WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER Et RELATED LANDS

Cities of Armadate, Bayswater, Belmont, Canning, Cockburn, Fremantle,Gosnells, Joondalup, Melville, Nedlands, Perth, Rockingham, South Perth,Stirling, Subiaco, Swan and Wanneroo, the Towns of Bassendean, Cambridge,Claremont, Kwinana, Mosman Park, Victoria Park and Vincent, the Shires ofKalamunda, Mundaring, Peppermint Grove and Serpentine-Jarrandale

TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGSDAYS 1 a 2 OF 4 DAYS

VOLUME 1 OF 2

November 2005

PERTHWESTERN AUSTRALIA

Government ofWAuestrastelria

n

WesternAustralian

\if PlanningCommission50Ple"'iv

Recording and Transcription

This transcript is produced from live audio recordings. Whilstevery care is taken in its preparation absolute accuracycannot be guaranteed, No changes are made to grammarand syntax.

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEMEAmendment No. 1082/33

BUSH FOREVER Et RELATED LANDS

TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

DAYS 1 a 2 OF 4 DAYS

Cities of Armada le, Bayswater, Belmont, Canning, Cockburn, Fremantle,Gosnells, Joondalup, Melville, Ned lands, Perth, Rockingham, South Perth,Stirling, Subiaco, Swan and Wanneroo, the Towns of Bassendean, Cambridge,Claremont, Kwinana, Mosman Park, Victoria Park and Vincent, the Shires ofKalamunda, Mundaring, Peppermint Grove and Serpentine-Jarrandale

, WesternAustralian

Alio PlanningCommissionsowv

VOLUME 1 OF 2

November 2005

© State of Western Australia

Published by theWestern Australian Planning Commission,Albert Facey House,469 Wellington Street,Perth Western Australia 6000

MRS Amendment No. 1082/33. Volume 1of 2 - Transcripts of Public Hearings Days 1 & 2 of 4 Days

File 809-2-1-77 Pt. 3Published November 2005

ISBN 0 7309 9545 3

Internet: http://www.wapc.wa.gov.aue-mail: corporate@wapc.wa.gov.auPhone: (08) 9264 7777Fax: (08) 9264 7566TTY: (08) 9264 7535

Copies of this document are available inalternative formats on application to thedisability services co-ordinator.

FOREWORD

The Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) sets out the broad pattern of land use for thewhole Perth Metropolitan Region. This Scheme is constantly under review to best reflectregional planning and development needs.

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the agency responsible for thisprocess.

Amendment proposals are made to change land-use 'reservations' and 'zones' in the MRSwhen considered necessary. The amendment process is regulated by the MetropolitanRegion Town Planning Scheme Act. That legislation provides for public submissions to bemade on proposed amendments.

For a substantial amendment (made under Section 33 of the Act), the WAPC considers allthe submissions lodged, and publishes its findings in a Report on Submissions. This report ispresented to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and to the Governor. TheAmendment is then scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament before it becomes effective.

PUBLICATIONSIn the course of each substantial amendment to the MRS, information is published under the

following titles:

Amendment ReportThis document is available from the start of the public advertising period of the proposedamendment. It sets out the purpose and scope of the amendment, explains why theproposal is considered necessary, and informs people how they can comment on the

proposal.

Environmental Review ReportThe Environmental Protection Authority considers the environmental impact of anamendment to the MRS before it is advertised. Should it require assessment anEnvironmental Review is undertaken, and that information is available at the same time as

the Amendment Report.

Report on SubmissionsDocuments the planning rationale, determination of submissions and the WAPC'srecommendations for final approval of the Amendment.

SubmissionsComprises a reproduction of all the written submissions received on the proposedamendment.

Transcript of Public HearingsA person who has made a written submission may also choose to appear before a HearingsCommittee to express their views. All hearings are recorded and transcribed. The submittermay chose whether this hearing is conducted in private or in public. Where the person haschosen a private hearing, materials presented remain confidential. The transcripts of public

hearings are published in this volume.

TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

Day One

Wednesday 25th May 2005

MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE HEARING SUBMISSIONS ON METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME

AMENDMENT NO. 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER and RELATED LANDS

Day 1 - Wednesday, 25 May 2005, 6th Floor Conference Room, Albert Facey House,469 Wellington Street, Perth

The Committee was established by resolution of the Metropolitan Region Planning Committee(MRPC) on 8 February 2005.

CHAIRPERSON Cr Corinne MacRae

MEMBERS Mr Greg Woodman

IN ATTENDANCE Mrs Cate Gustaysson

Mr Kieron Beardmore

Ms Julie Davey

DPI STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PERIODICALLYMs Ruth SandriMs Bec RyanMs Carissa Lloyd

Member of the Western AustralianPlanning Commission

Independent, with environmental expertise

Department for Planning and Infrastructure

Department for Planning and Infrastructure

Department for Planning and Infrastructure

Ms Karen SandersMs Hermione ScottMr Tim Hillyard

Presentations to the hearings committee commenced at 8.55am.

The proceedings were recorded by 'Spark & Cannon Pty Ltd'.

The following people made presentations to the Hearings Committee:

1) Mr Leslie & Mrs Lin ley Frost for submission number 3.Mr & Mrs Frost represented themselves.This was a public hearing see transcript.

