it is considered that the potential of Lot 101 for Special Residential development should be confirmed through a scheme amendment process involving detailed environmental and servicing assessments in the same manner as has been undertaken for all other land currently proposed to be included in the Special Residential zone under Scheme 4.

That the submission be supported in part a) by modifying clause 5.3.1 of the scheme Text to clarify that setbacks individually specified by means of development envelopes will have precedence and modify the standard setbacks specified by clause 5.3.1 (b), noting that the scheme map is recommended to be modified to recode the lot as part of the wider area currently proposed as RL10 zone including lots 101 and 102 Waterwheel Rd, as RL4 zone and extending as far west along Carradine Road as Lot 50 (306) inclusive, and (c) note that now that Waterwheel Road has been constructed through Lot 52, Lot 101 is the next logical stage in the development of the Churchman Brook Estate and as Lot 101 has been subject to the structure plan process and has been included in the subdivision guide map preparation process with Lot 100, subject to the normal amendment processes it could be brought forward as an amendment to the Scheme.


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


There is indeed a necessity to spread the capital cost the Churchman Brook Reticulated scheme water over the lots identified as capable of Special Residential development; A substantial amount of soil investigation

has been conducted in the immediate vicinity of Lot 101 to demonstrate the suitability of the soils to accept on-site effluent disposal without any impact on ground water, particularly as the lot is not part of the valley land; The new residences now built in

Churchman Brook indicate that with appropriate site preparation, on-site effluent disposal will work efficiently.

RB7 Roger SteinTaylor Burrell Barnett PO Box 8186 SUBIACO EAST WA 6008 On behalf of the owners of the Churchman Brook Estate and Lot 102 Waterwheel Rd Bedfordale

Lot 102 Waterwheel Rd, Bedfordale

Lot 102 Waterwheel Road is 10 ha in area and is shown as Rural Living 10 zone on draft TPS No 4. It forms part of a valley landscape that is to be retained because of its inherent qualities. It is requested that the proposed density be modified to Rural Living 4 zone to allow for another residence to be developed on the 10ha landholding as: Scheme water can be provided to the site; RL4 is the same as land on the south side

of Waterwheel Road; The potential for one additional dwelling is

not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the visual amenity of the locality or environmental qualities of the land. It is justified by its location and proximity to

services.

The 1993 Churchman Brook structure plan attributed the lot with the following annotation “ Valley Landscape to be conserved as view corridor and landscaped in accordance with Landscape Master Plan”. It is proposed to modify the scheme map to identify this area as an RL4 zone. See comments on submission RB6.

That the submission be supported by recoding the lot as part of the wider area currently proposed as RL10 zone including lots 101 and 102 Waterwheel Rd, as RL4 zone and extending as far west along Carradine Road as Lot 50 (306) inclusive.

49


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB8 G Yan 49 Camm Ave BULL CREEK WA 6149

786 Albany Hwy, Bedfordale

Property should be zoned RL2 not RL4 in line with neighbouring properties to satisfy demand.

Scheme 4 zoning of RL4 accords with standards for subdivision under the current TPS 2 Rural C zone and also accords with existing lot size of 5ha. This area is environmentally sensitive and is included in the Water Catchments Reservation under MRS. The primary principle in formulating TPS 4 has been respecting the status quo in terms of further subdivision and ensuring any significant subdivision development proposals proceed by the scheme amendment and structure planning processes whereby they will be subject to a detailed environmental and servicing assessment that can be scrutinised through the public consultation process.


RB9 J Ma 49 Camm Ave BULL CREEK WA 6149

786 Albany Hwy, Bedfordale

Identical to submission RB8. Refer to comments for submission RB8. That the submission not be supported.

RB10 S & L Lenz 154 Canns Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112

154 & 162 Canns Rd, Bedfordale

a) 4ha lots within 3km of the city centre is antiquated planning policy and it should be a 2ha lot area. b) Environmental impact is not sufficient justification for larger lots as the land is surrounded by 2ha lots and some 4ha lots have two houses on them. RL4 zoning places undue hardship and cost on landowners, as properties are devalued due to increased maintenance costs. 2ha hobby farms are in demand, whilst 4ha lots are not.

a) The lots the subject of the submission are 3.88 and 2.4ha respectively and the proposed RL4 zoning reflects the current Rural C zoning under TPS No 2. The Local Planning Strategy (Vol 1) refers to the Rural Strategy mapping which notes the area has low to very low capability for rural residential use (i.e. smaller lots), due to erosion risk, slope instability and shallow soil depth. If landowners want to promote more intensive development they have to investigate more detailed land capability environmental and servicing assessment under a scheme amendment application, which can then undergo consultation and assessment through the scheme amendment process. b) Refer to comment a). TPS 4 proposes a range of lot sizes to meet diverse demands and RL4 just reflects the existing scheme.


RB11 M Laurence 310 Churchman Brook Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112

310 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale

Please confirm that the change in zoning of the subject property from Rural B to RL10 is a change in name only, would not incorporate new conditions / restrictions and would not preclude a future application for rezoning / subdivision.

Submittee informed that these generalisations are accurate. Rezonings are considered on their merits including land capability and suitability and environmental and servicing assessments.


50


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB12 W Allemann Calle Mar Japón 8 MORAIRA-E SPAIN


The submittee questioned how many dwellings could be built under the new zoning Scheme.

Enquiry only - Submittee informed of the development potential of the property under draft TPS 4. On this 3.7ha lot only one dwelling is possible in the Rural Living 4 zone. The current recommendation is to relax the clause 5B.8 minimum lot area requirement for a second dwelling in the Rural Living zone from 40ha in the advertised draft TPS 4 to 8ha, providing that the purposed of the second dwelling is to accommodate persons engaged in a legitimate rural productive use being carried out on the lot. It is noted that a separate building may be applied for under the Ancillary Accommodation provisions defined in the R Codes to accommodate a family member. See comments on submission RKA5.


RB13 W Allemann Calle Mar Japón 8 MORAIRA-E SPAIN


The submittee’s earlier plan to subdivide was rejected the submittee now plans to establish a fruit and vegetable farm as the property has excellent soil and the submittee therefore needs a second house for a manager. The submittee wants to secure the possibility to build two dwellings (a second house) on the property and will take further steps on this project soon.

The submittee has immediate plans and proposes to seek approval under TPS No 2.


RB14 A Bormolini 415 Old Canns Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112

415 & Lot 5 Old Canns Rd, Bedfordale

The submittee considers the current and proposed Town Planning Schemes and rating system are discriminatory, as the property is unable to be subdivided whilst properties around grow smaller and all are rated the same. Cannot think of any just or fair reason why this would be the case.

The subject properties and those surrounding them are zoned Rural Agricultural Protection under TPS 2 (requires 12ha minimum lots) and RL10 under draft TPS 4 (requires 10ha). The 4.6ha and 4.7ha lots are already smaller than the minimum size for the precinct, however, it is noted that this is a precinct containing a range of lot sizes that is largely historical and not a result of subdivision approvals under the scheme. A number of smaller orchards remain in the area. Nearby areas with different zones have undergone detailed environmental and servicing assessments. Nearby Churchman’s Brook estate has a different zoning and has been subject to a number of studies and controls to manage the impacts and is therefore considered differently. The rating system is not an issue concerning draft TPS 4. While not providing any additional potential to the 4ha lots, it is noted that this precinct has been subsequently recommended to be recoded as RL4. See comments on submission RB5.

That the submission be not supported, however it should be noted that the scheme map is recommended to be modified to recode the lot as part of the wider area currently proposed as RL10 zone including lots 101 and 102 Waterwheel Rd, as RL4 zone and extending as far west along Carradine Road as Lot 50 (306) inclusive.

51


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB15 Taylor BurrellPO Box 8186 SUBIACO EAST WA 6008 On behalf of Doric Pty Ltd

Lots 604 and 605 Dmietrieff Rd, Bedfordale

a) Supports the proposed zoning of Rural Living 2 providing for minimum lot sizes and subject to a Local Structure Plan based on a detailed assessment of land capability.

b) A tourist / equestrian type of development may be proposed for Lot 605 in the future either under the proposed permissible uses or as a Use Not Listed or a scheme amendment depending on the final details of the proposal.

a) The subject land is zoned Rural X under TPS No 2 and is proposed as RL2 under TPS No 4 and is identified as a Rural Development Area in Schedule 12, requiring a comprehensive structure plan prior to development. The land has a mix of class 2 High and class 3 Fair Land Capability and is located in an area where there has been much recent subdivision activity to 2ha. Local structure planning can guide and control future development.

b) It is noted that the City is happy to receive tourism-oriented proposals, which are dealt with on their merits and in accordance with proper planning principles.


RB16 R Bergsma 42 Narbethong Rd BEDFORDALE WA 6112

42 Narbethong Rd, Bedfordale

The submittee resides in the Narbethong Estate and agree with draft TPS 4 as proposed. The RL2 zoning allows opportunity for rural living whilst providing some consistency in zoning.

The subject land is a 5.5ha lot zoned Rural X in TPS No 2 and abutting a number of 2ha lots. It is proposed to rationalise the wider precinct as a RL2 zone in TPS No 4. This represents a change which, subject to assessment of a local structure plan for the area, could allow a two lot subdivision for the subject land.


52


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RB17 Dykstra &Associates 6/2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111 On behalf of J B Kelsall

Pt Lot 7 Albany Hwy, Bedfordale

Pt Lot 7 Albany Hwy is proposed as Rural Living 4 zone, however, the owner, with the support of other landowners in this precinct, is seeking the modification of scheme 4 to RL2 zone to reflect the similar surrounding lots. The core landowner interest group comprises of Lot 18 (5ha); Lot 19 (5.2ha); Lot 7 (10.9ha); Lot 6 (4.7ha). RL2 zone is appropriate for the area because: It would be in keeping with the surrounding

precinct characterised by 2ha lots; It would represent a marginal increase in rural

density that the land is capable of sustaining; The land has existing natural vegetation

screening minimising visual impact; The pleasant rural character of the land would be

maintained; The land is well drained due to topography and

soil with the catchment draining to Neerigen Brook which traverses the entire precinct; Telecommunications and power infrastructure are

readily available; It is close to the Armadale Strategic Regional

Centre and would be reflective of the continuing planned future development of the City; Land capability shows a Class 3 Fair Capability

on the eastern most corner and a narrow strip on the Albany Hwy frontage with a Class 4 Poor Capability on the remainder with no areas of very Low Capability according to the Armadale Rural Strategy; Other areas with mixed landforms and capability

class have been identified for 2ha lots eg Narbethong Rd Bedfordale; Future subdivision can be planned and

coordinated by means of a Structure Plan and Development Area on the Special Control Area maps and establish building envelopes, strategic firebreaks, revegetation areas, identification of setbacks to Hwy and water bodies etc.

The subject land backs on to Settlers Common and is characterised by elongated shaped lots of between 3.9 and 10 ha. Only 1 lot would appear to have potential to subdivide under the current Rural C zone. Access is limited to Albany Hwy. At RL2 the 7 lots in the subject area would have potential for approximately 10 to 11 new lots at 2ha minimum. The area slopes steeply up from Albany Highway and has a high degree of visual prominence and landscape value. The area is predominantly Class 4 Low capability with some Class 3 Fair Capability for rural residential development. It is considered that given its location, steepness and visual prominence, and in the absence of a comprehensive assessment of the impacts and ability of the potential subdivision to be managed, the 4ha minimum of the currently proposed RL4 zone is appropriate.


53


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RURAL – WUNGONG (Submission RW1)

RW1 A MarshAJ Marsh Pty Ltd PO Box 91 GOSNELLS WA 6990 On behalf of clients P Dawkins and J Meredith

Lots 302 & 303 Leys Rs, Wungong

a) Lots 302 & 303 Leys Rise are zoned Rural E under TPS No 2.

b) A submission to the City is currently being prepared to have the land rezoned so that the portion which can be serviced by scheme water and which is environmentally capable can be subdivided into lots with a 1ha minimum. This proposal which has been developed since 2001 is contrary to the Rural Living 10 (10ha) proposed in the new scheme. The rezoning / subdivision proposal involves extending Leys Rise to service eleven new lots of 1ha minimum, similar to those lots already existing within the “White Rails” subdivision located directly to the west and featuring:

Public Open Space reserve along the existing water course and allowing public access to Reserve 4561 from South West Highway enabling heritage walk trails to be established; 1ha lots which are not visible from the

South West Highway and there is no visible impact on the existing subdivision to the west. Scheme water serviced to the 145m AHD

contour within thirty metres of the front property boundary. c) Landform Research has completed a Land

Capability and Geotechnical assessment, which is subject to finalisation, however initial indicators are that the project is environmentally acceptable.

d) Request consideration to having lots 302 and 303 included as a 1ha minimum Rural Living area in the new TPS or giving consideration to an amendment to the new TPS after a formal rezoning application is lodged with Council.

a) It is not correct that Lots 302 & 303 Leys Rise are zoned Rural E under TPS No 2 – the current zoning is Rural X (no subdivision recommended)

b) A rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits.

c) A Land Capability and Geotechnical assessment are of critical importance to justification of smaller lots with the broad scale mapping available to the City indicating the land is predominantly Class 4 Low capability with some Class 3 Fair capability landforms on the site.

d) The RL10 proposed is considered appropriate at this time, however, a scheme amendment proposal for smaller lots will be considered on its merits.


54


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RURAL – KARRAGULLEN (Submission RKA1 to RKA8)

RKA1 *

S Sneyd 90 Gardiner Rd KARRAGULLEN WA 6111

90 (Lot 5) Gardiner Rd, Karragullen

a) The land should remain General Rural – it has 150 fruit trees and livestock and there are other orchards around that are still rural and the block next door is orchard.

b) There is insufficient information on what constitutes a Rural Living block apart from the size in hectares.

c) If rezoned there may be restrictions that will prevent the growing of fruit trees or other horticultural pursuits and it is obvious that subdivision will not be an option.

d) Object to the rezoning as the land should remain General Rural.

a) The lot is approximately 9ha and is currently zoned General Rural and is proposed as Rural Living 10 to acknowledge the class 2 High Capability and class 3 Fair Capability of the wider precinct for rural residential development.

b) It is noted that the zones are described in Part 4 and land uses for all zones are set out in the zoning table and development requirements set out in Part 5 and 5B for the rural zones.

c) The 9ha lot would not be capable of subdivision under the current General Rural zone or the proposed Rural Living 10 zone and the lot sizes are generally large enough to cater for horticultural pursuits.

d) The lot is located in a wider proposed Rural Living 10 precinct where lot sizes of existing lots range from 0.4ha (4000M2) upwards to 15ha. While rural uses on smaller lots can create land management and amenity concerns, the majority of lots are larger and able to support rural uses. Accordingly there is no objection to modifying the map to revert to the former General Rural zone. Notwithstanding only a small percentage of this precinct is under orchard and the majority land use is grazing and therefore it is not proposed to include the area in the Special Control Area for the Prime Agricultural Protection Area of Karragullen and like similar General Rural areas adjacent to Roleystone RL areas it is likely that land use change to Rural Living will occur via rezoning assessments in the medium term.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map for the proposed Rural Living 10 precinct containing Lot 5 Gardiner Road to revert to the General Rural zone.

55


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKA2 *

G Marsh - Director Gomar Pty Ltd C/- Lot 558 Valencia Wy MADDINGTON WA 6109

Lot 9 Canning Rd, Karragullen

a) In 1998 the submittee sought rezoning to allow rural residential development, which was approved subject to gaining direct access to a gazetted road but has not been able to attain direct access. The submittee notes that the state forest to the north of Lot 9 is proposed to be rezoned into General Rural and now enquires as to the proposed subdivision plans for this previous state forest to determine the ability to purchase a subdivided lot to gain access to either Illawarra Rd or O’Meagher Rd.

b) There is strong community support for additional residential land to facilitate both permanent and seasonal rural workers and their families and our land would be suitable for residential living but the opportunity is denied given the access issues noted above, and the submittee now enquires as to the City’s view on the residential issue and what measures are in place to accommodate this need.

c) The submittee has concerns as to the long term viability of the fruit orchards in the district and the value of land will diminish in consequence so that the City needs to consider ways of permitting current landowners the ability to realise a reasonable return from the ultimate sale of landholdings, namely rezoning to some form of residential use. The submittee occupies land that has limited commercial viability for orchards and limited future value in its current and proposed zoning and now enquire as to the City’s view on this matter.

a) Lot 9 Canning Rd is currently General Rural zone under TPS No2 and is proposed as General Rural under draft TPS No 4 and therefore there is no change in zoning. Similarly there is no change to the zoning of land to the north of the site. The purchase of Crown land or private land is not a concern of relevance to the local TPS and should be taken up with the appropriate agencies or owners. The area is identified as a Special Control Area for Prime Agricultural Land Protection associated with the Karragullen orchard industry, which includes existing orchards and buffer areas. The revised provisions proposed to apply to the General Rural zone and Karragullen orchard area make adequate provision for permanent and seasonal rural workers through opportunities for a second dwelling in support of legitimate rural production.

b) The General Rural zone offers a range of permissible landuses. Any consideration of rezoning would need to be considered through a scheme amendment process with environmental and servicing assessments and the access issue would particularly need to be redressed. The land capability for the site includes a range of landforms and capabilities for rural residential development including Class 2 – High, Class 3 – Fair and Class 4 – Low. The issue of providing accommodation for seasonal rural workers is proposed to be accommodated by changes to the provisions relating to two house on one lot.

c) See b) above. There a no major changes to the General Rural zoning of the land, which has been in place over the long term. The scheme is subject to periodical review to account for changing economic circumstances and landuse demand.


56


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKA3 A & C Aluaro 1654 Canning Rd KARRAGULLEN WA 6111

Lot 12 (1654) Canning Rd, Karragullen

As the submittees are semi retired they would like to subdivide into 5 acre lots selling one and residing on the other. The submittees feel that across the road there is already subdivision of smaller lots and can see no reason why they should be restricted as are also so close to the Village Centre, subdivision would have merit.

Lot 12 is currently zoned General Rural in TPS No 2 and is similarly proposed as General Rural in draft TPS No 4, in which it also forms part of the Special Control Area for Prime Agricultural Land Protection Area for Karragullen. Accordingly, in terms of further subdivision potential, there is little change to the status quo in the proposed Scheme 4. The 4ha lot 12 is already considered a small lot and any consideration for further subdivision into smaller lots would have to be considered in the context of the environmental and servicing assessment of the entire precinct under a scheme amendment process. The existing subdivided lots on the opposite side of Canning Road, referred to in the submission are the result of historical subdivisions and as they directly adjoin the Karragullen Townsite they are proposed as an RL4 precinct.


RKA4 S & L Putland 98 Gardiner Rd KARRAGULLEN WA 6111

Lot 7 (98) Gardiner Rd, Karragullen

The submittees have lived on the property for 57 years growing fruit and grazing and feel they are not being treated fairly as adjoining property is subdivided into 2ha blocks and their lot is suggested as 10 ha. The submittees are not in favour of intense subdivisions and spoiling the natural beauty and tranquillity but feel they have little choice for future reasonable size subdivisions for retirement or giving blocks to the children.

Lot 7 is approximately 12 ha and is currently zoned General Rural zone under TPS No 2 and is located in a proposed RL10 precinct in draft TPS No 4. In response to submissions it is proposed to modify the draft scheme to revert to the existing General Rural zone under TPS No 2. See comments on submission RKA1. Accordingly, in terms of further subdivision potential, there is little change to the status quo in the proposed Scheme 4. It is further considered that the area may have potential for subdivision into smaller Rural Living lots, however this would need to be considered in the context of the environmental and servicing assessment of the precinct under a scheme amendment process and is not considered appropriate for the commencement of the new scheme in the absence of the more detailed assessments and scheme provisions that would be required to support smaller lot sizes. The 2ha blocks referred to in the submission are the result of a recent scheme amendment for a Special Use zone under TPS No 2, which is merely carried over into the new scheme as a RL2 zone.

That the submission not be supported, it should be noted that the scheme map for the subject precinct is recommended to be modified to revert to the General Rural zone.

57

58


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKA5 *

R G Batey & J Johnson On behalf of the Karragullen Progress Association

Karragullen area generally

a) General Issues. There are concerns in the Karragullen community that the long-term viability of the fruit industry in the district is not assured. It is likely that in the first instance, some producers will cease to be economically viable. Although this may relate to economies of scale, it is more likely that certain blocks may become unsuitable for orchards. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to providing a mechanism whereby individual orchardists are able to exit the industry and realise a reasonable return from sale of land.

b) It is the community view that there needs to be sufficient flexibility in the system to accommodate this need. In particular, we would urge that the designation of the district and particular blocks as ‘orchard protection’ be regularly reviewed. We are particularly concerned that around 20 years has elapsed since the last Town Planning Scheme was adopted, and this is quite undesirable in the circumstances.

c) In regard to the impact of subdivision on primary production and local amenity there is community support for there being effective buffers between land being used for orchard and Rural Living areas:

Each orchard invariably has land unsuitable for fruit trees and such land can be left as remnant bush and / or developed for other rural purposes. The location of land suitable for fruit trees

and these buffers needs to be considered in determining land suitable for further subdivision or Rural Living. It is also recognised that in some

circumstances, blocks immediately adjacent to orchard may need to remain zoned general rural to provide a buffer. However, there would appear to be no justification to use this. Need to prevent subdivision of general rural land not suitable for orcharding, provided the buffer is not compromised. Similarly, consideration needs to be given to orchardists being able to subdivide off

a) TPS 4 aims to facilitate a future for the orchard industry by designating the Special Control Area for Prime Agricultural Protection Area so that potential intrusion of uses which may present conflicts with orchard uses can be subject to careful scrutiny and consultation with affected parties. The General Rural zone also provides opportunities for a wide range of uses that can be compatible with orchards.

b) Schemes should be reviewed every 5 years, and in practice this occurs more frequently than this via regular scheme amendments for particular locations, either initiated by landowner proposals or as omnibus amendments initiated by the City. A complete new scheme such as TPS 4 should only be required less frequently than 5 yearly, however, it is acknowledged that TPS No. 2 has become excessively dated and a new scheme is overdue.

c) The Special Control Area identifies orchards and buffer areas following cadastral lot boundaries. Proposals abutting orchards or the SCA may require setbacks to ensure no conflicts arise in relation to adjacent orchards.

d) The need for additional residential land is a longer term issue as the whole area is Rural zone in the MRS and needs for Rural Living have been accommodated in various RL zones and the Special Residential zone in the Karragullen Village centre. The location of residential and rural living in proximity to orchards needs to be carefully managed and ensure buffers area in place as noted above. Assessments funded by landowners can lay out the merits of alternative landuse proposals and proposed management of buffers etc under scheme amendments.

e) The area proposed as RL2 zone off Irymple Road has been incorporated into TPS No 2 via a scheme amendment, which assessed issues including management of access in consultation with the community. A local structure plan will guide future development. TPS No 4 merely reflects the decisions made under the amendment.

f) The Special Residential zone in Rokewood Way and School Rd only affects lots, which are too small for the rural uses of a Rural Living Zone. Major impacts are not expected and current uses are protected by

That the submission be supported in part by a modification to clause 5B.8 of the text, deleting the 40ha minimum size for a second dwelling in the General Rural zone providing it is for a legitimate rural productive use and substituting a minimum 8ha lot size for a second dwelling the Rural Living zone providing it is also for a legitimate rural productive use, and modifying the zoning table to include Agriculture intensive as a Permitted “P” use in the General Rural zone.


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


59

land unsuitable for orchard, provided the buffer is not compromised. d) There are also various needs for additional

residential land within the Karragullen district (see below) and a strategy needs to be developed in consultation with the community to achieve this. It is noted that there are blocks included in the ‘orchard protected’ area which are not suited to fruit growing. Some of these had earlier been identified in the City of Armadale Rural Strategy Study as suitable for closer subdivision. This requires further consideration.

e) There are particular concerns about an RL2 subdivision with entry onto Irymple Road. This would compromise local orchard activity. The road is also considered unsuitable for increased traffic.

f) There are concerns about residential blocks in Rokewood Way and School Rd being zoned Special Residential, rather than Rural Living. These blocks are currently zoned and rated Rural E. It is understood from comments by officers at the public meeting on June 16th that this change will have no impact on the landowners. However, such blocks have less facilities and or services in comparison with other Special Residential land in the City. There are also concerns about drainage issues from Council controlled land in Rokewood Way, which need to be considered in terms of amenity and consideration of this as Special Residential.

g) Need for additional accommodation in the Karragullen district. The community recognises the need for additional accommodation in various forms. Such accommodation is critical to the continued viability of the Karragullen orchard industry.

The community strongly opposes any restriction, which prevents a second house being constructed on block of less than 40ha. We believe that the current system, which enables a general rural landholder in Karragullen to apply to

the Non-conforming use provisions of 4.8 of TPS No 4. Drainage concerns in respect to Council land can be raised with the Technical Services Directorate for attention.

g) The issue of second houses on rural lots is a concern in that zoning and minimum lot size coding should be the determinant of rural density and the current two houses on a rural lot policy has been abused through the Town Planning appeals process resulting in subdivisions creating undersized lots, thereby undermining the minimum lot standards of the planning scheme and eroding public confidence and the level of certainty of subdivision standards which the scheme attempts to provide. Other than for existing areas of General Rural zone in Forrestdale, which are in the process of urbanisation, the General Rural zone has been identified for areas primarily intended to allow continuing rural productive purposes, particularly in the Karragullen Special Control Area for Prime Agricultural Land Protection Area, and also in areas of longstanding productive orchards in Roleystone. Notwithstanding that subdivision will not generally be approved in the General Rural zone, it is acknowledged that a legitimate rural productive purpose being carried out on the land, can sometimes require a second dwelling for accommodation of a farm worker or farm manager. It is therefore proposed to modify TPS No 4 to relax the advertised standard under cl 5B.8.2 by deleting the requirement for a 40ha minimum lot area for a second dwelling in the General Rural zone, subject to the approval being in support of a legitimate rural productive purpose being carried out on the lot. In contrast to the General Rural zone, the objectives of the Rural Living zone are primarily for living in a rural environment and there will therefore be less call for rural productive purposes and where this occurs it will largely be confined to properties above 8ha in area. Accordingly it is proposed to relax the advertised 40ha minimum lot area for discretionary approval for a second dwelling in the Rural Living zone, subject to the property having a minimum lot area of 8ha AND the proposed dwelling is for a legitimate rural productive purpose carried out on the land, such as for accommodation of farm worker or manager. It is therefore proposed to modify the


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


60

Council provides adequate safeguards and should be retained. It is particularly noted that this was a major concern when the community made its submission on Town Planning Scheme No 2. The comment made at the public meeting

that the construction of a second dwelling is noted however, this has generally not been an issue for Karragullen and the practice has generally been positive for the community as well as for the landowner. The ability to construct a second dwelling is preferable to having individual landowners pursuing rezoning or redevelopment applications to achieve the same outcome. It is noted that an orchard is a relatively

intensive agricultural activity, which may be conducted as a single enterprise across more than one block and in such circumstances it is irrelevant to use size as the minimum area on which a second residence may be constructed. However it is agreed there needs to be a reasonable lower limit and it is suggested that this remain at 4ha in this district. Notwithstanding the need for second

residences, individual landowners may alternatively need to pursue the excising of a residential living block from productive agricultural land for legitimate reasons to ultimately ensure the continued viability of the orchard eg to meet bank finance obligations for the entity conducting the rural enterprise. There needs to be greater flexibility than

would be allowed in the proposed scheme so long as additional residences do not compromise ongoing orchard activity. Restrictions on second residences and / or subdivision in this district may ultimately be to the detriment of the area for ongoing productive agriculture. Accommodation for seasonal workers such

as fruit-pickers does not appear to have been catered for in the Scheme. There is strong community support for

additional residential land within the Karragullen district. A strategy needs to be developed in consultation with the community to achieve certain objectives. This need relates mainly to the

scheme accordingly to continue Council’s discretion to approve second residences, however this will be subject to the separate new requirements under the General Rural and Rural Living zones. It is noted that TPS No 4 also includes an alternative opportunity to apply for ancillary accommodation for family members, subject to floor area limits of the R Codes.

h) As discussed in the submission there is a need to balance some flexibility of landuse with prevention of conflicts between potentially non-compatible land uses such as orchards and rural residential dwellings. Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged that to provide a measure of certainty of use for “Agriculture – intensive” (orchards) is the very reason for the existence of the Special Control Area for “Prime Agricultural Land Protection Area” and since alternative landuses are limited, it is reasonable to provide greater flexibility to change between the particular type of “Agriculture – intensive” uses without the need to obtain a discretionary approval as currently provided by the draft scheme. Accordingly it is proposed to modify the draft TPS to make Agriculture intensive a Permitted “P” use in respect to the General Rural zone, including the Special Control Area for “Prime agricultural land protection area” identified in clause 6.6, by modifying the Zoning Table to “P” accordingly. It should be noted that a rural industry or rural use could have an office approved, as it would be incidental to the predominant use of the land. The land use table only refers to the predominant use of the land and hence only a block of offices that is a predominant use of land would not be permitted.

i) The scheme provides a basic standard for building coverage, with any proposals for a larger coverage simply prompting an application, which could then be approved with appropriate conditions. It is acknowledged that the orchard industry has special needs in respect to storage sheds and it is not intended to preclude such proposals.

j) Setbacks from water courses are a basic standard to protect water quality in catchments throughout the Armadale scheme area. The standard will need to be applied with discretion and applications may be required in some circumstances. Appeal rights would be available.


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


opportunity for family and workers of general rural landholders to reside locally as part of the community. However, simple subdivision may not necessarily achieve this, and indeed may result in the influx of new residents with consequent conflicts with established orchards etc. A strategy, which favours family or employees of those deriving income from general rural land, needs to be developed. There has been considerable discussion in

the community about Council using restrictions on landuse and subdivision as a means of ensuring ongoing productive orchards. There is a strong view, including from successful orchardists, that this may not be the most appropriate long term strategy. It is suggested that there needs to be a shift towards ensuring that people can move into the area but are unable to subsequently affect existing agricultural practices. This should be explored further. h) In respect to Permitted activities on general

rural land: There are concerns about the requirement for

an application to be made to develop orchard and for Council to have discretion in this matter. It is noted that there are increasing

management activities associated with orchards and other primary production. It may be necessary to have quite a substantial office in some circumstances, and accordingly there needs to be provision for the establishment of offices in general rural areas to accommodate this. There are concerns about how the

requirements in respect to construction of dams will be applied. i) In respect to building coverage on general

rural land: The community notes that this has been a

source of problems, and that criteria need to be developed to enable the needs of rural industries to be met, without compromising the general amenity of the district. j) Setback from water courses: It is noted there are watercourses on most

k) Remnant Vegetation provisions on General Rural land are the same as existing under the current TPS.

l) The City has a duty of care to ensure that new dwellings have an adequate supply of potable water for human consumption in areas where metropolitan reticulated water services are not available.

61


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


general rural blocks in the Karragullen area and many of these originate locally. Water quality was examined in the early

1980’s in the context of possibly using Stinton Creek as a source of for Perth water scheme and information suggested that activities at the time were having very little impact on water quality downstream. There are concerns that this section if

applied rigorously, may have significant impact on local land use and therefore there needs to be some flexibility and / or discretion in how this is applied in Karragullen. k) Remnant Vegetation: There are concerns about management of

bush, particularly on general rural lots. Most bush on general rural land is regrowth and it is understood that this will not be affected by this requirement of the scheme. l) Domestic water supplies on rural blocks: There is particular concern that public water supply criteria should not be applied to private water sources.

RKA6 *

R & J Batey 1279 Brookton Hwy KARRAGULLEN WA 6111

Karragullen area generally

a) The submittees have concerns about various aspects of the town planning scheme as they apply to Karragullen including but not limited to the limitation of a second dwelling on general lots of less than 40ha and restrictions on development near water courses. The submittees have also contributed to and agree with a district submission.

b) The submittees urge a separate review of the town planning needs of Karragullen as a district. The submittees believe that the scheme as proposed will be to the detriment of the district and does not reflect the needs or current circumstances of the area.

a) In a modification to clause 5B.8 of the draft, the 40ha minimum size is proposed to be deleted for the General Rural zone and in the Rural Living zone relaxing the 40ha requirement to 8ha providing that in either zone the second dwelling is to accommodate persons engaged in a legitimate rural productive use. See comments on submission RKA5.

b) TPS 4 aims to balance the need for protection of existing orchard activities with flexibility for alternative landuses, particularly rural living. These interests are often conflicting and it is acknowledged that trade-offs have to be made. However, given the relaxation of the second dwelling provision in the General Rural zone it is not considered a separate review is warranted at this time.


62


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKA7 *

E Ghilarducci 1189 Brookton Hwy KARRAGULLEN WA 6111

1189 Brookton Hwy, Karragullen

a) Keep Karragullen as a special area for horticulture.

b) Suggest 6ha minimum lot size for 2 dwellings and no subdivision under 6ha for General Rural. The submittee runs an orchard as a family business and to remain viable our son needs to live on site.

c) The submittee does not want hobby farms in this area or housing areas to develop close by as has occurred in the Roleystone area because housing development would have a major impact on our industry eg from concerns about spraying, bird scarers, tractor noises and after hours work.

See comments on submissions RKA5 and RKA6. That the submission be supported in part by a modification to clause 5B.8 of the text, deleting the 40ha minimum size for a second dwelling in the General Rural zone providing it is for a legitimate rural productive use and substituting a minimum 8ha lot size for a second dwelling the Rural Living zone providing it is also for a legitimate rural productive use, and modifying the zoning table to include Agriculture intensive as a Permitted “P” use in the General Rural zone.

RKA8 *

EV & JA Marshall 213 Irymple Rd KARRAGULLEN WA 6111

213 Irymple Rd, Karragullen

a) Object to the fact that under the new scheme the submittees will not be able to put a second residence on the property for the family.

b) 213 Irymple Rd is large enough to support 2 houses and:

Is near the Bettenay subdivision -2ha lots; It adjoins the Stinton Cascade Reserve and

therefore any additional building would not affect the general workings of the surrounding orchards; The top of the property adjoining the

reserve is rocky and unsuitable for orchard planting; c) The submittees advise that they did not

receive the letter to landowners regarding the new TPS No 4.

a) See comments on submissions RKA5 and RKA6.

b) No. 213 Irymple Rd is approximately 3.2ha and is proposed as General Rural zone in TPS No 4. It is located within the SCA for Prime Agricultural Land Protection Area. The current recommendation is to relax the clause 5B.8 minimum lot area requirement for a second dwelling in the General Rural zone from 40ha in the advertised draft TPS 4 to a provision that the purpose of the second dwelling is to accommodate persons engaged in a legitimate rural productive use being carried out on the lot. It is noted that a separate building may also be applied for under the Ancillary Accommodation provisions defined in the R Codes to accommodate a family member.

c) Australia Post delivered a Brochure and information to all local addresses and the scheme was advertised in the local press. Absentee owners were also advised of the scheme by letter so that coverage was intended to be full.


63


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RURAL – KELMSCOTT (Submissions RKE1 to RKE7)

RKE1 *

D & M Barker Lot 181 Buckingham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 181 Buckingham Rd, Kelmscott

a) The submittees fully support the zoning and the rural housing density and subdivision standards of clause 5B.8.1 for the Canning River Valley along Brookton Highway.

b) The submittees object to any attempt to amend or change this scheme and are particularly opposed to some block owners attempts to have the scheme modified in order to subdivide their blocks as this would be to the detriment of the area as a whole and will lead to the eventual destruction of the natural environment and beauty of the area.

c) The submittees observe it was most gratifying to find one of the primary and recurring aims of the Town Planning Scheme 4 is the preservation and conservation of the environment and natural scenic beauty of the area (section 1.6(b) and 1.6(j). The beauty of the Armadale Kelmscott region is well known throughout Perth and the Canning River Valley and Araluen are particular highlights.

d) The submittees support the TPS 4 continuation of the regulations controlling subdivision of rural blocks in Buckingham Road that has applied for decades. Support the RL2 zone which requires a 2ha minimum.

e) The submittees consider any subdivision and increase in housing density will diminish the natural scenic beauty of the area as well as increase sewerage and household pollutants (most rural blocks in Buckingham Rd are on septic tank sewerage and located on the steep slopes of the valley sides thereby allowing rapid drainage of effluent to the groundwater and then into the Canning River.

f) The submittees believe that many other residents in Canning River Valley are in favour of the current proposed RL2 for the Buckingham Rd area in scheme 4 and recognise that it is intended to ensure that one of the most beautiful areas in the metropolitan area is protected for current and future generations and for the benefit of all residents and visitors to the area.

The submittee’s support for the scheme and particularly the RL2 zone with 2ha minimum lots in the Buckingham Road area is noted.


64


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKE2 J Den Hollander 214 Buckingham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

214 Buckingham Rd, Kelmscott

Request that the RL2 area north of Brookton Hwy around the Canning River and Buckingham Rd be rezoned to RL1 as: a) A number of submissions have been made

previously, which have been ignored or rejected;

b) The Rural D zone has been rated up to 3 times that of the adjacent Rural E zone;

c) The submittee considers that the City’s advice that future subdivision should comply with minimum lot sizes and that the City’s view that pre-existing lot sizes in the zone are not material to the argument is nonsense.

d) The submittee considers this reasonable as:

80% of the 123 lots are less than 2ha, 50% are less than 1ha, the area is more characteristic of RL1 than RL2 and that as rezoning would only increase density by 20% and; Environmental capability is not a sufficient

reason to refuse rezoning as residential subdivisions already occur closer to the river than the area in question; Visual sensitivity is not a sufficient reason

to refuse rezoning as most of the existing development is already located at the higher points of the properties; Agriculture is not sustainable given poor

groundwater supply, proximity to urban areas and the river.

a) It is not correct that previous submissions were ignored. Upon the 1999-2000 advertising of the revised Rural strategy, a joint submission was received in respect to approximately 20 Rural D (2ha min.) properties north of Buckingham Road and seeking a Rural E zone (1ha min.). Council accordingly referred the submission to the consultants preparing the draft scheme at that time. The submission sought a reduction in minimum lot sizes for the a precinct north of Buckingham Road and zoned Rural D under TPS No 2 to allow further subdivision. After due consideration, this was not supported in the draft scheme and the RL2 coding was proposed for the subject land north of Buckingham Road. In response to an enquiry a spokesperson for the 1999 submission was informed and advised in writing of the approach being taken to the area in the draft TPS No 4, prior to its public release. The rationale for the area in the draft scheme and the proposal to maintain the currently existing minimum 2ha lot coding for the precinct was explained. However, further submissions were invited during the advertising period so that the previous approach to the area could also be subject to a review at the current stage in the TPS 4 process post-advertising / response to submissions stage.

b) The issue of rates impost is not considered a valid planning ground to justify an alteration to a zoning to allow subdivision.

c) No control can be exerted over past subdivisions and all older areas have a range of lot sizes often reflecting outmoded practices of the past. Only future subdivisions can be controlled by the new scheme that has been prepared with consideration of land capability and suitability criteria as the main determinants of rural density changes made under TPS 4. In this regard the 20 properties north of Buckingham Road are predominantly Class 4 Low Capability with some parts Class 3 Fair Capability and a high degree of visual impact being located on the upper slopes of the Canning River valley.

d) The selection of existing lot size as the main criteria for determining future density coding and therefore subdivision potential is not considered appropriate. Similarly the selection of an area for numerical


65


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


analysis where most lots are 1ha due to the current Rural E zone allowing for 1ha minimum lots providing 2ha averages are achieved is also inappropriate. The prime considerations for rural density coding are land capability and suitability criteria, particularly in relation to the subject land the landscape quality of the area and the impact further subdivision and development would have on landscape values. Visual sensitivity is one of the matters which must be taken into account and precedent is not considered a valid planning criteria as each matter should be determined on its merits. The Rural Living 2 zone allows for small lots to 2 ha min. which are not considered as primarily for agriculture but are intended for rural living and enjoyment of high standards of rural amenity. The lots north of Buckingham Road are considered to be appropriate for hobby farming or rural residential use, rather than commercial scale operations. Notwithstanding the zonings, which are accordingly proposed to be gazetted under TPS No. 4, the City may be further prepared to consider subsequent rezoning proposals to allow infill subdivision into smaller lots. However in order to protect the current characteristics of the area, special scheme provisions may need to be tailored for insertion into TPS No 4. Accordingly for such a scheme amendment application to be further considered by the City, detailed environmental capability and servicing assessments particularly taking into account the areas landscape sensitivity would need to be undertaken at the landowner’s expense.

66


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKE3 J Den Hollander 214 Buckingham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


a) An area with greater than 80% of the lots less than 2ha and 50% less than 1ha should be zoned RL1 not RL2.

b) There seems to be a lack of transparency and consistency in the zoning decisions as the area bounded by Buchanan Road, Coventry Road and Canning Mills Road was also Rural E and is now proposed as RL1 in TPS 4 whereas the Buckingham Road area was zoned Rural D but is now proposed as RL2 in TPS.

a) In the case of the area north of Buckingham Road the selected minimum lot size coding maintains the existing status quo in respect to further subdivision. The area is currently zoned Rural D under TPS No 2 which requires a minimum of 2ha (and an average of 3ha) and the RL2 zone proposed has the same 2ha minimum (while the 3ha average is no longer required).

b) The situation in the Coventry Road area is different to that north of Buckingham Road. In the Coventry Road area all lots are currently less than 2ha and therefore an RL1 (minimum of 1ha) density coding does not have any effect in terms of future subdivision. Whereas the situation for the lots north of Buckingham Road is quite different as potentially 15 lots could be created if the minimum were dropped from 2ha to 1ha and the existing 2ha and 3ha lots all decided to subdivide. In this high and visually prominent location it is considered that the landscape impacts of such development would be considerable and therefore TPS No 4 should maintain the RL2 coding. The important point is that the setting of the minimum lot size coding determines whether subdivision will be permitted in the particular precinct and if existing lots are of sufficient size, the number of such lots will determine how much subdivision is permissible. The ability to set minimum lot sizes for particular areas therefore gives the Council the ability to control the amount of future subdivision in any particular area and more importantly to focus new subdivision activities into areas where they can be best supported by the environmental characteristics of the land (land capability and suitability including landscape impacts) access to infrastructure and services in addition to achieving the broader objectives of the City for economic and social development. The considerations that went in to preparing the new scheme were primarily the focusing of subdivision activity into selected areas, and of limiting subdivision activity in other areas and allowing very small amounts of infill subdivision in suitable locations.


67

68


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKE4 S Pin242 Buckingham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 191 (242) Buckingham Rd, Kelmscott

a) The replacement of TPS No 2 and 3 with TPS No 4 is the perfect opportunity to rectify any zoning inconsistencies, which have occurred over past years. b) Council proposes to change both the area north of Buckingham Road (Rural D) zone and the area south of Buckingham Road (Rural E) zone to the RL2 zone in TPS No 4 and therefore must be acknowledging that they have common characteristics. c) In 1999 the landowners on the north side of Buckingham Road (zoned Rural D) made a submission to Council seeking to have it changed to Rural E which has a lower minimum lot size in respect to subdivision than Rural D i.e. Rural D requires an average lot size of 3ha with a minimum of 2ha whereas Rural E requires a minimum of 1ha and an average of 2ha. d) Lots to the north of Buckingham Road (zoned Rural D) are 2.14ha which reflects closely the 2ha average property size for the Rural E zone. 90% of the properties to the north of Buckingham Road (zoned Rural D) are below the average lot requirement of 3ha for the Rural D zone. Therefore a Rural D zone is not justified. e) While averages are no longer required under the new TPS No 4 a comparison of table 2.8 (existing TPS No 2) and table 5B8.1 (draft TPS No 4) shows that existing zone D corresponds to the proposed zone RL2, while existing zone E corresponds to the proposed zone RL1. f) The TPS No 4 proposal to make the land south of Buckingham Road (Rural E) and to the north of Buckingham Road (Rural D) as Rural Living 2 zone is contrary to the points previously made by the rate payers of the area to the north of Buckingham Road (Rural D) and defies any logical thinking, as the proposal will lead to further inconsistencies and discrepancies than those that have already occurred under the existing Town Planning Schemes. g) If the RL2 proposal goes ahead for both the current Rural D and Rural E zones, 83% of the RL2 properties in the area located north of Brookton Hwy will be below the minimum required size of 2ha.

See preceding submission RKE1 relating to the same area and submissions RKE2 and RKE3 seeking the same subdivision potential for the land north of Buckingham Road to 1ha minimum lot sizes.



NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


h) Council proposes that future subdivision standards be set at 2ha minimum lot sizes, but if there is no correlation between existing property characteristics / sizes and future subdivision standards, why do we need different subdivision standards as Council may as well decide that zone R15 should have a minimum lot size of 2ha and thus preventing any subdivision in the area– does this make any sense? i) Council should take a serious look at the arguments made above and reconsider the draft TPS No 4 and zone the current TPS No 2 Rural D land located north of Buckingham Road to RL1 as this would more accurately reflect the current property sizes in the zone. j) If RL1 were to be introduced only about 20 properties would qualify for subdivision, increasing the housing density by 16% only if all were subdivided. k) It has been claimed that the area has a low capability for rural residential development due to the closeness to the Canning River and the steepness of the terrain, however, currently most of the smaller properties are close to the Canning River and the lots with potential to subdivide are further away from the river. Furthermore, many areas in the vicinity, such as Mount Nasura in Armadale, the southern side of Brookton Highway in Roleystone (opposite Holden Road) and areas off Bromfield Drive (Hilltop Place) in Kelmscott, which have only been recently developed, have relatively high density housing developments and area much steeper than the area north of Buckingham Road. l) Subdivision of a few properties in the area may lead to an improved visual impact, as further housing developments will lead to planting of bushes and trees in the vicinity of the houses, while reducing the visual impact, of brown dried grass in the paddocks over the summer period. m) Subdivision may lead to a reduced fire risk over summer due to individual property owners’ efforts to reduce fire hazards, additional firebreaks, and better access to bush and properties by emergency services in case of a fire.

69


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


n) There are commercial rural activities located right on the Canning River (Rural E zone) such as a nursery business and orchards and which pump a tremendous amount of water from the Canning River and make heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides which are damaging the environment and therefore it is questionable that the establishment of a few private residential houses will have the same impact on the environment as these commercial rural activities.

RKE5 A Tauscher 192 Buckingham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


a) TPS No 4 is a perfect opportunity to rectify zoning consistencies that have occurred over past years such as the different zoning density north of Buckingham Rd (Rural D) to that south of Buckingham Rd (Rural E) even though the area north of Buckingham Rd has an average lot size of 2.14ha, which equates with the average for the Rural E zone south of Buckingham Rd. b) While TPS No 4 proposes both areas as RL2 they should be RL1 because: RL1 would more accurately reflect the

existing lot sizes; Only 20 properties would qualify for

subdivision and increasing housing densities by only 16%; The smaller lots are already closer to the

river and the ones with potential to subdivide would be further away; Other areas such as Mt Nasura, the Hilltop

Place off Broomfield Drive area, and south side of Brookton Highway in Roleystone are recent precedents for relatively higher density housing development and are much steeper than north of Buckingham Road; Subdivision may lead to improved visual

impact as more houses will lead to more bushes and trees being planted and less summer dried brown grass and reduced fire risk with more firebreaks and better access to properties; A few more houses north of Buckingham

Road will have much less environmental impact than the nursery business and orchards that are allowed to operate right next to the Canning River.



70


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RKE6 F & D Paton 152 Buckingham Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


a) The submittees objects to the proposal to change the area north of Buckingham Rd which is currently zoned Rural D under TPS No 2 and proposed as RL2 under draft Scheme No 4 and proposes it be modified to an RL1 zone. b) The submittees considers that as the area south of Buckingham Rd is currently zoned Rural E under TPS No 2 but it is also proposed as RL2 under draft Scheme No 4, it would therefore appear there are commonalities between the two areas. c) The submittees were part of a submission in 1999 to have the Rural D zone changed to Rural E and considers the TPS No 4 proposal to change both sides (north and south) of Buckingham Rd as against any of the points made in the original 1999 submission. Considers it is not logical and will lead to further inconsistencies and discrepancies that have already occurred under the current town planning schemes. d) The submittees consider that if RL2 proceeds approximately 80% of properties north of Buckingham Rd will be below the minimum 2ha size and the zoning would not relate to existing subdivision patterns including residential development which is also as near as Buckingham and Grade Roads. e) The submittees consider that smaller lots would lead to greater control of fire hazards and reduce current owners workloads and that the lack of suitable groundwater makes any horticultural or agricultural pursuits very difficult.



RKE7 G & R Walkington PO Box 436 ARMADALE WA 6992

Lot 10 (No 28) Grade Rd corner of Buckingham Rd, Kelmscott

Even though the submittees choose to live a semi rural lifestyle, they argue they should be allowed the opportunity to subdivide if they choose to in the future to less than 2ha. Across the road is zone R10 and yet the subject property is rated RL2.

The property is currently zoned Rural D (2ha minimum) and the proposed RL2 is consistent with that zone (it is close to the Urban Rural zone demarcation under the MRS, hence the reference to the existing R10 opposite). See preceding submission RKE1 relating to the same area and submissions RKE2 and RKE3 seeking the same subdivision potential for the land north of Buckingham Road to 1ha minimum lot sizes.


71


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RURAL – FORRESTDALE (Submissions RF1 to RF20)

RF1 L Cricelli 428 Wright Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

428 (Lot 6) Wright Rd, Forrestdale

Interested in the development and subdivision of my property and those around it.

No 428 (Lot 6) Wright Rd is approximately a 4 ha lot located in a proposed RLX precinct under TPS 4, while under TPS 2 the land is split zoned – General Rural and Rural Groundwater Protection zone. The proposed RLX zoning precludes subdivision on the basis of significant environmental constraints in the area including the MRS Rural – Water Protection Zone and Environmental Management Area for Forrestdale Lake, which are reflected in the Special Control Area (Map 2) of TPS 4. See comments to Submission No. RF21

That the submission not be supported but that it be noted that the amendment recommended under RF21 to Clause 5B.8 would allow consideration to be given to subdivision in RLX zones within the Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy area subject to comprehensive structure planning.

RF2 *

C Bauer 24 Excelsior Drv CANNING VALE WA 6155

370 (Pt lot 13) Oxley Rd, Forrestdale

The draft scheme information was not presented in a very friendly manner, particularly in respect to what the changes actually are, and “before” and “after“ tables showing changes would have helped. These concerns stand out: No Subdivision potential; Limit to total size of dwelling / outbuildings; Strict definition of absorbance values to

determine non-reflective materials; Only one dwelling unless blocks over 40ha.

The submittee claims there may be other changes that will affect them in the future but it is difficult to ascertain. a) The limit to total size of dwelling / outbuildings of 500m2 under Clause 5B.3.1 should take more account of lot size as a 20ha lot should could accommodate more building area than a 1ha lot (both currently restricted to 500m2) e.g. the “Skillion” is a rural house plan designed by the Rural Building Co is 322m2 (including garage) and if you add a 12x12m shed and tank 7m diameter it is over 500m2 (without even adding a small shade house or similar). The building limit of 500m2 also limits the water catchment area to 500m2 (the scheme mandates a 250m2 minimum water catchment area) Suggest a building limit of 500m2 for a 1ha lot with a multiplier effect for larger lots. b) The Use of Reflective materials provision seems to conflict with current moves to be more environmentally friendly and to build less homes,

The 6.4ha lot is General Rural zone in TPS No 2 and is located to the south end of a narrow band of Rural C (RL4) lots which front Nicholson Rd to the north of the subject lot. It is bounded to the south and east by Parks and Recreation Reserve. Under draft Scheme No 4 the RL4 precinct of existing subdivided lots to the north is rationalised by extending it southwards to the boundary of the Parks and Recreation Reserve. This rationalises zonings in the locality by making the whole precinct located immediately east of Nicholson Road as RL4 zone. Whilst the current recommendation is to relax the clause 5B.8 minimum lot area requirement for a second dwelling in the Rural Living zone from 40ha in the advertised draft TPS 4 to 8ha, providing that the purpose of the second dwelling is to accommodate persons engaged in a legitimate rural productive use being carried out on the lot, this would not apply to the subject 6.4ha lot. However, it is noted that a separate building may be applied for under the Ancillary Accommodation provisions defined in the R Codes to accommodate a family member. See comments on Submission RKA5. a) The provision Clause 5B.3.1 just triggers a need to

consider planning issues through an application for development approval and does not represent an absolute prohibition. Size of lot is certainly one of the issues that need to be taken into account, however, discretion needs to be provided so a “constant “ multiplier is not recommended. There can be over development of rural lots through a proliferation of the number and / or size of structures and these can have impacts on the surrounding area including private and public areas so that a

That the submission be supported in part and Clause 5.9.1 (Use of Reflective Materials) be deleted and replaced with: “No dwelling, or ancillary structure, shall be constructed east of the Albany Highway from the City’s northern boundary to its junction with the South West Highway and thereafter east of the South Western Highway, with any external sheeted surface of zincalume, metallic or white coloured finish, without Council approval”. That Clause 5.9.2 be amended to replace “with a lower absorbance value less than 0.6,” with “with any external sheeted surface of zincalume, metallic or white coloured finish”.

72


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


which use less energy and a lighter colour reduces the amount of heat entering the house through the roof. The prescribed values are irresponsible and even though clause 5.9.2 gives some room for consideration of lighter colours, they will act as recommended colours for those who don’t know much about solar design or who don’t want the hassle of negotiating with Council for a particular colour classed as reflective. As it stands the scheme goes against these pro-environment moves in building by requiring roof colours to be dark colours, which is more heat absorbing. Also there is no mention of mitigating factors such as the type of roof e.g. skillion roof would have little chance of reflectance being a big problem for neighbours or a bush block with trees / bush around the house would mean neighbours would probably never even see the roof. Does the Use of Reflective materials under clause 5.9.1 apply to a house on a (currently zoned) rural block?

control needs to be exercised through the approvals process and lot size is one of the matters that would be considered in determining whether to approve a larger building. b) It is acknowledged that there is an unavoidable

conflict between the principles of solar design in respect to energy conservation and the principles of protection of amenity of the locality. Therefore it is important that non-reflective cladding materials be prescribed in a judicious manner rather than mandated as a standard.

It is therefore recommended that the submission be supported in part by modifying Clause 5.9 to only require applications for planning consent where there is reasonable evidence of a which is mostly geographically determined rather than across the entire municipality and providing discretion in the exercise of materials which can be approved rather than the absorbance values quoted in the draft.

RF3 C & K Bray 651 Nicholson Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

651 (Lot 15) Nicholson Rd, Forrestdale

Would prefer RL2 zoning (rather than RL4). The 16ha lot is General Rural zone in TPS No 2 and is located to the south end of a narrow band of Rural C (RL4) lots fronting Nicholson Rd to the north. It is bounded to the south by Parks and Recreation Reserve containing a wetland protected under the EPA Lakes Policy. Under draft Scheme No 4 the RL4 precinct of existing subdivided lots to the north is rationalised by extending it southwards to the boundary of the Parks and Recreation Reserve. ,The RL4 zone provides Lot 15 Nicholson Rd with potential to subdivide into 2 or more (up to a mximum of 4) lots depending on a detailed assessment of site conditions which the landowner will be required to undertake to justify any subdivision. The land capability mapping for the Rural Strategy indicates the land is one of the better areas in Forrestdale, being land with a class 4 low capability for rural residential development, an application of the Environmental Management and Improvement policy statement will be required to enhance the status of the land. This should be proved-up by further investigation under a local structure plan process.

That the submissions preference for RL2 not be supported, however, given the deemed support for the proposed RL4 zone, it is recommended the RL4 zone be retained and the scheme map be modified to identify Lot 15 as a Special Control Area – Development Area allowing a formal structure plan to control any subsequent subdivision and ensure any development implements an Environmental

73


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


Lot 15 is located in the Environmental Management Area for Forrestdale Lake and is also identified as partly affected by a Conservation Category wetland. Accordingly minimum lot sizes of 4ha set by the RL4 zone is considered appropriate and the suggested preference of an RL2 zone is not justified. The actual minimum lot sizes for the site will need to be established by more detailed environmental and servicing assessments and given the constraints of the site may need to be larger than the generic 4ha minimum for the zone. As the RL4 zone provides the 16ha lot with some potential for further subdivision it is recommended the scheme be modified to identify Lot 15 as a Special Control Area – Development Area requiring a Structure Plan to be prepared subject to DOE advice and providing adequate provisions for land management and protection of wetlands including Forrestdale Lake in the form of an Environmental Management and Improvement policy statement as recommended in the Rural Strategy – see comments on submission CoA4.2. The Environmental Management and Improvement policy statement should also be incorporated into the Policy Manual.

Management and Improvement statement for the land.

RF4 R Dawkins PO Box 5100 CANNING VALE WA 6155

Lots 114, 113, 3, 4, 14, & 15 bounded by Nicholson, Warton, Wright and Mason Roads, Forrestdale

a) The part of Lot 114 that is zoned ‘Rural – Groundwater Protection’ under TPS 2 has been excluded from the Residential R15/40 zone and should be transferred to a separate title. b) Agree with the removal of the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone in draft TPS 4 as it has always been the submittees view that the correct boundary should be Warton Road and this would be in the City’s interests to achieve. c) The submittee again requests that consideration be given to relief from rates and taxes in relation to lot 114.

a) The reference to separate title is a subdivision matter. This is not a scheme issue and must be subject to a subdivision application initiated by the submittee. b) TPS 4 retains provisions relating to the groundwater area and the State Planning Policy applying to it through the Special Control Area (Map 2) and the corresponding provisions contained in Clause 6.3 of the Scheme Text, rather than by a specific Rural - Groundwater Protection zone as currently exists under TPS No 2. TPS 4 has no inference of a revision of the groundwater area boundary, which if it did occur, would have to be approved by Water Corporation and Department of Environment before the local TPS could change. See comments to Submission No. RF21 c) This is not a scheme issue but can be forwarded to Finance Department for noting.

That the submission be noted. The submittee be advised that:

action can only be taken by the submittee to initiate separate title via a subdivision application; controls over

groundwater areas are contained in TPS 4 through the Special Control Area Maps but that it should be noted that the amendment recommended under RF21 to Clause 5B.8 would allow consideration to be given to subdivision in RLX zones within the Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy area subject to comprehensive structure planning.; and relief from Council

Rates is not a matter that can be addressed under TPS No 4.

74


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF5 *

M & D McCarthy 857 Warton Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

857 (lot 10) Warton Rd, Forrestdale

a) City of Cockburn has approved high density residential subdivision on the Jandakot water mound. If City of Cockburn is acting in accordance with legislation, is the City of Armadale enforcing land use strategies that do not attain a balance between conservation and housing need?

b) The Manning Hydrogeological Report (No. HR 114) outlines that the water supply bore near the corner of Warton and Armadale Roads cannot be used due to pollution from an abandoned septage site and leaching of lead from the adjacent shooting range.

c) A nearby industrial activity has spoiled the rural amenity.

d) Rezoning of the RLX area to the north of Armadale Road to Residential, RL1 or at the most RL2, would allow the area to be an ‘entry statement’ for the residential area being rezoned currently in northern Forrestdale.

a) The subject land is subject to the MRS Water Protection Zone and SPP No 2.3 Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy. The Policy is a state policy and would apply equally to the City of Cockburn. TPS No 4 provides for a balance of conservation and housing by areas zoned rural and Parks and Recreation Reservations and urban residential zones for more intense housing in specific locations first amended to Urban zone in the MRS. If the unspecified development referred to in Cockburn was subsequent to the Policy, which came into force in June 1998, then the land uses would have undergone environmental assessment and approval under the policy. However it is more likely that Urban Residential or Industrial zones preceded the policy. The MRS Groundwater Protection zone is a Rural Zone and a local zone to allow further rural subdivision would require detailed environmental investigation. The proposed RLX zone changes the purpose of the underlying precinct, however, more detailed studies to justify further subdivision would have to be provided by landowners under a scheme amendment addressing the wider precinct in terms of the SPP No 2.3 Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy.

b) The City is constrained by the MRS zoning and state policy and this argument also provides further justification to the need for detailed environmental investigation prior to any rezoning contemplated to justify additional rural subdivision.

c) The reference to industrial activity appears to be referring to an unapproved depot use established on the adjacent lot 51 that is currently subject to compliance investigation. The land owners have been advised the use is not approved and it is understood the matter is subject to a current planning application.

d) Lot 10 is approximately 4ha. Refer to comments for a) and b) in respect to arguments for rezoning for further subdivision.

See comments to Submission No. RF21


75


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF6 D Kenny 615 Rowley Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lot 13 (615) Rowley Rd, Forrestdale

a) The submittee finds that 4 ha is too much land for lifestyle living and intends to subdivide the land into two equal lots of 2ha each.

b) The properties in the general area are being used for lifestyle living and have mixed classifications of RL2, RL4 and RLX, with the most recent change being the land to the north of the subject property being approved to subdivide into multiple 2ha lots.

c) This area in the south west corner of Armadale borders the shires of Kwinana, Cockburn and Serpentine Jarrahdale whom have all zoned their lifestyle blocks to 2ha.

d) TPS 4 should be consistent and zone the subject property and the other lots in the area from RL4 and RLX to RL2 to be consistent with the other shires and the Town Planning Commissions guidelines of lifestyle blocks generally being 2ha.

a) Lot 13 (615) Rowley Rd is currently zoned General Rural and subdivision into 2ha lots would not be supported. It is proposed as RL4 zoning in TPS No 4, reflecting the existing lot size.

b) The proposed zonings in TPS No 4 are based either on the existing lot sizes or rezoning amendments that have progressed under the current TPS No 2 and providing appropriate land management and development controls based on environmental and servicing assessments associated with the scheme amendment. This is the situation in respect to the property to the north of lot 13.

c) Noted – however, such rezonings would have been done with supporting environmental and servicing assessments and providing appropriate land management and development controls in the relevant town planning scheme.

d) Not supported – in the absence of detailed environmental and servicing assessments and appropriate land management and development controls, it is appropriate for TPS No 4 to maintain the status quo in respect to subdivision and this is currently achieved by the zones proposed in TPS No 4.


RF7 G & C Macri 153 Allen Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

153 Allen Rd, Forrestdale

Land is zoned Rural C and proposed as RL4. Whilst previously happy with this zoning, the Tonkin Hwy is now being constructed approx. 40m from the submittee’s front boundary. The submittees believe their lifestyle will be affected by noise and their property value decreased if the land is to remain RL4. It would therefore be preferable for the subject property and those around it to be included in the Forrestdale Industrial Business Park or rezoned for 0.5ha hobby residential.

RL4 equates with the existing Rural C zone. The area is located between the Forrestdale Industrial Business Park and Landcorp’s Anstey Road industrial area. Any consideration of closer rural or rural residential development would need to be considered in the context of development of the two abutting industrial areas and Tonkin Highway to ensure potentials for conflicting landuses are minimised. A move to rezone the land in question to industrial or residential would first need to be considered at the Metropolitan Region Scheme level prior to being considered under the local town planning scheme.


76


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF8 N D’orazio 342 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lot 9 Oxley Rd, Forrestdale

The submittee would like to subdivide the subject property as RL2 lots. Extension of the Tonkin Hwy and train line will increase population, traffic and housing in the area. Property has been in the family since 1975 with the intention of subdivision.

The subject property is 32ha and zoned General Rural under TPS No 2 and proposed as RL20 under TPS No 4. The general locality is identified in the SRFBW DSP as “Possible Future Urban Development”. Subdivision into 2ha lots would be considered land fragmentation that is a constraint to consideration for possible future urban development, which would be a higher land use. Any further subdivision of the subject area would require detailed environmental assessment and a scheme amendment process.


RF9 M Jabado PO Box 468 ARMADALE WA 6112


Identical to submission RF8. See comment on submission RF8. That the submission not be supported.

RF10 Ron BrooksPlanning On behalf of owners S Hadinoto & T Husni 7 Northmore Crt WINTHROP WA 6150

Lot 27 Cnr Taylor & Oxley Rds, Forrestdale

a) Ron Brooks Planning on behalf of owners strenuously objects to Lot 27 Oxley being RLX, which absolutely prohibits subdivision as the submittees were advised by officers of the Council in 1991 when the land was purchased from Homeswest that there was no objection to subdivision and in 1996 the land was zoned from General Rural to Rural Groundwater Protection.

b) The property is similar to other lots adjacent that are proposed as RL2 allow 2ha subdivisions.

c) Request that prior to finalizing zoning, Council officers meet owners on site at end of August when water table is at its highest to establish that the property is not a wetland and there is no factual reason why the property should not be RL2.

a) Lot 27 is a 48ha lot currently predominantly zoned Rural Groundwater Protection zone with a portion zoned General Rural under TPS No 2 and is proposed to be RLX under TPS No 4. There is a general presumption against subdivision in the existing General Rural zone and the Rural Groundwater Protection zone. There are significant environmental constraints in the area including the Public Drinking Water Resource Protection Area of the Jandakot Mound as reflected in the MRS Rural – Water Protection Zone. It is also affected by Conservation Category Wetlands as mapped by the Water and Rivers Commission. Both the Wetland Protection Area - Conservation Category Wetlands and Public Drinking Water Resource Protection Area are reflected in the Special Control Area (Map 2) of TPS 4. b) Those properties nearby, which have a different zone coding have undergone the formal assessment processes of environmental review and scheme amendment to prove-up potentiality for some lots as small as 2ha. The proposed zonings in TPS No 4 are based either on the existing lot sizes or rezoning amendments that have progressed under the current TPS No 2 and provide appropriate land management and development controls based on environmental and servicing assessments associated with the scheme amendment. See comments to Submission No. RF21


77


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


c) The owners may wish to investigate potential for a change in zoning to allow subdivision or Rural Living through a scheme amendment process and addressing detailed environmental and servicing assessments and appropriate land management and development controls.to enable subdivision without risk of adverse impacts. The TPS review is a separate process which should not be held up for detailed investigations of single lots Ittis recommended TPS No 4 maintain the status quo in respect to subdivision and this is currently achieved by the RLX zone proposed in TPS No 4. The submittee may wish to discuss a rezoning application with planning officers.

RF11 J Kwon 30 Paperbark Wy MORLEY WA 6062 and Bedford Accounting Services PO Box 474 WEST PERTH WA 6872

Lot 421 corner Rowley and Taylor Roads, Forrestdale

Would like to subdivide into 2 lots as it is a corner lot and is 4ha.

The 4ha lot is currently zoned Rural – Groundwater Protection zone under TPS No 2 and is proposed as Rural Living X zone and Special Control Area for groundwater protection under TPS No 4. Consideration for a 2 lot subdivision would have to be undertaken through a landowner funded rezoning proposal including the necessary more detailed environmental and servicing assessment. Such a proposal would need to addresses land rehabilitation and repair issues for the wider precinct area, which includes the subject lot. See comments to Submission No. RF21


RF12 Mr & Mrs Tomsett 529 Rowley Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

529 Rowley Rd, Forrestdale

The submittees have been here 20 years and would like to retire here but to be eligible for the pension you need to reside on 5 acres or less and this means we would have to sell outright. All around in Cockburn, Serpentine Jarrahdale and Kwinana the Councils have allowed 5 acre subdivisions and the submittees would also like this choice of subdividing.

The subject 4ha lot is currently Rural Groundwater Protection zone in TPS No 2 and is proposed as RLX in TPS No 4 with Special Control Areas for water protection and Peel -Harvey catchment area. It is noted that personal circumstances of landowners are not valid planning criteria for subdivision, however, it is also noted there have been some rezoning amendments under TPS No 2 in the vicinity, which have allowed minimum lot sizes of 2 ha. Any consideration of extension of this zone code would need to be supported by detailed environmental and servicing assessments to ensure the appropriate land management and development conditions were applied through scheme controls such as a Local Structure Plan and special development controls or environmental conditions. See comments to Submission No. RF21


78


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF13 Gray & Lewis Suite 5, 2 Hardy St SOUTH PERTH WA 6151 On behalf of owners S, A & M D’Orazio

Lot 39 Taylor Rd, Forrestdale

a) The submittees object to the Rural Living X zoning classification for the eastern portion of the site as it precludes any further subdivision into 2 ha lots, which would be possible once the operation of the existing poultry farm on the site ceases operations at some future time. The proposed RLX zone does not:

Reflect the land’s capability for further subdivision; Have regard for existing and proposed

subdivision of adjoining and nearby properties; Have regard for the Environmental

Protection Authority’s Guidance Statement No 48 for the Assessment of Environmental Factors (for Landuse within) Groundwater Environmental Management Areas (1998); b) A land Capability Assessment has been

prepared by ATA Environmental (attached) based on the system developed by the Department of Agriculture for the assessment of land capability for rural residential development. The ATA report concludes that with the implementation of appropriate environmental management practices the subject land is capable of sustaining subdivision for Rural Living purposes into lots with a minimum of 2.0ha. Recommended environmental management practices include:

ATU effluent disposal system to ensure adequate nutrient retention and possibly supported by land fill to ensure adequate separation from the water table; Location of houses and construction of

house pads away from low lying areas; Appropriate location of development

envelopes on the better areas of the site; Revegetation of parts of the site

particularly those parts predisposed to wind erosion.

a) Lot 39 is approximately 48ha with 40% currently reserved for Parks and Recreation (MRS) and 10% Water Protection zone and 40% zoned General Rural under TPS No 2. The proposed RLX zone reflects the major constraint posed by the operating poultry farm located on the site and the need to ensure adequate buffer distances are maintained to any potential new dwellings. It is therefore not appropriate to consider a zoning to allow further subdivision for rural residential development at this time. Subject to the closure of the poultry farm it may be appropriate to consider a change in zoning to allow some potential subdivision into two lots or possibly more depending on detailed environmental and servicing assessments, and providing that appropriate development and land management controls can be implemented through a rezoning amendment including a comprehensive revegetation of the cleared land. The number, location and minimum size of lots would need to be specified through a local Structure Plan.

b) It is noted that existing smaller lots in the vicinity or zones which allow rural residential development down to 4 or 2ha minimums have been the result of rezoning proposals based on comprehensive environmental and servicing assessments and special scheme provisions (refer to a) above). In some cases small lots are the result of historical subdivisions from a time when knowledge of the environmental sensitivity of the area and the need for a precautionary approach in decision-making was poor. Accordingly such historical lot creation does not necessary provide a desirable precedent for decisions based on the high level of current knowledge of the areas environmental systems.



79


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


The submittees note that surrounding land has been subdivided (to the north are subdivided Special Rural Lots of 4ha and the land to the west subdivided into 2ha lots and further south along Taylor Road on either side of the road are a number of properties zoned RL2. The land capability of the eastern portion of lot 39 is at least as good if not better than the properties already subdivided or zoned for subdivision into 2ha lots. Only a small part of Lot 39 is included in the MRS Rural Water Protection zone wherein subdivision policy is guided by the Jandakot Land Use and Water Management Strategy which refers to a 2ha minimum lot size and determined by local conditions and detailed assessment of land capability and suitability. The eastern portion of Lot 39 is located in the Category A Environmental Management Area for Forrestdale Lake catchment, in which the EPA’s guidance note provides that minimum lots of 2ha are acceptable. The submittees recommend that the portion of lot 39 proposed as RLX be included in the RL2 zone to allow subdivision into lots of 2ha minimum size.

RF14 R & K Thean 326 Taylor Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lot 433 Taylor Rd, Forrestdale

The submittees object to zoning of Lot 433 to RLX, which is understood to mean no future subdivision will be permitted. We acknowledge the poultry farm located next door and that we are part of the required buffer zone around it and even though it was imposed on our block without any consultation or compensation we accept that subdivision of our block will not be permitted while the poultry farm is operational. In the event the poultry farms ceases operations Lot 433 should be considered to be similar to nearby blocks proposed to be rezoned to RL2.

The lot is located in the Special Control Area for the Jandakot water mound. It is also affected by the buffer requirement for the adjacent poultry farm. The RLX zone in which the 12ha lot is located is appropriate given the proximity of the poultry farm, however, in the event of closure of the poultry farm the owner could investigate potential for development similar to adjacent landholdings. The RL2 zone referred to merely reflects environmental and servicing assessments undertaken as part of scheme amendments under TPS No 2. See comments to Submission No. RF21

That the submission not be supported but that it be noted that the amendment recommended under RF21 to Clause 5B.8 would allow consideration to be given to subdivision in RLX zones within the Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy area subject to comprehensive

structure planning.

80


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF15 R Paterson419 Taylor Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

419 Taylor Rd and Lot 19 Rowley Rd, Forrestdale

a) Surrounding properties are able to subdivide to 2ha and many are now.

b) The corner block already has two road frontages, power lines and main road access.

c) The submittee would be able to remain in own home for longer with smaller block subdivision and one of the children is able to live closer for support.

d) Possibility of subdivision increases land value so, worst case scenario, the submittee would be able to sell part of the lot for financial support.

a) Under TPS No 2 the lot currently has a split zoning of Rural – Groundwater Protection zone for the Jandakot mound (70%) and the balance General Rural zone. It is adjacent to land to the north recently rezoned under TPS No 2 to Special Use with minimum lots of 2ha and this is merely reflected in the proposed Scheme No 4.

b) The subject lot is proposed as RL4 under TPS No 4 reflecting the existing 4ha lot size. To be considered for rezoning to allow subdivision an environmental and servicing assessment would need to be undertaken for the precinct in which it is located and while a corner lot may ease subdivision other criteria are more important, particularly land capability.

c) Ancillary accommodation is available in rural zones, which does not necessitate subdivision.

d) Personal circumstances are not valid planning criteria as justification for subdivision to smaller lots - see b) above.



RF16 B & P Whyte 515 Rowley Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lot 4 Rowley Rd, Forrestdale

The submittees have lived on the subject land for nearly 30 years and as they grow older had planned to subdivide for superannuation and continue living on 5 acres. The submittees are aware that if owners have more than 5 acres they are not eligible for the pension (or unemployment benefits) so it means they will have to sell our home but don’t want to move. The adjoining Councils of Serpentine Jarrahdale, Cockburn and Kwinana surround us and allow RL2 classification so RLX is inconsistent with surrounding properties. The submittees were told RLX was never to be subdivided or undecided so we still don’t know what our proposed classification is.

The subject lot is part of a precinct coded as RLX in the advertised draft TPS No 4. However, a modification is now proposed to change the coding to RL4 under TPS No 4, reflecting the existing 4ha lot sizes in the precinct. In this regard the RL4 code which requires a minimum of 4ha lots, provides more certainty over lot size than the RLX coding, which is more appropriate for precincts where there is a wider range of existing lot sizes (RLX means the existing lot size is the minimum size and therefore any subdivision proposals would be dependent on rezoning being supported prior to the subdivision). In order to be considered for rezoning to allow subdivision to 2ha lots, an environmental and servicing assessment would need to be undertaken by the landowners for the precinct proving-up the ability to create smaller lots without adverse impacts.

That the submission be noted and that the precinct be clarified as Rural Living 4 (modified from RLX as advertised).

81


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF17 G Pedri9 Agathea Ct DIANELLA WA 6059

Lot 17 Freeman Rd, Forrestdale

The submittee recommends that TPS 4 be modified to zone Lot 17 Freeman Rd as Rural Living 2 zone (draft proposes RL4 zone) enabling subdivision into two lots of 2.4ha each either as battleaxe or rectangular as: Constructed road is available; Power is available; There is no difference in terms of land form, capability and features to the abutting land to the north and west classified as RL2 zone and is a logical extension of that zone; An additional dwelling can be accommodated and be screened from Freeman Road and surrounding properties. It does not contain any conservation category wetlands, Bush Forever sites, Locally significant vegetation or Declared Rare Flora or Fauna; It is not suitable for intensive agricultural pursuits which would result in removal of extensive vegetation, modification of the natural landform, high use of groundwater resources and potential for groundwater contamination through use of fertilizers and chemicals; There are limited planning / environmental management controls and an RL2 zone would result in a better environmental outcome; Similar provisions could be imposed as on the abutting RL2 area eg landuse, drainage requirements, setback, effluent disposal systems, building envelopes, groundwater extraction, rehabilitation requirements fire management and vegetation retention.

The subject land is General Rural in TPS No 2 and is proposed as RL4 in TPS 4 adjacent to land to the west recently rezoned to Special Use with minimum lots of 2ha and this is merely reflected in the proposed Scheme No 4. See comments on submission RF15.


RF18 A Panizza393 Carrington St HAMILTON HILL WA 6163

Lot 17 Freeman Rd, Forrestdale

Identical to submission RF17. See comments on submission RF17. That the submission not be supported.

82


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF19 Dykstra &Associates 6/2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111 On behalf of owner G Hill

Lot 1 (488) Nicholson Rd, Forrestdale

The submittee objects to the proposed Rural Living X zone and requests modification to a Rural Living 2 or RL4 zone, which would be logical for the precinct bounded by Armadale Rd, Nicholson Rd, Gibbs Rd and Parks and Recreation Reservations. RL2 or RL4 would be more reflective of the fragmented lot sizes in the area and be consistent with the opposite side of Nicholson Road, which is RL4. Lot sizes range from 2040m² to 9ha. It would allow only very limited subdivision and therefore land capability, servicing, and design issues are not considered constraints. The limited subdivision proposed will only result in several new lots in the entire precinct and will bring all lots into a more similar size range. The land is serviced by Nicholson Rd and is located in proximity to the commercial centre on the corner of Armadale Rd new lots would not be isolated or ad hoc.

Under TPS No 2 the area is zoned General Rural zone and under TPS No 4 it is proposed as RLX. It is variously Class 4 Low capability or Class 5 Very Low capability for rural residential development. To be considered for rezoning to allow subdivision an environmental and servicing assessment would need to be undertaken for the precinct in which it is located in a rezoning proposal funded by the landowners.


RF20 B & C Sorgiovanni 30 Waltham Rd ARMADALE WA 6112

Lot 4 (250) Anstey Rd, Forrestdale

The submittees would like to have an additional use of a depot or relevant zoning for the storage of machinery because: The land opposite is being rezoned to Anstey Road industrial area; Behind the property the ARA is zoning the land as Forrestdale Industrial Business Park; The submittees would like their property to be zoned RL1 and not RL4 because: A subdivision plan could be created with surrounding properties for 1ha lots; There is sufficient connectivity to major transport routes and services; The submittees do not want to be a buffer zone between two industrial parks; The submittees object to the City of Armadale permitting a brick manufacturing plant by BGC in the Anstey Rd industrial area as: The water supply to our property and surrounding area is by rainwater and it would be contaminated by dust and chemicals from the brick manufacturing plant.

The land is currently zoned Rural C under TPS No 2 and is proposed as RL4 under TPS No 4, which equates with existing lot sizes, which is considered appropriate for the area. It is noted that the City is not in receipt of an application for a brick manufacturing plant. The land is zoned Rural under the MRS. Amendment to the MRS would have to be a precursor to any Industrial zoning under the town planning scheme, if this was appropriate.


83

84


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RF21 McLeods Barristers and Solicitors on behalf of Jacksonville Holdings Pty Ltd.