2) Ms Sue Burrows for submission number 119.Ms Burrows represented the Shire of Kalamunda.This was a public hearing see transcript.

3) Mr Peter Cotter, Mr Patrbk Tyson, Mr Peter Naylor & Mr Abe Francisfor submission number 108.Messrs Cotter, Tyson, Naylor & Francis represented the Department of Justice.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

4) Mr William Chilver and Mr Chris Higham for submission numbers 45 & 147.Messrs Chilver represented themselves.This was a public hearing see transcript.

5) Mr John Sterndale for submission number 28.1.Mr Sterndale represented himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

6) Mr Athol Farrant for submission number 28.2.Mr Farrant represented himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

7) Mr Kyle Passmore for submission number 19.Mr Passmore represented Bunarak Pty Ltd.This was a public hearing see transcript.

8) Mr Brian Hurley for submission number 28.3.Mr Hurley represented himself.This was a public hearing see transcript

9) Mr Peter Mead and Mr Ian Curlewis for submission number 5.Messrs Mead and Curlewis represented St Mary's Anglican Girls School.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

10) Dr Paul Van Der Moezel and Mr Tasio Cokis for submission number 142.Messrs Van Der Moezel and Cokis represented Eglinton Estates and Landcorp.This was a public hearing see transcript.

11) Mr Graham Partridge, Mr Ian Birch and Ms Marlene Anderton for submission number 35Messrs Partridge and Birch and Ms Anderton represented the Town of CambridgeThis was a public hearing see transcript.

12) Ms Sharni Howe for submission number 146.Ms Howe represented Mrs Lyn Yelland.This was a public hearing see transcript.

13) Mr Frank Borrello for submission number 174.Mr Borrello represented himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

14) Mr Nelson Hinchcliff for submission number 166.Mr Hinchcliff represented Peet & Company as trustee for the Burns Beach Property Trust.This was a public hearing see transcript.

15) Mr Trevor Moran, Mr Cosimo Sorgiovanni and Mr Anthony Sorgiovanni for submissionnumber 144.Messrs Moran and Sorgiovanni represented Mr Cosimo Sorgiovanni.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

16) Mr Mario Carbone for submission number 23.Mr Carbone represented himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

17) Ms Mary Vicini for submission number 51.Ms Vicini represented herself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

18) Mr Peter and Mrs Kaye Pearson for submission number 143.Mr & Mrs Pearson represented themselves.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

Cr Corinne MacRae declared the hearings closed at 4.15pm.

CHAIRPERSON:

DATE:

MR LESLIE & MRS LINLEY FROST

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Frost, I'm Corinne MacRae. This is Greg Woodman. He's anindependent member of the committee. As I said, I'm Corinne MacRae. I'm chairing theHearings Committee and we've also got some members from the department to assist us.There's Mr Kieron Beardmore. He's here to help us today in case we have any inquiries.Now, as you probably know

MRS FROST: No, don't address me. He's the one that knows what he's doing.

CHAIRPERSON: All right. This Hearings Committee has been appointed by the PlanningCommission to listen to your submissions.

MR FROST: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We're here to take on board everything that you say, amplify yoursubmission. We're here to listen. We're not a decision-making committee today. We willprovide our conclusions and our recommendations to the Planning Commission. We willthen recommend to the Minister, who then takes it through the Governor through toParliament.

MR FROST: I understand, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You're a private submission so we are taping the proceedings just forour benefit for the transcripts but it won't be published when it goes to Parliament, as longas you understand that. You've got about 15 minutes.

MRS FROST: Are you ready to start?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR FROST: Well, there's really not that much to say. When they first started this BushForever, I had an understanding that a firebreak was the dividing point, see, and that'swhen the three people came up and looked at it. We always understood that the firebreakwas the dividing point and when I got the maps sent to me recently, they were 80 metresshort of the firebreak, see, and I measured it out and we were 80 metres short so Icomplained that it was too short. There's a bore hole and all that in that section. So theysent up two people to have a look at the on-site inspection and they sort of understoodwhat I was talking about, but it should've been another 80 metres. I asked them were theygot the measurement and no-one seemed to know where they got their measurement, see.You've got maps. Have you got the map. I've got a map here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MRS FROST: We're talking about the south boundary.

1

MR FROST: The south boundary. It's 80 metres on the south boundary. I've got to find itmyself now. They want to go across there where they go through cleared land and pastureland instead of going down that firebreak. It's only 80 metres. It's not a great deal of landconsidering that they're taking all this for Bush Forever and that's approximately - justroughly it will be about 100 acres. It's only 80 metres to go down to there and go along thatfirebreak. Instead of that they're going to go across pastured land and then through bushagain. That means I would have to put another firebreak through there and clear morebush out. You've really got to put a bulldozer or a front-end loader in, otherwise you wouldnever know whether you're overstepping your mark. If you go down this firebreak, I would

gain a little bit there but I would lose a little bit up there.

MRS FROST: And the bore hole would be in the other part.

MR FROST: If you follow that firebreak down - that's firebreak has been there for years. I

said to the girl I said, "You can't show me any aerial photograph where that firebreak wasnever there."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's very clear on the map, isn't it? It certainly looks like it's been

there a long time.