Pt Lot 40 Armadale Road Forrestdale.

Submission received 8thSeptember 2004. a) Objects to the Rural Living X zone and

urges a “Special Residential” zone or a Rural Living 2 zone. The zoning is discriminatory as virtually all other land proposed as RLX is already fragmented and already cleared.

b) There is virtually a “sterilization” of the land through the effects of the RLX zone and the no-clearing and other environmental provisions and in effect Pt Lot 40 is being created as a public asset – “preserved bushland” – at the private expense of the landowner.

c) It is acknowledged that new environmental awareness calls for a gradual introduction of environmental provisions in town planning schemes, however, Council must balance that against the circumstances of particular areas of land and examine the merits of rezoning on a case by case basis.

d) Councillors may not be aware of the sweeping changes being made to rural zonings through TPS 4 with the effect of prohibiting subdivision altogether in RLX but allowing small lot subdivision on other areas (RL2 etc).

e) Where individual parcels of land are being rezoned, this always calls for very careful, site-specific examination of the merits. No less detailed examination of parcel-by-parcel implications of rezoning should occur where a suite of land is being rezoned, as is the case with TPS No 4.

f) The owners of Pt lot 40 are real people and their savings and nest eggs, these are not greedy developers or environmental vandals, they are people who attempted to be environmentally responsible, and are now paying the price for that naivety, while less scrupulous landowners have reaped the rewards of environmental damage.

The 12.7 ha lot is predominantly zoned Groundwater Protection zone under TPS No 2 with a small portion abutting Taylor Road zoned General Rural zone. It is bounded to the west by Regional Reservation for Parks and Recreation and by 4ha lots to the south which are also proposed as RLX zone under TPS No 4. The Groundwater Protection zone under TPS No 2 states that “apart from comprehensively planned subdivision, which will, in Council’s opinion, assist in achieving the objectives of the zone, Council will generally not recommend support of subdivision within this zone. Where a particular circumstance arises that subdivision would potentially achieve the objectives of the zone, Council, before supporting any proposal for such subdivision, will require the preparation of a Subdivision Guide Plan in accordance with the provisions of Clause 5.2.1 of the Scheme as though Clause 5.2.1 applies to the zone.” Clause 5.14.2 states that “The use and development of land within the Rural – Groundwater Protection zone shall as applicable be in accordance with the stated objectives of the zone and the requirements of the Statement of Planning Policy No.6 – Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy published by the Western Australian Planning Commission and gazetted on 12 June 1998 as amended.” It is noted that the Statement of Planning Policy No.6 – Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy does allow for subdivision down to a minimum of 2ha lots subject to satisfactory environmental planning assessments. In previous correspondence from the City to the Bush Forever office at the DPI the City has indicated that it could consider subdivision to a minimum of 2ha subject to submission of a Subdivision Guide Plan including detailed environmental assessment of the site to address a range of issues including a Conservation Category Wetland on the site and poultry farms within the 500m buffer area required by the State Planning Policy on poultry farms.

That the scheme be modified such that subdivision standards of 5B.8 may be relaxed for land subject to Statement of Planning Policy No.6 – Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy published by the Western Australian Planning Commission and accordingly identified by the Metropolitan Region Scheme Rural – Water Protection Zone and the Special Control Area 6.3 where subject to comprehensive structure planning and the preparation of a Structure Plan in accordance with Part 6A of the scheme, subdivision may be permitted to the minimum lot size allowable under the Statement of Planning Policy No.6 – Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy.


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


g) The reasonable expectation for the ordinary development potential of a site purchased in good faith at an earlier time is not an irrelevant factor in planning. While environmental protection has a large role to play the complete overturning of all previous legitimate expectations for one very valuable landholding, in a manner having a discriminatory practical effect of effective sterilisation is not orderly planning and it is not proper planning.

h) Development which protects and enhances the environmental values of the place is in the public interest ie with clearing only for access and building envelopes and conditions for environmental remediation. It is submitted that the environmental values of Pt lot 40 can actually be better protected by a Special Residential or higher density rural living designation, than by RLX. Distinct from other RLX properties, Pt lot 40 alone, by reason of being bushland, is unoccupied and undeveloped and will continue to suffer degradation and neglect if undeveloped.

i) Pt Lot 40 is only one lot and there are special factors justifying its exclusion from the RLX zone.

j) Pt lot 40 has already been resoned once recently with the Groundwater Protection zone which built in concessions to compensate for the environmental restrictions. Now the RLX zone proposes to take away those concessions altogether and imposes nothing but a raft of restrictions, which effect Pt lot 40 more than other land.

The correspondence indicated that subdivision options proposed by the Bush Forever Office has not been subject to formal consideration by Council and the advice was therefore by nature of preliminary discussion of possible options and further that subdivision would be at the discretion of the WAPC particularly for the part zoned General Rural. The level of environmental and servicing assessments that would be required to justify support for subdivision under the current TPS No 2 Groundwater Protection zone is similar to the level that would be required for a rezoning to an appropriate Rural Living zone (RL2, RL 4 or RL10 etc) under TPS No 4 and in accordance with the proposed new Environmental and Improvement Policy for unsuitable land. However, a rezoning does involve additional documentation and possibly longer processing time. Accordingly it is proposed to modify the scheme such that subdivision standards of 5B.8 may be relaxed for land subject to Statement of Planning Policy No.6 – Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy published by the Western Australian Planning Commission and accordingly identified by the Metropolitan Region Scheme Rural – Water Protection Zone and the Special Control Area 6.3 where subject to comprehensive structure planning and the preparation of a Structure Plan in accordance with Part 6A of the scheme, subdivision may be permitted to the minimum lot size allowable under the Statement of Planning Policy No.6 – Jandakot Groundwater Protection Policy.

85


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


k) The WAPC committed to a process for the negotiated acquisition of Pt Lot 40 4 years ago on the WAPC’s initiative and certain parameters for assessing the development potential and hence the value of the property were established at the outset.

l) The City of Armadale’s own planning department supported these very same parameters in advice provided to the WAPC and Jacksonville Holdings (letter dated 23/1/03 is attached to submission) and on the faith of these parameters that were set for negotiation Jacksonville Holdings has refrained for the last 4 years from exercising development options that were clearly open to it at the time.

m) In correspondence from the WAPC dated 26/8/04 the WAPC appears to be repudiating those established parameters and now intends to take advantage of the propose RLX zoning and its consequent depression in value, in an attempt to acquire highly valuable land for a pittance. It is hoped Councillors will show decency and honour regardless of the conduct at State level agencies, and not be party to what appears to our client to be an unconscionable breach of trust.

n) Bush Forever publications have always spoken in terms of achieving agreed outcomes and being based on consensus with the landowner. The rezoning of Pt Lot 40 to RLX together with the remnant vegetation and other environmental provisions are the exact opposite of this approach.

86


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RURAL – CHAMPION LAKES (Submissions RC1 to RC3)

RC1 *

S & M Dorritt 76 McNeill Rd CHAMPION LAKES WA 6111

76 McNeill Rd, Champion Lakes

a) Generally agree to the rezoning of the area surrounded by Ranford Rd, Lake Rd, and the Tonkin Hwy / Champion Drive extensions to RL2.

b) TPS 4 should include a clause to allow lots that have two existing houses to be split in half if they do not meet minimum lot size requirements for subdivision, as:

there will be no impact on the total number of dwellings; there would be no additional

environmental impact on Wungong River; it would be in line with the intended use of

the zoning as Rural Living; it would be in line with the minimum

requirements for a second residence (minimum lot size of 40ha); and some existing lots are smaller than the lots

that would be created from allowing lots with 2 existing houses to subdivide.

a) It is noted that the proposed RL2 zone is supported. b) It is noted that subdivisions of small lots with 2 existing houses, creating lots smaller than the minimum lot requirement for the particularly precinct, have the effect of undermining public confidence in the scheme. The TPS aims to establish certainty in regard to future subdivisions by establishing the minimum lot size requirements for the particular Rural Living precinct and this is eroded by subdivisions which do not conform i.e. in an RL2 zone for example, a subdivision which created 1 ha lots as a result of an appeal undermines both public certainty and confidence in the scheme. As noted comments in submission RKA5 such subdivisions are often the result of town planning appeals. Furthermore, persons constructing second dwellings do so in the knowledge that it is Council’s current Policy that the land is intended to remain as a single property, unless it is of sufficient size to subdivide under the zone. Council’s current TPS No 2 Policy for second residences on rural lots indicates that construction of a second residence will not be considered grounds for subdivision. However, it is noted that the appeals process has often been used to obtain a subdivision approval not supported by the City. For this reason it is proposed to only support second dwellings where the second dwelling supports a productive rural use of the land on which it is located and in the Rural Living zone, subject to it also being greater than 8ha in area.


87


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RC2 P Brooker 34/36 Mustang Rd CHAMPION LAKES WA 6111

Lot 68 (34/36) Mustang Rd, Champion Lakes

a) The submittee agrees the area needs to be rezoned.

b) The submittee would like the rezoning to be blocks of 1ha so existing properties could be split up and under the proposed zoning only four properties would be affected (a surveyors diagram of how lot 68 could be subdivided into 2 lots of 1.65ha each is attached to submission). People could maintain smaller properties better and it would be still be semi rural with existing horses etc and landowners might get more water allowed to flow into the Wungong.

c) New houses could have re-usable grey-water and people could still enjoy open space.

d) The submittee has two houses and states quite a few others also have two houses already and cannot see a big environment problem but only see more fences – more white ants.

a) The area is currently Rural D (subdivision requires 6 ha i.e. an average of 3ha and a minimum of 2ha). Lot 68 abuts the Southern River and is approximately 3.9ha in area. It is located in an area proposed as a Rural Living 2 zone and subdivision would now require 4ha (i.e. two lots of 2ha minimum) (no average requirement). b) A Rural Living 1 zone would mean subdivision into 2 lots would only require 2ha, which is a substantial reduction to the 6ha currently required under the Rural D zone. This would be a substantial change in density, which has not been substantiated by environmental and servicing assessments. The Rural Living 2 zone is considered adequate. It is noted that this does not provide the subject land with potential to subdivide. c) It is noted that re-usable grey-water systems would require substantiation by environmental and servicing assessments. Research into such systems is being conducted, however, further work is required before general implementation could be considered. d) It is noted TPS 4 no longer supports 2 dwellings on 2ha lots in the Rural Living zone, as it has been used in support of a number of appeals on subdivisions that Council does not support and this undermines the intent of the zoning in establishing rural densities. Approvals for any existing second rural houses on single lots have been granted according to the policy, which states it does not provide grounds for subdivision. Whilst the current recommendation is to relax the clause 5B.8 minimum lot area requirement for a second dwelling in the Rural Living zone from 40ha in the advertised draft TPS 4 to 8ha, providing that the purpose of the second dwelling is to accommodate persons engaged in a legitimate rural productive use being carried out on the lot, the subject lot would not have met this requirement under TPS 4 as currently proposed. However, it is noted that a separate building could be applied for under the Ancillary Accommodation provisions defined in the R Codes to accommodate a family member. See comments on submissions RKA5 and RC1.


88


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RC3 D Edwards 28 Gertrude Ave CHAMPION LAKES WA 6111

28 Gertrude Ave, Champion Lakes

a) Since when has area north-east of Wright Lake changed from Rural E to Special Residential?

b) Please advise how this affects use of properties with respect to existing By-laws and Town Planning Regulations etc.

a) The submittee is not necessarily objecting to the proposal and has been informed that the brochure reflects a proposal, rather than an instant change. The area generally bounded by Lake Road, the Tonkin Highway reservation, Lake View Terrace and the municipal boundary with the City of Gosnells, is Rural Zone in the MRS and Rural E zone in TPS No 2. However the lot sizes are smaller than the 1ha considered the norm for a rural zoning. Existing lots range from 1241m2 up to 9,974m2 with the majority in the range of 3000m2 to 4000m2. Lots of such size located in an MRS Rural zone are generally considered to be appropriate for a Special Residential zone, which is allowable in the MRS Rural zone, whereas normal residential zones are not. Given its proximity to the Champion Lakes facility it is considered that this area may have development potential in the future and should be subject to a study under the MRS to determine the most appropriate zonings and potential development scenarios. The TPS No 4 proposal for a Special Residential zone may therefore be a transitionary arrangement pending a review of the MRS. b) 28 Gertrude Ave is one of the larger properties in the precinct being 9,612m2. There are changes in landuse between the Rural E and the Special Residential zone particularly in respect to rural uses, which are not normally suitable for smaller lots. Once the scheme has been gazetted and comes into operation, current approved uses that did not conform with the new scheme zoning would have a right to continue under the Non conforming use provisions in clauses 4.8 to 4.12 of the scheme.


89


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RURAL – ROLEYSTONE (Submissions RRO1 to RRO12)

RRO1 J McLevie 5 Tamarind Cres KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 57 Eugene Pl & Lot 58 Irymple Rd, Roleystone

Subject properties currently zoned Rural C. Proposed to be rezoned RL2. No objections.

Noted. That the submission’s support for the scheme be noted.

RRO2 C Higgins 28 Rodgers Crt ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

28 Rodgers Crt, Roleystone

Support draft TPS 4, as it would allow subdivision of submittee’s property.

The 5.2ha lot is currently the largest in the precinct proposed as RL2 and since an average of 3ha under the current TPS 2 Rural D zone will no longer be required under TPS 4, a two lot subdivision may be achievable. An application would still be necessary for subdivision and this will be determined by the WAPC in accordance with their policies.


RRO3 Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (WA) GPO Box M952 PERTH WA 6843

Lot 51 Thompson Rd, Roleystone

Lot 51 should be zoned RL2 instead of RL4 as shown on the draft TPS 4 because: Subdivision of the 4.8ha lot into two 2ha lots

would make more effective use of the land (sketch of subdivision included with submission); It has two road frontages so each 2ha lot

would have its own road frontage to Croyden and Thompson Rds respectively; Power and scheme water are available; Council can control the development to

prevent any runoff created; It would not affect the river; There are residential R5 and RL2 lots

abutting it already and some RL1ha nearby; An RL2 zone would continue to

complement the surrounding areas, and maintain the bush and ambience of the area.

Currently zoned Special Use zone under TPS No 2 for Public Worship and Youth Camp (S.U. No 32). The subject land is located on the north side of the river adjacent to other RL2 zone so that RL2 would be consistent with other nearby land. Any subdivision would have to be addressed on its individual merits.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to RL2 zone. It be noted that should the land be subdivided the City will seek a foreshore reserve linking to other public open space and facilitating public access to the river foreshore.

90


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RRO4 Roleystone Community Church 1 Croyden Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Lot 15 Croyden Rd / Brookton Hwy and Lot 50 Brookton Hwy / Thompson Rd

Object to RL4 proposed under TPS No 4 as it does not address the historic use of the land;

used for the church site for a century (on lot 15 including church and auxiliary buildings); on Armadale’s Heritage Register;

Lot 50 is used by the 1st Roleystone Scout Group and will revert to church use if the scouts move on and the church may want to expand the use in the future to encompass wider church related uses with the possibility of new church buildings to provide the type of services the church already provides. The RL zone may conflict with the kind of uses the church may want to make of the property in the future. We seek a zoning that clarifies the properties purpose, its historical use and making provision for its future use for church related purposes.

Currently zoned Special Use zone under TPS No 2 for Public Worship and Youth Camp (S.U. No 32) both of which are uses capable of being considered under the Place of Worship and Holiday Accommodation provisions of the Rural Living zone. See comments on submission RRO3, which describes how the properties are logically part of the RL2 zone on the north side of the Canning River so that it is proposed to modify the draft to an RL2 zone.

That the submission be noted in respect to the current and historical uses which are already permissible within the proposed RL zoning, noting also that the coding is proposed to be modified to RL2. It be noted that should the land be subdivided the City will seek a foreshore reserve linking to other public open space and facilitating public access to the river foreshore.

RRO5 G & S Palma 43 Urch Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Lot 35 (43) Urch Rd, Roleystone

The submittee’s land is currently zoned Rural and they query the inclusion of the lot as Special Residential, believing that it may have been inappropriately considered as part of the recent subdivision of Lot 122 Urch Rd.

Lot 35 is approximately 8111m2 and is currently zoned Rural X under TPS No 2 and proposed as Special Residential zone under draft TPS No 4. It is acknowledged that the lot was not part of the Special Use zone under TPS No 2 that forms the major part of the proposed Special Residential zone under draft TPS No 4, however, it was included as such in response to its size being less than the 1ha considered a minimum for Rural Living zones. Notwithstanding, the Rural Living 4 zone on the western side of Urch Road could be extended to include the lot Rural Living 4 zone (the current lot size will be well under the minimum size for further subdivision in the RL4 zone however, one lot is not appropriate to form a separate precinct of RL1 Ha).

That the submission be supported by extending the Rural Living 4 zone on the western side of Urch Road to include Lot 35 as Rural Living 4 zone.

91


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RRO6 P Flynn 55 Buchanan Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Lot 21 (55) Buchanan Rd, Roleystone

a) Concerned about the minimum lot requirement under the Rural Living 1 zone as this area does not have scheme water and if some of the larger properties subdivide in the future the current groundwater could not adequately support further development.

b) The area should have scheme water particularly for fire safety as when the power is off no one can draw on his or her bores to fight the fire.

c) A water pumping site for bottled water was approved against the wishes of the majority of residences and many believe this has contributed to bores drying out.

a) The subject area is Rural E zone under TPS No 2 (requires a minimum of 1 ha and average of 2ha for further subdivision). It is proposed as Rural Living 1 zone under TPS No 4, which requires the same 1ha minimum for each lot as applies under the current Rural E zone. The area is already subdivided into lots less than the 2ha that would be required to permit further subdivision of any property. Existing lots range in size form 4029m2 to 1.9ha and as no single lot in the area is of sufficient size to permit further subdivision the status quo will remain. However it is possible that in some cases two landowners could jointly seek approval to amalgamate and re-subdivide to create 3 lots out of two existing lots, which could lead to a small growth in lot density.

b) The Water Corporation of WA supplies reticulated water services and City cannot facilitate water supplies to existing lots only recommend such a supply in respect of referrals of applications for new subdivision.

c) Extraction of groundwater for such commercial purposes as commercial bottled water supply is not a landuse defined by the scheme and would be treated as a use not listed and would need to be based on technical evidence proving up the capacity of the water resource to meet the competing demands of existing uses and the demands of the proposal and would require licensing from the Water and Rivers Commission.


92


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RRO7 M & D Green Lot 220 Chevin Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Lot 220 Chevin Rd, Roleystone

a) The submittees object to the proposal to rezone the lot to General Rural and wish to maintain a zoning equivalent to the current Rural C i.e. Rural Living 4 zone or RL2 zone.

b) Currently the property is Rural C and under this zoning can be subdivided into two 4 / 5ha lots whereas the new scheme proposes to rezone the lot to General Rural with no subdivision potential.

c) The 9.2873ha lot is not used for orchard or production of any commercial product and subdivision approval from DOLA has already been obtained which means in effect the land is already RL4.

d) The property is unsuitable for agricultural pursuits because:

WRC advise they will not authorise any increased water usage to put orchards in production so and rural living uses less water than production; The land has rocky outcrops and remnant

bushland that can be retained by siting of development envelopes, if land is used for rural living; It was used for an orchard 25 years ago but

the trees were removed because it was not viable; It is a small size lot and professional

investigation indicates it is not viable for crops due to land capability (soils, lack of water, rocks, existing trees etc); In any case some orchards are already

located in RL4 zone eg Gwynne Place 6ha; The lot cannot serve as a buffer between the

local orchards and housing as state forest or rural land surrounds us on 3 sides. Also residential blocks abut the orchards with no buffer and 2000m2 blocks are across the road; e) Strongly recommend the land be zoned RL4

as previous or in line with the precedence of surrounding properties being zoned RL2. Reasons why our property could be zoned RL2 are:

The subject land is 9.2ha and is zoned Rural C zone under TPS No 2 and is proposed to be zoned General Rural under draft TPS No 4. It has an approved subdivision to create two 4ha lots. It is recommended to modify the scheme to revert to a Rural Living 4 zone consistent with the current Rural C zone and the approved subdivision.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to include Lot 220 (No. 283 Chevin Road) in the Rural Living 4 zone.

93


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


The majority of surrounding rural properties are 2 ha; There are many 3-4 ha rural properties that

are now included in the RL2 zone; There are very few large rural properties that

are not commercial orchards; From the 15 properties immediately adjacent

that will be categorised RL4, 8 are actually smaller than 4ha. Very few of these could be subdivided any further under an RL2 zoning; There is a strong precedence to zone the

property to RL2 as the whole of Roleystone is made up of lots predominantly 2ha or less. It is discriminatory to zone the property General Rural. Chevin Woods residential lots of 2000m2 are

across the road so is the land any different, is it fair and would it not be more equitable to have 2 ha lots on one side and 2000m2 on the other? Agricultural uses would be restricted by the

existence of residential lots opposite the property as residents would not tolerate any spraying of chemicals or farm noise as is evidenced by noise complaints from orchardists noise scarers; The property is listed on the Municipal

Heritage Register and the City gives no benefit to assist with the cost of maintenance while other Council’s give a density bonus to Heritage properties. Under Group Housing policy density bonus

opportunities are provided on street corners in Armadale / Kelmscott and our land is located on the corner of Brockway and Chevin in Roleystone which makes the land suitable for subdivision as it has two street frontages and it is discriminatory to increase the zonings for corner blocks in some suburbs but not in others; Services pass the front of the property on two

street fronts.

94

95


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RRO8 P & D Lalor M & D Green T & C Spencer C/- 283 Chevin Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111 (Joint Submission)

283 Chevin Rd, 315 Chevin Rd & 46 Brockway Rd, Roleystone

a) The submittees object to the proposal to rezone our three lots (of 11ha, 9ha and 6ha) from Rural C and Rural – Agriculture Protection to General Rural. The current Rural C properties can be subdivided as is evidenced by the current subdivision of the Green (9ha) property into 4-5ha lots, however there is no subdivision ability under the proposed General Rural zoning.

b) There is a general lack of consistency, logic and planning principles in the way the proposed zonings have been allocated over the general Roleystone area, particularly the three parcels of land referred to and the area surrounding them (map attached to submission);

The majority of surrounding properties are less than 3ha and there are some 3 to 4 ha rural properties, which are proposed to be included in the Rural Living 2 zone; There are a minimal number of properties of

any size (exceeding 6ha) other than the Brockway land to the north of the 3 subject lots. c) While properties immediately adjacent to the

subject land are proposed as RL4, eight of the fifteen properties are actually less than four hectares so they could not be subdivided into RL4 lots in any event (map attached to submission);

d) A significant percentage of land in Roleystone is made up of land predominantly two hectares or less and nearly all the lots adjacent to the three subject lots are less than 4 ha (map attached to submission).

e) Despite the fact that the land is current zoned rural and in some cases is not utilising services, the Lalor and Green properties have met statutory rates and charges since the date of the Chevin Road material road and Chevin Woods residential lots of 2000m2.

f) It is not logical and not commensurate with appropriate planning procedures to have lots on one side of a serviced material road ranging from four hectares to 2000m2 and to propose broad acre rural adjacent to them. A

Two of the subject lots are zoned Rural C zone under TPS No 2 and are proposed to be zoned general Rural under the advertised draft TPS No 4. 46 Brockway is zoned Rural AP under TPS No. 2 however it is not being used for orchards and the landowners have indicated they have no intention to commence such a use. Accordingly 46 Brockway is considered as being more appropriate as an RL zone as part of a precinct including Lots 283 and 315. It is recommended to modify the scheme for the precinct immediately north of Chevin Road and east of Brokway Road to revert to a Rural Living 4 zone which would be consistent with the current Rural C zone for 283 and 315 Chevin Road and also incorporating 46 Brockway Roadinto the RL4 precinct.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to include Lots 220 (No. 283), 221 (No. 315) and Pt 617(No. 46) in the Rural Living 4 zone.

96


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


more appropriate zone would be for the properties on the other side of the residential area to have similar zonings and lot sizes of at least two hectares.

g) Current housing policy is providing bonus density opportunities to land on street corners and some of the subject land is materially on street corners which makes it suitable for subdivision.

h) The proposed zoning definition for Rural Living and General Rural are not being applied consistently and it is questionable whether a zoning associated with a definition of horticulture can be uniformly applied eg the property at Gwynne Place to the east of the subject land on Chevin Road is zoned RL4 and it already comprises a large ongoing and historical commercial orchard, whereas none of the three subject properties are used for grazing or horticulture and one property is partly use for viticulture.

i) Only a small portion of the three subject properties is suitable for horticulture or agricultural purposes whereas the concept of horticulture and or grazing assumes that the lots are suitable for this purpose and are adequately resourced for water:

The water supply from Stony Brook has diminished slowly over the years and the Water and Rivers Commission has advised it will not increase water usage to put orchards into production; Bores are only limited in usage.

The three subject properties should be zoned RL4 which is the equivalent of current Rural C applying to the two larger ones (Green and Lalor) and it is also arguable that they should be zoned RL2 to better conform with the majority of properties surrounding them.

j) The proposed General Rural zone would be discriminatory to the existing owners and would not conform to appropriate and uniform planning principles whereas RL2 or RL4 would apply planning principles consistent with those to the east, south and west.


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RRO9 C Hovell PO Box 1621 WEST PERTH WA 6872

Lot 16 Butcher Rd, Roleystone

The west side of Butcher Road should be RL1 because: The flat topography would suit more

development which would not be detrimental to the amenity or the Canning River reserve; It is a no through road; It has shops at the corner of Soldiers Rd

and Brookton Hwy; RL1 would be consistent with the existing

RL1 pocket off Soldiers Rd.

The area is currently zoned Rural D under TPS No 2 requiring a minimum of 2ha and average of 3ha for subdivision. It is proposed as RL2 generally equating with the existing lot sizes, which range from 2ha to 4ha. At RL2 two new lots could potentially be created, however, an RL1 zone coding would allow a potential 18 new lots to be created. Given the predominantly Class 4 Low capability and some Class 3 Fair capability landforms the RL2 coding is considered appropriate.


RRO10 A Mann 16 Raeburn Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Lot 6 Raeburn Rd, Roleystone

The submittee has no objections to the proposed draft TPS No 4. a) Lot 6 Raeburn Rd is proposed to change

from Rural Agricultural to Rural Living 1 and General Rural zones. These two zones together do and will always cause conflict with the two neighbouring bodies with complaints over sprays noise and general rural practice.

b) The whole block within Raeburn Rd, Holden Rd, Chevin Rd and Peet Rd should be rezoned to RL1. It is currently proposed to be rezoned Rural Living 1 and General Rural zone but this land is very rocky and the only viable land for rural use is in the valley close to the brook but as it does not flow for 6 months the orchardists are pumping groundwater 7 days a week to water crops.

The subject lot is currently wholly zoned Rural-Agricultural Protection zone under TPS No 2 and is proposed to be split zoned as RL1 zone for the southern part of the lot fronting Raeburn Rd and General Rural for the northern larger part of the lot fronting Chevin Road. There are 5 existing lots affected by the proposed RL1 zone and these range from two discrete lots of 4047m2 and 1.5ha lots fronting Raeburn Road, to parts of 3 larger lots of 4.7ha which have dual street frontages to Raeburn Road and Chevin Road to the north and proposed split zoning RL1 zone / General Rural zone. While it is acknowledged that there are land use conflicts between existing orchards and existing rural residential land uses in the area, the rounding off of the RL1 prencinct will provied better separation in the longer term Under the split zoning proposed in TPS No 4 potentially up to 3 new lots could be created. Given the diversity of land uses in this precinct it is not considered appropriate to rezone the whole Raeburn Rd, Holden Rd, Chevin Rd and Peet Rd block to Rural Living at the current time. Notwithstanding the land does have land with a Class 2 High capability and Class 3 Fair capability in addition to Class 5 Very low capability land in the valley system, so it is considered that at least part of the land has potential to be considered for rural residential uses in the longer term. This would have to be pursued with a strategy for removing potential conflicts between any orchards remaining and would have to be considered via a rezoning amendment for the whole precinct.

That the submission’s general support for the scheme be noted and the scheme go forward as advertised.

97


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RRO11 N & A Giorgiante 18 Raeburn Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

18 (Lot 7) Raeburn Rd, Roleystone

a) The submittee welcomes the change from General Rural to RL1 for the Raeburn Rd side of the subject property, as running a small scale orchard is no longer viable.

b) Stony Brook also lacks sufficient water for irrigation and houses have been allowed to be built so close to the orchards that residents complain of noise and spray drift.

See comments on submission RRO10. While it is noted that there has been some conversion of orchards to rural residential uses in the Roleystone area, the issue of buffers and separation from existing ongoing orchards needs to be carefully managed and this is best managed by scheme amendment processes for a wider precinct.

That the the submissions support for the scheme be noted.

RR012 R & M Hodge 148 Holden Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

148 (Pt lot 302) Holden Rd, Roleystone

a) 148 Holden Rd is sited between Raeburn and Chevin Roads in an area with a mix of uses including orchards and residential uses which results in problems. TPS 4 provides an opportunity to address issues relating to the closeness of properties in the Residential zone and Rural Living zone to orchard operations and an opportunity to rezone orchard operations to allow suitable development of the orchard land. Whether or not the best option is to do nothing, rezone or to seriously look at buffers will no doubt be subject to debate. The submittees do not know the protocols of such matters and their sole intention is to assist in any way to make the community the best it can be and supporting any efforts to promote public health and enhance the beauty of Roleystone.

b) There are increasing levels of community concerns relating to the pesticide / fungicide and noise pollution arising from current orchard operations in the Peet / Raeburn / Holden / Chevin Rd precinct. The submittees understand that the only similarly located orchard has been rezoned.

TPS 4 also provides an opportunity to work with the WRC to formulate zonings that will re-establish Stony Brook and allow public access to a beautiful valley development that could incorporate parkland and restricted Rural R1 or larger land holdings.

Pt lot 302 Holden Rd is a 1ha lot zoned Rural E in TPS No 2 and proposed as Rural Living 1 in TPS No 4. It abuts land to the north currently zoned Rural – Agricultural Protection zone, which under TPS 4 is proposed as General Rural zone, reflecting existing orchards. To the west it abuts a lot, which under draft TPS 4 is part of a precinct proposed as split zoning of RL1 zone / General Rural zone. Whilst it is considered that a precinct-wide strategy offers the best opportunity to overcome existing and potential conflicts between rural residential and orchard activities given the presence of existing orchards which are recognised by the current TPS No 2 Rural – Agricultural Protection zone, it is considered that a wholesale rezoning of the precinct at this time, would run the risk of incremental infill of rural living lots and this in turn risks exacerbating existing conflicts by allowing more residents to establish homes in close proximity to incompatible uses. Nevertheless it is also recognised that some orchards in the Roleystone area are likely to undergo land use change over the longer term. In view of the need to prevent development that could cause an increased level of conflict, but allow for long term change it is considered landuse change for the entire precinct would be best achieved by a landowner funded joint initiative for rezoning from the General Rural zone to a Rural Living zone and based on a comprehensive assessment of the capability and opportunities for development of the land. See comments on RR010

That the submission be noted in respect of the need to carefully manage the interface between residential uses and orchards but that no amendment be made to the Scheme Map.

98


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


c) There are increasing numbers of residential and larger block developments that have serious health implications due to the over spray from nearby orchard operations. The lower numbered sections of Raeburn Rd opposite the orchard operations have long been zoned residential and the recent subdivisions in both Peet and Holden Rds are the Chevin Woods development are other cases in point. They bring people especially children in closer contact with the pollutions that are a necessary part of orchard operations. The general pro-activity demonstrated by the City of Armadale should be employed to resolve this problem for the general good of the community as soon as possible. A representative of the Health Department of WA has stated we need to be very concerned for the serious health implications of sprays of pesticide and fungicide and many practices of existing orchardist seem to be counter to the Public Health Act and best spraying practices are not always employed. The City is leaving itself open to future litigation as the zoning and subdivision approving authority.

d) The recent use of the gas gun demonstrates noise pollution and continuing problems with the zoning mix in Roleystone (which the City dealt with properly and promptly). A very loud (unmuffled) diesel engine is also used to drive a pump during the summer months for hours on end from mid to late afternoon through to the evening and it has been claimed that this is simply to prompt complaints so that the owner can force the hand of the City to allow him to subdivide his land. This further suggests zoning problems in the community.

e) While not restricted to orchard land, there are often instances where unlicensed derelict cars and off road vehicles move to and from orchards using Holden and Chevin Roads, in many cases driven in a dangerous manner and at excessive speeds on public roads. Rezoning to reduce orchards will help reduce

99

100


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


the problem although it is acknowledged it is a wider problem. People with property should be able to run recreational vehicles and enjoy the amenity of their space but only in a manner that is reasonable, safe and with neighbourly consideration such as muffled engines and sensible driving so that neighbours can enjoy a peaceful co-existence. A survey of surrounding and near properties would confirm that there are problems and that it is likely that rezoning to smaller property sizes and the incorporation of parkland for general public use would have a positive impact in addressing the antisocial behaviour of a few. The submittees enjoy the beauty afforded by the orchards in Roleystone so fully support the City’s “broadacre” concept for the hills however, it is unrealistic to believe Roleystone can safely maintain orchard operations in the current zoning mix. This is the situation reached in Kalamunda / Lesmurdie some years ago but we should avoid the errors made there in replacing orchards with countless residential dwellings often on smaller 1000m2 lots, which are not appropriate in area relying on septic waste systems and these developments destroyed the beauty of the area.

f) The submittees seek the e-establishment and enlargement of Stony Brook as another jewel in the Crown for Armadale to sit beside Araluen Botanic Park and providing a separate focal point to draw tourists who may stay longer: The rezoning and development of a waterway would achieve many potential benefits:

The existing broad acres concept and seasonal beauty of an orchard zoning could be maintained by collecting water into a reasonable style lake for parkland and recreational use such as a combination of the picturesque Lake Leschenaultia and Stirk Park in Kalamunda with a mix of natural bush and deciduous trees creating a park of rare beauty. An earthen wall could end the park at Peet


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


Road and establish a water park for non-motorised water sports such as canoe regattas, sailing or model boats. It would also serve as a bush fire tanker filling point. It could include a café / deli zoning to overlook the valley with provision for expansion to service the growing population on the Chevin Road side of Roleystone. Developers could largely finance the total

venture by being left with land in the mid to upper reaches of the valley for development as larger preferably rural (R1) or larger acreage zonings to maintain the valley beauty and reduce pollution to the re-established brook. Some government funding may be necessary and possibly the WRC could be approached with a proposal that the government buy the orchards sited on Stony Brook at a small cost in relative terms, with an option to sell the mid to upper reaches to developers to recoup funds. g) There is evidence that some orchards do not

see a future in Roleystone and are winding down, planting native trees or developing new orchards away from the area. If orchardists are opposed to rezoning other means may recognise the problems of the current zoning mix concerning overspray noise and related concerns including:

In future subdivisions establishing buffer zones such as parkland separating mixed zonings with equal area being provided by the orchardists; New technologies to better deliver sprays

without drift and noise of the air blast sprayers now used; Education of orchardists in enforcement of

public health directions and best spraying practices; Engenderment of neighbourly consideration

and respect, while appreciating that orchardists are affected by continually growing numbers of neighbours, the “we were here first and we do as we have done” argument is not acceptable, especially when public health is concerned and potential buffers may have been reduced by selling off land from the original orchard for subdivision.

101


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RURAL – RESERVATIONS (Submissions RRE1 to RRE4)

RRE1 A Kay 43 Valley View Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Lot 19 Soldiers Rd, Roleystone

a) The Parks and Recreation (Local) reserve on lot 19 came to the submittee’s attention through the circulation of TPS No 4.

b) The submittee requests the Parks and Recreation (Local) reserve be removed from the subject property. The submittee is aware that there was a plan to develop the land several years ago and as part of the scheme a strip of land next to the Canning River was earmarked for Parks and Recreation.

c) As it is understood the original development plans will not go ahead, the submittee requests whole of Lot 19 be zoned as RL2.

a) The Parks and Recreation (Local) reservation has been in TPS No 2 since gazettal of rezoning amendment No 128 in September 1997. The intent of the reservation is to secure public access along the river foreshore as a recreational and river conservation opportunity.

b) Lot 19 is located in a Special Use zone precinct under the current TPS No 2 that originally provided for the land to be subdivided into a maximum of 10 lots of 5000m2 minimum lot size. Rezoning amendment No 128 zoned the land from Rural C to Special Use for Rural Residential development (No 77) and reserved a narrow strip of land along the Canning River as Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local). TPS No 4 proposes to rationalise the zoning of the land as part of a wider precinct of RL2 zone comprising of mostly 2ha subdivided lots. The Parks and Recreation (Local) reservation would be implemented as a Crown reserve upon subdivision of the land. Only Pt Lot 26, which is 11ha, will have significant subdivision potential in the RL2 zone (approximately 4-5 lots) and other circumstances may arise where the balance of the reserved land could be secured as a community asset.

c) While under the RL2 zone the 1.9ha Lot 19 has little potential for future subdivision the reservation provides for a long term option to secure the land and discarding the reservation is not recommended.

That the submission be not supported.

RRE2 A & Y Kay 43 Valley View Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111


Identical to submission RRE1. Refer to comments for submission RRE1. That the submission be not supported.

102


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


S & R Gokavi 33 Soldiers Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

33 (lot 26) Soldiers Rd, Roleystone

Draft TPS 4 shows a strip of land on lot 26 as Parks and Recreation (Local). This is incorrect and needs to be removed as our Certificate of Title (copy supplied) shows our boundary as the centreline of the Canning River.

Refer to comments for submission RRE1. The Reservation is not "incorrect" as suggested by the submission, as the title deed and the town planning scheme are two different matters. Draft TPS No 4 standardises the zoning precinct into RL2 zone with the proposed RL2 zone giving the 11.2ha lot potential for future subdivision into 4 or 5, 2ha lots, whereupon the reserve would be ceded to the crown as a standard condition.

.

RRE3 That the submission be not supported.

RRE4 E & D Moulin Lot 1 Cockram Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 1 Cockram Rd, Kelmscott

The submittees are concerned that a stretch of public parks and recreation has been drawn along the southern side of Wrights Brook where it flows through the property to join the river. The subject property includes both sides of Wrights Brook with a fence built between the survey posts and as such has no public access. We ask that the parks and recreation next to Wrights Brook be removed from the scheme.

The land referred to is an existing Crown reserve 44836, which is a drainage reserve that is currently undifferentiated from the Rural E zone precinct in which it is located under TPS No 2. TPS No 4 proposes to recognise the Crown reserve as a Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local) as it forms a strategic corridor linking connection between a chain of reserves extending from the Canning River to upland areas of Clifton Hills. The reserve is not vested in the City and issues of public access are matters of concern to the vesting authority.


ARALUEN GOLF COURSE ESTATE (Submissions AGC1 to AGC3)

103


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


AGC1 J Ball 19 Old Albany Ln ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

19 (lot 137) Old Albany Ln, Roleystone

The submittee opposes the proposed zoning over the subject property and requests that a zoning that would allow subdivision be considered. Land is steep and difficult to clear and coupled with only one exit from the estate the fire risk is high. More houses / clearing of land would reduce this risk.