MR FROST: I always looked at that as the dividing line. When the measurements cameout, it was 80 metres short. The girls came out, the botanists, and looked at what I wastalking about and they seemed to understand. They seemed to realise what I was talkingabout but that was it, you know. They weren't allowed to say anything. They just looked.It's only 80 metres. It's not a great deal to ask for. So it's up to you people and what youthink about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR FROST: There's a bore hole there. We never did use the bore hole because it wastoo deep to put a windmill on, but now that there's different mechanical things likesubmergible pumps and that we can use it. I never bothered before because it was too

deep. It's 120 foot down. I can't say no more. That's all I can say and that's it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.

MRS FROST: So virtually we're asking to move the south boundary 80 metres. Is that

right?

MR FROST: 80 metres, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: 18?

MRS FROST: 80.

CHAIRPERSON: 80?

2

MRS FROST: 80 metres; we're asking you to move that 80 metres so that we can get our- well, the firebreak is one thing, but also get the bore hole in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MRS FROST: So that's really what we're asking for.

MR WOODMAN: To bring the boundary back onto that firebreak.

MR FROST: Yes, take it that west to that firebreak which is 80 metres. Theirs is 224.4. I

want it 304; another 80 metres put in there.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand. Thank you very much.

MR FROST: That's all I can

CHAIRPERSON: It's a very logical explanation you have given us and we certainly willtake that on board.

MR FROST: The girls who came out, the botanists and that, sort of understood what I wastalking about.

MR WOODMAN: They had a good walk through the bush.

MR FROST: I beg your pardon?

MR WOODMAN: They had a good walk through the bush and weighed up different - - -

MR FROST: Yes, they went right around and they could see that that was cleared andthen they had to go through bush again, which I don't want to touch, you see. I would

rather go down 80 metres and then along the firebreak.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR FROST: That's all I can say. I can't state any more.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's right. We're glad you made it here today to tell us in person,but we obviously can't give you a decision right now because it's not our decision to make.

MR FROST: No.

CHAIRPERSON: But we have obviously taken on board what you have said. It's a very

logical case that you have presented and a very reasonable one so we will take that onboard when we make our deliberations. We are glad to have heard from you this morning.

MR FROST: Yes.

3

MRS FROST: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

4

MS SUE BURROWSRepresenting the Shire of Kalamunda

CHAIRPERSON: Pm Corinne MacRae.

MS BURROWS: How are you?

CHAIRPERSON: Good thanks. This is Greg Woodman.

MR WOODMAN: How are you?

MS BURROWS: How are you going.

CHAIRPERSON: Of course you know Kieron and Elizabeth you know is on her way back

from Canberra.

MS BURROWS: Yes, that's interesting. She's on her way back, is she?

CHAIRPERSON: I believe so. Anyway, Sue, as you know, I'm chairing the HearingsCommittee.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Greg is our independent person on the committee with environmentalexpertise. Kieron, of course, you know will be here to assist us and Cate. We have beenappointed by the Western Australia Planning Commission to hear submissions. We're nota decision-making committee. We're making our recommendations to the PlanningCommission who then recommends to the Minister and so on and so forth, as you'reaware. So it provides an opportunity for you to amply your submission.

MS BURROWS: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take on board your submission as well as anything else you canadd today.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a public hearing so the proceedings are taped and anything that's onthe public record is published in the transcript that goes to Parliament.

MS BURROWS: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You have got 15 minutes.

5

MS BURROWS: Basically the Shire of Kalamunda supports the Bush Forever principles.However, in terms of the special control areas we have some problems with those,particularly where it affects private ownership. So where it's publicly owned, Crown land,that's find; mind you, I was a bit confused as to why special control areas were beingplaced over regional reserves for starters but the Bush Care officer did explain theprinciples behind that in terms of giving it greater control.

In terms of private land, in our assessment of those lots affected we felt that the boundariesof those actually covered cleared areas and also houses where they were and we did notthink it was appropriate to have special control areas over non-bush areas for starters. Sowe did raise that to say that that needed to be relooked at. That was our first problem withit. We thought that the mapping wasn't correct and it needed to be reassessed and putback out for public comment.

I know there are some residents of the Shire of Kalamunda coming in probably to speak onsome of their private land holdings. I have had, for example, a gentleman yesterday. He isaffected by one of the sites with a special control area to the rear of his property which heactually grows mango bushes on. So he had a major concern. He's been doing that foryears and the special control area is actually over that area.

Overall the Shire of Kalamunda has just embarked on a bio-diversity pilot project that thestate government has introduced. We would prefer that we do our own assessment underthis project, under the bio-diversity project, where we map and find out what actually issustainable because, as you know, the Shire of Kalamunda does have a considerableamount of bush reserves and bush areas anyway. Even private owned land does retain alot of bushland. We would like to assess that basically to see what we can sustain at theend of the day. So that's the major objection to having these included as special controlareas or the Bush Forever being placed over this land.

CHAIRPERSON: Sue, you don't think that the SCA's could be complementary to yourbio-diversity strategy and vice versa?