The 2ha lot is currently zoned Special Use (No 66 for Golf Course and Rural Residential Development) under TPS No 2 and is proposed as Rural Living X under TPS No 4 so as to rationalize the zonings in estate with standard zonings in the scheme while also preserving special requirements. Subdivision in the current zone is controlled by the Subdivision Guide Plan for the Araluen estate and the subject property therefore has no subdivision potential under the current TPS No 2 or under the Rural Living X zone proposed under TPS No 4. In order to maintain the priority of the Subdivision Guide Plan for the Araluen estate it is necessary to modify the scheme to extend the Structure plan over the lands proposed as Rural Living zone in TPS 4. In order to maintain landuse and development controls it also necessary to modify the scheme to extend the Additional use provisions and associated Conditions and Requirements of Schedule 2 over the lands proposed as Rural Living zone in TPS 4. The rear of the lot abuts Reserve 28293 (for public recreation) fronting the Canning River, which is also indicated in TPS No 2 as Special Use zone and in TPS No 4 as RL4. Reserve 28293 should be included as a reservation for Parks and Recreation in TPS No 4.

That the submission not be supported, however, it is appropriate to modify the scheme to:

extend the Structure Plan and Additional Use controls over this area by modifying the scheme map and including the appropriate property details and references to the Rural Living zone in the scheme text for all properties currently zoned Special Use (No 66 for Golf Course and Rural Residential Development) under TPS No 2. show Reserve

28293 (for public recreation) at the rear of lot 137 as Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local) on the scheme map.

104


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


AGC2 Dr D Lawrance21 Old Albany Lane ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

21 Old Albany Lane (Heritage Drive), Roleystone

a) The submittee’s immediate neighbours and the submittee believes that the large lots on the northern aspect of the Araluen Golf Estate facing the Canning River reserve should be subdivided to allow for more dwellings and appropriate clearance of combustible materials. The lot size should be in the order of half a hectare to remain aesthetically acceptable and in keeping with the rest of the development. The submittee also believes that access should be provided by upgrading the current gravel track to a sealed road from the already improved Thompson Road as the gravel road next to the river reserve has not been maintained and is overgrown with combustible material in summer.

b) The existing large lots face very grave risks from summer fires (last summer there were several fires two of which raised serious safety concerns). They are badly degraded and overgrown old farming country, which were previously managed by grazing and other farm practices prior to the Araluen Golf Estate development. The topography does not allow machinery to be used to maintain a reasonable level of combustible material clearance. It is not feasible to stock small holdings and firebreaks are demonstrably of no assistance if a conflagration develops.

See comments on submission AGC1. That the submission not be supported, however, it is appropriate to modify the scheme to:

extend the Structure plan and Additional Use controls over this area by modifying the scheme map and including the appropriate property details and references to the Rural Living zone in the scheme text for all properties currently zoned Special Use (No 66 for Golf Course and Rural Residential Development) under TPS No 2. show Reserve

28293 (for public recreation) as Reservation for Parks and Recreation (Local) on the scheme map.

105


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


AGC3 S Conlin(Secretary) Araluen Estate Progress Association C/- 19 Ridgehill Rs ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Araluen Estate a) The submission notes that the restrictive covenants applying to the estate and due to expire October 2004, are to be included as a planning policy rather than as part of the scheme text. This is a considerable disappointment, as a policy does not have the force and effect of the law. Anyone in breach of a policy does not fall foul of the TP&D Act 1928 and the submittee therefore feels the policy does not adequately protect the amenity of the estate. If for example someone were to park a boat, caravan or commercial vehicle or 4 wheel drive over the rear building line, or build a driveway width greater than 3.6m or build a driveway out of materials or style not complementary to the estate or builds a boundary fence out of super-six, little could be done as no development application is necessary for these activities.

b) With respect to Clause 2.3.2, it is emphasised that policy is only taken into account at the time of a development application but not otherwise. The submittees consider that Council should work with the present landowner to require them to place restrictive covenants on any lot sold in the future and request the City organise a meeting with the developer at which the submittees would also attend to thrash out an appropriate way to proceed to protect the amenity of the estate.

a) The covenants were put in place 10 years ago to establish the character of the estate and this is now established. The Town Planning policies are made under the scheme and are considered adequate to protect the amenity of the estate in respect to future development. It is not intended to bring all matters previously contained in the private covenants under the control of the scheme as many of these were matters of interest to the developer at the time of establishment and are not now considered matters requiring control by the City under planning legislation.

b) It is confirmed that matters addressed by policy are controlled at the time of development. Continued adherence become matters of compliance for which there is legal redress in respect to contraventions of approvals granted under the scheme. The policy only addresses matters considered by the City as significant and it is acknowledged that this is not the full suite of matters put in place by the developer 10 years ago to establish the initial character of estate.

See comments on submission AGC1.


106


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARMADALE ROAD SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL (Submissions ARD1 to ARD25)

ARD1 E Bramwell 805 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6111

805 Armadale Rd, Forrestdale

The submittee is concerned that the transfer of subject property from Rural E to Special Residential would mean keeping of stock would not be permitted. The submittee requests approval to retain the use of existing stables and asks if this is acceptable and queries whether this use would be transferable to future landowners?

The area facing Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Road is currently zoned Rural E under TPS No 2 and as all lots are well below the 1 ha considered appropriate for a Rural Living zone have been proposed as Special Residential Zone under TPS No 2. In view of the many submissions received and the apparent absence of land use conflict which could be expected from such small rural lots, it is proposed to modify scheme to revert to a Rural Living 1 zone, this being the nearest equivalent to the current Rural E zone in terms of land use permissibility, while acknowledging the lots are less than 1ha. It is noted that the area is identified in the SRFBW DSP as future urban and in due course consideration would be given to an MRS amendment and subsequent local scheme amendment, however, this is only likely in the medium to longer term as other areas in north Forrestdale and Brookdale are likely to be the earlier stages of urban development. The submittee was informed of non-conforming use rights and the fact that a planning approval remains with the land as opposed to the owner of the land. However, in view of the many submissions received it is proposed to modify scheme to revert to a RL1 zone (Refer to other submissions, which deal with the proposed Special Residential zone area on Armadale Road).

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme maps to zone the land on the north side of Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Road to RL1 zone.

107


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD2 C Read843 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6111


The property is one of those on Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Roads that are proposed as Special Residential zone and the submittee is concerned that the zone will be managed as low density residential in a rural setting and have the same restrictions as residential blocks and we will lose man of our land-use rights that exist under the current zoning. The submittee purchased the property because of the rural atmosphere / lifestyle and the fact that landowners are able to keep horses, chickens and dogs, park our trucks, burn off debris and run small business from home. Independent real estate advice indicates that property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the loss of landuses, inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services, location on a heavy transport route and immediately adjoining rural zone thereby affecting landowners through noise, smell and visual pollution. The adjoining rural zoned properties will also be affected by the Special Residential zone as there is no buffer between the rural zone and proposed Special Residential zone, and there will inevitably be complaints about burning off, noise and other various inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles. Strongly request the reconsideration of the zoning for the area and suggest a Rural Living 1 zone, which will have essentially the same rights as under the current Rural E zone. Submittee also requests that every property be granted Special Use rights to carry out all of the current land usage eg keeping a horse, parking a truck etc.

See comments on submission ARD1. That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme maps to zone the land on the north side of Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Road to RL1 zone.

108


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD3 B & D Sheilds 839 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6111


How would the proposed zoning of Special Residential zone affect the property? Submittees also own the 11 acres of land in the middle of all properties which incorporate Armadale, Anstey, Keane and Allen Roads and question how they can own a portion of their property as Special Residential and the rest as rural? Submittees are concerned that the Special Residential zone will mean that properties will be managed as low density residential in a rural setting and have the same restrictions as residential blocks and therefore they will lose many of the land-use rights that exist under the current zoning. Independent real estate advice indicates that property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the loss of landuses, inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services, location on a heavy transport route and immediately adjoining rural zone thereby affecting landowners through noise, smell and visual pollution. The adjoining rural zoned properties will also be affected by the Special Residential zone as there is no buffer between the rural zone and proposed Special Residential zone, and there will inevitably be complaints about burning off, noise and other various inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles. Strongly request the reconsideration of the zoning for the area and suggest a Rural Living 1 zone, which will have essentially the same rights as under the current Rural E zone. Submittees also request that every property be granted Special Use rights to carry out all of the current land usage eg keeping a horse, parking a truck etc.

See comments on submission ARD1. That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme maps to zone the land on the north side of Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Road to RL1 zone.

109


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD4 A Gray817 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


a) Property was purchased as Rural E zone to enjoy the rural lifestyle without the cost and maintenance of a 5-10ha property.

b) The submittees wish to keep a horse, park a truck or run a small business from home and want a special use right applied to each and every lot to allow all the owners to have equal use rights. This will allow owners to change their uses as required or to suit the requirements of a new owner eg from a horse use to parking a truck or operating a small business etc.

c) If the properties are zoned Special Residential the property value will drop as the unique rural lifestyle will be lost, the loss of land uses, inability to subdivide, having septic systems rather than deep sewerage, being located on a major heavy transport route and immediately adjoining a rural zoned area and thereby affected by noise, smell and visual pollution.

d) Adjoining rural zoned properties will be affected by the proposed rezoning as there is no buffer between them and our properties and inevitably there will be complaints about burning off and noise and various other inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles. These properties form a buffer zone between rural at the rear of the properties and the residential area on the other side of Armadale Road and this buffer zone should remain until such time as the rural zone becomes urban and all properties can be subdivided.

See comments on submission ARD1. That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to zone area facing Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Road to Rural Living 1 zone and deleting the Development Area annotation from the Special Control Area maps.

110


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD5 J & L Jarvis 5 Allen Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lot 36 Allen Rd, Forrestdale

The submittees purchased the property as rural to enjoy the rural life style.


ARD6 K Evans815 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


The property is proposed to be zoned from Rural E to Special Residential.

a) The submittee is concerned that the zone will be managed as low density residential in a rural setting and have the same restrictions as residential blocks and owners will lose many current land-use rights that exist under the current zoning.

b) The submittee purchased the property because of the rural atmosphere / lifestyle and the fact that owners are able to keep horses, chickens and dogs, burn off debris and run small businesses from home.

c) Independent real estate advice indicates that property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the loss of landuses, inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services, location on a heavy transport route and immediately adjoining rural zone thereby affecting us by noise, smell and visual pollution. Non conforming use rights are not afforded the same value by the housing market as actual rights.

d) The adjoining rural zoned properties will also be affected by the Special Residential zone as there is no buffer between the rural zone and proposed Special Residential zone, and there will inevitably be complaints about burning off, noise and other various inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles.


111


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


e) The submittee requests the reconsideration of the zoning for the area and suggest a Rural Living 1 zone which will have essentially the same rights as under our current Rural E zone. Failing this it is requested that all the existing rights and landuses permitted under the current Rural E zone be transferred into the proposed rezoning of the area and these rights and landuses are permitted in perpetuity for future owners of the property and others in the area.

ARD7 N Brinkworth & W Rose 845 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


a) The submittees strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of rural properties on Armadale Road between Anstey Rd and Allen Rd as:

They purchased the property solely because of the rural zoning as they wished to keep horses / livestock, run a small business from home and occasionally park a truck; The need to rezone properties between an

11acre rural lot and a busy heavy haulage route seems unjustified. The submittees are concerned property

values will fall as the properties lose their uniqueness. b) The rural zoning should remain to maintain

a road edge boundary between the rural and the residential of the Forrestdale townsite. The submittees want a Special Use Right for each lot to allow all owners to have equal rights and allow land use changes form horse usage to parking a truck or running a small business etc.


112


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD8 J Keelan799 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112



b) The submittees wish to keep a horse, park a truck or run a small business from home.

c) The submittees want a special use right applied to each and every lot to allow all the owners to have equal use rights. This will allow owners to change their usage as required or to suit the requirements of a new owner eg from a horse usage to parking their truck or small business etc.

d) If the properties are zoned Special Residential the property value will drop as the unique rural lifestyle will be lost, the loss of land uses, inability to subdivide, having septic systems rather than deep sewerage, being located on a major heavy transport route and immediately adjoining a rural zoned area and thereby affected by noise, smell and visual pollution.

e) Adjoining rural zoned properties will be affected by the proposed rezoning as there is no buffer between them and our properties and inevitably there will be complaints about burning off and noise and various other inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles.

f) These properties form a buffer zone between rural at the rear of our properties and the residential area on the other side of Armadale Road and this buffer zone should remain until such time as the rural zone becomes urban and all properties can be subdivided.

See comments on submission ARD1. This is a standard form-letter submission -STDF1- which will be referred to in the summary of the following submissions.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to zone area facing Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Road to Rural Living 1 zone and deleting the Development Area annotation from the Special Control Area maps.

113


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD9 J & L West 16 Anstey Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

16 Anstey Rd, Forrestdale

See standard form-letter -STDF1- above. The area should be rezoned to Rural Living 1 and allow the keeping of horses, parking of own truck as per all existing non-conforming use rights.


ARD10 D Wannell & B Hurley 12 Anstey Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lot 301 Anstey Rd, Forrestdale

See standard form-letter -STDF1- above. The area should be rezoned to Rural Living 1 and allow the keeping of horses, parking of own truck as per all existing non-conforming use rights.


ARD11 S & C Hayes 823 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


See standard form-letter -STDF1- above. The area should be rezoned to Rural Living.


114


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD12 P & K Martin 819 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


See standard form-letter -STDF1- above. a) The area should be rezoned to Rural Living

1 and allow the keeping of horses, parking of own truck as per all existing non-conforming use rights.

b) The submittees purchased 21 years ago because of the rural zoning which allowed keeping of horses, chickens etc as the submittees were unable to afford a larger property and the half acre suited their needs.

c) The submittees consider rezoning of this small area to Special Residential will only disadvantage them and not be an advantage to anyone so request to leave it as it is.


ARD13 G & M Marshall 813 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


a) The submittees purchased the land to keep horses and were told it was zoned Rural E and the stables were approved some years ago and therefore they could keep the horses on the property.

b) Two independent Estate Agents valuations indicated a drop in resale value of $40 000 to $50 000 if the current zoning was to change and keeping the horses became a Non-conforming use right.

c) Other residents purchased here to park a light truck to run a small business and believe there are two dog breeding kennels as well as most properties keeping chickens.

d) These blocks serve as buffer for the rural area at the rear.

e) The area is not conducive to residential zoning as it is located on a busy thoroughfare carrying a lot of heavy articulated vehicles.

f) The submittees request the status quo remain so that current landuse rights remain after TPS 4 is gazetted and are available to the current and future owners of the properties.


115


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD14 C Van Uden 837 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


The submittees wish to keep their property as Rural E so as to maintain their right to keep horses and to park larger vehicles e.g. trucks.


ARD15 C Hargreaves 825 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


a) The submittee purchased the property because of the rural atmosphere / lifestyle and the fact that owners are able to keep our horses, chickens and dogs, park our trucks, burn off debris and run small business from home. The submittee was under the impression Council’s motto was “City Living Country Style”.

b) Independent real estate advice indicates that property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the loss of landuses, inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services, location on a heavy transport route and immediately adjoining rural zone thereby affecting us by noise, smell and visual pollution.

c) Adjoining rural zoned properties will be affected by the proposed rezoning as there is no buffer between them and the properties and inevitably there will be complaints about burning off and noise and various other inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles.

d) Request the draft scheme be modified to the RL1 zone so the owners can have essentially the same rights as under the Rural E zone. The submittee wants a special use right applied to allow all the owners to have equal use rights to park a truck or keep a horse etc.


116


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD16 R Hussey-Allen PO Box 148 ARMADALE WA 6992


a) The submittees purchased two rural zoned blocks in 1969 and 1970 so they could have a rural lifestyle without the need and cost and maintenance of a 5-10acre property. The submittees were dog breeders and required the facility of an approved Kennel Establishment Licence (held since 1970).

b) If rezoned, property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services.

c) Adjoining rural zoned properties will be affected by the proposed rezoning as there is no buffer between them and the properties and inevitably there will be complaints about burning off and noise and various other inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles.

d) In the new Dog Act, kennels are required to have a buffer zone to combat the noise reaching other non-dog kennel residences. The submittees consider that if the area is rezoned to residential their kennels are placed in a most invidious situation.

See comments on submission ARD1. (It is noted that an operating kennel exists and this is likely to have a non-conforming use right, as the current rural E zone does not permit such activities).

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map to zone area facing Armadale Road between Anstey and Allen Road to Rural Living 1 zone and deleting the Development Area annotation from the Special Control Area maps.

ARD17 D & C Fisher 803 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


Rezone to Rural Living 1 to allow continuation of all existing non-conforming use rights as per submission.


117


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD18 W & D Maney 809 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


a) Object to the proposed Special Residential zone and Development Area.

118

b) Property was purchased as Rural E zone to keep a horse without the cost and maintenance of a 5-10acre property. The submittees have invested lots of money to build a home, shed, stables and yards and don’t want to loose money by the rezoning which will devalue the property.

c) Even if Non-Conforming use rights apply prospective purchases are very wary of Non-Conforming use rights.

d) Independent real estate advice indicates that property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the loss of landuses, inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services, location on a heavy transport route and immediately adjoining rural zone thereby affecting us by noise, smell and visual pollution.

e) Adjoining rural zoned properties will be affected by the proposed rezoning as there is no buffer between them and the properties and inevitably there will be complaints about burning off and noise and various other inconsistencies between rural and residential lifestyles.

f) The submittees would like a zone that allows all of the special uses enjoyed by the landowners currently to be maintained over every block until the rural land behind becomes urban and all the land can become urban and subdivisible.

g) The submittees request the draft scheme be modified to the RL1 zone so owners can have essentially the same rights as under the Rural E zone.

h) The submittees want a special use right applied to allow all the owners to have equal use rights to park a truck or keep a horse etc. Failing this all rights and landuses permitted under the current Rural E zone should be transferred to the new zoning and these rights maintained in perpetuity for future owners of the properties.



NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


N Lansdell & C Maney 23 Kaduka Wy LYNWOOD WA 6147



b) Property was purchased as Rural E zone to enjoy a rural lifestyle without the cost of managing a larger property and are able to keep our horses, chickens and dogs, park out trucks, burn off debris and run small businesses from home.

c) The submittees understand that under this proposed rezoning the area will essentially be managed as low intensity residential in a rural setting and have the same restrictions as residential blocks and therefore owners will lose many of the landuse rights existing under the current zoning.

d) Independent real estate advice indicates that property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the loss of landuses, inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services, location on a heavy transport route and immediately adjoining rural zone thereby affecting us by noise, smell and visual pollution.



ARD19

g) Request the draft scheme be modified to the RL1 zone so owners can have essentially the same rights as under the Rural E zone.



119


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD20 L Hannell 847 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


The submittees purchased the property as rural 27 years ago to enjoy a rural lifestyle and wish to park a truck and have a horse if they need to.


ARD21 D Brown 811 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


Owner occupier and truck driver. See comments on submission ARD1. That the submission be noted.

ARD22 N Baddock 3 Allen Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


The submittee has had 14 years of rural living here had two or three horses on the property and parked trucks for business operations with no complaints.

See comments on submission ARD1. That the submission be noted.

120


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD23 E Bramwell, C Fisher, N Landsdell, C Maney, PE & K Martin, R & F Hussey-Allen, C Read, L Jarvis, C Hargreaves, J West, D Hannell, W & D Maney, D Brown, M Marshall, K Evans, A Gray, D Eccles & C Hayes (Joint Submission) C/- M Marshall 813 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Armadale Rd & Anstey Rd, Forrestdale


b) Properties were purchased as Rural E zone to enjoy a rural lifestyle without the cost of managing a larger property and owners are able to keep horses, chickens and dogs, park out trucks, burn off debris and run small businesses from home.

c) It is understood that under this proposed rezoning the area will essentially be managed as low intensity residential in a rural setting and have the same restrictions as residential blocks and therefore owners will lose many of our landuse rights existing under the current zoning.

d) Independent real estate advice indicates that property values will decrease substantially as a result of the Special Residential rezoning due to the loss of landuses, inability to subdivide, lack of sewerage services, location on a heavy transport route and immediately adjoining rural zone thereby affecting the land by noise, smell and visual pollution.



g) Request the draft scheme be modified to the RL1 zone so owners can have essentially the same rights as under the Rural E zone.



121


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


D Eccles 821 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112



b) The submittees wish to keep a horse, park a truck or run a small business from home.

c) The submittees want a special use right applied to each and every lot to allow all the owners to have equal use rights. This will allow owners to change their usage as required or to suit the requirements of a new owner eg from a horse usage to parking their truck or small business etc.

d) If the properties are zoned Special Residential the property value will drop as the unique rural lifestyle will be lost, the loss of land uses, inability to subdivide, having septic systems rather than deep sewerage, being located on a major heavy transport route and immediately adjoining a rural zoned area and thereby affected by noise, smell and visual pollution.

ARD24


f) These properties form a buffer zone between rural at the rear of the properties and the residential area on the other side of Armadale Road and this buffer zone should remain until such time as the rural zone becomes urban and all properties can be subdivided.


122


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ARD25 M Moonen 807 Armadale Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


a) Object to proposed change in zoning on Armadale Rd between Anstey and Allen Rds.

b) The submittee purchased here to keep horses as the lifestyle is hard to find anywhere else. The submittee contacted Council at the time of purchasing and there was no indication the area could be up for rezoning. Improvements have been made to horse facilities at considerable cost.

c) The properties behind are large rural lots and there will be no buffer zone. If zoning changes there will be friction between residential on one side of fence and rural on the other.

d) The land values will plummet if the special uses are removed and the buying market will shrink. Even with the new zoning the properties can’t subdivide as they are still on septics.


123


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


ERADE VILLAGE and NORTH FORRESTDALE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE AMENDMENT NO. 190 (Submissions E1 to E4)

E1 City of Cockburn Cnr Rockingham Rd & Coleville Cres SPEARWOOD WA 6163

Adjoining local government, particularly the Cockburn Resource (Kennel Operations) zone

a) The submittee requests the submission be considered as a late submission on Amendment No 190 to TPS No 2 particularly in respect to the associated Riley Consulting traffic report for the proposed North Forrestdale Urban Development Zone. b) The submittee also comments on draft TPS No 4 as it relates to the proposed North Forrestdale Urban Development Zone and in respect to the ERADE Village proposal included as Additional Use No 35 of TPS No 4: The submittee questions whether the City

has a Retail Strategy for the Forrestdale Locality; Suggests point 35.7 of Schedule 2 be

amended to “minimise any impact on the rural amenity of the development on adjoining and adjacent lots”; Suggests 35.10 be amended to make any

uses appropriate within the buffer to the Cockburn Resource (Kennel Operations) zone, dependent on the outcome of the acoustic report prepared under point 35.9. Suggests that the boundaries of the ERADE

Village are not the same in TPS No 4 map as they are on the Amendment No 190 to TPS No 2 map and the latter, which incorporates the kennel buffer but the TPS No 4 map does not. It appears therefore that points 35.9 and 35.10 were included so that the total lot area could be included within the development on the provision that other compatible uses could be developed within the kennel buffer area.

Note Special Control Area Maps will show A190 area as Development (Structure Planning) Area and Development Contribution Areas if gazetted and TPS 4 Special Control Area Maps already shows ERADE Village Development (Structure Planning) Area requiring a Structure Plan. Special Control Area Maps also show other overlay areas and it should be noted that the Special Control Area Maps are a separate set of maps to the zoning maps. It is noted that different local governments will choose slightly differing approaches to the matters of overlays however the outcomes are much the same. Note that the City’s Retail Hierarchy Review was advertised with the Scheme. This includes assessment of retail requirements for the Forrestdale locality. The submission’s suggested modifications to the scheme text in points 35.7 and 35.10 are supported.

That the submission be supported in part by modifying Schedule 2 of the scheme text point 35.7 to “minimise any impact on the rural amenity of the development on adjoining and adjacent lots” and 35.10 to add “subject to the outcome of the Noise Impact Assessment report”.

124


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


The submittee supports this approach provided that in defining the kennel buffer consideration is given to not only existing kennels but for any new kennels that may be approved within the zone in the future as has recently occurred. The submittee seeks to ensure the operational integrity of kennel businesses is maintained and planning decisions should be mindful of mitigating any adverse impacts on the occupants of the ERADE Village. If Amendment No 190 to TPS No 2 proceeds

in advance of TPS No 4 the amendment should be consistent with the Maps and Text of draft TPS No 4. That while the ERADE Village requires the

preparation of a structure plan there is no link between Part 6A – Development (Structure Planning) Areas of draft TPS No 4 and the Scheme Map as the Development Areas are not shown on the Scheme Maps as Special Control Areas, Development Contribution Areas etc. Overlayed areas which are not part of the scheme itself should also be shown on the scheme maps to identify heritage places, building envelopes etc for ease of reference. In respect to the Amendment No 190 Riley Consulting traffic report, reference to Jandakot Road as a convenient east-west link to the Kwinana Freeway is acknowledged as requiring Jandakot Road to become a higher order road in the road hierarchy than currently and suggests consideration should be given to traffic control devices at the intersection of Jandakot Road and Mason Road to facilitate the direct connection through the City of Cockburn.

125


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


E2 Dr T N Tye 49 Dunkley Ave APPLECROSS WA 6153 (as Director of Industronics Pty Ltd).

Lots 53 & 54 Hale (Skeet) and Keane Roads, Forrestdale

The lots adjoining Lots 53 and 54 are subject to Amendment No 190 (to TPS No 2) and both a local Structure Plan and a Development Contribution Plan are yet to be advertised for this area. The 455ha area of Amendment No 190 is expected to provide in excess of 4,500 dwellings and 10, 000 or more people, however draft structure plans prepared for the proponents indicated the area will be deficient in essential community infrastructure being a primary school and the only high school to service the entire district. Having regard to the catchment areas and road networks and sound planning principles, there would appear to be no reasons why these school sites cannot be located within the Amendment No 190 area. That these school sites have been shown on land not included in the Amendment area indicates that the proponents of the rezoning believe they will suffer financially if they provide the school sites required for their future communities. This shows that the provisions of both the model scheme text and Council’s TPS No 2 and No 4 relating to development contributions are not working to provide equity between owners as intended. The intent of Development Contribution Areas as stated in TPS No 4 is “This part is to enable a Development Contribution Plan to be prepared to share the costs of provision of specific items of infrastructure across a number of landowners in the development area.” Unfortunately school sites are not an item of infrastructure included in Development Contribution Plans and therefore the provisions of such plans will not apply, even though the sites will be essential to residents of the Development Contribution Area. The result is, owners of school sites have to negotiate the acquisition of those sites with the Education Department which will not pay for the sites based on Net Expectancy Value as defined by Clause 6B.9 of TPS No 4 and acquire the sites as required by it, rather than in keeping with the

The subject land Lots 53 and 54 Hale (Skeet) and Keane Roads are adjacent to the area subject to Amendment No 190 under TPS No 2. Both the subject land and Amendment No 190 land is General Rural zone in TPS No 2 and similarly zoned in draft TPS 4. The submittee does not appear to be objecting to the General Rural zone proposed for the subject land and its adjacent land under TPS No 4, but is objecting to separate processes under TPS No 2 and draft concept plans related to the Amendment. It is noted that Amendment No 190 does not refer to the subject land but is located adjacent to it. Amendment No 190 has been advertised separately under TPS No 2. Subject to Council’s finalisation and adoption of Amendment No 190 TPS No 4 would incorporate appropriate zonings for the land subject to Amendment No 190 into TPS No 4. The land subject to the submission would remain General Rural zone. Detailed matters raised by the submission would have to be first dealt with in terms of the provisions of Amendment No 190 and as part of Council’s determination of submissions on Amendment No 190, prior to incorporation into scheme No 4. The processes for finalisation of Amendment No 190 are in abeyance pending information to be supplied by the applicants. In order to address the general matters raised in the subject submission on TPS No 4 in respect to the intent of Amendment No 190 the following matters are pertinent: The subject Industronics land is not part of Amendment No 190; The general development of the area is guided by the strategic SRFBW DSP of 2001 which identifies the subject Industronics land as being an appropriate location for a High School; A local Structure Plan will be required for the Amendment No 190 land and will be advertised for comment prior to development and will have to address:

126

School site locations; Drainage facilities; Community facilities; Infrastructure requirements; Environmental Approvals.



NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


development of the adjoining land. That these school sites have been shown on land not included in the Amendment area indicates that the true cost of the infrastructure is not being shared as is the intent of 6B.9 of TPS No 4. Industronics Pty Ltd propose that TPS No 4 be amended to provide that: Government school sites be acquired by Council on the basis of a “Net Expectancy Value” and on-sold to the Education Department so that Council can ensure that all owners bear the cost of any delay in the Education Department agreeing to acquire the school site, not just the owner unfortunate to have site located on his land. The owners of school sites required by the Education Department should be compensated under Development Contribution Plans for the difference in the payment received from the Education Department and that which would have received if the land were valued under the “Net Expectancy Value” provisions.

All subdividers have to make a proportional contribution to the cost of acquiring primary school sites through a scheme operated by the Department of Education as part of the subdivision process; Sites for High Schools are purchased by state government directly from landowners; Matters pertaining to compensation payable to landowners for school site locations should be raised with the appropriate state ministry (Department of Education). A suitable site for a High School site was identified adjacent to the area under the 2001District Structure Plan, however it has not yet been reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. It is anticipated that the initial High Schooling of residents in the area will be undertaken from existing High Schools in the wider district and if a new High School were eventually required to service the area, the 2001District Structure Plan site would be reserved under the MRS and then acquired by the state government. The principle of equity has a number of dimensions that in practice are very difficult to quantify and to single out a single dimension for special compartmentalised analysis could be misleading, as many factors including the timing of development are relevant. Matters such as early investment in developing new urban areas and the opportunity cost of such capital investments are not evaluated or compensated for in a static analysis. Inevitably early developers make considerable investment in the planning and infrastructure research and provision for new urban areas that subsequently and later developers gain commercial advantage from without contributing to the total cost of initial research and provision or the payment of compensation to the initial pioneers of a new urban area. The degree of market intervention government can make in land development without countervailing adverse consequences is limited and it is the City’s view that the of 6B.9 of TPS No 4 are sufficient and adequate within the context imposed by state government through the Model Scheme Text and the Education Department’s policies and mechanisms for allocation and compensation for government school sites.

127


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


It is noted that school site compensation is one of the areas in which there is a reasonable level of equity among land developers by virtue of the both the structure planning process to locate sites required to service specific development and also via the contribution scheme for primary school sites operated by the Education Department. It is also noted that all land developers will pay state and commonwealth government taxes and thereby make contributions to the general consolidated revenues from which High School sites are purchased. It is also noted that if or when the owners of Lots 53 and 54 develop for residential purposes they will have to make provision for any school sites required to service the residents of their land in the same manner as any land developer.

E3 Dr T N Tye 49 Dunkley Ave APPLECROSS WA 6153 (as Director of Industronics Pty Ltd). (See E2 also)


The submittee requests the subject lots be dropped from the future subdivision and rezoning from rural to urban as the submittee wishes to remain on the Rural Zoning as the subdivision is not fair. The submittee considers the rezoning should have satisfactory facilities in place and have adequate drainage to cater for the blocks created. The submittee considers there should be no schools in the subject lots. If compensation was so good all of the developers will rush to have the school on their land. The two schools combined on the subject land calls for 15ha, which is 15% of the subject land space. The adjacent development is 450ha and yet their overall contribution for schools is only about 3%, which is not fair. The percentage would be less if you removed the private High School to the north of Mr Lombardo’s block. The submittee has been advised that the development will initially borrow usage of school places from Canning Vale but it is an admission of inadequate schools and asks why is there so much favouritism to the developers and why is such a big development not made to have proper infrastructure as a condition of development or has there been pressure in the decision making? The submittee considers there should be no planning approval without things being sorted out and corrected. Big blocks like Lot 49 and Lot 50 are without any schools, they are the same size as and

See comments on submission E2. That the submission be noted.

128


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


adjoin the subject land. Murdoch University’s block is over 100 acres with no schools. The submittee considers there was some objection to moving the High School site from the subject land because the site was touted as being in a central area. The submittee considers moving the school south into Murdoch University’s land will still make the school central and balance up the distribution of schools. The High School location is inappropriate as it should actually be on Mr Dawkins land near the research centre and the developers should adequately compensate, not through the government funding, but by ceasing their proportion or equivalent land area, in each of the blocks that have no schools. Mr Dawkins should be properly compensated in that manner. There should be a second avenue for compensation. Mr Bakers land has a Shopping Centre, has no schools and has the best of everything, as you will realise the Shopping Centre is very valuable. The submittee considers the school should be put there as it is very central and as Nicholson Road is already a well made tar road. The submittee considers the High School site on the subject land is not suitable, who is going to build the access road to it? Who is going to tar Keane Road from Anstey Road all the way to the school? That school sits in perfect bush settings and the children will be killed and raped in the bush. It appears to me that the people involved in the planning just want to put everything into my land at all cost so long as they don’t have to sacrifice anything. The submittee considers that together with the drainage, 30% or more of the subject land, is taken up in infrastructure and the submittee considers there does not appear to be anyone honest enough to say he will not allow anybody to cheat him. The submittee considers the subdividing landowners have large lots and will make millions. The schools should be removed from my land as I will not be likely to subdivide in the present climate and whoever is in charge should make sure that there are adequate facilities for primary and high school students.

129


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


With regard to water drainage the submittee considers it should be noted that: The land is situated in a flood plain The present natural course of drainage which runs down the middle of block 50 and 49 and turns at its upper northern frontier to reach Balannup Lake, should not be deviated but if it has to be changed you should actually straighten the end part to be more direct to Balannup Lake. Drainage should not be allowed into the subject land as the overflow will break the banks and flood the whole of my northern block. The area that is drained by the present natural system is more than 550 ha and one inch of rain becomes 11 inches in the subject upper block so it does not take much rainfall to overcome it and flood the whole place up. Cutting a drain across the subject land does not solve the problem at all. We have had more than 10 years of light rainfall and nobody has seen what I have with the floods in the whole area. The best thing to do is to deepen and clean up Lake Balannup to act as a reservoir for the flood waters. There should be an overflow from Lake Balannup and stream from Lake Balannup on the northern side of Ranford Road for the overflow otherwise there is no hope of preventing flooding. At the northern side of Riley Road there should be a drain that runs the whole length of Riley Road and then to cut through the storm drain at Anstey Road. A case could be made and Council sued by the residents, that approval for subdivision had been made in the knowledge that adequate drainage had not been put in. The two maps attached are drawings approved by Council and show: the drain on Bakers block lot 50 which shows

they conserve their land and when it comes to my land the width is more than double in size

the drain has even shifted to enter the subject land at a lower level and the drain ends in a big chunk of open reserve.

130


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


All in all it will seize more than 15% of the subject land (schools 15%, drainage more than 15% Southern River road extension 5%). Total more than 30% of land grabbed whereas other lots have the Shopping Centre and some land does not even have any schools. The submittee asks is this a fair subdivision or a land grab? The submittee hopes an honest person will stand up and stop all the nonsense. The submittee considers the Southern River road extension should not go through subject land and carve up into two as this is very cruel. The road carves up the blocks vertically and the drain carves up the land horizontally so all in all, together with the schools there is nothing to subdivide. The road to the shopping centre should come from Southern River Road to Riley Road and then from Riley Road into the developers land. The submittee hopes he will not be pushed into a corner and have to resort to the Parliament or the Courts. The call for submissions did not provide detailed plans and as such the submittee had to rely on the last known plan that he had. The submittee requests to be sent the deliberations of the Planning Commission meeting on 4/3/04. The submittee considers this letter should be read in conjunction with all previous correspondences submitted to the City’s planning department. The submittee requests to be advised of his rights for and against coming off and requests his papers be submitted to the appeal board in Parliament if no agreement is reached, to be submitted for Appeal. The submittee considers the unprofitable structures should not be shed off into someone else’s land. The submittee, currently objects to the proposed Urban Development Zone provisions under Amendment No 190 or the rezoning of the properties subject to Amendment No 190, but otherwise would not object, providing those properties make adequate provision for the services, infrastructure and amenities required for the substantial future population.

131


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


132

The submittee notes that a local Structure Plan is to be prepared and subdivision will not be permitted until the plan has been adopted by the City and the WAPC but the submittee specifically objects to the draft editions of the local Structure Plan: Proposed relocation of the primary school site from partly within the both lots 49 and 54 to wholly within lot 54. Drainage route which suggests that stormwater from the development area will not be detained within the development area in accordance with Water Sensitive Design; and Lack of a high school site within the development area (neither MRS Amendment No 1072/33 or Amendment No 190 makes provision for a high school). The location of the high school on lot 54 as shown on the SRFBW DSP. The most recent draft of the structure plan show the high school and a primary school, located on rural zoned land (lot 54) and the submittee advises Industronics has no plans for residential development and as both these are essential for the proposed urban cell, Industronics Pty Ltd requests that both be transferred to the proposed development area on grounds of good planning and equity. The submittee considers that good planning dictates that these uses should not be on land isolated from the community which they will serve. Therefore the primary school site should be located central within its catchment to encourage walking, cycling rather than being driven to school in accordance with principles of sustainability and also to help reduce obesity in children. The submittee acknowledges that the high school will service a much larger catchment and that the students are more capable of travelling further distances to school however, this means Keane Road will have to be constructed across a resource enhancement wetland through Bush Forever sites which appears contradictory to the principles espoused in the ATA Environmental report forming part of the scheme amendment report. The submittee does not have any plans to develop its land and therefore will not be contributing towards the cost of constructing the roads or other infrastructure that will be required if the schools are


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


developed in the current intended locations, the submittee presumes then that Council will be required to fund a considerable proportion of these costs. In terms of equity the submittee is of the view that current proposals fail all reasonable tests. The submittee does not have any plans to develop and yet the planning proposals will limit the potential future uses of the property thereby adversely impacting on land values. The submittee considers this is not reasonable as the adjoining owners have determined that they want to proceed with the development of their properties and they not only generate the requirement for the schools but will also derive the additional profit from gaining a higher development yield. The submittee considers that only 8ha or 1.76% is set aside for government schools (in the Amendment No 190 area) and it is proposed that 14ha of Industronics 107ha land area or 13.08% be set aside for government schools, which is not reasonable or equitable. The submittee considers this 14ha of Industronics land will not be developable should subdivision be contemplated at some future time, resulting in Industronics lot yield being reduced by some 150 lots. While compensation will be paid for the 14ha, the compensation will be based on the en-globo land value and exclude any compensation for the loss of profits of the 150 lots and this is contrary to the provisions of Section 5.9 of TPS No 2 which provides for “fair net expectancy “ values for lands provided by landowners for infrastructure works. There has been no offer from the adjoining owners that they are prepared to compensate Industronics for its loss of profits on the development of the 150 lots which is not reasonable or equitable. In summary Industronics objects to Amendment No 190 on grounds that it does not provide for a high school to serve a potential population of 10, 000 or more people, will rely on construction of a road across environmentally sensitive land if a high school is built on lot 54 as indicated in the SRFBW DSP, and will not provide an equitable allocation of the burden of school sites between adjoining owners.

133


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


Industronics gives notice that when the local Structure Plan is advertised it will: Object to the proposed location of a primary school wholly on lot 54 and Require details of hydraulic studies confirming that stormwater can be detained within the development area consistent with Water Sensitive Urban Design principles and that existing flowpaths have been utilised as proposed in the ATA Environmental report.

E4 Dr T N Tye 49 Dunkley Ave APPLECROSS WA 6153 (as Director of Industronics Pty Ltd). (See E2 and E3 also)


Objects to the SRFBW DSP, A190 and future local structure planning (in preparation) in respect to roads, school sites and drainage, particularly on grounds of equity principle, with specific objections more fully detailed in submissions E2 and E3.

See comments on submission E2. It is noted that only TPS No 4 is available for objection through the current process, however, the submissions will be assessed separately through Amendment No 190 to TPS No 2.


134


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


SOUTHERN RIVER / FORRESTDALE / BROOKDALE / WUNGONG DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN (SRFBW DSP) (Submissions S1 to S10)

S1 S Sullivan 784 Forrest Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

749 Forrest Rd, Forrestdale

Expand the Forrestdale town site and allow further subdivision in the area ASAP particularly when the Tonkin Hwy comes through.

The 1.4ha lot is Rural D in TPS 2 and proposed RL2 in TPS No 4 and therefore has no subdivision potential in either scheme. While the Southern River Forrestdale Brookdale Wungong District Structure Plan (SRFBW DSP) indicates rezoning and further development is likely to occur in due course, detailed environmental and infrastructure assessments have to be completed in conjunction with an amendment to the MRS, which would need to change to Urban zone before the local TPS can change and consequently TPS 4 cannot expand the Forrestdale town site at this time. Notwithstanding, the scheme contains the planning provisions and tools that can take on new MRS Urban zonings as they occur, managing the subsequent urban development for the benefit of the whole community.


S2 A Duncan 21 Allen Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


TPS 4 is a waste of ratepayer’s money as it does not follow the SRFBW DSP in Forrestdale. If made urban, Forrestdale could grow and bring in more rates. Vacant land cannot be found at the moment and people that want to live in the area by cannot find suitable blocks for sale.

See comments on submission S1. That the submission not be supported.

S3 A Duncan 21 Allen Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


Submittee does not agree with the plan, as it does not follow on from the 2001 SRFBW DSP that shows Forrestdale as residential. The land should be opened up for urban for more progress in the area, which has a school, shops, scheme water and gas, a community hall, sports clubs and businesses.

While the SRFBW DSP indicates rezoning and further development are likely to occur in due course, detailed environmental and infrastructure assessments have to be completed in conjunction with an amendment to the MRS, which would need to change to Urban zone before the local TPS can change. Therefore TPS 4 cannot expand the Forrestdale town site. See comments on submission S1.


135


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


S4 A Bebbington 17 Allen Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


Submittee does not agree with the plan, as it does not follow on from the 2001 SRFBW DSP that shows Forrestdale as residential. Submittee cannot understand why Council would not want further subdivision, which would create more jobs and rates. We need progress in the area, which has a school, shops, scheme water and gas, a community hall, sports clubs and businesses.

See comments on submission S1. That the submission not be supported.

S5 D Prendergast288 Anstey Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

288 Anstey Rd, Forrestdale

Under SRFBW DSP subject property was proposed to change to industrial.

The DSP is reflected in the Strategic Plan in the Local Planning Strategy (Vol 1), but it is only a strategic plan and may be refined and changed as more detailed statutory planning is undertaken. A rezoning would first need to be considered at the Metropolitan Region Scheme level before it can be reflected in the local scheme. It is likely that a future amendment to the MRS to zone the land for industrial purposes would be supported by the City. The Rural Living 4 zone proposed in TPS 4 reflects the current TPS 2 Rural C zoning and is considered appropriate in the immediate future.

That the submission be noted and that the zoning of the subject land would need to be amended under the MRS prior to being zoned industrial as requested. That it be noted that subject to the appropriate studies being undertaken, that appropriate amendments to zone the precinct for Industrial purposes in accordance with the District Structure Plan would be appropriate.

136


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


S6 M & L Larsen 749 Forrest Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Forrestdale area generally

a) Submittees are disappointed that the redevelopment of Forrestdale has not included land areas directly attached to the existing townsite, namely the lots along Forrest Road to Broome Street. b) The area was previously included for urban redevelopment in the Southern River Forrestdale Brookdale Wungong draft plan 2000 (SRFBW DSP 2001) by the WA Planning Commission. c) The 4 landholders bound between Forrest Rd, Leake St, Napier St and Broome St sit on 14 acres, which is within the parameters of the Forrestdale Town site and primary school, with infrastructure in place to support rezoning, yet it is still zoned as a special rural location. d) There are structures and services in place to support development including social and sporting facilities, however for many years there has been no land available for children of previous and current residents of Forrestdale to purchase for new homes and this is a total restriction of support to the extension of families within the suburb because of the lack of residential blocks. e) The City’s planning has inhibited the growth of the community and retention of families in this suburb. f) Submittees request some consideration of this appeal but consider that if the City is not prepared to commit to the recommendations of Town Planning Commission of WA in regard to the SRFBW DSP, then they see themselves as a voice in the wilderness.

a) It is noted that MRS has not yet changed to urban for this area. b) The SRFBW DSP 2001 is still current and indicates potential for future urban development in the subject area. Council is constrained by the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), which zones the area as Rural zone. Therefore Town Planning Scheme No 4 is not able to directly translate the future urban of the non-statutory District Structure Plan into a residential type zone. An urban residential zone cannot proceed until a range of environmental and servicing assessments have been completed and an amendment has been made to the MRS to change the area to MRS Urban zone. c) See a) above d) It is noted that the Forrestdale townsite is fundamentally constrained by a lack of reticulated sewer and reliance on septic systems, in conjunction with the constraints of its proximity Forrestdale Lake, which is of national and international importance. e) The City considers it is promoting the future growth of the area through the SRFBW DSP 2001 which identifies potential for further urban residential development area was a direct result of the City’s planning efforts and engagement of the WAPC. Furthermore, a considerable area in north-west Forrestdale is currently subject to planning for urban residential development and is likely to provide opportunities for extended families to remain in the area in only a few years time. The area abutting and surrounding the existing Forrestdale town site is likely to be subject to a similar planning study and changes in zoning in the medium to longer term as recognised by the SRFBW DSP. f) It is noted that facilitating urban residential development is not a simple matter of acceding to landowner’s requests and for the reasons stated above, at this time it is not within the power of the City to make the changes suggested.


137


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


S7 G DiFlorio387 Nicholson Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


The submittee supports the SRFBW DSP, which states the property is a possible future urban site.

Lot 9 Oxley is approximately 35ha in area, is currently zoned General Rural under TPS No 2 and is proposed as Rural Living 20 zone under TPS No 4. The SRFBW DSP identifies the site as Rural. However, an annotation on the plan also recognises the larger lot sizes and relative absence of the more obvious and major constraints afflicting the wider district, by indicating the general location that is immediately west of the Tonkin Hwy and south of Forrestdale Lake, as having potential for “Possible Future Urban Development”. Notwithstanding the DSP does not specify exactly which properties in South Forrestdale are considered to have such potential. In the longer term a more definitive study would need to detail the environmental and servicing assessments and initiate changes to both the MRS and local TPS before urban development could be considered. Given the extent of areas identified for future urban development in northern Forrestdale, Brookdale and Forrestdale central (townsite), which are identified on the DSP as more short or medium term urban development sites, the “Possible Future Urban Development” area immediately west of the Tonkin Hwy is only likely to be considered for urban development in the very long term. The proposed Rural Living 20 zone under TPS No 4 will control the establishment of new intensive rural developments, which could negatively impact on possible future urban development in the area, such as the introduction of rural activities with major offsite impacts and further subdivision leading to land fragmentation.


138


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


S8 *

D James 134 Commercial Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112 On behalf of the “Friends of Forrestdale”

Forrestdale area generally

In reference to the map attached to the submission the submittee recommends the provision of green corridor connections between the conservation reserves in the scheme. The green connections take into account several unprotected wetland areas and drainage systems to Forrestdale Lake. They would serve a multi-functional purpose of wildlife support and pedestrian trails of the future conservation reserves, which in isolation do not fulfil their proper role without corridor support. Corridors should be planned now with urbanization approaching. The submittees are very concerned about the effects of urbanization on the hydrology of the area and possible impacts on wetlands and vegetation. The draw-down from bores or drainage can have dire consequences on the ecosystems that are already under stress from declining water levels.

Currently only the part of Forrestdale north of Armadale Road is subject to urban development proposals. Wetlands, drainage and corridors will be considered in the Local Structure Plans, which will be required prior to subdivision and undergo environmental assessment through scheme amendment processes. In recent years amendments to the MRS have seen additional reservations for Parks and Recreation Reserve accommodated into the City’s schemes. Further areas have been identified under the Bush Forever plan. Under Scheme No 4, public ownership of conservation land will be augmented by private land managed through scheme provisions, which encourage an attitude of land stewardship. The large area south of Armadale Road has been incorporated into the Rural Living zone, with scheme provisions providing enhancement of the controls over changes in land use and land management than under the current General Rural zone of TPS No 2. The RL zone will ensure environmental benefits in terms of preserving native vegetation and the fauna, which rely upon it over the longer term. The RL zone requires that approval is sought for any clearing of native vegetation. When this comes into effect it will provide Council with the opportunity to identify and enhance corridors without threat of uncontrolled vegetation clearing. The Environmental Management Area for Forrestdale Lake has also been identified as a Special Control Area as has the Jandakot groundwater mound and high conservation value wetland and lake protection areas and the Peel Harvey catchment. area. The WRC manages the licensing of bores and urbanization will undergo environmental and servicing assessment through rezoning and structure plan processes.


139


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


S9 Gray & Lewis Suite 5, 2 Hardy St SOUTH PERTH WA 6151 On behalf of owners S, A & M D’Orazio

Lot 10 Rowley Rd, Forrestdale

The area immediately to the west of Tonkin Highway and generally south of Forrestdale Lake is proposed as Rural Living 20 zone and this is considered appropriate given the zoning under the MRS. Consideration should be given in the relatively short term to rezoning the land to Urban / Urban Deferred under the MRS and subsequent rezoning to residential under either the City’s Scheme No 4 or the Armadale Redevelopment Scheme because: It is acknowledged as a “Possible Future Urban Development” area under the SRFBW DSP; The land is relatively unconstrained and the large lot sizes will assist in land assembly for development; Discussions with the Armadale Redevelopment Authority indicate the ARA may be prepared to consider extending coverage of its redevelopment scheme to include the area west of the Tonkin Hwy; The site is included in the Integrated Urban Water Management Plan being undertaken by the Water Corporation and thus recognised as a future urban area.

The proposed Rural Living 20 zone to the west of Tonkin Highway reflects existing lot sizes in the precinct and is intended to maintain a status quo in respect to subdivision and land use changes which may preclude or limit a future option to consider the area for urban development, the potential for which is identified by the points raised in the submission. The SRFBW DSP recognises the land as more of a longer term option giving the vast areas of land that are located in closer proximity to existing services and centres, particularly the Armadale Strategic Regional Centre eg located particularly at Brookdale, north Forrestdale and the area north and east of the Forrestdale townsite. While the proposed RL20 zone is considered appropriate it is also appropriate to monitor the progress of the above areas with a view to making timely amendments to the MRS and local TPS No 4 or Armadale Redevelopment Scheme to ensure continued development of the City in the years and decades to come.


S10 S Roberts33 Acacia Close ARMADALE WA 6112

Brookdale area generally

Nothing should be built south of Eighth Road, leaving it as it is – beautiful nature. The submittee states it is fine to build more matchboxes (units), but not near their property and preferably along the beach to Mandurah and Yanchep. Lets keep Armadale semi-rural.

The area south of Eighth Road comes under the Armadale Redevelopment Act and is earmarked to have a separate Redevelopment Scheme prepared. The SRFBW DSP indicates substantial urban residential development in the area, which is supported due to its support to the population catchments of the Armadale Strategic Regional Centre and suburban electrified rail network.


140


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


INDUSTRIAL (Submissions IND1 to IND9)

IND1 Minter EllisonL 49 Central Park 152 St George’s Tce PERTH WA 6000 On behalf of Elvi Pty Ltd

Lot 69 Skeet Rd, Forrestdale

Part of the subject lot is zoned General Rural and part is Parks and Recreation (Regional) under TPS No. 2 and 4. The lot is identified in Bush Forever and the area Zoned Rural is proposed to be reserved Parks and Recreation under a future MRS amendment. Request that the land be rezoned Light Industrial, Commercial and Professional. Advice was given by ILDA in 1980 that the land would form part of an industrial development. All the land is shown in the District Structure Plan as Parks and Recreation. The land: is physically suitable for light industrial

uses. The land is cleared, would represent orderly and proper planning, would provide an orderly transition between uses and reflect the highest and best use of the land;

it adjoins such zones. Lot 69 is similar to Lots 68 and 70 which are proposed Industrial Business under TPS No. 4 and Lot 388 Wright Road that is proposed General Rural;

the whole of Lot 69 does not have environmental significance therefore it should not all be reserved;

there would be economic benefit; and reservation would be excessive and

adversely effect the landowners.

Lot 69 is 50 hectares in extent and fronts Ranford Road. The land is partly reserved under the MRS and partly zoned Rural. Under Section 34 of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 the City’s town planning scheme is required to be consistent with the MRS. To agree with the submission and propose that the subject land be zoned Light Industrial would be contrary to the MRS. While the City could support a future amendment to the MRS to zone the land Industrial, such an amendment is yet to be initiated. The submission suggests rezoning part of Lot 69 as Commercial and Professional. Such a zoning does not exist in proposed TPS No. 4. It would be necessary to provide additional zones to enable this suggestion to be affected as well as for the Scheme Maps to be amended. It should be noted that all Lot 69 is included in Bush Forever site 342 which is recommended for conservation purposes within the Jandakot Regional Park.

That the submission be not supported because the Council is unable to zone land in TPS No. 4 that would be inconsistent with the MRS.

141


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


IND2 C Lyons60 Roberts Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Anstey Road Industrial area

Object to the development of the Industrial Business zone for industry on the grounds that: the land is identified in Bush Forever and

development would encroach into the area having a detrimental impact on the wetland;

the wetland systems are connected and contamination would effect other wetlands;

the site is part of the Jandakot Regional Park and would require comprehensive floristic survey prior to development;

there is great biodiversity on adjacent sites and they are important wildlife refuges;

development will exacerbate dieback; the Draft Swan Catchment Council

Regional NRM Strategy emphasizes the importance of wetlands as assets;

rehabilitation of degraded landscapes is impossible and expensive;

the wetland environment should be developed for conservation purposes in accordance with a management plan.

It is recognized that much of Lots 68 and 70 Ranford / Anstey Roads is included within Bush Forever to be included in the Jandakot Regional Park. However, land abutting Ranford road is excluded from Bush Forever. The MRS continues to show the whole site as Industrial and accordingly under S. 34 of the MRTPS Act the City would be unable to initiate an amendment through change to TPS No. 4. It would be appropriate to conclude that much of the subject land has significant conservation value which should be reflected on the MRS, however the balance of the land could remain in an appropriate industrial type of usage. The land is included as a Structure Plan area on the Special Control Area Map to provide for more detailed planning and management of the site.

That the submission be not supported as the TPS No. 4 is required to be consistent with the MRS. That the WAPC be requested to include the portions of Lots 68 and 70 with high conservation values in an appropriate future MRS amendment as Parks and Recreation.

IND3 G R & D Jones 194 Anstey Road FORRESTDALE WA 6112

194 (Lot 7) Anstey Rd, Forrestdale

Strongly opposed to the industrial area on the corner of Anstey and Ranford Roads opposite the subject property. Proposed use would be disruptive to current use and lifestyle and result in the elimination of flora and fauna and Bush Forever.

See comments on submission IND2. That the submission be not supported as the TPS No. 4 is required to be consistent with the MRS. That the WAPC be requested to include the portions of Lots 68 and 70 with high conservation values in an appropriate future MRS amendment as Parks and Recreation.

142


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


IND4 D ChatleyProject Manager Landcorp Locked Bag 5, Perth Business Centre, PERTH WA 6849

Lots 68 & 70 Anstey and Ranford Roads, Forrestdale

The future use of Lots 68 and 70 must include involvement of Landcorp. Does not support proposed Industrial Business zoning. The existing General Industry zoning may not be appropriate either. It would be appropriate for more detailed investigations to be undertaken to determine appropriate zoning. Implications of the Bush Forever component of the site, the rezonings in North Forrestdale and the future ARA Forrestdale Business Park development need to be considered prior to committing to a specific zoning. Suggested that the land be zoned Industrial Investigation Zone to require further investigations prior to development.

It is agreed that there is much uncertainty regarding the suitable uses upon the subject land. Two thirds of the land is within the Bush Forever site 342 and half the site is indicated as being worthy of protection for conservation. However, it is possible that a negotiated planning solution could be provided. Accordingly the designation of the site for further investigation may have merit. The land is identified as a Development Area (under Schedule 12 and on the Special Control Area map) requiring structure planning. This will ensure that development could not occur without addressing all the issues associated with the land. While only a relatively small portion of the land could be developed in view of the environmental constraints, the zoning should provide the maximum development options to enable a negotiated outcome for the balance of the land. Accordingly it would be appropriate to zone the land consistent with TPS No. 2 as General Industry, this would fit closer to the request of the submitter.

That the submission be supported in part noting that the TPS No. 4 is required to be consistent with the MRS and the land be zoned General Industry. That the WAPC be requested to include the portions of Lots 68 and 70 with high conservation values in an appropriate future MRS amendment as Parks and Recreation.

IND5 S O’HaraStatewide Surveying and Planning PO Box 1377 MIDLAND WA 6936 On behalf of owners Lot 10 Third Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 10 Third Ave, Kelmscott

Lot 10 is over 2 hectares in extent and is located in the Gillam Drive Industrial area but has never been fully developed. Under TPS No. 2 the land is zoned partly Showroom and partly Light Industry. Under TPS No. 4 the land would be Industrial Business. In view of the size of the site it may be suitable for a large industry but if so it would attract heavy traffic on what is a relatively residential street (Third Avenue) on which are also located parks and the Kelmscott Secondary College. While it would be more appropriate to develop the site for residential use there would inevitably be conflicts wherever there was a residential / industrial interface – certainly in the event of low density residential. A preferred alternative would be to rezone the land R30 or R40 (or Special Purpose to allow such development) – such development could take advantage of the park outlook and be designed away from adjoining industrial uses.

While the site is on the edge of the industrial area and could have some merit as a higher density residential area, the land is zoned Industrial under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. It is probable that it would not be possible to rezone the land under TPS No. 4 to Residential without a prior amendment to the MRS. In view of the need to ensure that the City’s land resource to accommodate potential employment generating activities is not diminished, it may be imprudent to reduce the size of the Kelmscott Industrial area at this time. The Industrial Business zoning provides for a range of uses and does not permit heavy or general industry that would diminish the amenity of the locality. Notwithstanding, the City would be sympathetic to an amendment to the MRS if it could be demonstrated that an appropriate design could be submitted.

That the submission be not supported due to the need for the rezoning of the Industrial area to residential use to be preceded by an amendment to the MRS. That it be noted that subject to the appropriate detailed design demonstrating that alternative development could be undertaken, that appropriate amendments to the MRS to rezone the land for Urban purposes could be supported.

143


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


IND6 *

Armadale Redevelopment Authority PO Box 790 ARMADALE WA 6992

City of Armadale area generally

The ARA makes the following comments on the scheme: a) It is noted that all of the General Industry zones under TPS No 2 are proposed to be zoned Industrial Business zone and that accordingly general industry uses will no longer be permitted in industrial areas such the Kelmscott and Anstey Rd areas. These rezonings to Industrial Business zone may place inappropriate pressure on the Forrestdale Industrial Business Park (FIBP) to accommodate the bulk of any future demand for general industrial development. b) The ARA strongly objects to the Anstey Road industrial area being changed from its current General Industry zone and recommends this area remain as General Industry. If it were Industrial Business zone as proposed in draft TPS No 4 it would compete with and hinder development of the FIBP. A General Industry zoning also generally allows for larger lots with buffers and this would suit the Bush Forever resources within and adjacent to the Anstey Road site better than the current proposal for an Industrial Business zone. c) The replacement of the existing Shopping zone with the proposed District Centre and Local Centre zones is strongly supported as they give greater regard to the retail hierarchy of the Local Planning Strategy and therefore will support the metropolitan retail hierarchy and particularly the role of the Armadale City Centre as a Strategic Regional Centre. d) The Mixed Business / Residential zone areas adjacent to the Armadale City Centre west of the railway and west of the South West Highway are generally supported on the basis that their permissible uses largely reflect those of the adjacent ARA Redevelopment Scheme area. Also, X (not permitted) uses excluded from the Mixed Business / Residential zone will encourage a gradual transition from the surrounding residential areas to the more mixed and ultimately more commercially focused development supported and expected in the Armadale City Centre.

a) It is not correct that all of the General Industry zones under TPS No 2 are proposed to be zoned Industrial Business zone as the major part of both South Armadale and Kelmscott areas are proposed to remain as General Industry zone under TPS No 4. Only small areas of the Kelmscott and South Armadale industrial areas are proposed as Industrial Business zone. In the case of Kelmscott the proposed Industrial Business zone only replaces the current Showroom and Light Industry zones so that the current General Industry zone remains unchanged and TPS 4 has no net effect on the quantity of General Industry zone and hence no impact on the FIBP. In the South Armadale industrial area, only a small length of South West Highway frontage is proposed to change from General Industry to Industrial Business zone as this has the opportunity to provide a higher standard of entry to the built up area of the City entry on the South West Highway frontage. b) It is agreed that the current General Industry zone provides a better balance of potential industry types and sizes in conjunction with the FIBP and hence the scheme map should be modified to continue the current General Industry zone under TPS No 2 in TPS No 4. c) Supported - no change to proposed scheme 4 is required. d) Supported - no change to proposed scheme 4 is required. e) Supported - no change to proposed scheme 4 is required. f) Increasing the R Coding over the Westfield locality without survey or public consultation would be a significant initiative and would probably require scheme readvertising. However the suggestion may have merit and could either be pursued during the next review or via discrete rezoning amendments to provide more transitional development densities between the ARA areas and the currently lower density areas of the City in Westfield and Champion Lakes.

That the submission be supported in part by modifying the scheme map to zone the Anstey Road industrial area as General Industry zone.

144


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


e) The Special Control Areas, vegetation protection measures and R Code variations are also supported. The R Code variations (and the Residential Density Development Policy in particular) are expected to enhance the hierarchy of centres and the legibility of residential areas as well as the efficient use of existing infrastructure and networking of residential areas and centres. f) Residential density in proximity to the Champion Lakes Precinct - the ARA recommends that higher residential density codes of up to R40 be applied to the western parts of the Westfield locality, particularly those areas adjacent to Champion Drive, Lake Road, Westfield and Ypres Road. This would facilitate a more transitional interface between the R40 development anticipated in the adjacent ARA Redevelopment Scheme precincts and the larger existing residential area under TPS No 4. More extensive development would enhance the Westfield local centre and may improve the aesthetic presentation of the area to Lake Road and Champion Drive.

IND7 E Lockyer Lot 8 Anstey Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


a) Northern Forrestdale residential area and b) Anstey Rd industrial area should not be

developed and bushland should remain. The above areas are all wetlands and should not be cleared but left for the swans and ducks and wildlife and paperbark and bull rushes. More industrial land is not needed and housing should be on higher ground.

a) The first stage North Forrestdale Residential area has been subject to a rezoning amendment under TPS No 2 including assessment by DOE / EPA and TPS 4 merely reflects that amendment. b) Part of the site is part of the Bush Forever plan and in accordance with that strategy bush preservation will be a negotiated planning solution. It is zoned Industrial in the MRS and Council can only consider zoning in accordance with the MRS zone. The site is currently zoned General Industry in TPS No 2 and any major change in landuse has to be addressed in the Region Scheme and only then can the local TPS change. In order to maintain future options it is proposed to modify the Scheme 4 to reflect the existing General Industry zone of TPS No 2. Refer to comments for submission IND4.

That the submission be supported in part and the WAPC be requested to include the portions of Lots 68 and 70 with high conservation values in an appropriate future MRS amendment as Parks and Recreation.

145


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


IND8 B Tommel & R Briffa Lot 5 Anstey Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


Anstey Rd industrial area should not be developed, the bushland should remain in view of the Forrestdale Industrial Business Park.

Refer to comments for submission IND7. That the submission be supported in part and the WAPC be requested to include the portions of Lots 68 and 70 with high conservation values in an appropriate future MRS amendment as Parks and Recreation.

IND9 R Briffa Lot 5 Anstey Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112


The Anstey Rd industrial area is not necessary. Consolidate it with the Forrestdale Industrial Business Park and conserve the trees and wildlife.

Refer to comments for submission IND7. That the submission be supported in part and the WAPC be requested to include the portions of Lots 68 and 70 with high conservation values in an appropriate future MRS amendment as Parks and Recreation.

146


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES (Submissions RE1 to RE30)

RE1 P Martin8 Dale St MT NASURA WA 6112

8 Dale St, Mt Nasura

The subject property was coded R10 under TPS No. 2 and similar coding is proposed under TPS No. 4 – however under clause 5.2.4 of TPS No. 4 the opportunity to develop group dwellings up to R25 will be restricted to R12.5-R17.5 areas. Under TPS No.2, R10 areas could be developed with grouped dwellings up to R40. There should be the potential to allow for higher density dwellings without going through a scheme amendment process. Other grouped dwellings developed in past years in the locality have been attractive and are of no concern to the neighbourhood. The locality (between Albany Highway and Brookton Highway and north of Echo Road) would be suited to increased coding to R12.5 or R15 in view of its deep sewerage and is well located for transport, hospital, schools and shopping. The area is similar to the area south of the hospital which is coded R15.

The submitter resides in a locality characterized by a range of lot sizes, however most lots are in the 800-1100m2 range. Very few lots would have their development potential increased by rezoning the land from R10 to R12.5 or R15. However there is merit in the argument that the locality would be suited on locational criteria for more dense development. Possibly the means to provide such an opportunity would be to provide the facility to develop grouped dwellings. Some of the land in the locality was provided with deep sewerage under the infill sewerage program, although some land north of the Canning River remains to be sewered. The only localities in the City coded for R10 are those south of the Brookton Highway in Mt Nasura and between Canning Mills Road and the Canning River in Kelmscott. Within these areas the facility to develop grouped dwellings up to R25, subject to compliance with Council’s Residential Density Development Policy (which includes the requirement of deep sewerage), would be appropriate particularly in view of the fact (alluded to in the submission) that under TPS No. 2 group dwelling development up to R40 could be permitted by Council.

That the submission be supported in part and Scheme Clause 5.2.4(a) be modified to “Where land is identified on the Scheme Map as R10, R12.5, R15 or R17.5, development for group dwellings up to a density of R25;”

RE2 Mr & Mrs D Moulin Lot 1 Cockram Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Oppose the rezoning of land between Albany Highway, the Canning River, Centre Road and Page Road to R25 and R15/40. The potential to change the locality from large rural lots to higher density housing would completely change the nature of the area. Land near river foreshores should be in larger parcels to protect the foreshore. Higher density would reduce property value and create security risks. Any changes to the floodplain would have a severe impact on subject property.

Apart from some Special Use Zones fronting the Highway, the locality the subject of the submission is Coded R10 under TPS No. 2. It should be noted that under TPS No. 2 grouped dwellings up to R40 could be permitted within the R10 area subject to meeting the Council’s policy requirements. The locality zoned for Residential uses, is serviced and is all within 1200m of the Kelmscott Station. The locality is within the approach to Kelmscott and therefore has the potential to provide an attractive urban design statement, although there is potential for bad design to negatively impact on the Gateway to Kelmscott. For these reasons it is considered to be suited to a greater potential density than R10. R25 is the upper end of the “Low Density” Codes under the RD Codes and should not be considered as high or even medium density housing areas. The gradation southwards from R25 to R15/40 for the land abutting the District Centre is appropriate.

That the submission be not supported and that the land south of Centre Road adjacent to Albany Highway be coded R25 and R15/40 as shown on draft TPS No. 4.

147


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE3 L & M Stott 2 Erith Court GLENDALOUGH WA 6016

Lot 68 Albany Hwy, Armadale

a) Request subject lot to be zoned R15/40 with additional use Medical Centre rather than R25 as shown on draft TPS No. 4. The site is opposite the district hospital and close to other lots zoned for medical centre uses, the lot has alternative road access (via a PAW and a 7m wide lane), the lot is large (5311m2), and is near facilities, public transport and Creyk park. b) Lot 68 and the adjacent lot 8 should be provided with Additional Use Medical Centre.

a) While higher density residential zoning in this locality may have merit, the same arguments would apply to all lots in the locality. TPS No. 4 has proposed to increase the coding from R12.5 to R25, although the previous provision to enable group dwellings up to R40 would no longer apply. Under TPS No. 2 group dwellings could be permitted up to R40 in all residential zones subject to the amenity of the locality not being prejudicially affected. Although this scheme provision was unusual in the context of other schemes in the State, it had worked well in the past and provided an incentive for Council to be able to secure higher quality design. Under the draft scheme group dwelling development may be permitted in areas coded R12.5-R17.5 at the R25 density however for those areas coded R25 there is no equivalent potential. It would be appropriate to amend the provisions to allow for the development of group dwellings in areas coded R25 up to the density of R40 and make suitable adjustments within the Residential Density Development Policy. b) A number of lots facing the District hospital have been provided with an Additional Use for Medical Centre (lots 17, 21, 11, 3, 65 and 1). The subject land could be argued to be as well suited to the development of a medical centre as the other nearby lots from a locational point of view. However, the main constraint to the development of medical centres will be the ability to gain direct access from Albany Highway. The City’s Highway Development policy (and Main Roads WA) would restrict uses other than “P” uses unless there is an alternative means of access from a lower order road. While the submission argues that there is alternative access through to Lilian Avenue, this is quite narrow and would result in extraneous traffic from the medical centre being introduced into a residential area.

That the submission be supported in part and clause 5.2.4 be amended to add: “where land is identified on the Scheme Map as R25, development for group dwellings up to a density of R40” and Policy PLN 3.1 Residential Density Development be amended at clause 4.1 to make provision for areas coded R25. That the submission that Lot 68 be provided with an Additional Use Medical Centre be not supported in view of the access constraints from Albany Highway.

148


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE4 R G & D A Stafford Lot 5 Cockram Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Object to the rezoning of land south of Centre Road along Albany Highway to accommodate R25 high density housing. There would be consequences on the Canning River and increased crime. The proposal will result in the rezoning of rural land north of Centre Road.

See comments on submission RE2. It should be noted that a higher density development could be approved under TPS No.2 as grouped dwellings. Land north of Centre Road is zoned Rural under the MRS and its rezoning would not be a simple matter brought about by the recoding of land south of Centre Road.


RE5 Dykstra &Associates 6/2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111 On behalf of Cooljade Pty Ltd Lot 32 Cammillo Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 32 Cammillo Rd, Kelmscott

Requests the subject land be included in the R25 coded area. The subject property is 1650m2 in extent and is coded R15 under the existing TPS No.2 and proposed TPS No.4. Whereas under TPS No. 2 there was potential to develop group dwellings, under TPS No.4 this will be removed under TPS No. 4. It is likely that approval of grouped dwellings at R30 would be approved for the site under TPS No. 2. While no change to the coding of the subject land is proposed under draft TPS No. 4, the adjacent land fronting Third Road is proposed to be recoded to R25. The subject land should be coded R25 because: It land fronts Cammillo Road (a significant

distributor road). The lot could be easily annexed with the

adjoining R25 coded precinct. The existing house could be upgraded as

part of the redevelopment. The wide frontage (33m) lends itself to

group dwelling development.

There will inevitably be some difficulties presented wherever the line is drawn between different density codes. In this case the logic was that the large lots opposite the Kelmscott High School fronting Third Road should be increased in density to R25. The subject lot is a relatively large lot. In the event of the subject lot being recoded to R25 the same argument could be applied to other lots fronting Cammillo Road – such a strategy may have merit in view of land to the east of Cammillo Road being proposed R25. In this instance amending the zoning for the subject lot and the adjacent lot 33 could have merit in view of their location and the limitation provided by the location of a drainage reserve on the north side of Lot 33.

That the submission be supported. And Lot s 32 and 33 Cammillo Road be rezoned R25.

149


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE6 M & B Davies Lot 3 Cockram Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Oppose the proposal to rezone land south of Centre Road on Albany Highway to medium and high density R25 and R15/40. Proposal is contrary to “Country Living” motto. Object that the proposal would give public access to the river and attract undesirable members of the community with impact on security and the river system.

See comments on submission RE2. That the submission be not supported and that the land south of Centre Road adjacent to Albany Highway be coded R25 and R15/40 as shown on draft TPS No. 4.

RE7 L & M Stott 2 Erith Crt GLENDALOUGH WA 6016 and other owners of Lots 68, 8, 46 and 9 Albany Hwy ARMADALE WA 6112 (4 submissions)

Lots 68, 8, 46 & 9 Albany Hwy, Armadale

Request the lots be zoned R15/40 with additional use Medical Centre rather than R25 as shown on draft TPS No. 4. The site is opposite the District hospital and close to other lots zoned for medical centre uses. Would like to see the Medical Centre zoning extended from the lots on the corner of Lillian Avenue (Lots 1 and 65) to cover lots 8, 9, 46 and 68. The lots are near facilities, public transport and Creyk park. With the aging population greater provision for R40 development would be appropriate.

See comments on submission RE3 with regard to Medical Centre use. See comments on submission RE3 with regard to the submission requesting an increase to the R Coding.

That the submission that Lots 8, 9, 46 and 68 be provided with an Additional Use Medical Centre be not supported in view of the access constraints from Albany Highway. That the submission be supported in part and clause 5.2.4 be amended to add: “where land is identified on the Scheme Map as R25, development for group dwellings up to a density of R40” and Policy PLN 3.1 Residential Density Development be amended at clause 4.1 to make provision for areas coded R25.

RE8 T O’Neil260 Streich Ave ARMADALE WA 6112

Lot 58 Streich Ave, Armadale

Currently the land is zoned R12.5 under TPS No. 2 and is proposed to be coded R25. It is requested that the property be coded R15/40 because it: is in a cul-de-sac and it is the only property

not developed for units is located on a significant distributor road is located on a corner is located next to a park is located near transport, shops and

facilities.

This lot is located on the corner of Murray Court and Streich Avenue. See comments on submission RE3 with respect to the submission requesting an increase to the R Coding.

That the submission be supported in part and clause 5.2.4 be amended to add: “where land is identified on the Scheme Map as R25, development for group dwellings up to a density of R40” and Policy PLN 3.1 Residential Density Development be amended at clause 4.1 to make provision for areas coded R25.

150


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE9 T O’Neil260 Streich Ave ARMADALE WA 6112 and Mr E Thexton 13 Church St KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lots 30 & 31 Church St, Kelmscott

Currently the land is zoned R10 under TPS No. 2 and is proposed to be coded R25. It is requested that the property be coded R15/40 because it: is located close to Albany Highway the lots are large (1400m2) is adjacent to other proposed R15/40 lots the existing house could be upgraded as

part of a development would assist in providing a wide range of

housing types; and is located near transport, shops and

facilities.

While there may be merit in increasing the density potential for this lot, the same logic would apply to the locality. It is proposed for the boundary between R25 and R15/40 to run down Church St with the higher density (closer to the heart of the District Centre) to the north and the lower density to the south. See comments on submission RE3 with respect to the submission requesting an increase to the R Coding.

That the submission be supported in part and clause 5.2.4 be amended to add: “where land is identified on the Scheme Map as R25, development for group dwellings up to a density of R40” and Policy PLN 3.1 Residential Density Development be amended at clause 4.1 to make provision for areas coded R25.

RE10 D Morgan 4 Sherwood Crt ARMADALE WA 6112

N/A Commends the City for increasing densities around the train station particularly in the area bounded by Sexty Street and Armadale road and the railway. Proposal accords with WAPC policy and will reduce private car use and promote greater sustainability. Proposed increased densities will facilitate redevelopment and result in better housing mix to reflect changing population and support government investment in the City Centre and rail system.

The submission supports the thrust of the City’s strategy of promoting a greater choice of housing types with higher density coding near facilities and public transport.


151


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE11 E Laurie 40 Roberts Rd KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Land adjacent to the Canning River, south of Turner Rd, Kelmscott

Concern that the area between Page Road, the Canning River and Turner Road are proposed to be zoned R15/40. Council should zone all land owned by it as Parks and Recreation in the riverside strip. The private land should be left as it is. Higher density housing will detrimentally impact on the river, for instance through discharge of sewerage. Higher density should only be allowed where the drainage system has been altered to collect nutrients prior to discharge into the river. The Swan River Trust is pursuing a policy of purchasing land along the river to develop a regional park. Higher density housing will contradict this initiative. Council should obtain and develop vacant land as a passive recreation area to enhance the City’s reputation as an environmentally friendly council.

The land identified is currently zoned residential and could under TPS No.2, subject to conditions, be developed up to R40. While the Swan River Trust is not purchasing any land, it is the case that the WAPC reserves and purchases such land on the Canning. This should be supported. The location immediately abutting the District Centre close to all amenities is considered to be appropriate for residential use and redevelopment in accordance with the relevant policies and should result in improved urban form and protection of sensitive environments.


RE12 *

M Pries 20 Turner Place KELMSCOTT WA 6111

20 (Lot 93) Turner Place, Kelmscott

Supports the R15/40 zoning of the land in Turner Place as the land is close to all amenities. Fancote and Creyk parks should be reserved for Parks and Recreation. Part of Fancote Park is currently zoned R10 and is proposed for R15/40. If this is developed it will not leave much park. Seek to be able to make submissions when land east of Canning River in Kelmscott is proposed to have zoning changed. Concern that it is necessary to have 40 hectares to have two dwellings.

Support for R15/40 coding should be noted. Refer to comments for submission P1 with regard to Fancote and Creyk Parks. Land east of Canning River is zoned Rural under the MRS – it is proposed that this land be subject to future study but no change is proposed under TPS No.4. No 20 (Lot 93) Turner Place is 5613m2 in area and zoned Rural E zone under TPS No 2. The policy for second dwellings under TPS No 2 requires a minimum of 2ha so that the subject lot would not meet this requirement, The subject lot is proposed as Rural Living 2 zone in TPS No 4 and whilst the current recommendation is to relax the clause 5B.8 minimum lot area of the advertised draft TPS 4 requirement for a second dwelling in the Rural Living zone from 40ha to 8ha, providing that the purpose of the second dwelling is to accommodate persons engaged in a legitimate rural productive use being carried out on the lot, the subject lot would not have met this requirement under RPS 4 as currently proposed. However, under proposed Scheme 4 it is noted that the subject lot could qualify for a separate building under the Ancillary Accommodation provisions defined in the R Codes to accommodate a family member. See comments on submissions RKA5 and RC1.

That the support for R15/40 coding in Turner Place be noted. That the need to consult on any proposals to rezone land in the Canning River Precinct be noted.

152


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE13 Mr & Mrs Henderson 32 Streich Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

32 Streich Ave, Kelmscott

Support R40 zoning for subject land. Do not support the split coding with the R15 component. Land is within 500 metres of the town centre and higher density residential development is appropriate on sound planning and infrastructure utilization principles. The dual coding could result in some lots not being developed resulting in uncertainty to landowners. Request land bounded by Davis Rd, Albany Highway, Ottaway St and Streich Av be zoned R40.

The purpose of the R15/40 split coding is to ensure that where higher density housing is developed it maintains certain standards and is serviced. Development at R40 will be approved if it complies with the Council’s policy which requires the following: A footpath fronting the property Adequate drainage, access and on site parking Certain design standards relating to the dwelling,

fencing and landscaping. In addition the Council may require the preparation of an Outline Development Plan to ensure that development is undertaken in a co-ordinated manner. These are not considered to be onerous requirements and safeguard the Council and the community against higher density development not meeting quality standards resulting in the community gaining an unfavourable impression of higher density housing development.

That the submission be not supported and that land bounded by Davis Road, Albany Highway, Ottaway Street and Streich Avenue be zoned R15/40.