MS BURROWS: They could be but because we're just in the interim stages of thebio-diversity project, we would prefer that we go further down the track with that. We nowhave an officer on line. We will be doing our own mapping and our own assessment in thenext few months in that regard. So we have not yet undertaken that detailed assessmentthat we believe needs to be undertaken, and that will happen in the next few months. Sowe would like to do that first and then come back to the Commission with our comments on

what should be included, what needs to be protected, what can be sustained, rather than atthis point in time just having the sites identified. As I have said, some of the mapping wethought needed to be reassessed because we did not think that the boundaries wereappropriate and the sites not appropriate. The council as such resolved along those lines.I believe you have a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we do.

6

MS BURROWS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the council resolution as well.

MS BURROWS: Yes. We have no problem where it's Crown land, where it's in Crownownership already, but where it's privately owned we believe that that should not beincluded. There was one other site too along Kalamunda Road where it is proposed - I

think it already is some sort of regional reservation. Some of it's private land ownership - iscovered by a special control area. We wanted that excluded because we need five metresfor the widening of Kalamunda Road.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: Could I comment on a couple of things?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR BEARDMORE: We obviously only included private land where there was no otherchoice to be made really. We focused on government land and particularly in Kalamunda,as you're probably aware, a number of the vegetation complexes fall below the 10 per cent

target so we really had to sort of pick up some private land. We're not stopping them sortof developing that area. The boundaries we sort of acknowledge in a number of cases aresort of more administrative boundaries rather than mapped bushland. Obviously the policywhich complements Bush Forever basically says that cleared areas or non-bush areas are

not intended for protection. We're only interested in the bushland areas and that. The

SBP gives some indication in terms of what development is appropriate and notappropriate.

The other point obviously is what we're doing is mapping reasonably significant bushland inBush Forever and in the bush for protection areas locally significant bushland is somethingwhich should be picked up through that local bio-diversity strategy. So really, you know, wehave had our sort of first cut in terms of what we feel has reasonable value and thenobviously through your bio-diversity strategy you may wish to identify other areas on top ofthat as well. So there's a bit of distinction there between regional and what we regard aslocal bushland really. Although that local bushland may have reasonable values, it's reallyfor your strategy to determine whether they can or should be protected or not.

MS BURROWS: My understanding too is and I could be incorrect here, but myunderstanding is a lot of the assessment was done by aerials, not by actually on-siteassessment.

CHAIRPERSON: Kieron, would you like to comment on that?

MR BEARDMORE: Basically Bush Forever emanates from sort of studies which werecarried out since the sort of mid-nineties in the site descriptions.

7

It will indicate whether they were as a result of studies that were completed in the area orwhether there was some kind of a roadside inspection or whether there has been some sitesurveys. A number, you're right; we can't actually go on private land without theirpermission so a number will be through roadside inspection, but over the years we haveobviously attempted to go out on as many properties as possible, and that will continue.The SBP as well says that, you know, the boundaries of the bushland will be subject tofurther on-site verification, assessment, through the ongoing implementation of the plan sothere is opportunities there to sort of revisit the boundaries if we really need to.

MS BURROWS: I also outlined on privately owned land some of it is special rural or ruralresidential-type lots where people have, you know, been indicated that they can developthese lots and that's where we find we have had the greatest objection in terms of theirfuture plans for the land.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MS BURROWS: Although it may not have meant mass clearing, they are quite restrictednow in what they can do. I believe some of the building envelopes were limited to about10 per cent which is quite small when you look at the type of housing that's going on theseproperties in terms of those ancillary to the residential use as well, but I suppose that wasour biggest concern too was without that on-site assessment and that definite assessment -because the bush we're talking about is quite prevalent across the base of the scarp andthen the foothills there are pockets that are already protected. I know there a was a quotabeing reached and that was questioned as well in terms of, "We need this percentage," andthat property was taken into consideration as having some to reach that percentage. Wejust thought we would have liked to have seen a more detailed assessment of thoseproperties which we proposed to undertake with bio-diversity.

CHAIRPERSON: Do yourself, yes, that's right. One thing that you mentioned was about alandowner's rights to develop a portion of his property and restrictions on it. Perhaps

there's an issue here too with another piece of legislation which is the native vegetationclearing.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's something I presume the council has carriage over. The

applications are made via the council for any clearing.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's another level of control that would exist irrespective of BushForever.

MS BURROWS: We have just had a proposal for a development of a residential housing,plus some stable facilities on a property that is affected in Bush Forever. We did note thatthey needed approval under the Land Clearing Regulations.

8

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS BURROWS: So they're in the process of getting that and the outcome of that willdetermine whether the development can proceed. We're aware of those issues.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there are a number of layers of control, aren't there?

MS BURROWS: I think that was also one of the points too the council is concentrating -there is a growing level of layers of control and that was one thing I questioned with theregional reservations, although that question was answered as to say, "Well, by nature it

has to be referred into here for comment. Why do you want this other layer on top andthen another layer, you know, with regard to land clearing?" So I think there was a generalfeeling there were too many layers of control and maybe it needed to be simplified becauseactually explaining this whole process to the council was not easy in terms of all thedifferent descriptions. In fact, you know, it took us a while to get our head around it butBush Forever people were very helpful in making it quite simple at the end of the day, but,

yes, it was a lot to take in and assess.

CHAIRPERSON: Greg, do you have any questions of Sue?