RE14 D LantzkeGeneral Manager Ardross Group of Companies Level 17, QV1 Building, 250 St Georges Tce PERTH WA 6000

Lot 523 Challis Rd, Armadale

Lot 523 Challis Road is located in the Outline Development Plan for the area as “grouped housing” with a previously stated coding (from City correspondence) of R40. The land should be coded R40 due to: Proximity to shopping centre, POS and

public transport Allows flexibility to development the land

parcel R25 is considered low density under the

2002 R Codes whereas under the 1991 Codes it was considered medium density

Adjacent lots were sold on the expectation of medium density development

Medium density in this location would be consistent with State Government policy to promote greater proportion of future housing in established areas.

Lot 523 is 2.4ha in extent and is located behind the Champion Drive shopping centre. While the general locality remains as R15 this lot was coded R25 under TPS No. 4. The subject land is included as a Development Area as identified on the Special Control Area Map and accordingly development for grouped dwellings in accordance with the adopted A14 Outline Development Plan would be acceptable. However there is benefit in putting the question beyond doubt to ensure that the Scheme allows for the subject land to have the potential to develop to R40 where certain criteria and standards are met. See comments on submission RE3 with respect to the submission requesting an increase to the R Coding.

That the submission be supported and clause 5.2.4 be amended to add: “where land is identified on the Scheme Map as R25, development for group dwellings up to a density of R40” and Policy PLN 3.1 Residential Density Development be amended at clause 4.1 to make provision for areas coded R25.

153


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE15 A & M Milne 18 Tyers Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

4 Wakehurst Wy, Kelmscott

Support higher density (R15/40) along a strip near the railway.

Noted support for the medium density residential zoning.


RE16 J Vegvari 5 Treecrest Gdns MT RICHON WA 6112

5 Treecrest Gdns, Mt Richon

Lots 155-158 (No’s 1-7) Treecrest Gdns, Mt Richon are shown as Parks and Recreation (Regional) rather than Residential R5 on Scheme Map and should be changed.

It is noted a drafting error resulted in an incorrect Parks and Recreation (Regional) designation in the draft of TPS No 4. The Scheme should be modified to reflect the Residential R5 zone under TPS No 2.

That the submission be supported by reflecting Lots 155-158 (No’s 1-7) Treecrest Gardens, Mt Richon as the Residential R5 zone.

RE17 LMastrodomenico 54 Carisbrooke St MADDINGTON WA 6109

23 Westfield Rd, Kelmscott

a) Subject property is within 800m of the Kelmscott train station and should be zoned Residential R15 / 40 and not R15 as it appears on the Scheme map.

b) As it abuts a reserve and access to reserve, can it be considered for a density bonus under clause 5.2.4?

a) It is acknowledged that extending the R25 precinct on the opposite side of Westfield Rd up to the boundary with the Westfield Heron Reserve to zone the area of battleaxe lots including No 23A/B to R25 would be in accordance with planning principles and the objects of TPS No 4.

b) This lot abuts a POS reserve / PAW and therefore may apply for discretionary development under clause 5.2.4 of the scheme. The area could be regarded as contiguous with other land zoned under TPS No 4 as R25.

That the submission be supported in part by extending the R25 precinct on the opposite side of Westfield Rd up to the boundary with the Westfield Heron Reserve to zone the area of battleaxe lots, including No 23A/B to R25 zone.

RE18 A Eastcott 18 Henrietta Ave MT NASURA WA 6112

18 Henrietta Ave, Mt Nasura

Submittee is an occupier of nearby property and because of its aspect and locality would like to see the vacant land on the corner of Albany Hwy and Carawatha Ave developed for a mix of single storey, two and three storey medium density housing. Three facilities are suggested, on the east side single storey units facing west, on the west Albany Highway side, two storey units facing west, and on the north side a three-storey complex. Car parking and visitor access can be off Carawatha in courtyard servicing all three facilities.

It is noteworthy that the TPS 4 already provides for the type of use suggested at least for part of Lot 60 consequently the submittee is considered to be in effect in support of TPS 4. The Additional Use No 17 in Schedule 2 of TPS 4 allows consideration of a range of possible uses including group housing up to R40. It also allows for a Medical Centre. The eastern side of the property is Reserved for Parks and Recreation (local). The site was subject to a recent amendment to TPS No 2 (Special Use zone No 85) and TPS 4 proposes to reconfirm that proposal.


154


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE19 G Carroll 13 Nanba St NEWMAN WA 6753

170 Cammillo Rd, Kelmscott

a) The dirt track adjacent to the subject property decreases property value and inhibits tenants from staying longer.

b) The extension of the Ward Court cul-de-sac would allow the submittee to gain access to the rear of the subject property and facilitate group housing development.

Concept designs such as the extension of the Ward Crescent cul-de-sac were put forward under the Kelmscott Enquiry by Design workshop report. Such proposals are generally supported by the change to R25 zoning under TPS No 4, however, implementation will need detailed examination and approval as part of development proposals before on ground changes take place.


RE20 F Hawkins 9/9 Bonner Ln ARMADALE WA 6112

9/9 Bonner Lane, Armadale

Low cost backpackers accommodation should be provided to attract international and interstate tourists.

Bonner Lane is Residential R40 under TPS 3 and proposed the same Residential R40 under TPS 4. Holiday Accommodation is an X use that is not permitted in the residential zone and such a use should be either in an area of mixed development such as the Mixed Business / Residential Zone or the town centre where more activities are available.


RE21 T Clements 11 Naomi Pl ARMADALE WA 6112

11 Lot 415 Naomi Pl, Armadale

Can the subject property be subdivided and another unit built?

Under TPS No 2 the property is R15 and also proposed as R15 under draft TPS 4. While TPS 4 proposes to allow group dwellings up to R25 in the R15 coded areas, subject to compliance with the Residential Density Development Policy, the 989m2 lot would still not meet the minimum size requirement for a third unit under the R Codes. The submittee has been informed of the draft TPS 4.


RE22 T Clements 11 Naomi Pl ARMADALE WA 6112

41 (lot 108) Millen St, Mt Nasura

Can the subject property be subdivided? Under TPS No 2 the property is zoned Residential R10 and proposed as R10 under draft TPS 4. The 968m2 lot is located on a corner lot corner Millen and Ellis Road. The density bonus of clause 5.2.4 allows development of group dwellings up to a density of R25 subject to compliance with the Residential Development Density Policy standards including reticulated sewer, but this is limited in the draft scheme to areas R12.5 and above. Accordingly it is recommended to modify the text to include a reference to the R10 code also and also to clarify that in the R10 zone, development up to R30 may be applied for on lots with two street frontages. Therefore lot 108 has potential for development subject to the discretionary bonuses available by compliance with the Residential Density Development Policy. See comments on submissions RE1 and 3.3.

That the submission be supported in part and Scheme Clause 5.2.4(a) be modified to “Where land is identified on the Scheme Map as R10, R12.5, R15 or R17.5, development for group dwellings up to a density of R25;”

155


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE23 K Lethbridge (Snr) Lot 96 Thomas St HALLS CREEK WA 6770

24 Gladstone Rd, Armadale

Uncertainty exists as neither Water Corporation nor the City has plans to install deep sewerage. The City needs to either budget to install deep sewerage or declare the area non-subdividable.

The subject lot is zoned R15/40 under TPS 2 and is proposed to be similarly zoned under draft TPS 4. Unless it is part of the Water Corps infill programme, the cost of installing deep sewerage in unsewered areas is borne by private developers. The area otherwise has development potential. The City ‘s information is that this land is within an area where deep sewerage is available. TPS 4 proposed zoning of R15/40 is unchanged from the TPS 2 zoning. The dual coding requires development at the higher density to be in accordance with the Residential Development Policy, which requires the provision of deep sewerage and an Outline Development Concept Plan may be required.


RE24 R & G Taylor 187 Railway Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

187 Railway Ave cnr Gunnamatta Pl, Kelmscott

Very concerned that with the proposed increase in housing density, traffic on Railway Ave would become unbearable. Have lived at this address for 13 years, in which time traffic has doubled to the point where it is dangerous.

TPS No 4 encourages use of the metropolitan rail service as an alternative to car based travel. Area is Residential R15 in TPS 2 and proposed as R15/40 in TPS No 4 with development at the higher density dependant on satisfying a range of criteria including access under the Residential Density policy. The area is proposed as R15/40 density coding due to its ease of access by public transport and services in accordance with sound town planning principles and state government policy. Railway Ave is an important distributor road irrespective of the development immediately abutting.


RE25 A & J Robertson 270 South Western Hwy ARMADALE WA 6112

9 Lensham Pl, Armadale

Two units on subject property would fit in with the Dale Cottages development and would be close to employment opportunities.

Area is proposed as R40 so a planning application would be necessary for development of 2 units.


156


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE26 *

F G Watson 68 Excalibur Circ WESTFIELD WA 6111

68 Excalibur Circ, Westfield

a) Object as there is nothing to cause objections and no detail in the proposal. Council will feel enabled to proceed on the basis there was little opposition to their plans.

b) What plans does the City have to provide a pedestrian crossing and right turning lanes on Albany Hwy in Kelmscott? If an accident occurs the submittee hopes Armadale Council will be sued for a lack of ‘duty of care’. Council needs to stop planning and start implementing Kelmscott plans.

c) What is happening to Lake Rd railway crossing? Closing the Lake Rd crossing will place additional traffic through the already busy Denny Ave crossing.

d) Frequently ratepayers must object after something is a ‘fait accompli’ like a Buddhist Temple on land scheduled for private housing.

a) Draft TPS 4 was open for submissions for 3 months and people were able to submit reasonable objections to any part of the proposal.

b) Submittee informed that Albany Hwy is MRWA’s responsibility, that the City is working with them to provide a pedestrian crossing in Kelmscott and that draft TPS 4 concerns zoning and development control rather than road details.

c) Submittee informed that Lake Rd is the WAPC’s responsibility and that it is to be closed and replaced by the Tonkin Hwy crossing.

d) A ‘Place of Worship’ is a use that can be considered at Council’s discretion in the Residential zone under TPS 2. The temple was considered in the same manner as a church and was advertised to surrounding landowners.


RE27 F G Watson 68 Excalibur Circ WESTFIELD WA 6111

68 Excalibur Circ, Westfield

The submittee considers it time to stop planning and start implementing Kelmscott Plans. A crossing over Albany Hwy was proposed to Council early in 2001 and we are still planning and waiting.

It is noted that much of the development required in Kelmscott is for private land and needs to be investor driven. The scheme will facilitate development providing better standards of built form. The City is pursuing funding avenues for upgrading of public facilities and will seek to work cooperatively with MRWA and the Public Transit Authority to provide improved road and rail crossings. See comments on submission RE26.


157


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


RE28 *

Dykstra & Associates 6/2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111 On behalf of owner H McNamara

38 Gribble Ave, Armadale

a) Request that subject lot be changed to a zoning of Residential R40 based on the following reasons –

The discretion to approve a development of up to R40 has been removed and not replaced under draft TPS 4;

The subject land is of ideal size and shape;

Land is well located to facilities and public transport;

Landowner has given up land for a local road reserve;

Doing so would not create a precedent; The LPS provides opportunity for varied

housing types; The LPS provides for R40 development

within 400m of commercial centres; and, Land has required infrastructure.

b) Advertised Scheme Map erroneously depicts the road reserve at Terrigal Way and the adjoining Parks and Recreation Reserve as Residential.

a) The subject property is located in a residential area that is coded R15 TPS No 2 and is also proposed R15 under TPS No 4. Under TPS 2 the density bonus for group dwellings could apply up to R40, however, this was conditional upon certain policy requirements being met and generally required to be 10 above the R code. Clause 5.2.4 of TPS No 4 allows for group dwellings to be considered similarly to the provisions of TPS No 2. While there may be merit in considering increasing the Coding for the subject property, similar arguments could be presented for much of West Armadale. It is appropriate to apply a consistent approach and not agree to ad hoc up coding on a lot by lot basis.

b) It is depicted this way under current TPS 2 however, the finalisation of scheme 4 will apply the correct zoning.

That the submission be supported in part by modifying the scheme maps by identifying Terrigal Way as an unzoned road reserve, but that the submission to rezone the land from R15 to R40 be not supported.

RE29 S Brownsdon 204 Streich Ave ARMADALE WA 6112

204 Streich Ave, Armadale

The rezoning of the area that includes subject property should go ahead. It is advisable to rebuild on the land before houses get so old that extensive refurbishment is necessary or they become dangerous or unsightly.

The proposed density of R25 enables some properties to subdivide or support 2 group dwellings and gives incentives for redevelopment of the areas aging housing stock.


RE30 D Willoughby & N Behrendt 2957 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 44 (2957) Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

Concerned that even though the zoning seems to indicate a development potential for a future subdivision, that this would not be allowed because property has only Albany Hwy frontage and no alternative access to a side street. On the other hand larger lots may be more valuable in the future.

The area is currently zoned Residential R10 and is proposed as Residential R15/40 (“Dual Code Area Coded R15/40 and relevant policies are PLN 5.1 Highway Development and PLN 3.1 Residential Density Development) – maintenance of traffic safety and access is an important criteria that must be maintained by the new scheme. The zoning allows potential development but only if site conditions and a coordinated plan can be prepared for a range of issues, including safe access.

That the submission be noted in that land coded R15/40 would require careful consideration to address access issues where abutting Albany Highway.

158


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


COMMERCIAL (Submissions C1 to C20)

C1 Dykstra &Associates 6/2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111 On behalf of Intrepid Bay and Willbury Holdings

Lots 1 & 2 Albany Hwy and Lot 23 Derry Ave, Mt Nasura

Request the subject land be included as an Additional Use to facilitate development for grouped dwellings, office, shop and restaurant. Land is located on Highway (highly visible) and opposite the Armadale City Centre. It is proposed that an innovative and quality two storey development be constructed including car parking (basement), office and residential (lot 2), restaurant (lot 1) and landscaping with entry and exit points to both Albany Highway and Derry Avenue. The proposal would provide a transitional interface between residential land and the highway, would offer comprehensive design, provide a landmark development in the visible gateway location, vitality, remove an unsightly scar, and provide mixed uses which will help to invite the focus towards the City Centre. Indicative development plans are attached to the submission.

The proposal raises issues associated with the way in which commercial activity can be confined to the City Centre. While it is acknowledged that this is a highly visible site, its development for commercial uses will inevitably set a precedent for many sites on Albany Highway and this would detract from the future development of the City Centre and diminish the amenity of the Highway. A home business type of development is appropriate in Residential zones and would be an “A” use in the Residential zone under TPS No. 4. However the proposal is for shop, office and restaurant and even if permitted only as part of a residential development would be a significant precedent for ribbon development along Albany Highway and out of the Strategic Regional Centre. While commercial uses could have undesirable implications for this location, higher density residential could be appropriate in view of the possibility of alternative access to Albany Highway. The current coding is R15, however R15/40 would be appropriate in this location and the scheme could be amended accordingly.

That the submission be not supported in most part but that the lot be recoded from R15 to R15/40.

C2 Dykstra &Associates 6/2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111 On behalf of Newell Nominees


Objects to the removal of commercial zoning from a portion of Lot 111. TPS No. 2 indicated a small area as Commercial and the opportunity to expand the adjoining commercial development onto the subject land should be retained. The lot is largely zoned Rural D under TPS 2 with a small portion included in Special Use Zone No. 56. A previous approval for commercial development (tourist facility / confectionary kitchen and sales outlet) was granted that has not been constructed. Land is zoned Rural under the MRS. The front of the lot is in keeping with the adjoining commercial centre. The land at the front is unsuited to rural uses and is isolated from the rural use of the lot and more logically is part of the commercial precinct. The rezoning would potentially devalue the land.

The subdivision of Lot 111 to excise and create Lot 110 was granted on the premise that future development of tourist uses (as part of SU Zone No. 56) would be contained entirely on Lot 110. SU Zone No. 56 is restricted to tourist based shops and offices not exceeding a combined total floor area of 420m2. The current development comprises 420m2 and accordingly no further development of the zone would be permitted for commercial uses under TPS No. 2. TPS No. 4 has deleted Special Use No 56 transferring Lot 110 into a Local Centre zone. While it may appear that a portion of Lot 111 has been down zoned, in fact it had no commercial development potential under TPS No. 2 under the terms of the Special Use zone. Accordingly the provision of a Local Centre Zone over a portion of Lot 111, as requested in the submission, would effectively provide a considerable “up zoning” of the site. The continuation of the Special Use zone from Lot 110 (on which is located the Tourist Village) to Lot 111 occurred as a result of a past subdivision, Council at its

That the submission be not supported in view of there having been no commercial development potential under the previous Special Use Zone No. 56.

159


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


The front portion should be zoned Local Centre to serve the future needs of Roleystone.

meeting on 15 May 2000 while determining the DA for Lot 111 (to permit a tourist facility / confectionary kitchen and sales outlet) resolved that consideration of a modification to the Scheme Map be given during preparation of TPS No. 4. The uses previously approved for the site were approved under the Rural D zoning as a Use not Listed - being considered compatible with the Rural character. Such an approach could similarly be adopted to a use not listed under Clause 4.4 of TPS No. 4. This lot was subject to a subdivision application in 2002 which was refused by the WAPC as creating lots that would be too small and the land was unsuited to further subdivision, but the application was approved on appeal to the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal in July 2003.

C3 Shrapnel UrbanPlanning Suite 18, 336 Churchill Ave SUBIACO WA 6008 On behalf of Navara Estates, City Choice Holdings, Mr DiFlorio, Bongiovanni Nominees and Peak Petroleum.

Various lots in northern Forrestdale

A review of the Retail Hierarchy Review has been undertaken to take account of additional information relating to additional expected population growth in Zones 461 and 462 following identification of more land with urban potential arising from recently initiated MRS amendments and the expectation that land in Zone 460 will occur at a faster rate. Findings include: Centre on Ranford and Wright could

accommodate an additional 1000m2 – category N3

Centre on Armadale and Nicholson to change from L2 to N1

Recategorise some local centres, to L2 local centres which are in effect corner stores of 100-250m2

Recategorise ERADE Village centre from L2 to L3 (250-600m2)

Recategorise Forrestdale townsite centre from L4 to L3

The main Neighbourhood Centre at Keane and Nicholson Road is confirmed as 7,500m2 (N4).

Various landowners have commissioned the author of the City’s Retail Hierarchy Review to review the impact revised population forecasts arising from recent amendments would have on the Centres Hierarchy. It has been concluded that while the main centre would be retained as planned, there is additional scope to upgrade the potential of the centre at Ranford / Wright Road Centre from N2 to N3, and the centre at Armadale / Nicholson from small local centre (L) to small Neighbourhood Centre (N1). Because of the expected difficulty of developing small centres beyond a corner store some have been slightly downgraded. The consultant has used his retail model to calculate the impact of the changed population catchments in a consistent and acceptable manner suggesting that there should be no objection to this later work forming the basis for revision to the adopted Retail Hierarchy Review.

That the submission be supported and the Retail Hierarchy Review, which was advertised for public comment with TPS No. 4, be amended in accordance with the submission from Shrapnel Urban Planning.

160


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C4 Chappell andLambert PO Box 796 SUBIACO WA 6904 On behalf of the owners of Lot 12, Pt Lot 116 and Pt Lot 115 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 12, Pt Lot 116 & Pt Lot 115 Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

Request District Centre Restricted Use No 1 zoning over the subject land. The land is proposed under TPS No. 4 to be zoned R15/40. Arguments for rezoning include: location immediately south of the District

Centre, close to the station land is in large parcels the rezoning would enable less intense

uses such as showrooms and offices which would complement the centre.

The land opposite is proposed to be zoned Restricted Uses

There is poor residential amenity in view of the Albany Highway frontages.

Each of the three lots are of approximately 4200m2 in extent. They are located south of the area zoned District Centre and opposite land zoned for District Centre Restricted Use. The commercial zonings have tended to extend south of Davis Road as the result on ad hoc Special Use amendments made to TPS No. 2. In preparing TPS No. 4 these were regularized to allow for District Centre zoning south of Davis Road to the subject land on the west of the Highway and District Centre Restricted Uses on the eastern side. There is some logic in extending the Restricted Use zone to the subject property as the land orientates more to the Highway than does the land to the south, which orientates to Ottaway Street. However, there is a risk that there will be an oversupply of land for showrooms, offices, medical centres, consulting rooms, trade display and restaurants. Certainly the land will remain with potential for residential uses (grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings remain as “D” uses). The subject lots were identified in the Kelmscott Enquiry By Design as being in the same category as the uses on the eastern side of Albany Highway (i.e. “Bulky Goods Commercial”). There may be merit is supporting the extension of the Restricted Use Zone to the subject properties.

That the submission be supported and that Lot 12, Pt Lot 116 and Pt Lot 115 Albany Highway Kelmscott be included in the District Centre – Restricted Use zone as indicated in the Kelmscott Enquiry by Design report.

C5 *

Chappell and Lambert PO Box 796 SUBIACO WA 6904 On behalf of the owner of Lots 106 and 107 Wright Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lots 106 & 107 Wright Rd, Forrestdale

The subject land has been subject of TPS No. 2 Amendment No. 187 to rezone the land to Shopping and Showroom. The Centre Plan for the Village Centre is included with the submission along with a report by Shrapnel Urban Planning regarding the review of the Retail Hierarchy Review and the Minutes of the City of Gosnells consideration of the centre on 9 July 2002. Subsequent review of the catchments has provided justification for the Neighbourhood Centre in this locality to grow to 4500-6500m2. The Centre Plan provides for 1000m2 retail floorspace with a specified mix of uses. More specifically the Showroom area has a list of specific uses listed and it is requested that TPS

It is accepted that revised population forecasts for North Forrestdale should be taken into account and reflected in the retail modelling. The revisions calculated by Shrapnel Urban Planning are appropriate and therefore there is justification in amending the designation in the Retail Hierarchy Review from N2 to N3. It should be noted that the allocation of retail space to this centre has already been largely allocated to the City of Gosnells side of Ranford Road (notwithstanding the City’s objection). The submission suggests that the current rezoning for the subject land should be reflected in TPS No. 4, this is accepted. However it is also suggested that the land be zoned Industrial Business under TPS No.4. This could have merit, although Local Centre (with

That the submission be supported in part and, subject to the finalization of the Amendment No. 187 to TPS No. 2 concerning the subject land, the land be included within the Local Centre zone, Schedule 12 No. 8 be amended to include provisions relating to the subject land and the Special Control Area Map be extended to include the subject land.

161


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


No.4 allows for a continuation of these uses. While the designation of the land at the corner of Wright and Ranford as a Local Centre is supported it is foreshadowed that an increase in retail area from 1000 to 2000m2 can now be justified following modelling. However as of the uses envisaged it is considered that zoning of the showroom area for Industrial Business would be appropriate. Because the association with “industry” may cause community concern it is suggested that the zone name change to “Business”. It is submitted that the definitions of Hardware Timber Sales, which is found in TPS 2 but not in TPS 4, be included and be permitted in the Industrial Business zone. The definition of Bulk Retail (incorporating a 300m2 minimum floorspace) should also be included in TPS 4 and included as a use class.

uses prescribed under the Centre Plan) would be more appropriate if associated with the Centre Plan which would prescribe uses to ensure that the disposition of retail and non-retail areas was clearly identified. The Centre Plan prepared under TPS No. 2 Amendment 187 specifies the acceptable uses in the Showroom zone and requires that the showroom uses to have a minimum floor area of 300m2. The Centre Plan will continue to have currency under TPS No. 4 if the area is included as a Structure Plan Area. It is considered that there will not be a need to define Bulk Retail because it will in effect be prescribed through the provisions of the Centre Plan which will be a requirement of areas likely to attract Bulk Retail.

C6 Serene PasturesP/L C/- M Dunsmore 2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Lot 70 Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

The proposed District Centre, Restricted Use zone for south Kelmscott should be extended to include the subject property.

The subject property is located adjacent to Seasons Funerals (Armitage Road). The latter has created parking problems since the commencement of its operation. The funeral parlour is considered to have insufficient parking for its operation as a funeral chapel and if arrangements could be made with the owners of Lot 70 to accommodate funeral parking then there would be merit in extending the District Centre, Restricted Use zoning over the property subject to necessary safeguards to secure the provision of parking dedicated to the funeral parlour. It should be noted that while Lot 70 is zoned Residential under TPS No. 4 it is included in the Kelmscott Restricted Use Zone under Schedule 3.

That the submission be supported and Lot 70 Albany Highway Kelmscott be included in the District Centre – Restricted Use zone providing Council is satisfied that arrangements are in place to secure parking for the adjacent Funeral Parlour, and by the establishment of a new condition that the sites be amalgamated.

162


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C7 Peter CannDevelopment Consulting Unit 4, Howard St FREMANTLE WA 6160 On behalf of Competitive Foods (Hungry Jacks and KFC)

Lot 11 Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

Object to the inclusion of the lot in District Centre – Restricted Use area. The lot was previously part of the

Kelmscott Hotel car park In 1986 the site was rezoned Special Use

No 48 Restaurants in conjunction with the hotel redevelopment and road modifications. The proposed zoning is a significant departure from the agreement between the Council and the landowner.

Two fast food restaurants were approved in 1986 to enable the development of a Hungry Jacks and relocated KFC (which is intended within 3 years).

It is a logical extension to the District Centre.

The proposed zoning restricts the use to a limited range of landuses, mostly not in demand. The site is unsuited to residential, civic or exhibition uses and there are plenty of childcare, medical and school facilities in the area. The request has been lodged to rezone the land “Shopping”. It would be appropriate to allow showrooms on the site.

Special Use No. 48 under TPS No. 2 allows for the development of the site with restaurants. While the land is zoned for Restaurants, take away foods would not be permitted under the TPS No. 2 Special Use zone. In view of Restaurant being a use that is permitted along with a range of other uses under TPS No. 4, the flexibility has considerably broadened to the uses currently permitted. While it is acknowledged that the submitter made application to rezone the land to Shopping, this has not progressed. The Kelmscott Enquiry by Design identified the site as within the Northern Gateway which would set the tone for visitors perceptions of Kelmscott as a whole. For this reason uses such as car-orientated drive through uses such as fast foods and bulky goods retailing were considered not appropriate. It is considered that the zoning under TPS No.4 provides additional development opportunities to those available under TPS No. 2 and that the land not be zoned to allow for shops and showrooms.


163


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C8 Peter CannDevelopment Consulting Unit 4, Howard St FREMANTLE WA 6160 On behalf of Q Property Australia

Lots 3, 13 & 51 Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

Object to the inclusion of the lot in District Centre – Restricted Use area. Land rezoned under Amendment 189 to Special Use Showroom (finalized December 2003). Proposed zoning only allows Showroom

as a discretionary use whereas under the current zoning showrooms are permitted

Proposed zoning does not allow for retail garden centre whereas under current zoning it is incidental.

The current zone reflects the Kelmscott EbD

While the proposed zone offers more uses, these are unlikely to be developed in this location

Warehouse use is not permitted in proposed zone although permitted as incidental use currently.

Amendment No. 189 changed Special Use zone No. 6 from Indoor Sports, Fitness and Health Centre to Showroom. The submission’s main concern is that showrooms need to have the option of including retail garden centres and warehouses as incidental uses or their development potential will be severely restricted. TPS No.4 makes provision at 4.4.4 for Incidental use approval and incidental storage would be allowed in any event so there would not be a need to separately allow for warehouses as an incidental use in the Zoning Table. Certainly there would be some concern if Warehouses were to be an allowable use throughout the District Centre for such uses as predominant uses are best located in Industrial zones. There may be merit in amending the provisions to accommodate Retail Garden Centres as requested in the submission. It is argued that showrooms should be P rather than D, however, it is reasonable for such uses to be discretionary to ensure that Council retains tight control over design thus ensuring that the amenity of Kelmscott is protected.

That the submission be supported in part and that “Garden Centre - Retail” be deleted from the list of Not Permitted uses in Schedule 3 No. 1, but that the submission be not supported in respect of amending “showroom” from “D” to “P” and including “Warehouse” as an allowable use in the District Centre zone.

164


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C9 *

B Armstrong ING Real Estate PO Box 7737 Cloisters Square PERTH WA 6000

N/A Opposed to Section 6B “Development Contribution Areas”. The clause may discourage investment in Armadale as owners can be levied for significant infrastructure expenditure they do not have control over and may not benefit them. Question whether Council has the legal power to enforce the provisions and whether they are consistent with WAPC policy. WAPC PB 18 aims to provide levies upon subdivision whereas the proposed clauses could relate to developments. Strongly supports the Retail Hierarchy Review – particularly in terms of support for the Strategic Regional Centre and the wording that “there should be no DDS at Kelmscott”. Support the Review’s statements on the role of local centres as generally they are not viable – a concern that will grow in the future as bigger centres trading longer hours.

The provisions included in Clause 6B are consistent with the standard Model Scheme Text endorsed by the WAPC for Development Contributions and relate to areas where a Development Contribution Area has been identified on the Special Control Area Maps. This does not apply to the Central Area of Armadale which is of concern to ING (the CBD is subject to the ARA). As standard provisions there is no clear reason why they should not be enforceable within the clearly defined areas to which they apply. They also only continue an existing arrangement for the City Centre under the current TPS No. 3. Support for the Retail Hierarchy Review should be noted.

That the submission be not supported in respect of the Development Contribution Areas. That the support for the Retail Hierarchy Review be noted.

C10 V & L Cutri 194 Peet Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

Lots 113, 114, 115 & 2977 Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

Request that the subject land (corner of Foster Road and Albany Highway) be rezoned as District Centre with Additional Use as is proposed for land directly opposite. Proposed zoning is inconsistent with current use. Lots in this locality should be zoned District Centre as they are unsuited to residential use.

The subject land is proposed R25 whereas the land on the east of Albany Highway is proposed District Centre – Restricted Use. The land is currently zoned Residential R12.5. The Kelmscott Enquiry by Design did not extend this far south and it would be inappropriate to encourage further commercial development along the Highway purely on the grounds that residences should not abut a highway as obviously there are many instances where such development is most suitable.


C11 E Cutri77 Pangourne St WEMBLEY WA 6014

Lots 113, 114, 115 & 2977 Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

Identical to submission C10. See comment on submission C10. That the submission be not supported.

165


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C12 BSD Consultants2 Bagot Rd SUBIACO WA 6008 On behalf of BP Australia

BP Service Station, 3249 (Lot 10) Albany Hwy, Armadale

Lot is currently zoned Special Use - Service Station, and under TPS No.4 is proposed for R15/40 with Additional Use - Service Station. Request more uses to be listed (convenience store and fast food outlet limited to 90m2 floor area and a car wash – subject to acoustic consultant’s report demonstrating compliance with EP Noise Regulations 1997) to enable future development for modern service station. Definition of Service Station will be modified under TPS No.4 by excluding a shop and cafeteria that is currently incidental. 1999 proposal included restaurant and convenience store which would have been permitted subject to a DA (CoA advice was to that effect).

The subject land is zoned Special Use No. 65 under TPS No. 2. The use permitted is a Service Station. Under TPS No. 4 the lot is included as an Additional Use (27) service station. The difference between the two schemes lies in the definition of “Service Station” in that under TPS No.2 a Shop or Cafeteria may be approved if incidental to the predominant use whereas under TPS No. 4 such uses may be approved if of a convenience retail nature but it would be assumed that a Shop or Cafeteria would be of a far more limited nature. In respect of a car wash, TPS No.2 does not define the term whereas TPS No. 4 includes a definition for Motor Vehicle Wash and defines it as where a premises is primarily used for washing motor vehicles which would not be what would be proposed on the subject land. In the case of both schemes a car wash could be considered as a Use Not Listed and approved equally under both schemes, however, there may be uncertainty regarding these interpretations suggesting that clarity be provided directly through the amendments to the Additional Use table. The siting of the service station in this location on Albany Highway is considered appropriate and some scope to modernize and provide limited expansion subject to Council approval could be allowed for.

That the submission be supported and that the Additional Uses be extended to include (subject to Council approval) convenience store and fast food (limited to 90m2 floor area) with car wash (subject to acoustic consultant’s report demonstrating compliance with EP Noise Regulations 1997) as an incidental use.

C13 A O’Neill 15 Melanda St KELMSCOTT WA 6111

2953 Albany Hwy, Kelmscott

No complaints. City to be commended for actually doing something to improve Kelmscott.

The submission supports the scheme. That the submission’s support for the scheme be noted.

166


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C14 R Dixon Koltasz Smith 10 Leigh St BURSWOOD WA 6100

Lot 600 Armadale Rd, Armadale

a) Area of Lot 600 north of Neerigen Brook should be rezoned to Local Centre, reflecting the structure plan and development approval for a neighbourhood shopping centre approved after public consultation periods.

b) An area of Lot 600 fronting Eighth Road south of Neerigen Brook has been approved as a retirement village and can remain residential zone and a subdivision is proceeding.

c) The conditions of development relating to the current West Armadale Centre are being progressed and Council can confidently rezone the existing centre to residential also. A separate submission will be made on behalf of the existing West Armadale centre owners.

a) Given the recent approvals for a commercial centre Council could modify the scheme to change the zoning the area of Lot 600 north of Neerigen Brook and fronting Armadale Road to Local Centre zone.

b) In view of the previous deliberations involving public consultation, regarding the structure plan and development approval, it is recommended Council consider recoding the density from R15 to R25.

c) Under the advertised draft TPS4, which proposes a Local Centre zoning for the existing site of the West Armadale Shopping Centre, residential development for Group and Multiple Dwellings can be approved at a density at the City’s discretion. However, given the current development approval for a Local Centre on Lot 600 Armadale Road and the legal agreement the owners of the current West Armadale centre and the City, it is appropriate to rationalise the zoning of the existing centre by modifying the scheme to Residential zone R40 and identifying the site as a Development Area on the Special Control Area maps. Existing uses will maintain rights of Non-Conforming Use and the Structure Planning process will provide for further consultation with the community prior to significant redevelopment of the site. It is considered that the currently vacant Lot 4 in the Local Centre zone is likely to be developed for medium density housing and it is appropriate to also include Lot 4 and the current medical centre land and tyre service station land in the structure plan area.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map for the area of Lot 600 located north of Neerigen Brook to indicate a Local Centre zone, the area south of Neerigen Brook to R40 and the parts of the current West Armadale centre in the ownership of the parties to the legal agreement with the City, to the Residential R40 zone, reflecting existing uses and / or existing zonings under TPS 2 for the balance of the West Armadale centre land to: a. Lot 12 and lot 13 (existing shopping centre) to be modified on scheme map as Residential R40; Lot 21 (tyre and battery service station currently Special Use zone for service station under TPS No 2) to be modified on scheme map as Residential R40 with a new Additional Use for tyre and battery sales and service; b. Lot 4 (vacant) to remain Local Centre zone as advertised; c. Lot 5 (medical centre) to remain Local Centre zone as advertised. d. It is recommended to identify all the above lots as a Development Area on the Special Control Area maps to encourage coordinated redevelopment.

167


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C15 Neerigen BrookEstate P/L PO Box 378 MELVILLE WA 6156

Lot 600, Armadale Rd, Armadale

Area of Lot 600 north of Neerigen Brook to be rezoned to Local Centre, reflecting approved structure plan and development application for a neighbourhood shopping centre.

Refer to comments for submission C14. That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme maps to zone the area of Lot 600 north of Neerigen Brook to Local Centre zone.

C16 WoodfieldEnterprises P/L PO Box 378 MELVILLE WA 6156

Lot 600 Armadale Rd and the West Armadale shopping centre, Armadale

The submittees advise they are the owners of the West Armadale shopping centre. A structure plan and development application have been approved on Lot 600 Armadale Rd, Armadale, conditional upon the closure of the West Armadale Shopping Centre. This requirement is progressively being dealt with and given the timeframe for draft TPS 4, Council can be confident in rezoning the subject land to Residential R40 or higher.

Refer to comments for submission C14.

That the submission be supported by modifying the scheme map for the parts of the current West Armadale centre in the ownership of the parties to the legal agreement with the City, to the Residential R40 zone, reflecting existing uses and / or existing zonings under TPS 2 for the balance of the West Armadale centre land to: Lot 12 and lot 13

(existing shopping centre) to be modified on scheme map as Residential R40; Lot 21 (tyre and

battery service station currently Special Use zone for service station under TPS No 2) to be modified on scheme map as Residential R40 with a new Additional Use for tyre and battery sales and service; Lot 4 (vacant) to

remain Local Centre zone as advertised; Lot 5 (medical centre)

to remain Local Centre zone as advertised. It is recommended to

identify all the above lots as a Development Area on the Special Control Area maps to encourage coordinated redevelopment.

168


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C17 Intrepid Bay & M & M Dunsmore C/- John O’Neil & Son 2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111


a) The following uses are considered passive and should not be included in the ‘Restricted Use’ list for the southern end of the Kelmscott District Centre – Auction Mart, Convenience Store, Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar, Motor Vehicle Repair, Motor Vehicle / Boat / Caravan Sales, and shop.

b) No’s 2938 and 2942 Albany Hwy have recently had showrooms approved without these restrictions and exclusions, so there will be inequality.

a. The uses have been restricted from the southern area of Kelmscott to consolidate the town centre and reduce sprawl in accordance with the conclusions of the KEBD workshop report findings. However, it is considered that Auction Mart and Motor vehicle, boat and caravan sales are reasonable inclusions as D (discretionary uses) in this area and a modification be made to the text. b. The recent rezoning of No’s 2938 and 2942 Albany Hwy are under TPS No 2, whereas under the District Centre Zone – Restricted Use Area (R No 1) for the Kelmscott South Mixed Business Area of TPS No 4, these properties will also have the same restrictions applied to them as the surrounding lots in the same zone precinct so there will be no inequality.

That the submission be supported in part by modifying the text to designate Auction Mart and Motor vehicle, boat and caravan sales as D discretionary uses in the District Centre Zone – Restricted Use Area (R No 1) for the Kelmscott South Mixed Business Area.

C18 Dmietrieff P/L & S Melville C/- 2954 Albany Hwy KELMSCOTT WA 6111


Identical to submission C17. See comments on submission C17. That the submission be supported in part by modifying the text to designate Auction Mart and Motor vehicle, boat and caravan sales as D discretionary uses in the District Centre Zone – Restricted Use Area (R No 1) for the Kelmscott South Mixed Business Area.

C19 Taylor BurrellBarnett 187 Roberts Rd SUBIACO WA 6008 On behalf of the Parsons Group


a) Council initiated Amendment No 193 in March 2004 proposing lot 104 (2944) Albany Hwy Kelmscott to Special Use – Showroom.

b) Request that TPS 4 be modified to reflect A193 rezoning to Showroom, which is consistent with the intent of the Local Planning Strategy and proposed zoning under draft Scheme 4.

The Kelmscott EBD workshop indicated the southern part of the district centre as appropriate for showroom developments and this is reflected in the Kelmscott South - District Centre Restricted zone of TPS No 4 identified in Schedule 3, which has Showroom as a discretionary use so that reasonable design and amenity standards can be maintained. However, recent subdivision / amalgamation requires updating of property details in Schedule 3. See comments on submission C17 in respect to increasing the discretionary uses.

That the submission be supported by updating of property details in Schedule 3 of text to reflect lot 104 Albany Highway.

169


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


C20 P Bloomfield PO Box 266 ARMADALE WA 6112

40 Fifth Rd, Armadale

Attended the public meeting at Council offices, which was informative. Submittee congratulates Council on producing a coherent Scheme. Rezoning of subject area from Deferred to Mixed Business / Residential is appreciated. It is appropriate that land within walking distance of the railway station / post office / shops be developed for high quality density / terrace houses.

The proposed Mixed Business / Residential area should improve the situation under the City Centre Deferred zoning under Town Planning Scheme No. 3 by offering incentives for redevelopment and thereby boosting the City Centres population catchment and supporting employment creation.