MR WOODMAN: No, nothing special. I was really interested to hear about your ownbio-diversity strategy and I'm assuming, having been involved in another council, thatyou're going to be going out to local areas and identifying areas over and above the bush

areas that the council would like to see protected.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

MR WOODMAN: So you're actually performing detailed site assessments in those.

MS BURROWS: We will have to in some situations, yes. I mean, the council is keen to

see this project as an umbrella project to all other environmental studies as such todetermine, yes, basically what we can sustain and then set up and identify those privately

owned areas of bush that are very important to conserve and then educate and provide

some incentives for that to be maintained, but the first step, of course, is really identifying

what is significant, you know, and not based on a number system or whatever but what

needs to be sustained for the future and can be managed and then working through that

process, yes. So there will be some assessment. A lot of it will be done off GISinformation mapping systems, but, yes, more specifically the sites that, for example, areidentified are here will be, I would say, individually assessed, you know, and having a look

at those sites, plus many others that we have around the shire.

MR WOODMAN: Proposing another layer again.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

MR WOODMAN: Go from regional to locally significant

9

MS BURROWS: I think that was a major point that the council considered as well to say,"Well, we're doing this study; you know, we're setting up this program to protect ourbushland," but this has, you know, sort of come in at that time and said, "Well, there'sanother layer," you know, but because we embarked on this project and we think it's soimportant, they really want to see this and see the outcomes of this first before they agreeto any - - -

MR WOODMAN: Did you feel the department did communicate well enough the way thatthe two processes really do fit the way that Bush Forever puts your shire and the bushland- your shire into more of a regional context, whereas your study is more "locally what'simportant to us".

MS BURROWS: It did identify that. I mean, we have a high proportion of regional parks in

our shire.

MR WOODMAN: Yes.

MS BURROWS: I suppose it's difficult to ascertain when you have so many regionalreserves - and there are a lot; if you have a look at the MRS, you will see how much ofKalamunda is covered by regional reserves for parks why privately owned land wasaffected. Surely, you know, those lands were protected. That's why we wanted this morelocal study to say, "Well, no, these areas need to be maintained as well," whether it be forwildlife corridors or because it is a scarce system that needs to be protected, it's quiteunique in its location and type of species or fauna and flora, and that really needs a highpriority and it was just, yes, getting down to that detail that needs to be looked at. That did

come out in the debate.

MR WOODMAN: Yes, I can understand your issues. I mean, Kalamunda is that beautiful

place where you get the meeting of two major systems.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

MR WOODMAN: There's bound to be a lot of interesting stuff there.

MS BURROWS: Yes. So I think that's the important thing, but it was also the issue of,yes, how do we deal with these private landowners?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, being a councillor myself, I understand the pressures that thecouncil must come under. There must be enormous pressures for assistance from yourratepayers.

MS BURROWS: Yes, and I think because of the general mapping with the example I haveillustrated - and when we looked at some of the special - they covered cleared areas andhousing and, you know, we were a bit perplexed by that as well as the landowners. Wejust though it needed to be modified or fixed before this proceeded any further.

10

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much, Sue.

MS BURROWS: That's all right.

CHAIRPERSON: Obviously your council is to be commended for its efforts in protectingthe local bushland.

MS BURROWS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We're looking forward to the results of your study. You have told usabout your concerns from the private owners' point of view. You recognise the BushForever is to be taken in a regional context but you are concerned about the local bushlandand the work that the Kalamunda Council wants to do there.

MS BURROWS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Also you have told us about your concerns about too many layers ofcontrol. So we will take all those things on board when we make our recommendation andpresent our conclusions the Planning Commission. So thank you for your time thismorning.

MS BURROWS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It was good to hear from you.

MS BURROWS: Thank you for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Once again congratulations on your work at Kalamunda.

MS BURROWS: Thank you kindly.

11

MR PETER COTTER, MR PATRICK TYSON, MR PETER NAYLORAND MR ABE FRANCIS

representing Department of Justice

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 12 to 20 inclusive.

MR WILLIAM CHILVER AND MR CHRIS HIGHAM

CHAIRPERSON: Mr CHILVER?

MR CHILVER: Bill CHILVER, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae.

MR HIGHAM: Chris Higham.

CHAIRPERSON: Chris, hi; how are you? This is Greg Woodman.

MR CHILVER: Hello, Greg.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm chairing the Hearings Committee. I'm a member of the PlanningCommission and Greg is our environmental consultant who is an independent person onthe committee. We are here to hear your submissions today and you're obviously going toamply your written submission which we have read. We're not a decision-makingcommittee. We will be making recommendations to the Planning Commission who willthen make a recommendation to the Minister, Governor and State Parliament. You haverequested a public hearing so the proceedings will be taped.

MR CHILVER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The transcript will be published in State Parliament when it gets toParliament so that's the process. You have got about 15 minutes. I'm sorry to have keptyou waiting.

MR CHILVER: That's okay. I had the booking and Chris has got one for a couple of days'time, but I have asked him to come along as the main speaker and I will also support him inthat and depending on the outcome today whether he comes later for his appointment soit's going to be joint between the two of us.

CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

MR HIGHAM: Things have changed somewhat since we made our first submission to youwhich had six points that we wished to have you recommend. Since then we have met withthe department on the properties and they have advised us on 10 May that it's theDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure's view that they will be recommending thatsite 313, being the area that we're interested in, be removed from the MRS Amendment.So having said that, that resolves pretty much all of our issues.