MISCELLANEOUS (Submissions M1 to M32)

M1 Taylor BurrellBarnett 187 Roberts Rd SUBIACO WA 6008 On behalf of Peet Syndicates

250ha of land owned by Peet Oakford land syndicate, Peet Adios Syndicate, and Peet Forrestdale Syndicate.

Support the Local Planning Strategy in terms of the City’s philosophy of future urban development of the Brookdale region and the emphasis on strategic planning relating to the District Structure Plan. The Strategy should be approved in its current form.

The support for the City’s approach to planning for the future development of its western regions should be noted.


M2 *

R Forrest Water Corporation Land Development Branch PO Box 100 LEEDERVILLE WA 6902

N/A a). Request that Clause 1.5 and 1.6 (purposes and aims of the Scheme) include additional clauses relating to servicing, provision of compatible land uses near infrastructure and the promotion of water sensitive design. b). While some of WC assets are in reserves, some are freehold and need to be covered in the Scheme. c). The Zoning Table should contain “public utilities” class as a discretionary use. d). Requested that a statement be provided in Part 5 relating to Development Abutting Infrastructure of Licensed Serviced Providers. The clause would require Council to have regard to the necessary buffers around infrastructure and refer DAs to the relevant service provider. e). Clause 5.10 – Drainage and water sensitive design – which advocates use of best management practices, should not be seen as

a). While it is not surprising that the Water Corporation would seek to protect their assets, Clause 1.5 is a direct copy of the Model Scheme Text. The suggested additions would see the aims of the Scheme as promoting compatible land uses around infrastructure and promoting water sensitive design. While these may be important, they were not identified as being the City’s strategic priorities as described in the Local Planning Strategy. b). No information is provided regarding which WC freehold properties should be identified. c). “Public Utilities” is generally not a use class and is not included in the MST as such. Public utilities would be considered as a use not listed in situations where approval was required. It should be noted that Section 32 of the Act relieves public authorities from the specific requirements of a town planning scheme. d). WC seeks to elevate its concerns to the central concerns of the Scheme by placing a long and complex clause in Part 5. The appropriate place to

That the submission from the Water Corporation be noted and: That clause 10.2(i) be amended to “the compatibility of use or development within its setting, taking into consideration any Special Control Area.” That the Water Corporation be advised that some of the matters raised in the submission have general implications to all schemes and would best be addressed in the review of the Model Scheme Text.

170


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


providing a complete picture in terms of drainage, particularly in terms of the areas covered by the District Structure Plan. f). There is no reference to potential pollution from existing agricultural uses in clauses 5B.6, 6.6, 6.9.2 and 6.9.3. Reference should be made to the need to manage environmental impacts by means of EPA legislation in the manner required under 5B.6.1 for Agriculture WA stocking rates. g). Part 6 - Special Control Areas – should be added to with a section explaining the purposes of the Special Control Areas relating to Environmental Hazard Impacts and the process by which applications should be assessed and the consultation obligations on the City prior to determining an application. h). Under Schedule 12, 25.4 it is noted that major event flood paths need to be identified with any subdivision proposals involving Water Corporation’s drains. i). Structure plans should promote sustainable development outcomes by inclusion of provisions to address total water cycle management strategy. j). Sections 6A.2.3(c) and (g) and 6A.3 should indicate that structure plans must not be approved until relevant regional stormwater management strategies have been developed for the entire Scheme area. k). It is noted that growth through redevelopment (as provided in Part 6B) may require additional headworks infrastructure requiring headworks contributions. l). In Part 8 where it sets out the circumstances where development approval is not required, it is recommended that the clause p) “normal servicing in zoned and reserved land” be added.

address matters relating to DAs would be Part 10 – Procedure for Dealing with Applications. e). It is agreed that specific requirements will have to be met through the approval process in the Forrestdale and Brookdale areas. No suggested changes are proposed to clause 5.10. f). The inclusion of cross references to other legislation in the Scheme should be avoided as it has no statutory purpose. Clause 5B.6.1 refers to Agriculture WA stocking rates because these are the standards to be applied by the Scheme. g). The structure of the Special Control Area section follows the Model Scheme Text. While it is possible to sympathise with the Water Corporation’s desire to protect its interests and ensure that its assets are protected, there is a risk of cluttering up the Scheme with additional clauses which are in effect redundant as procedures relating to dealing with development applications are addressed elsewhere in the Scheme and to amplify one Special Control Area would suggest the same approach for the other seven. h). The relevant clause of the Schedule reflects Amendment 170 of TPS No. 2. i). While it is agreed that structure plans should address water cycle issues, how they do so would depend on each situation and the suggestions from the Water Corporation suggesting best management practice are difficult to place within the Scheme. j). This is noted, however there may be some existing structure plan areas where this general approach would not apply. k). It is recognized that the Scheme only deals with Scheme costs – not Water Corporation headworks charges. l). A clause (h) is included in TPS No. 4 which addresses this concern – “any building or works undertaken by the City or a public authority in connection with the maintenance or improvement of a public utility or public land”. In any event protection is provided by S. 32 of the Act.

Accordingly Water Corporation should be advised to bring its concerns relating to protection of the Corporation from needing to seek approval for undertaking public work and the protection of its assets to the attention of the Commission.

171


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


m). It is recommended that Clause 10.2(i) be amended from “the compatibility of a use or development with its setting” to “the compatibility of use or development within its setting, taking into consideration any Special Control Area.” n). Schedule 12, 24.6 and 24.7 refer to the preparation of drainage and nutrient management plans prior to subdivision works, however this is not practical and should follow a regional stormwater management strategy. o). In reference to Schedule 13, 2, Armadale City Centre Development Area Contribution Plans, such a plan should address the environmental objectives implemented through an approved Stormwater Management Plan. p). The Water Corporation has noted that water supply is available to the scheme area subject to future upgrading requirements, and wastewater planning provides for all the densities equal to or greater than those proposed in the Scheme to allow for urban consolidation. In addition wastewater infrastructure planning has allowed for 8,500 residential properties in Roleystone.

m). It is agreed that the reference to Special Control Areas may have merit. n). The provisions reflect previous scheme amendment No. 183. o). This should be noted. p). It should be noted that the increases in density coding under TPS No. 4 can be accommodated by the Water Corporation – indeed in the Roleystone area, which is unsewered, the Water Corporation has capacity for four times the current number of dwellings! The submission by the Water Corporation is complex and has implications for schemes generally in Western Australia. It may be that the concerns of the Water Corporation arise from uncertainty whether its role as a Corporation to undertake public work is protected in the way it used to be under Section 32 of the Act. It would be appropriate for this matter to be considered in the review of the Model Scheme Text as it would not be appropriate for each town planning scheme to address the matter in a unique way.

M3 BSD Consultants 2 Bagot Rd SUBIACO WA 6008 On behalf of Chatham Nominees

Wirra Wirra, 3258 (Lot 7) Albany Hwy, Armadale

The Residential R15 zone fails to acknowledge and encourage the long-term preservation of the property’s botanical heritage significance. To facilitate preservation and sale of the property it is proposed that the land be zoned for tourist related uses. The 1994 Heritage Country Tourist Precinct document included the site within the Tourism Precinct within which a function centre could be permitted. Development for R15 could impact on the property’s historic gardens. An Additional Use zoning would be appropriate – to include restaurant, café, reception centre, retail garden centre and incidental tourism related use.

Lot 7 is 1.4 hectares in extent. It is included at A34 in the Municipal Heritage Inventory as Category A as a long established garden of mature exotic trees, an example which is rare to WA. The land has considerable prominence located at the key gateway to the City and deserves special treatment. There may be merit in the suggestion that the land be provided with potential for additional uses subject to special conditions and requirements that control the development of land to comply with an approved development plan. The provision for additional uses subject to such matters as design, landscaping, garden retention, public access, may be appropriate, however, vehicle access issues would arise as it may be difficult to allow for direct access from Albany Highway.

That the submission be supported and Lot 7 be included in the Additional Use Table for restaurant, café, reception centre and garden centre retail (with restrictions relating to motorized garden implements, prefabricated garden buildings and bulk garden products) and incidental tourism related use with appropriate requirements relating to landscaping, design, garden retention, public access and vehicle access to be to the satisfaction of the City and MRWA.

172


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M4 P KotsogloPlanning Solutions PO Box 1138 EAST VICTORIA PARK WA 6981 On behalf of Mobile Carriers Forum

N/A Generally support TPS No. 4 and the introduction of use class and interpretation of “telecommunications infrastructure”. Concern that telecommunications infrastructure is prohibited in the Residential and Special Residential zones. Council should have the ability to consider future applications for telecommunications infrastructure in residential zones on their merit particularly in view of the need to service all areas, the possibility of technological improvements, the avoidance of a proliferation of low impact facilities. Request that telecommunication infrastructure be listed as an “A” use in the zoning table. Scheme policies could be formulated to assist the City in determining applications.

Telecommunications Infrastructure is proposed as an “X” use in Residential and Special Residential zones and “A” in other zones with the exception of being “D” in the General Industry zone. This reflects general concern that significant telecommunications infrastructure would be contrary to residential amenity. It is noted that the town planning schemes for the Cities of Canning and Gosnells designate the use as “A” (discretionary after advertising for public comment). Other local governments generally treat the use as a use not listed and therefore in effect “A”. The WAPC has published Statement of Planning Policy No. 5.2 - Telecommunications Infrastructure – which provides policy guidance to the location and assessment of telecommunications infrastructure. The policy states that unless it is impractical to do so telecommunications towers should be located within commercial, business, industrial and rural areas and areas outside identified conservation areas and that there should be an equitable distribution among local communities. It is certainly the case that well sited large facilities could have less impact than a myriad of low impact facilities that the City would have no ability to control and in the developing areas there may be some merit in providing discretion to approve the use. On the other hand, prohibition of the use in residential areas avoids the potential for the type of community opposition that has arisen elsewhere. On balance it is considered that the nature of the City is such that there are sufficient Industrial, Commercial and Rural zones within which Telecommunications Infrastructure may be located to enable their location within residential zones to be restricted.

That the submission be not supported and Telecommunications Infrastructure be retained in the Zoning Table under the Residential and Special Residential Zones as “X”.

173


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M5 *

Stockland WA Development Pty Ltd PO Box 498 SOUTH PERTH WA 6951

Lots 3, 4, 14, 15 & 48 Nicholson Rd, Lots 113 & 114 Warton Rd and Lot 50 Wright Rd, Forrestdale

a) ERADE Village: Concern that some of the requirements of the TPS No. 4 Additional Use provisions are different from the requirements of TPS No. 2. TPS No.2 allows retail to 3,500m2 whilst TPS No.4 refers to the Retail Strategy which indicates ERADE Village as a Local 2 Centre (100-250m2). The L2 Centre would be insufficient to accommodate all the uses permitted as a result of Amendment No. 185 to TPS No. 2. b) North Forrestdale – This area is largely subject to MRS Amendment 1072/33 and TPS Amendment No. 190. The land should be automatically amended under TPS No. 4 rather than requiring a further amendment following finalization of the current MRS and TPS amendments. c) District and Regional Recreation Areas: Request that Council make a statement in the Local Planning Strategy that there needs to be a balance between conservation and the provision of active recreational facilities within regional open space. Specific ROS should be set aside in North Forrestdale for active recreation. d) Freight Routes: Request that Nicholson Road will no longer be designated as a freight route once the Tonkin and Roe Highways are completed.

a) ERADE Village: The provisions of the Additional Use Table are those adopted by Council as modifications to Amendment No. 185 to TPS No. 2. These modifications were in response to a submission by the proponent’s planning consultant (DPS) during the finalization of the amendment. However, through an administrative oversight the provisions gazetted by DPI did not incorporate the adopted modifications. In the preparation of TPS No. 4 it was considered to be appropriate to include the provisions as adopted by Council. The proposed provisions would enable development to occur in accordance with the local structure plan for the ERADE Village. In terms of retail modelling Shrapnel Urban Planning has concluded that the centre only has the ability to cater for the convenience needs of the future resident population of some 500m2. This designation as “L3” will be included in the revision to the Retail Hierarchy Review. b) North Forrestdale: It is agreed that following the finalization of the MRS and TPS amendments the revised zonings and provisions should be inserted into TPS No. 4. c) District and Regional Recreation Areas: It is agreed that there is a need to provide district and regional active recreation facilities. While a statement in the City’s Local Planning Strategy would not place an obligation on State authorities and to a degree the developer is responsible for district facilities the demand for which are created by the development, there may be merit in recognizing the need for a significant facility in the North Forrestdale locality. d) Freight routes: There is merit in amending section 4.9.6 of the Local Planning Strategy to include the suggested downgrading of Nicholson Road as a Freight route.

That the submission be not supported in respect of the provisions of Additional Use No. 35 in view of the need to reflect TPS No. 2 Amendment 185 as finally resolved by Council on 16 June 2003. That following the finalization of Amendment 190 the provisions be inserted into TPS No. 4. That the Local Planning Strategy be amended by adding at 5.4.9: “Promote the development on regional open space of a regional / district facility for active recreation needs in North Forrestdale”; and at 4.9.6: “Nicholson Road north of Armadale Road should not be designated as a Freight route once the Tonkin Highway is completed to Armadale Road.”

174


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M6 B McCubbing Shoreden Pty Ltd PO Box 268 NEDLANDS WA 6909

Lot 30 Twelfth Ave and Lot 31 Armadale Rd, Brookdale

The establishment on the Special Control Area Map of a one kilometre buffer around the Brookdale Sewerage Septage Treatment Plan is arbitrary and onerous and does not take account of the changed circumstances regarding the operation of the plant. The Water Corporation only require a 300m buffer around the plant and their modified advice has previously indicated a modified configuration. The buffer detrimentally impacts on Lot 30 Twelfth and Lot 31 Armadale Roads.

The one kilometre buffer would appear to be outdated in view of the commitments made to close the Brookdale treatment plant. However there is a need to ensure that the site can continue to operate as a pumping station. Recent advice during the consideration of development in the Forrestdale Business Park indicated that an acceptable buffer distance would be 300m from the boundary of the plant. Accordingly it would be appropriate to reduce the buffer to 300m from the plant boundaries. This would result in the proposed Golf Course Village (Lots 30 and 31) not being affected.

That the submission be supported and the buffer around the Brookdale Water Corporation plant shown on the Special Control Area Map be amended from 1km to 300m from the plant boundaries and that the Water Corporation be advised accordingly.

M7 *

Development Planning Strategies 388 Hay Street SUBIACO WA 6008 On behalf of the Dawkins family and Stockland WA Development Pty Ltd

Lots 3, 4, 14, 15 & 48 Nicholson Rd and Lots 113 & 114 Warton Rd, Forrestdale

Lots 3, 4, 14, 15 and 48 Nicholson and 113 and 114 Warton Roads are subject to current MRS and TPS amendments. This area should be automatically rezoned under TPS No.4 once the amendments are finalized. Support the list of uses under Additional Use No. 35 (ERADE Village). There is a need for active recreation areas in regional open space. The developers are providing linear open space and stormwater management within the area required to be set aside as POS – Council and WAPC must take a lead role in the provision of active recreational community facilities. Nicholson Road should be downgraded as a freight route in the event of the completion of the Tonkin and Roe Highways.

See comments on submission M5 above in respect of North Forestdale, District and Regional Recreation Areas and Freight routes.

That the submission be supported in part: That following the finalization of Amendment 190 the provisions be inserted into TPS No. 4. That the Local Planning Strategy be amended by adding at 5.4.9: “Promote the development on regional open space of a regional / district facility for active recreation needs in North Forrestdale”; and at 4.9.6: “Nicholson Road north of Armadale Road should not be designated as a Freight route once the Tonkin Highway is completed to Armadale Road.”

175


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M8 Chappell and Lambert PO Box 796 SUBIACO WA 6904 On behalf of landowners in North Forrestdale

Various lots in northern Forrestdale

In view of the pending finalization of MRS Amendment 1072/33 and TPS Amendment No. 190 it is requested that TPS No. 4 be modified to reflect the proposed Urban Development zone and the associated development provisions. The land is suited to urban development due to physical characteristics, servicing, access, state of planning and ownership.

The submission is on behalf of landowners who together own more than 250 hectares of land contained within the pending scheme amendments. It is intended that the current amendments be reflected in TPS No. 4 and unless there is some unforeseen delay, this should occur.

That the submission be supported and the provisions of TPS No. 2 Amendment No. 190 be reflected in TPS No. 4 upon finalization.

M9 Chappell and Lambert PO Box 796 SUBIACO WA 6904

Part Lot 2, 21 & 22 Nicholson Rd and Lot 334 Armadale Rd, Forrestdale

The subject land is included in MRS Amendment No. 1092/33 and a request will shortly be made to initiate an amendment to TPS No. 2. The proposal represents a logical rounding off of the larger amendment to the north, there are no impediments to urban development, land is capable of servicing, there is demand for the land, access is good, provision is being made to guide future development and the land is not fragmented into multiple ownerships. Should the MRS Amendment to finalized prior to the finalization of TPS No. 4 it would be appropriate to rezone the land “Urban Development”.

It is agreed that in the event of the MRS and the concurrent TPS No. 2 amendments being finalized in advance of TPS No. 4 then the amendment should be reflected in TPS No. 4.

That the submission be supported and in the event of the MRS and the concurrent TPS No. 2 amendments being finalized in advance of TPS No. 4, then the land be zoned Urban Development in TPS No. 4.

M10 Chappell and Lambert PO Box 796 SUBIACO WA 6904 On behalf of Mr & Mrs D’Orazio Lot 45 Wright Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

Lot 45 Wright Rd, Forrestdale

Lot 45 Wright Road is proposed to be zoned Rural Living X under TPS No. 4 presumably because the land is affected by the Environmental Management Area as depicted by the EPA Draft Guidance Statement No. 48. The landowners have investigated (through JDA Consultants) the impacts of development on wetlands to establish that the EMA boundary can be relocated to the alignment of Armadale Road west of Nicholson Road. Land east of Nicholson Road may now be rezoned. The consultant’s report (outlining how drainage would be managed, water sensitive design principles implemented and land developed) is currently being considered by the Department of Environment. Should the EMA boundary be relocated in the near future the submittee will request the Council to initiate amendments to the MRS and TPS.

The 40 hectare land parcel may be appropriate to include in a future amendment. However, it is currently premature to take it into account in the considerations relating to TPS No. 4 as the MRS amendment process is yet to commence.


176


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M11 *

Dr L H Pyke 25 Blaven Wy ARDROSS WA 6153

City of Armadale area generally

Submittee presents a viewpoint on additional areas TPS 4 could examine, including: a) Preserving the old town centres of Armadale and Kelmscott as heritage sites and tourist centres; b) Developing Brookdale as a road and rail hub for west Armadale; c) Use the eastern plateaux (in terms of multi objective engineering and commercial uses and eco-recreation pursuits in the water catchment areas) and investigate the possibility for international transport planning (airport); d) Recognition of future use of modern innovations, such as skycars, magnetic levitation, ground effects machines and vacuum pipes in transport and development planning; e) Exploitation of the geothermal potential of the Cardup slip zone (spas and bainotherapie); f) Increased use of high technology and interactive communications; g) Consideration of the effects of transport improvements in and from adjacent municipalities; h) Recognition of Armadale as a nodal point for the west coast megalopolis, with particular reference to the development of a ‘cyberplatform’; and i) Indication of more environmental safeguards to foster future communities, for instance removing toxic residue dumped in the past.

a) Draft TPS 4 has provisions for the protection of heritage sites, including the requirement to establish and maintain a heritage list and the ability to designate places or precincts as heritage areas. Draft TPS 4 requires applications for works associated with listed places. b) The planning for the future form and function of Brookdale is being undertaken by the Armadale Redevelopment Authority and as such the locality has been left out of draft TPS 4. This issue could be revisited by the ARA at the advertisement of their concept plan for Brookdale. c) The water catchments are primarily lands controlled by state government and are planned at the regional (MRS) level, as is the issue of new airports. d) If such technologies become available in the future, the repercussions will be for the state as a whole. As such, it would be more appropriate to investigate their integration into the Model Scheme Text on which all local Town Planning Schemes are based. The scheme is only a short to medium term plan. e) Refer response to point c). f) Refer response to point d). g) Council’s Technical Services directorate undertakes this role and acts accordingly for local links with the MRS addressing major routes eg Tonkin Highway. h) Refer response to point c). Armadale is a strategic Regional Centre. i) The Special Control Areas give Council a much clearer picture of environmental considerations than has been present under previous schemes and TPS 4 provisions protect the natural resources of the area.


M12 Western Power Lot 10 Prinsep Rd JANDAKOT WA 6164

N/A No objections, but Perth One Call Service must be contacted prior to any excavation and Worksafe requirements must be observed when excavation occurs near Western Power assets.

It is noted these are detailed development matters. That the submission’s support for the scheme be noted.

177


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M13 A & L Palacios 17 Wungong Rd ARMADALE WA 6112

17 Wungong Rd, Armadale

Object to the reopening of Wungong Rd onto Church Ave on the grounds that it would increase traffic and noise and present safety issues. Bought in the street because it was a culs-de-sac.

The intersection in question is under the control of the Armadale Redevelopment Authority’s Act and Redevelopment Scheme. The submission has been referred to the ARA.

That the submission’s reference to matters outside of the scheme area be noted.

M14 *

M Fernandes 14 Sittella Plza BROOKDALE WA 6112

14 Sittella Plza, Brookdale

a) Brookdale should be cleaned up of bad residents, particularly Homeswest (Dept. of Housing and Works) homes.

b) The area along Ninth Rd, Brookdale (white section of map) should become residential to allow the City to grow.

a) Noted that this is not a Scheme issue and the City has no control over tenants of Dept. of Housing and Works properties.

b) While the submission’s comment is supported no change is required to the scheme as the area is subject to the Armadale Redevelopment Authority Redevelopment Scheme and a concept plan will include residential development for this area and the balance of Brookdale as identified as future urban under the SRFBW DSP.

That the submission’s reference to matters outside of the scheme area be noted.

M15 J Haworth 26 Banyard Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

26 Banyard Ave, Kelmscott

Stop ripping the community off for progress. Also to pay for trips and celebrations. Be content and stop destroying nature. Council forgets God has more power than you and He is warning us.

While the submission does not refer to specific issues, the City has prepared draft TPS 4 with the community’s interest in mind, particularly in respect to better environmental controls than available under TPS 2.


M16 Trego P/L 8 Orlando Ave BIBRA LAKE WA 6163

11 Lisbon Cl, Armadale

Submittee requests that no day care centres be placed near them or they will lose business.

The subject land is located near to child care centres on Poad Street and Seville Drive. While no additional land is zoned for this use in the vicinity, such a use could be approved by Council under TPS No 4, if it met the requirements of the Child Minding Centre Policy. The Tribunal has determined that the City must assess all applications for Child Minding Centres made under the Scheme purely on planning merit and cannot take commercial issues into consideration.


M17 M Keenan 46 Pupuke Rd TAKAPUNA Auckland 9

93 (lot 7) Roberts Rd, Kelmscott

Appreciate the information, but as main residence is overseas, nothing to add.

Noted. That the submission be noted.

M18 A Metskaris 49 Kookaburra St STIRLING WA 6021

Lot 100 Allen Rd, Forrestdale

Approve of draft TPS 4. Noted. That the submission’s support for the scheme be noted.

178


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M19 J Chapman 47 Challenger Rd MADORA BAY WA 6210

246 Brookton Hwy, Kelmscott

The submittee requests that Brookton Hwy south of Chevin Rd be reclassified as a smaller secondary feeder road. Make Chevin Road the highway through to the Tonkin Hwy extension. The traffic volume on Brookton Hwy is a concern.

Brookton Hwy is MRWA’s responsibility and is a Primary Regional Road in the MRS. TPS 4 must reflect the regional reservations made by the MRS and may only control zoning and development outside of the area reserved in the MRS as major regional road and transport routes which are the responsibility of the state government..


M20 I de Niese 119 Girraween St ARMADALE WA 6112

119 Girraween St, Armadale

No comment. Presumed no objections to scheme That the submission’s support for the scheme be noted.

M21 K C Nominees Pty Ltd 53 Gilwell Ave KELMSCOTT WA 6111

52 & 54 (Lots 1 & 2) Gilwell Ave and Lot 3 Clifton St, Kelmscott

The properties on the corner of Gilwell Ave and Clifton Street have been used for industrial purposes since 1961 and the submittees want them to remain zoned as they currently are.

The properties are currently zoned Rural E under TPS No 2 and are proposed as Special Residential zone under TPS No 4. The Special Residential zone is considered more appropriate for the lots of approximately 1000m2 that are already existing in the area from historical subdivision and which are well below the 1ha minimum lot sizes considered appropriate for rural uses. In general terms, if a landuse has been approved under a previous scheme (eg in 1961 as claimed) and maintained continuously under the terms of the Non – conforming use rights of the scheme, the Non – conforming use rights would be maintained under the new scheme. It is understood the use of the property has been subject to recent compliance matters. Evidence of a non-conforming use right would have to be provided, however, non-conforming use rights are an entirely different matter than the zoning and there is no question of a current industrial zone on the property.


179


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M22 R Green 21 Wymond Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

21 Wymond Rd, Roleystone

There is insufficient attention paid in the proposed scheme to people who chop down trees on smaller properties. Cutting down trees outside of their immediate building envelope should be liable to prosecution. There is too much unnecessary mass clearing of blocks in Roleystone. Every singly member of the community has to be encouraged to play a role in protecting native vegetation. Please include much stricter guidelines to save native trees not just on larger properties but on all properties. Ban bonfires as they have no justification. The submittee uses leaves etc for compost, mulch or they can be put out for roadside collection or taken to the tip. Bonfires are environmentally dangerous and are dangerous to peoples health and cause pollution problems (controlled burns by the bush fire people are excepted) (photos attached to submission show smoke from bonfires in Roleystone one afternoon.).

The Rural Living zone and General Rural zone under TPS No 4 have controls over clearing trees and vegetation, which while similar are nevertheless considered stronger provisions than under the current TPS No 2 as they apply to remnant vegetation as well as trees. Therefore this matter has already been acknowledged in the new scheme. Similar provision in the Special Use zones for rural residential development have been carried over into TPS No 4 particularly through building envelope requirements. It is not considered appropriate however, to extend this to the Residential zone, where the significantly smaller lot sizes than rural zones would make the preservation of trees difficult to make mandatory and extremely onerous upon the landowner, by restricting the use and development of his / her land. Burning and consequential air quality is covered by Environmental and Health legislation and is not covered by town planning schemes. It is noted that Local Laws for controls over burning off are currently being considered by the City. As it is dealt with by other legislation the submission is noted.


M23 M Green 21 Wymond Rd ROLEYSTONE WA 6111

21 Wymond Rd, Roleystone

It should be an offence to cut down any mature West Australian native tree without a permit (eg Jarrah, Marri, Wandoo, Flooded Gum and Sheoak). This should apply throughout the City of Armadale in rural areas and otherwise but eastern states native trees and overseas exotics would be exempt.

While retention of native trees is to be encouraged for landscape and biodiversity, tourism and other benefits, it is in some cases necessary to remove trees for the purposes of economic development for housing and industry and rural production. The scheme provides a balance between these interests. See comments on submission M22.


180


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M24 *

G Watson & D Sutherland PO Box 73 KELMSCOTT WA 6111

Various The submittees strongly disagree with the proposal to limit rural landholders to one house on properties up to 40ha as it is not justified either aesthetically or environmentally. The submittees would like option to build a mall structure nearby on their 6.5acre property to accommodate elderly relative with health problems. The scheme should have more flexibility available to rural land owners providing appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. Have major concerns for those areas along Canning River in Kelmscott that are currently parklands or natural vegetation eg Fancote Park that are proposed to have increased density Residential zonings. These environmentally sensitive areas need to be better safeguarded by rezoning to “Parks and Recreation”. Creyk, Gwynne and Fancote Parks should be better safeguarded by being rezoned to “Parks and Recreation”.

The property location has not been provided so the zoning is uncertain, however, in the Rural Living zone the accommodation of a family member can be applied for under the ancillary / additional accommodation provisions of the R codes, which limit the dwelling size. See comments on submission RKA5 for discussion of proposals to modify the 40ha requirement for a rural second dwelling. See comments on submission P1 with regard to Creyk, Gwynne and Fancote Parks.

That the submission be supported in part by modifying the scheme map to include Creyk and Gwynne Parks as Parks and Recreation Reservation (Local) and by a modification to clause 5B.8 of the text, deleting the 40ha minimum size for a second dwelling in the General Rural zone providing it is for a legitimate rural productive use and substituting a minimum 8ha lot size for a second dwelling the Rural Living zone providing it is also for a legitimate rural productive use.

181


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M25 *

R Sutton 631 Oxley Rd FORRESTDALE WA 6112

631 Oxley Rd, Forrestdale

The submittee objects to the lot size for applications for a second dwelling on a rural lot which has increased from 2ha to 40ha as: This was one of the principle reasons why the property was purchased for use either for aging parents, one of the children or submittee’s own use in retirement; The proposal removes this option and increases costs considerably forcing the submittee to make alternative arrangements; The reason cited by the planning department for this change is to prevent subdivision by appeal after a second house is built, but this is surely a failure of the planning process which should be rectified and legitimate applications for a second house on rural properties should not be stopped because the planning process is not adequate to stop unplanned subdivisions. Agree with vegetation protection for rural zones but there needs to be ongoing policy protection of vegetation in urban areas, as when zoning changes from rural to urban in 5 or 10 years time, the vegetation is usually bulldozed. Armadale’s summer temperature is hotter than Perth because of the strong easterly winds and there is a need for greenery with the infill development proposed. Treeless high density areas off Streich Ave are likely to be hotter than the surrounding bungalow style houses. Armadale should take note of the former leafy suburbs that became the Dianella Desert or the Ravaged Riverton to avoid becoming “Arid Armadale”.

The 9.6ha property is zone Rural X under TPS No 2 and proposed as Rural Living 20 in TPS No 4. In neither scheme would it have subdivision potential. In the SRFBW DSP it is in the general area annotated as “Possible Future Urban Development”. The current recommendation is to relax the clause 5B.8 minimum lot area requirement for a second dwelling in the Rural Living zone from 40ha in the advertised draft TPS 4 to 8ha, providing that the purpose of the second dwelling is to accommodate persons engaged in a legitimate rural productive use being carried out on the lot. It is noted that a separate building may also be applied for under the Ancillary Accommodation provisions defined in the R Codes to accommodate a family member. See also comments on Submission AKA5. It is noted that if some remnant vegetation remains from a former rural area being rezoned for urban residential development, land use areas such as parks, drainage corridors or roads can often be located in local structure plans to ensure preservation of at least a representative sample of former vegetation, although it is acknowledged that servicing requirements will often result in extensive clearing in residential areas. Many considerations impinge on large suburban bungalow lots, including the wider impacts of urban sprawl and questions of housing affordability. It is noted that rezoning proposals also have to undergo environmental assessments before clearing for urban subdivision and development can take place and tree protection provisions can be made at the rezoning stage. A greater attention to design is required where smaller lots are created and areas available for gardens and planting large trees are therefore limited. Good planning and urban design should ensure “deserts” are not created, however, medium density areas by definition will not have the same garden space available to suburban areas of larger lots.

That the submission be supported in part by a modification to clause 5B.8 of the text, deleting the 40ha minimum size for a second dwelling in the General Rural zone providing it is for a legitimate rural productive use and substituting a minimum 8ha lot size for a second dwelling the Rural Living zone providing it is also for a legitimate rural productive use.

182


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M26 *

Department of Health PO Box 8172 Perth Business Centre WA 6849

N/A The Department of Health has no objection to TPS 4 subject to the following conditions: All developments complying with the

provisions of the Government Sewerage Policy – Perth Metropolitan Region; Provision of buffer between residential

developments and any conflicting land uses to the satisfaction of the Department of Environment (DOE); and Assessment and remediation of

contaminated sites to the satisfaction of the DOE.

Effluent disposal and conformity with state Sewerage Policy is an important criterion for rural and urban development under the scheme. Buffers are generically defined by Special Control

Area mapping and requiring more detailed level of assessment where proximity to conflicting land uses is an issue. The Department of Environment has assessed the

draft scheme and offered a commendation for the way the scheme responds to environmental issues. Any subsequent scheme amendments will require similar assessment.

That the submission’s support for TPS 4 be noted.

M27 Dept of Indigenous Affairs 1st Floor, 197 St. George’s Tce PERTH WA 6000

Various Pleased the City has acted pro-actively in relation to a number of Aboriginal sites in recent times. Extend this stance by making a register of Indigenous heritage places, similar to the Municipal Heritage Inventory.

Aboriginal sites are recorded by separate legislation under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Also they are often confidential and locations are not able to be publicly disclosed so making a register of Indigenous heritage places would be problematical for a TPS, which above all, is a fully public document. Nevertheless the City would take any sites protected by Aboriginal Heritage legislation into account in any planning decision as part of its commitment to proper and orderly planning particularly in respect to preparing a structure plan in new development areas. Recommend amending the scheme to reflect the consideration of Aboriginal Heritage legislation in planning decisions.

That the submission be supported by modifying clause 10.2 of the scheme text to refer to the protection of sites identified as Aboriginal Heritage under Aboriginal Heritage legislation.

183


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M28 *

Disability Services Commission PO Box 441 WEST PERTH WA 6872

N/A a) A number of the urban design principles that facilitate inclusiveness of people with disabilities in communities are reflected in TPS No 4 to varying degrees.

b) Urban planning needs to facilitate factors such as providing a wide range of living, employment and leisure opportunities including a variety of lot sizes, housing types and living circumstances.

c) The variety of land use and residential density and Councils ability to vary plot ratios provides flexibility.

d) Strong local communities with a sense of identity are supportive of residents including the disabled and urban design principles which support this are:

Locally based services within walking distance of residents; Facilitating ease of access by

interconnected roads especially in new urban areas; Pedestrian friendly infrastructure

especially in regard to street / housing interfaces to promote safe walking through passive surveillance; A variety of land use within local areas

particularly for recreation and leisure purposes; Efficient and accessible public transport

which is facilitated by the higher densities of TPS No 4; Access to buildings (as required by the

BCA and the Disability Discrimination Act); Housing should be encouraged to be built

according to universal design principles as we have an aging population and there is higher incidence of disabled in the over 55 age group and they should be helped to stay in their homes.

It is noted that Town planning schemes are very broad scale implements of public land use policy and most urban design issues are dealt with either at the local structure plan level or the individual building level. The City supports development taking account of quality urban design outcomes and TPS No 4 provides a diversity of living, employment and leisure opportunities. No changes required to scheme.


184


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M29 *

Main Roads WA Don Aitken Centre, Waterloo Cres, EAST PERTH WA 6004

Various MRWA controls a number of roads in Armadale and consultation is required in respect of adjoining development. Main concern is access to properties adjoining these roads especially Albany Hwy. An Access Policy is recommended to require cross easements and reciprocal rights of carriageway. Noise attenuation measures for properties adjoining these roads could also be placed in draft TPS 4.

The City has included MRWA requirements into proposed Policy 5.1 – Highway Development. Where required consultation on development proposals will occur. A new dot point under 4.3 of Policy 5.1 – Highway Development is recommended to require cross easements and reciprocal rights of carriageway where appropriate. Noise attenuation can be recommended or even specified under a development approval providing it is justified in specific location. It should not be specified as a matter of policy as it poses additional development costs that can conflict with an objective of encouraging affordable housing.

That the submission be supported by modifying Policy 5.1 – Highway Development to require cross easements and reciprocal rights of carriageway where appropriate.

M30 Swan River Trust PO Box 6740, Hay St EAST PERTH WA 6892

Various The Swan River Trust generally supports TPS No 4 but recommends the following: a) That further consideration be given to

introducing a Special Control Area (or other zone e.g. – River Precinct Zone) that recognises the landscape and environmental value of the Canning River, Wungong Brook and adjacent lands and incorporates appropriate provisions to conserve the social and environmental values of the river system.

b) Conservation of the river and its landscape may also be achieved through introduction of a local policy aimed at protecting the natural landscape through sensitive design and built form, parameters that complement the river setting, also recognising the operational policy requirements of the SRT.

c) An opportunity exists to review zoning around the river in areas such as Kelmscott to address issues such as proximity of reticulated sewer and abstraction of water out of the Canning River and creation of foreshore reserves that protect the river system by providing a buffer and helping reduce nutrient inputs and bank erosion. SRT officers would welcome the opportunity to further discuss the protection of the Swan and Canning River System with the City.

a) The City supports working with the WAPC and SRT to extend MRS reserves to protect river foreshores. The SRT Act, provisions of the scheme and application of environmental planning principles provide adequate protection for river environs.

b) Existing separate legislation (SRT Act) and consultation procedures provides adequate controls over development in the river environs.

c) The area to the east of the Canning River in Kelmscott is to be subject of an application for WAPC funding for an environmental and infrastructure assessment under the Communities Programme, which if successful would lead on to a proposal to amend the MRS. The TPS cannot change until the MRS is amended.


185


NO NAME & ADDRESS

AFFECTED PROPERTY


M31 City of Gosnells 2120 Albany Hwy GOSNELLS WA 6110

N/A The City of Gosnells has no objections to draft TPS 4.

Noted. That the submission’s support for the scheme be noted.

M32 Board of the Kelmscott Senior High School Council Inc, 50 Third Avenue, Kelmscott WA

Crown Reserve No 29710.

Submission received 2nd September 2004. The School Board is concerned that the School Farm is zoned as residential. The Farm facility is a significant educational resource for the Armadale Community with 5000 primary school students visiting the farm annually. The submittees request that the map be reviewed and readjusted to reflect the current land use of the Kelmscott High School farm.

The proposed zoning of the Kelmscott Senior High School in draft TPS No 4 is the same as in the current TPS No 2, that is the bulk of the site is Reservation for Public Purpose (reflecting the MRS) with the farm area zoned Residential R15. There is no change proposed. The part of the site on which the school farm is located is zoned Urban under the MRS. The partly zoned and partly reserved KSHS site is a crown reserve No 29710. While there is no objection to the farm site being incorporated into the Reservation for Public Purpose that covers the main school site, this should be achieved through the MRS and not the local Scheme 4.

Public High Schools are reserved under the MRS as Reservation for Public Purpose.

That the submission be supported in part by referring the discrepancy to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure for consideration for inclusion in a future MRS Amendment, however TPS be finalised as advertised.

* Denotes submissions that raise more than one issue. These submissions are only included once and are located in the ‘main’ issue category.

186

Since the Scheme has been advertised CoA officers have found a number of anomalies, errors and suggested improvements that could be responded to prior to the finalisation of the Scheme. These have been described, commented on and recommended below:

Submission Comment Recommendation

1.0 – SCHEME MAP

CoA1.1 Area of Reg Williams Reserve (6000m²) between Donald Court and Cronin Place is incorrectly indicated as POS reserve. Actually zoned Residential R15 (Government Gazette – 23 May 2000) – need to amend Scheme map accordingly.

Under a POS rationalisation project Crown reserve land to the south east of the Reg Williams Reserve in West Armadale has been zoned Residential R15 under TPS No.2 and TPS No.4 should reflect this and arrangements are being made for the land to be disposed of for residential purposes.

That the Scheme Map be amended to zone the 6000m² area to the south east of Reg Williams Reserve between Donald Court and Cronin Place as Residential R15.

CoA 1.2 Based on the POS strategy, a number of reserves were amended from Parks and Recreation under TPS No. 2 to Residential consistent with previous consultation processes and Council’s previous resolutions. These have not been the subject of submissions. However, three reserves which Council formerly resolved to de-reserve were inadvertently omitted from being zoned Residential under TPS No. 4.