21

The purpose that we have come along today for is that their recommendation, as they havepointed out to us, is merely a recommendation and we wanted to ensure that it wasunderstood that the affected parties pretty much everyone on the street which includesourselves - support that recommendation. We are comfortable with it that it makes sense.It takes into account specifically our recommendation number 5 of the submission that wemade, that the land itself actually doesn't qualify for inclusion in the zone due to its lack of

ecological or flora or fauna value.

So the object of us being here today was to reiterate the fact that we are still firmly of thesame view as to how we submitted the proposal. There are no changes there. We supportthe department's view that site 313 should be removed and to the extent that anythingfurther to the department's submission needs to be heard from us, we're quite happy toexpand upon our thoughts. The submission or the department's advice to us does pointout that the removal of site 313 from the scheme doesn't change it's existing town planningstatus and that only really conflicts with recommendation 6 of our submission that theactual land area be removed from the gazettement for future public land on the basis that itshould be preserved as riverine homestead lands instead, which we still believe is a moreappropriate application of the land.

What I don't know and what we don't know is the extent that this hearing and this processand this scheme is able to address that issue. To the extent that you are able to, we wouldcertainly request that recommendation 6 that the existing land reservations be removedand returned to the original landowners as it could be put to better use as riverinehomesteads.

CHAIRPERSON: In the current Parks and Recreation reserve.

MR HIGHAM: Yes, that that be lifted.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. I think that's outside the scope of this amendment, I have to say.We're looking at a Bush Forever amendment and the special control area policy layer.Existing P and R reservations are obviously not going to be considered in this amendmentprocess so that's something that's outside the scope of this amendment.

MR HIGHAM: That's fine; that is then clarified. The other point that we would like to makewhich specifically relates to Bill's land is that there is an amendment that's gone through onhis land boundaries where there's a somewhat unexplained kink in his land that should bestraightened out. For some reason the entire foreshore reserve has a pretty much straightline except on Bill's land it takes a kink halfway through it and goes up a hill and back downagain and we would certainly like to recommend that that be realigned to align with the

reserves throughout that streetscape.

MR CHILVER: I understand that is the case. I received a phone call yesterday from Cateand the recommendation will be as a part of this amendment that that line be realigned.

22

Why it's gone up on both properties we don't know but Cate has assured me that she'sspoken to someone within town planning and as a part of this amendment that line will bestraightened to bring it back into its correct order.

MS GUSTAVSSON: I can clarify that for you. The Parks and Recreation reserve over thetwo lots, 305 and 8 - there is a small anomaly in the actual Parks and Recreation boundary.Discussing it with the statutory planners, they have advised that as part of this amendmentwe can make a little adjustment to that.

CHAIRPERSON: We can.

MS GUSTAVSSON: Yes, within this as part of adjusting with the recommendation of -

CHAIRPERSON: On the basis that it's a minor change.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's correct. It's very minor and it is an anomaly, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

MR HIGHAM: Okay. Probably to conclude, as I say, we're happy with therecommendation of the Department of Planning to remove site 313. If for some reason the

hearing concludes that that recommendation is not to be taken into account, then we referback to our submission and the various points as to why we believe that the site doesn'tqualify for inclusion, both on a factual basis of ecological qualifications and also from anurban use point of view, and should that occur, then our remaining recommendations at thesubmission and hearing process and public forum rights be extended to allow thelandowners to be properly informed about the economic and practical application of thescheme.

We note there's an extreme lack of precise detail about how the scheme impacts onlandowners and in the government's general regulatory approach to life it takes the viewthat everyone should be properly informed and it should certainly apply that to its ownactivities. So the six recommendations that we have made in the absence ofrecommendation 5 being adopted pursuant to the department's view then we do fall back

on those and stand by them as part of the due process.

CHAIRPERSON: Understood, Chris, thank you.

MS GUSTAVSSON: May I clarify one point, please? It is the officer's recommendation to

remove a portion of Bush Forever 313 boundary, not the whole of the 313 site. The

recommendation is from Kelvin Street south.

MR HIGHAM: Which is to Kelvin Street.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That still leaves a major portion of 313 north of that Kelvin Road.

23

MR HIGHAM: Which, from our understanding, the removal of the portion includes SwanView Terrace and the houses that face the foreshore which is the area of our interestbecause we're the residents.

MR CHILVER: And there's probably only what, 15 or 16 houses that are affected and it'sbasically lawn which we mow every fortnight; jetty; no trees; no bushland. The only wildlife

you see is on the river itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR CHILVER: To strongly support Chris in respect of the economics of it - I mean, if therecommendation that's put forward by Cate is accepted and you people accept that, welland good, but if not, then, you know, the economic loss to us overall is quite huge and it'ssomething the government has got to consider and allow us should this not be accepted tocome back and put even a stronger submission forward and give us more time to have

meetings and sort out where we're going.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Greg, do you have any questions?

MR WOODMAN: No; no, I don't have any more, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a pretty straightforward, very logical and reasonable submission that

you have made and all I can say is that we will take it on board in our recommendations tothe Planning Commission. We anticipate the amendment to possibly lob up in Parliamentin October, the second sitting of Parliament this year. It's not easy to predict these things

but I'm sure that Cate will keep you informed of the progress of the amendment.

MR CHILVER: I mean, if we're given notice before it goes to Parliament - because once it

goes to Parliament, the door's shut.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CHILVER: I mean, if we know through Cate - and she has been excellent, I might

add, from a government department perspective. She has been communicating withresidents and it's a credit to her to do that. Forewarn and say, "Well, look, yes, we acceptit," and we know the way it's going. If it's not, then we need to build up a furthersubmission before it gets to the government stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly I think that's what we were intending to do, as we do withall MRS amendments anyway, to advise the effective landowners before, you know, it lobsup in Parliament. So be assured that the communication that you have at the moment with

DPI will continue. We're glad to hear that Cate has done a fantastic job. We all know that,but it's good to hear that from your point of view as well.

24

MR CHILVER: Well, its refreshing because generally to get through to a governmentdepartment or have any communication with a representative from a governmentdepartment of any sort, not only the town planning, is near impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: Were very good here.

MR CHILVER: Well, it's refreshing that she rings you after hours and explains things andcan see our side of it, not the government's side of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Fantastic.

MR CHILVER: I presume you would have a copy of the letter that has come to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we do; yes, we have that on file, thank you.

MR HIGHAM: Briefly, because I'm due back on the 3rd, just so I can perhaps shorten thatprocess, is there anything in our submission that the Commission is taking issue with orhas a concern about? We have got a very short period of time so I will address my15 minutes on any other issues if there are any remaining. Are you aware of anything inthe submission that caused concern that I should be explaining in further depth?

CHAIRPERSON: This is the Swan View Terrace?

MR CHILVER: The same as this.

MR HIGHAM: Yes, they're all the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they're all pretty much cut and dried, I think. So it's up to you to

come again.

MR HIGHAM: So we have said today should be adequate clarity.

CHAIRPERSON: Basically you would be repeating it, yes.

MR HIGHAM: Okay, yes, thank you.

MR CHILVER: It will save on your time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Bill.

25

MR JOHN STERNDALE

MR STERNDALE: Good morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sterndale, I'm Corinne MacRae.

MR STERNDALE: Nice to meet you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm chairing the Hearings Committee. This Greg Woodman. You knowCate, of course.

MR STERNDALE: I can only confirm that she's been the most helpful person in thismatter so far by far.

CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Mr Sterndale, we're the Hearings Committee.

MR STERNDALE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We're not a decision-making committee. We recommend and makeconclusions and pass that onto the Planning Commission. It then goes forward from thereto the Minister, through Governor to Parliament. So we're here to listen to your submissiontoday and to take account of your written submission as well as anything that you may careto add to it this morning. You have requested a public hearing so I will just let you knowthat the proceedings are being taped and when it goes to Parliament, the transcript of theproceedings will be tabled as well in Parliament.

MR STERNDALE: All right. Have you seen our submission signed by aboutthree-quarters of the owners?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STERNDALE: Instead of me just basically repeating out of my submission I would liketo just add a few points from a personal experience point of view. I own lot 34 Summerfield

Place in Gooseberry Hill. It's part of Bush Forever site 217. Again I refer to the submissionand if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer. As far as I know, Bush Foreverdates its origins back to 1995. In 1998 the first draft was published. We purchased ourblock of land in approximately year 2000 and knew nothing about this Bush Forever. Wewere never informed. There was never a caveat on the properties or anything like that.Come last year, approximately July 2004, we received this rather think envelope with thesecond draft and with the proposal of what Bush Forever would mean to us. Within 217there are only three block of land that have not been built on yet. Ours is one of them.

I spent a lot of time reading the draft and noticed that the main selection criteria for a BushForever site is that it should be minimum in size of 10 hectares, individual lots, that thereshould be no intensive living subdivisions with a definition of intensive living subdivision asbeing lots below four hectares.

26

They should contain threatened species and communities and they should be aconsideration of the economic values and the effect that it has on its owners and it should

not be an existing subdivision. In the case of Bush 217 we were told several times atmeetings with the DPI officers from the Bush Forever office that it was specifically selected

because it Forrestfield Complex vegetation and that the DPI in the case of Forrestfield

Complex could not meet its quota and that was basically they stonewalled us to any

attempt to have us removed.

As far as I can see what's happened in the last 12 months, what I have noticed as arelatively new owner of one of these blocks, is that the whole selection process is very

faulty. The area that we're talking about was a farm. My block of land was a grazing area

for cattle any bush that's on the land is regrowth. You can tell that by the trees because

they only have a diameter of about that much and there's actually of definition of what is a

tree and what's a scrub. The lots are only an average of one hectare in size, about 1.05 to

be exact, but basically one hectare in size. it's 10 per cent of what the criteria states for a

property to be selected as a Bush Forever site. The economic values are high. You're

talking these days with a block up in that development of close to half a million dollars. It is

an existing subdivision. The original subdivision I don't know exactly when it started but it

dates back to the nineties. The subdivision is fully developed to about 95 per cent.