Reserve 34702 Scotia Place, Armadale was proposed to be amended from Parks and Recreations to R15, Reserve 33118 Little John Road, Armadale was proposed to be amended from Parks and Recreation to R15 and Reserve 45889 South Armadale was proposed to be amended from Parks and Recreation to General Industry. It is unfortunate that these reserves were omitted from the Scheme review. However, they have been subject to a previous consultation process the result of which was that Council decided to dispose of the land. During this consultation process no submissions were made from the surrounding landowners objecting to the proposal. Accordingly it could be assumed that there would be no objection to the reserves being zoned for Residential purposes.

That the Scheme map be amended to zone Reserves 34702 Scotia Place Armadale Residential R15, Reserve 33118 Little John Road, Armadale Residential R15 and Reserve 45889 South Armadale to General Industry.

CoA 1.3 TPS 3 shows several areas that are ‘road widening’ areas. These areas have been translated into the TPS 4 Scheme maps as Parks and Recreation, which is not correct.

The Senior GIS officer has advised that errors occurred in transferring data from TPS No. 3 and that some roads have been incorrectly designated as Parks and Recreation.

That the errors arising from the transfer of information from TPS No.3 be rectified and land be shown within road reserves.

CoA 1.4 The zoning of Lot 900 Terrigal Way (A239998) and Terrigal Way immediately adjacent is depicted as Residential, but should reflect Parks and Recreation and Road Reserve.

Terrigal Way in West Armadale is partly zoned Residential yet it exists as a road reserve. The issue was considered by Council February and July 2000 when it was noted that Council had budgeted to construct the unmade section of Terrigal Way subject to the owner ceding the land. A narrow portion of land between the road and the school is also shown as Residential and this shown to shown as Parks and Recreation.

That the portion of Terrigal Way in West Armadale south of Lot 900 be shown as road reserve and the portion between the road and the Neerigen Brook Primary School be reserved for Parks and Recreation.

CoA 1.5 Remove R15/40 zoning boundary which continues over Tollington Park, although it is zoned Parks and Recreation.

A drafting error occurred in respect of the R Code boundary which should skirt Tollington Park, Kelmscott.

That the R Code boundary be amended to skirt Tollington Park, Kelmscott.

CoA 1.6 Land south of Albany Highway in Bedfordale (between Cross Road, Springfield Road and Pt lot 3 Albany Highway) was subject to rezoning under TPS No. 2 from Rural C to Rural D1. (Amendment No.179). However, as a result of an administrative error the land was shown as RL1 instead of RL2 under TPS No. 4.

The land, abutting Albany Highway and being of relatively steep gradient, would be inappropriate to be rezoned RL1 with the potential 1 hectare lots that would result. The equivalent zoning to that resulting from the Amendment to TPS No.2 would be RL2. As Amendment 179 only provided subdivision potential for two lots a Development area is not required.

That the land subject to TPS No. 2 Amendment No.179 be shown on the Scheme Map as RL2 and the Development Area No. 14 be deleted.

187


CoA 1.7 Minor zoning changes consequential to current MRS Omnibus 1079/33A - Proposals 18, 17 and 13 (see notes)

While not yet gazetted the opportunity is available to reflect the minor proposals of MRS Omnibus 1079/33A.

Modifying the Scheme map to bring zonings into accord with proposals under current MRS Omnibus 1079/33A - Proposals 18, 17 and 13.

CoA 1.8 Reserve No 46948 (lot 490) Summit View is vested in the City as an “historic site” (Coles Mine Shaft) and should be appropriately reserved as Parks and Recreation Reserve (Local).

The Residential R5 zoning does not reflect the current purpose of the land and a Reservation as Parks and Recreation (Local) would be more appropriate.

Modifying the Scheme map to include Reserve No 46948 (lot 490) Summit View as a Reservation as Parks and Recreation (Local).

CoA 1.9 Reserve No 37636 Hall Road, Slab Gully Road, Lund Court, Norman Road, Lockyer Rise is a reserve for public recreation and should be appropriately reserved as Parks and Recreation Reserve (Local).

The Residential R5 zoning does not reflect the current purpose of the land and a Reservation as Parks and Recreation (Local) would be more appropriate.

Modifying the Scheme map to include Reserve No 37636 Hall Road, Slab Gully Road, Lund Court, Norman Road, Lockyer Rise as a Reservation as Parks and Recreation (Local).

CoA1.10 A rural precinct at the intersection of Taylor Rd and Rowley Road Forrestdale is coded RLX in the advertised draft scheme, comprises of lot of 4ha and accordingly an RL4 zone would be appropriate coding.

TPS No 4 has identified adjacent subdivided land to the RL4 code reflecting the existing subdivided lot size. Accordingly it is appropriate to extend the RL4 zone coding to also cover the 4ha lots west of Taylor Road.

Modifying the Scheme map to include Lots 4, 1, 2 and 3 Rowley Road in the RL4 zone.

2.0 – SPECIAL CONTROL AREA MAPS

CoA 2.1 To delete the Secondary landscape buffer areas form the Special Control Area map.

Secondary landscape buffer areas can be addressed during the development control process and are not required as Special Control Areas.

Modifying the SCA map to delete the Secondary landscape buffer areas form the Special Control Area maps.

CoA 2.2 To identify the Roleystone Hills Residential Development Area listed in Schedule 13 as No 1 as “DCA 1” on the SCA Map and the Armadale City Centre Drainage Development Area listed in Schedule 13 as No 2 as “DCA 2”.

For clarity it is desirable to providing a numerical reference to cross reference the SCA map to the appropriate listing in Schedule 13.

Modifying the SCA map to identify the Roleystone Hills Residential Development Area listed in Schedule 13 as No 1 as “DCA 1” on the SCA Map and the Armadale City Centre Drainage Development Area listed in Schedule 13 as No 2 as “DCA 2”.

CoA 2.3 The 500m buffer for a poultry farm on 588 (lot 3) Nicholson Rd Forrestdale is not correctly located on the SCA map in draft TPS 4 and should be corrected.

The buffer areas shown on the SCA maps are important flags signalling a need to consider compatibility of uses and in some cases referral to other agencies such as the WAPC for poultry farm applications. There is a need to revise the SCA map to identify the correct locations and extent of the buffer area.

Modifying the Scheme map to include the correct locations and extent of the buffer area for the poultry farm on 588 (lot 3) Nicholson Rd Forrestdale.

CoA 2.4 To provide for the excision from TPS No 4 of areas affected by the Armadale Redevelopment Scheme as Gazetted in May 2004 and anticipating proposed amendments due to be completed in 2005.

The Armadale Redevelopment Authority anticipates making minor modifications to the boundaries of its area of legislative responsibility and to its corresponding Armadale Redevelopment Scheme area. TPS 4 proposes to excise those areas already subject to the Armadale Redevelopment Scheme, in addition to those areas including Brookdale, which are proposed to be included in the ARS by a forthcoming scheme amendment. Accordingly it is appropriate to also identify as areas subject to the ARS, the minor boundary modifications to the ARA and ARS area.

Modifying the Scheme Map to excise areas that are currently subject to the Armadale Redevelopment Scheme, in addition to those areas anticipated to be included in amendments to the Armadale Redevelopment Scheme during 2004-5.

188


CoA 2.5 To provide a Development Area for the existing Subdivision Guide Plan area for the Admiral Road precinct recently rezoned under Amendment No 153.

An area bounded by Admiral Road and Bungendore Park was rezoned to Rural D1 and a Subdivision Guide Plan prepared under Amendment No 153 to TPS No 2. TPS No 4 proposes a corresponding RL2 zone and a Development Area is required formalize the Subdivision Guide Plan as the Structure Plan to guide subdivision and development in the area.

Modify the Scheme Map to identify a Development Area on the Special Control Area Maps for the land bounded by Admiral Road and Bungendore Park subject to the Subdivision Guide Plan adopted under Amendment No 153 to TPS No 2. Modify the Scheme Text to identify the area as Development Area No 14 with the additional provisions being that Comprehensive planning for the area shall be undertaken by preparation of a Structure Plan to guide subdivision and development.

3.0 – SCHEME TEXT

CoA 3.1 Amend Zoning Table to indicate Aged or Dependent Persons Dwelling as “D” rather than “P” in Residential zone.

Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings are frequently Grouped Dwellings. As Grouped Dwellings are “D” in the zoning Table in the Residential zone it would be anomalous for Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings to be “P”.

That the Zoning Table be amended to indicate that Aged or Dependent Person’s Dwellings are “D” in the Residential zone.

CoA 3.2 Delete “Cemetery” from the Zoning Table as it is not a word included in the Interpretations and would not be appropriate on zoned land.

All metropolitan cemeteries are located on reserved land under the MRS. TPS No.4 indicated that such a use could be considered in the General Industrial zone (elsewhere it was a prohibited use), however, this would be unlikely without an appropriate reservation.

That the Zoning Table be amended with the deletion of the row relating to “Cemetery”.

CoA 3.3 Amend Clause 5.2.4 to clarify that the bonuses do not apply to all residential zones.

As Clause 5.2.4 currently reads it could be assumed that R5 areas could benefit from R30 for corner lots etc. This was never intended.

Amend Clause 5.2.4 to add “in areas coded R10, R12.5, R15 and R17.5” after “any land”.

CoA 3.4 Schedule 12 includes No. 6 (deletion). This entry has no purpose and should be deleted.

A redundant row was included in Schedule 12 that should be deleted.

That Schedule 12 be amended to delete the row that includes No. 6 and renumber subsequent Development Areas.

CoA 3.5 “Marina” and “Marine Filling Station” are included as words defined in the Interpretations yet they are nowhere referred to in TPS No. 4.

It is not surprising that there is no call for Marinas or Marine Filling Stations within the City of Armadale and therefore the terms are not included in the Zoning Table. The terms have been imported from the Model Scheme Text but are inappropriate for TPS No. 4 and could be deleted.

That Schedule 1 be amended by deleting the terms “Marina” and “Marine Filling Station” from the Land Use Definitions.

CoA 3.6 To add an extra provision in Cl 5.2.4 and modifying Cl 6A.8.5 accordingly so that where an R Code is referred to on a structure plan or an existing Outline Development Plan, the structure plan or ODP prevails, notwithstanding the base code on Scheme Map (e.g. identified R40 sites on the A14)

Some existing Outline Development Plans or structure plans have identified sites for medium density development up to R40 (eg the A14 area) and as the generic zoning code identified by TPS No 4 is R15 to R17.5 it is appropriate to indicate that an ODP or structure plan may impute a higher density code than the base zone.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include a provision in Cl 5.2.4 and modifying Cl 6A.8.5 accordingly so that where an R Code is referred to on a structure plan or an existing Outline Development Plan differs from the scheme map, the structure plan or ODP R Code prevails.

189


CoA 3.7 Amend Clause 5.9 – Use of Reflective Materials – because BHP will not provide reflectivity information, there is conflict with energy efficiency objectives and reflective building materials are not an issue on the coastal plain and could result in an unnecessary administrative burden if to apply to new suburbs in North Forrestdale and Brookdale. Also amend reflective materials clause 4.3.1.3 in Local Planning Policy No. PLN 3.1 on Page 28 of the Local Planning Policies.

The current Clause 5.9 will be very difficult to administer because of the difficulty in obtaining reliable data on the “Solar Absorbance Values” of the different coloured materials from the material manufacturers. Experience indicates that problems have arisen in the past in elevated hills areas not the Coastal Plain. In view of the likely future development of large estates in North Forrestdale and Brookdale it would be undesirable to impose an additional administrative burden on the City in assessing applications. The suggested amendment to the Clause will provide the City with strong controls on materials likely to cause reflectivity problems in the areas of the City where historically there has been a demonstrated need to deal with the issue. This issue was raised in submission RF2.

That Clause 5.9.1 (Use of Reflective Materials) be deleted and replaced with: “No dwelling, or ancillary structure, shall be constructed east of the Albany Highway from the City’s northern boundary to its junction with the South West Highway and thereafter east of the South Western Highway, with any external sheeted surface of zincalume, metallic or white coloured finish, without Council approval”. That Clause 5.9.2 be amended to replace “with a lower absorbance value less than 0.6,” with “with any external sheeted surface of zincalume, metallic or white coloured finish”.

CoA 3.8 There is some uncertainty in the Scheme provisions relating to the manner in which development in Special Residential Zones will be determined.

Clauses 5.3.1 and 5A.1.1 address some matters relating to Special Residential development leaving some matters not covered. It has been intended that the Special Residential zone, which is basically a residential zone, should have the development provisions of the R Codes applied and Clause 5.3.1 should be amplified accordingly and clause 5A.1.1. (which selects some R Codes provisions) should be deleted. Without clarifying this matter there could be some doubt as to what standards to apply to development in Special Residential Zones, or indeed whether development would be subject to the control of the Scheme.

That Clause 5A1.1. be deleted and a new clause be inserted at 5.3.1 (b) “Buildings in Special Residential Zones are to accord with the requirements of R5 under the Residential Design Codes unless otherwise coded under the Scheme or provided for under an adopted Structure Plan.”

CoA 3.9 To add a reference to development for Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings up a density of R40 for Restricted use No 3 refers to Lot 651 Shrike Court

In view of the City’s proposal to dispose of this land and the ability under the current TPS No 2 Residential zone to allow for Group Dwelling development up to R40 density, it is desirable to extend certainty for a similar maximum permissible density to apply under TPS No 4. In response to previous community submissions the City has restricted the use of the land for aged persons and therefore needs to improve certainty of use.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include a reference to development for Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings up to a density of R40 for Restricted use No 3 (Lot 651 Shrike Court, Westfield).

CoA 3.10 Delete Ninth Road Development Area from Scheme Text, as it is part of the ARA Brookdale proposal.

Development Area No. 2 under Schedule 12 relates to an area that is proposed to be included within the Armadale Redevelopment Authority’s jurisdiction. These areas have been deleted from the Scheme Map however the deletion of Development Area No. 2 from the Schedule was overlooked.

That Schedule No. 12 No. 2 be deleted as the subject area is proposed to be within the ARA’s Redevelopment Area.

CoA 3.11 To state the particular “non-residential” zones referred to in clause 5.2.6 in which group / multiple dwellings are permitted by stating them.

Listing the actual zones this applies to in clause 5.2.6 will make the scheme easier to read by reducing the need for cross-referencing to the Zoning table to find out.

Modifying the Scheme Text to list the actual particular “non-residential” zones in which group / multiple dwellings are permissible uses in clause 5.2.6.

190


CoA 3.12 To provide a footnote to clause 5B.8 referring to the fact that the reference to the minimum lot size for a Code area, does not imply that in particular circumstances, a larger lot may be necessary, as determined by environmental and servicing assessments or a structure plan.

The Rural Zoning Codes only state the minimum lot size area and given that a Code precinct may include land with a variety of soil conditions, water courses or vegetation or other constraints, in any particular case a lot larger than the stated minimum may be required.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include a footnote to clause 5B.8 referring to the fact that the reference to the minimum lot size for a Code area, does not imply that in particular circumstances, a larger lot may be necessary, as determined by environmental and servicing assessments or a structure plan.

CoA 3.13 Delete Additional Use Area No. 9 relating to the Golf Course Village on Lots 31 and 32 Armadale Road and Waterworks Road Armadale as this lies within the ARA Brookdale areas.

This area was included as Special Use area 76 under TPS No. 2 but is not subject to TPS No. 4.

That the Additional Use Area No. 9 be deleted from Schedule 2.

CoA 3.14 Notes – Most of the italicised notes should be deleted. Many of the italicised notes in the Scheme Text were included as explanations to assist understanding in the advertising period. The Notes have no statutory purpose and serve to lengthen the scheme text. Other than those having a vital explanatory purpose, such as those copied from the Model Scheme Text, the Notes should be deleted from the final Scheme.

Delete the majority of Notes from the Scheme Text.

CoA 3.15 To include a “Display Home Centre” as a use in the Zoning Table and provide a definition.

A “Display Home Centre” has special requirements in respect to access and parking in the short term and usually reverts to a single residential dwelling at the end of its life as a display. Listing as a discretionary D use will allow appropriate conditions of approval.

Modifying the Scheme Text Zoning Table to include a “Display Home Centre” as a discretionary D use within the Residential, Special Residential, and Mixed Business / Residential zones and Rural Living and General Rural zones and to provide a definition for Schedule 1.

CoA 3.16 To add the phrase into the description of the Restricted use in Restricted use No 1 and No 2 “The following uses potentially permissible in the retail commercial core of the District Centre zone shall be uses that are Not Permitted (X) in the Restricted use area”.

The description of the intent of the Restricted use areas should employ as full and unambiguous terminology as possible.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include the phrase into the description of the Restricted use in Restricted use No 1 and No 2 “The following uses potentially permissible in the retail commercial core of the District Centre zone shall be uses that are Not Permitted (X) in the Restricted use area”.

CoA 3.17 To provide modifications to clause 6.6, Prime agricultural land protection area, referring to the equally important objective of preventing incompatible land uses being established and impinging on current productive agricultural and horticultural uses and ensuring that human health and amenity is considered in any proposals involving creation of new lots or new dwellings.

The objectives of the Special Control Area for Prime agricultural land protection is equally to protect the resource values of the orchard industries and to prevent incompatible uses being established in close proximity particularly in respect to protecting human health and the residential amenity of rural residential developments.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include a reference in clause 6.6 Prime agricultural land protection area, to the equally important objective of preventing incompatible land uses being established and impinging on current productive agricultural and horticultural uses and ensuring that human health and amenity is considered in any proposals involving creation of new lots or new dwellings.

191


CoA 3.18 To provide definitions for the terms used in clause 5B.7 – Remnant vegetation protection, namely “remnant native vegetation”.

Providing a definition for an important term used in the scheme provides clarity and can reduce disputes over interpretation.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include a definition in Schedule 1 for the term used in clause 5B7 – Remnant vegetation protection, namely “remnant native vegetation” is: "native vegetation" as defined by Clause 51A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (as amended) and as further defined by Clause 4 of the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations.

CoA 3.19 To expand the list of discretionary uses in the Rural Living zone to include “Animal Husbandry – Intensive” and “Industry – Rural”.

The Rural Living zone is intended to be a broad zone, primarily oriented towards living in a rural environment. It includes some large lots including 20ha and above and which are currently used or have potential for more intense rural uses such as include “Animal Husbandry – Intensive” and “Industry – Rural”. The draft Zoning Table makes these uses “X” (Not Permitted) and therefore such existing uses would become Non –conforming uses, however, such uses can be administered with greater flexibility under an “A” (discretionary) category which requires public notification and submissions.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include “Animal Husbandry – Intensive” and “Industry – Rural” as “A” (discretionary) uses in the Zoning Table for the Rural Living zone.

CoA 3.20 To provide a definition for the term used in Schedule 12 in respect to Araluen special residential area “extraction of groundwater” currently prohibited except for the golf course.

Providing a definition for an important term used in the scheme provides clarity and can reduce disputes over interpretation.

Modifying the Scheme Text to include a definition of “extraction of groundwater” in Schedule 1 such that “extraction of groundwater” means extraction of subsurface water resources and includes extraction methods such as bores or wells”.

CoA 3.21 To provide a subdivision condition to require the fencing of lots backing onto or abutting reservations, whether reserved by the Scheme or not, as the case may be.

This provision is currently in TPS No 2 and operates effectively to ensure fencing of reserves at subdivision stage. A minor modification to the wording of the TPS 4 provision is proposed make it consistent with the current TPS 2 provision. Clause 5.13.3 refers to a condition of subdivision being imposed for fencing where lots abut reservations for “public purposes as defined on the scheme maps”. However, sometimes reserves are created in zone and the land is hence not defined on the scheme maps at that stage. The ability to impose a fencing condition should not be constrained by the form of the words in draft Clause 5.13.3,which requires land to be already reserved. Accordingly it is proposed to modify the provision to provide a more generic reference and hence identify a fencing condition for all public reserves adjacent to subdivided new lots.

Modifying the Scheme Text by deleting the words “reservations for public purposes as defined on the Scheme Maps in Clause 5.13.3 and substituting the words “a public reserve.”

CoA 3.22 A number of typographic errors have been identified in the Scheme Text that should be corrected.

The identified errors are minor but should be corrected. That the following corrections be made to the Scheme Text: Preamble Line 1 second paragraph – amend “local Planning Framework” with “Local Planning

192

Submission Comment Recommendation Policy Framework” Amend “local” with “Local” in third paragraph. Page 2 Extra space between words - 1.6(f) - efficient_pattern Extra space between words - 1.6(h) - environmental_goals Page 12 Forward Slash in wrong place - Zoning Table - Caravan/Park Page 23 Extra underscore - Section 5B title - Rural_Zone Page 33 Misspelt word (verb form (+ g)) - Section 5C.7.3(b) - associated manoeuvre areas Page 42 Extra space between words - 6.2.5(b) - associated_works Missing reference to SPP No. - 6.3.3(c) - No. xx, Public Page 44 Extra space between words - 6.4.3(e) - or_management Page 53 Extra semicolon and word - 6A.4.4(c) - approval; or Page 61 Extra full stop - 6B.9.1(b) - City.and Page 78 Extra full stop - 11.5 Note 1. -

193

Submission Comment Recommendation Metropolitan.Region Page 108 Misspelt word - 30.1 - reception centre Page 118 Replace “AA” with “D” and “SA” with “A”. Page 153 Duplication of word - 4.2 - referred to to the Page 154 Missing word - 2.2 - to (be) used

CoA3.23 That the similar objective under 4.2.6 (b) for District Centres be applied to Mixed Business/Residential zones under clause 4.2.7.

Objective (b) of Clause 4.2.6 reads “To ensure the design and landscaping of development provides a high standard of safety and amenity and contributes towards a sense of place and community within the service area.” Such an objective should equally apply to Mixed Business/Residential zones.

That part (b) be added to clause 4.2.7 to include:

“To ensure the design and landscaping of development provides a high standard of safety and amenity and contributes towards a sense of place and community within the service area.” Such an objective should equally apply to Mixed Business/Residential zones.

CoA3.24 The Scheme Text has been subject to a legal review by Mullins Handcock from a compliance perspective and a number of modifications are suggested. The modifications proposed seek to clarify where it would otherwise be unclear, what a particular approval or application, or statement is in relation to, including improving the grammar, terms and expressions used in the scheme.

It is desirable to make a number of modifications to ensure consistency in the terminology used in the Scheme, particularly in regard to consistency in the use of the defined terms, which would enhance the ability of the City to enforce the scheme through legal actions. It is desirable to make the scheme wording as amenable as is possible to allow for successful prosecutions by closing up any potential technical loopholes arising from omitted or imprecise expressions used in the scheme that could be exploited by a defendant. In general the freedom of the City to alter the terms and expressions is constrained by the Model Scheme Text, which is gazetted as the Town Planning Regulations 1999. In this regard the modifications suggested by Mullins Handcock have only been recommended for changes to the scheme text where there is obvious benefit in so doing, and conversely a number of the modifications suggested have been held over for a separate formal submission on the Model Scheme Text which is under review at the current time. In this way the TPS No 4 variations to the MST have been kept to the minimum deemed appropriate to reflect the local characteristics of the City of Armadale.

That the following modifications be made: A new clause be added after 1.7.3 stating

that: “1.7.4. A reference to any thing, includes a reference to a part of that thing”; In clause 5.2.4 deleting the word

“Council’s” and inserting the words “the City’s” in its place; In clause 5.3.1 deleting the words “for the

estate”; In clause 5.4.1 after the words “limited or

restricted to less than that permitted by” inserting the words: “ (a) the Scheme; or

(b) the provisions of the Residential Design Codes which apply under the Scheme,

then that restrictive covenant” and deleting the words “any inconsistency with”; In clause 2.6 inserting the word “made”

after the second reference to the word “Policy” and deleting the word “current” after the words

194

Submission Comment Recommendation “under the”; In clause 5.12.1 adding the words “as set

out in Schedule 11B” after the words “Austroads Standard Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 – Bicycles”. In Part “5A” insert a new clause “5A This

Part applies to the Residential Zone and the Special Residential Zone, unless expressly stated to the contrary in a clause of this Part.”; In Part “5B” insert a new clause “5B This

Part applies to the Rural Living Zone and the General Rural Zone, unless expressly stated to the contrary in a clause of this Part.”; In Part “5C” insert a new clause “5C This

Part applies to the Mixed Business/ Residential Zone, the District Centre Zone and the Local Centre Zone, unless expressly stated to the contrary in a clause of this Part.”; In Part “5D” insert a new clause “5D This

Part applies to the Industrial Business Zone and the General Industry Zone, unless expressly stated to the contrary in a clause of this Part.”; In clause 6.2.1 including the sentence

“Flood Prone Areas include Floodways and Flood Fringes.” after the sentence which ends with “any development within this area.”; In the “Note” which follows clause 6.2.2

deleting the second sentence and third sentence from the note; In clause 6.2.3 deleting the words “the

designated” and inserting the word “a” after the words “to take place within”; In clause 6.2.5 (d) substitute the existing

wording with the words “require the registration of a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of the potential risk associated with flood events at the applicant’s cost” and deleting the “Note” which follows; Inserting a new clause “6.2.6 In this

clause: ‘Floodway’ refers to that part of a floodplain, which determines the flow capacity of the waterway, and where any obstruction within this area has the potential to increase the flood height upstream of the obstruction; and ‘Flood Fringe’ is that area beyond the extent of

195

Submission Comment Recommendation the ‘Floodway’, which is affected by flooding, where the natural ground level is below the 1 in 100 year flood level.”; In clause 6.3.5 (b) substitute the existing

words with the words “require the registration of a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of any limitations or constraints associated with the protection of resources at the applicant’s cost.”; In clause 6.4.1 substituting the word

“EPA” for the existing words “Environmental Protection Authority”; In clause 6.4.3 (a) inserting the words

“under the EP Act,” after the words “Environmental Protection Policy” and in (c) substituting the words “land use” for the existing word “landuse”; In the clause numbered 6.4.7 correcting

the numbering to “6.4.4” and in (b) substituting the existing words with the words “require the registration of a memorial or a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of any limitations or constraints associated with the protection of resources at the applicant’s cost.”; In clause 6.5.4 (b) substituting the existing

words with the words “require the registration of a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of any limitations or constraints associated with the protection of the resource at the applicant’s cost.”; In clause 6.6.4 (b) substituting the existing

words with the words “require the registration of a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of any limitations or constraints associated with the protection of the resource at the applicant’s cost.”; In clause 6.7.4 (b) substituting the existing

words with the words “require the registration of a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of the bushfire hazard and any restrictions and/or protective measures required to be maintained at the applicant’s

196

Submission Comment Recommendation cost.”; In clause 6.8.1 after the words “advice of

the” substitute the existing words with the words “EPA and the Commission.”; In clause 6.8.4 (b) substituting the existing

words with the words “require the registration of a memorial or notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of any risk or nuisance factors or constraints on the occupation and use of the development site at the applicant’s cost.”; In clause 6.9.3 (b) inserting the words

“prepared under the EP Act,” after the words “(Peel Inlet-Harvey Estuary)”; In clause 6.9.4 (b) substituting the existing

words with the words “require the registration of a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 on the title to the land giving notice of any limitations or constraints associated with the protection of resources at the applicant’s cost.”; In clause 8.2. (b) (iv) substituting the

existing words with the words “the development will be located on land affected by or within the Swan River Trust Management Area, being the management area referred to in section 3 of the Swan River Trust Act 1988;”; In clause 8.2. (h) deleting the words “the

maintenance or improvement of”; In clause 9.3 ( c ) substituting the word

“City” in place of “Council”; In schedule 1 under 1. General Definitions

and also in 2. Land use definitions, adding the words “, unless the context otherwise requires –“ after the words “In the scheme”; In schedule 1 repositioning the general

definitions of “development envelope” and “dwelling” in appropriate alphabetical order; In schedule 1 inserting a new definition

““development” has the same meaning as in section 2(1) of the Town Planning and Development Act; In the schedule 1 definition for

“development contribution area” inserting the word “the” after the word “means”; In schedule 1 following the definition for

197

Submission Comment Recommendation “development contribution area” inserting new definitions for: ““development contribution plan” is defined in Part 6B”; In the schedule 1 definition of “Common

Infrastructure”, inserting the words “as amended from time to time” after the words “Developer Contributions for Infrastructure”; In schedule 1 inserting new definitions for

““heritage area” means an area designated as a heritage area under clause 7.2.1;” and ““Heritage List” means the Heritage List referred to in clause 7.1;”; In schedule 1 inserting a new definition for

““municipal inventory” means the municipal inventory referred to in clause 7.1.2”; In schedule 1 substituting the existing definition with “Reserve means a portion of the Scheme area indicated on the Scheme Map by distinctive colouring, patterns, symbols, hatching or edging as land set aside or reserved by the Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme for public or institutional purposes, but does not include any land in a zone”; In schedule 1 inserting a new definition for

““Water and Rivers Commission” means the Water and Rivers Commission established under section 4 of the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995;”; In the schedule 1 definition of “funeral

chapel” substituting the word “premises” for the words “a building or part of a building”; In the schedule 1 definition of “garden

centre - retail” substituting the word “premises” for the words “land or buildings”; In the schedule 1 definition of “occasional

use” substituting the word “premises” for the words “land or building” and the words “premises are” for the words “land or building is”; In the schedule 1 definition of “recreation

domestic” inserting the words “part of” after the word “means” and substituting the word “the premises” for the words “a site”; In the schedule 1 definition of “transport

depot” delete the word “motor” after ‘such”; In schedule 1 following the definition for

“development envelope”, inserting a new

198

Submission Comment Recommendation definition for “”development plan” means a plan approved by the responsible authority and identifying the location and features of development approved by the City including development envelopes;”; In clause 5.3.1 (a) following the words “an

approved development plan” delete the words “for the estate”; In clause 5.7.1 following the words “an

approved development plan” delete the words “for the estate, or for an individual site”; In clause 5B.1.1 following the words “an

approved development plan” delete the words “for the estate”; In schedule 6 – Form of application for

planning approval under “Property details” inserting the following requirement after the words “Title encumbrances (eg easements, restrictive covenants)” “A copy of the Certificate of Title is required to accompany all applications for Grouped Dwellings or Multiple Dwellings”; In Clauses 5A2.6 and 5B4.7 replacing the

word “If” by the words “An application for parking a commercial vehicle shall be subject to an application for annual approval and if”; Adding a new clause “5D.6.6 in clause

5D.6.4 ‘off-site’ means land other than that which is the subject of the application for planning approval, on which parking or access facilities are proposed to service the development the subject of the application.”; In the Note following clause 6.4.1

substitute the words “Water and Rivers Commission” for the existing word “Commission”; In clauses 6.3.2, 6.4.2 and 6.9.2 inserting

the words “and shall be subject to the discretion of the City” after the words “for planning approval”; In clause 6A.6.1 substituting the words

“other approved development plan” for the words “Subdivision Guide Plan”; In Part 6A inserting a new clause after the

heading “6A Development Areas are described in Schedule 12 which sets out additional provisions applicable to subdivision and development”;

199

Submission Comment Recommendation In the Schedule 1 definition for

“development area” after the words “described by” inserting the words “and subject to further additional”; In Part 6B inserting a new clause after the

heading “6B Development Contribution Areas are described in Schedule 13 which sets out the infrastructure to which cost sharing arrangements relate and the cost sharing arrangements which apply.”; In the Schedule 1 definition for

“development contribution area” after the words “described by” inserting the words “and subject to further additional”; In Part 9 inserting a new clause “9.1.3 The

City may refuse to consider an application for approval which does not conform to the requirements of this Part.”; In clause 11.2.1 inserting (a) after the

“11.2.1” and inserting a new part “(b) In clause 11.2 “”advertiser” means an owner or occupier of premises where an advertisement is displayed or any other entity which has caused an advertisement to be displayed in any premises;”; In clause 11.2.1 after the words “in the

opinion of the City” substituting the existing words “an advertisement has deteriorated to a point where it is in conflict with the aims of the Scheme or it ceases to be effective for the purpose for which it was erected or displayed’ with the words “an advertisement is untidy or in disrepair or is illegible or where it ceases to be effective for the purpose for which it was erected or displayed”; In clause 11.4.1 (a) after the words

“provisions of the Scheme” inserting the words “or with a notice issued under the Scheme;”; In schedule 1 inserting a new definition

““occupier”, in relation to any land, means: (a) the person by whom or on whose

behalf the land is actually occupied and will include a lessee or licensee, and if an owner is on the land, will include the owner; or

(b) if there is no occupier, the person entitled to possession of the land and includes the owner; or

200

Submission Comment Recommendation (c) a person in unauthorised occupation

of Crown land and where under a licence or concession there is a right to take profit of Crown land specified in the licence or concession, means the person having that right; “;

In schedule 1 amend the definition for “recreation – public” substituting the existing word “generally” with the word “usually”; In Schedule 5 – exempted advertisements

for “Race courses, major racing tracks etc” replace the word “from” with the words “from a vantage point at ground level which is located”; in clause 5.11 (a) to (d) substitute a semi-

colon (;) for the commas (,); in clause 5C6.2 (a) inserting the word “an”

after the words “would not prejudice”; In clause 5D6.4 (b) inserting the word

“the” after the words “in respect of the development”; In clause 6A4.4 ( c ) deleting the semi

colon and the word “or” which follows the sentence and insert a full stop; In clause 11.5.2 Note 1 delete the full stop

after “Metropolitan”; In the schedule 1 definition of “holiday

accommodation” substitute the full stop after “proprietor” with a semi colon; In the schedule 5 listing for “Public Places

and Reserves” exempted signs (b) replace the word “or” with the word “of” after the word “control”; In the schedule 5 listing for “Building

construction sites as follows” insert the words “as follows” after the words “duration of the construction” and deleting the word “per” after the words “One sign as”; In the schedules 8 and 9 after the words

“Town Planning” inserting the words “and Development” (twice in schedule 9) and the words “Town Planning Scheme No 4 after the first mention of the words “City of Armadale” and substituting the words “City of Armadale” for the words “City/Town/Shire of”; In the schedule 11A for the listing of

Industry – Cottage adding an “s” to the word “space”;

201


4.0 – LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

CoA 4.1 Amend Residential Development Policy PLN 3.1 to take account of the need to ensure that where grouped dwellings are proposed at R40 in R25 coded areas then Council may apply.

Resulting from submissions it is recommended that R25 areas could develop grouped dwellings up to a density of R40 provided the development is consistent with the requirements of the City’s Residential Density Development Policy. It is necessary to amend this policy to ensure that it will provide guidance in R25 areas as the current draft only provides such guidance for areas coded R15/40.

That 4.2 of Policy PLN 3.1 be amended in title to “Dual Code Areas Coded R15/40 and areas coded R25”; and 4.2.1 be amended to “Land coded R15/40 and areas coded R25……..” That 4.3 of Policy PLN 3.1 be amended in line 3 and 4 to “Scheme for the approval of grouped dwellings under Clause 5.2.4 and where approval is sought for approval of a dwelling at a higher density than R15 in areas coded R15/40 or at higher density that R25 in areas coded R25.”

CoA 4.2 To include a new Policy in the manual for “Environmental Management and Improvement”.

The review of the scheme associated with the preparation of TPS No 4 has identified that some areas subject to physical and envirionmental constraints to rural residential development, such as parts of Forrestdale, may nevertheless be able to be considered for limited subdivision into smaller lots, if appropriate land rehabilitation is undertaken. Given the environmental sensitivity of these areas, rezoning amendments would be required and these should subject to detailed environmental and servicing assessments funded by the landowners sproposing the rezoning amendment. The Rural Strategy page 103 identifies an “Environmental Management and Improvement Policy” which provides requirements to be met to allow subdivision. This policy should be incorporated into the Policy Manual. The Policy will require subdivision development proposals for land with low capability for rural residential development to include an Environmental Management and Improvement Strategy and Development Guidelines for the land as a means to: Rehabilitate the land to improve the condition of land, wetlands

or waters, Manage waters (surface and groundwater) and nutrients; Enhance and manage the land to provide habitat for flora and

fauna; Protect and rehabilitate wetlands and remnant vegetation; Enhance and protect the landscape amenity and rural

character of the localilty. The scheme rezoning amendment will be required to incorporate key requirements of the Environmental Management and Improvement Strategy and Development Guidelines for each rezoning site to be incorporated into the text of TPS 4 under the Schedule 12 Development Area provisions.

Modifying the Policy Manual to incorporate the “Environmental Management and Improvement Policy” identified in page 103 of the Rural Strategy as PLN 2.7 for application in areas subject to rezoning proposals for Rural subdivisions such as parts of Forrestdale.

202


CoA 4.3 A number of typographic errors have been identified in the Local Planning Policies which should be corrected.

The identified errors are minor but should be corrected. That the following corrections be made to the Local Planning Policies: Page 3 and 4 Delete bold for clauses 4.1 - 4.7. Page 13 Missing space - Table 1, Title - 1Soil Missing space - Table 2, Title - 2Erosion Missing space - Table 3, Title - 3Development Page 40 Extra question mark - Compatibility Scale, Equipment / Scheme Limits – Electric Motor Only(?)

5.0 – LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY

CoA 5.1 Include a Map of the ARA areas including the Brookdale area.

TPS 4 does not extend to areas controlled by the ARA under the Armadale Redevelopment Act and Armadale Redevelopment Scheme and these areas should be identified in the LPS.

Modifying the Local Planning Strategy to identify areas under control of the Armadale Redevelopment Authority.

CoA 5.2 A number of typographic errors have been identified in the Local Planning Strategy Volume 1 which should be corrected.

The identified errors are minor but should be corrected. That the following corrections be made to the Local Planning Strategy Volume 1: Page ii ‘a’ instead of ‘an’ - Preamble, 5th para - for a innovation Page 14 Extra space between words - 4.1.5.2, 3rd para - presents_initiatives Page 23 Misspelt word (letter missing) - 4.2.4, 4th para - level educ(a)tion has Page 44 Misspelt word (extra letter) - 4.6.1,2nd para - stone fruites to Page 70 Misspelt word (extra letter) - 5.3, 2nd para - City,

203

Submission Comment Recommendation nothwithstanding that

CoA 5.3 A number of typographic errors have been identified in the Local Planning Strategy Volume 2 – Retail Hierarchy Review which should be corrected.

The identified errors are minor but should be corrected. That the following corrections be made to the Retail Hierarchy Review: Page 18 Misspelt word (letter missing) - 5, 5th para - the neighbo(u)rhood and Misspelt word (letter missing) - 5, 5th para - liveable neighbo(u)rhoods, but Page 19 Misspelt word (letter missing) - 5.1, 1st para - liveable neighbo(u)rhoods layout Page 21 Incorrect numbering - 6.1, 2nd para – points marked 34 & 35 without preceding numbers Page B1 No space between words - 1, Title - CommercialStrategy Page B1 Extra space at start of para - 1.3, 2nd para - _The Coastal Page B12 Extra space at start of sentence - 4.2, dot point 5 - _Encourage the

6.0 - GENERAL

CoA 6.1 To incorporate all recent scheme amendments to TPS No 2 that have satisfactorily progressed but are not covered by the draft TPS 4.

Scheme amendments to TPS No 2 indicate Council’s future intentions so providing progress through the amendment process has been satisfactory, the proposals should be reflected in TPS 4 at gazettal.

Modifying the Scheme documents as appropriate to reflect all amendments to TPS No 2 that have been satisfactory progressed prior to gazettal of TPS 4.

204

schedule of submissions · 2015. 2. 24. · schedule of submissions draft town planning scheme no.4...

Documents