After a lot of pushing by us owners the DPI said they were prepared to do an on-siteinspection. That took part in April of this year. During the inspection they discovered that

the vegetation was not Forrestfield Complex but instead it was Darling Range Complex with

is over-represented in the Bush Forever areas. There's no threatened species ofcommunities, but the area is severely downgraded by the development that has taken

place. I mean, we all have homes. You have to imagine you have got access topowerlines, gas pipes. It's just a real estate development.

They have actually classified it more as parkland, whereas it's bushland and what 1 think

I'm very glad about is there's a recommendation out that it actually be removed from the

MRS amendment which, of course, we very wholeheartedly support, but the question is: is

it a victory for us owners? I have to as an owner that wants to build a house on it say itdefinitely is not because the environmental authorities at shire level or the Department of

Environment have already implemented Bush Forever.

The fact that the 217 appears in the Bush Forever register as a proposed site means that

it's classified as an environmentally sensitive area. That brings for me I have to get a

clearing permit for what is actually parkland and not bushland. By the information I have

been given so far it can take me anything between six and 12 months to get a clearing

permit, by which time my building licence has expired because it's only valid 12 months.

So although you say you're putting in just recommendations, there are some government

bodies in the background that have already implemented Bush Forever and consider it as a

protected site.

27

Next to the frustration and the money and the waste of time for me as a conclusion theselection process is severely flawed. There's an over-reliance on satellite and aerialphotographs and not on on-site inspections. The fact that on-site inspections haven't beencarried out and the reliance on these aerial photographs has led to wrong classification anda general ignorance of the areas that have been selected. There are probably dozens ofareas similar to ours that have not been inspected and, as ours, could have been classified

in the wrong way.

The idea of Bush Forever the way I understand it is to protect worthy properties but theway it's been going about it - you imagine in our estate there's about 90 individual blocks.

Only 12 blocks are affected by this Bush Forever. Now, most of the property owners havedrastically cleared their blocks. Although they were not supposed to there's rules that

they shouldn't there's basically nothing left on them. They're Scott free. Their propertiesrise in value. In Bush Forever, on the other hand, there are a couple of owners, usincluded, plus Mr Athol Farrant who will be speaking next, who have a couple of blockswhere they have tried to encourage the bush to recover and have tried to protect it at littlebit. We are basically being punished because if you clear the land and break the law,you're off Scott free. If you protect the land and try and encourage its redevelopment, youwind up in Bush Forever.

Finally what I would like to request you - I heard just before that you expect thisamendment to go before Parliament in October. I hope that is the case because if therecommendation by the DPI to remove our property from the MRS amendment goesthrough, then the Department of Environment will have to scale back its attempts to blockme from clearing a building envelope. So I do hope very much so that that is the case. In

your experience, what are the chances that there will be further delays?

CHAIRPERSON: To what?

MR STERNDALE: To going through Parliament.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's an unpredictable issue really.

MR STERNDALE: It's unpredictable.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean, really depending on the legislative requirements of Parliament.It's just not predictable. At this point in time our best advice is that we're hoping to get itthere by October. This is the advice I received this morning from our officer who deals with

that.

MR STERNDALE: For me, in summary, it's simply our area should never have been inBush Forever in the first place. It is a real estate development like you find all the way upand down the coast except the blocks are a little bit bigger, but even if they're bigger,they're only 10 per cent of the minimum size that the selection criteria in the Bush Foreverdraft states, one hectare versus 10 hectares, and it's causing the owners a majorheadache.

28

There's one property for sale at the moment for about six months. The real estate agentwho I have spoken to says it's unsellable. It is basically worthless.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sterndale, understanding that the DPI officer's recommendation is toremove the property from the special control area in the amendment, your request is really

whether the DEP would be in a position to scale back its controls over the site. Perhaps Iwould refer that to Cate Gustaysson or Kieron Beardmore to answer.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, they will basically ask for advice when determining a clearingpermit so obviously we're in a position to advise them that this is no longer going to be - werecommend it no longer be a Bush Forever site and protection area, but the clearingregulations at the moment, as John has outlined, refers to Bush Forever sites becauseobviously that was put in place through Parliament last year or a couple of years ago soobviously at some stage we need them to sort of maybe refer to Bush Forever protectionareas, as opposed to Bush Forever sites which would mean that this site will be effectivelyremoved from that sort of classification, but obviously when they put in a request for ouradvice, we can advise them that we don't feel that it should be included and it should beapproved.

MS GUSTAVSSON: At this time this department has not received a request from DOE inregards to your specific property and if and when we do receive that, they will receive anupdate of the vegetation that has been seen on site. We did conduct a site investigationand that was attended by both DPI and DOI officers, botanical officers, who will be able toadvise the clearing permit people of DOE of what is their-

MR WOODMAN: So the recommendation is the protection area be removed but the listingin Bush Forever itself is also

MR BEARDMORE: Basically Bush Forever was endorsed by Cabinet but obviously theintent is that the Bush Forever protection area has been the sort of latest Bush Foreversite, for want of a better word, so we need to sort of make sure that the DOE recognise thatthrough those processes which they actually do through amendments through theirregulations as well. Have you put in a clearing application, Mr Sterndale?

MR STERNDALE: I have only just put it in because it's quite involved. They actually askfor everything to be in digital format and it means the pictures, the references, everything. I

don't know how Mr Average would do it. It has taken me a couple of weeks to actually getall the information and do it, but it is in now.

MR BEARDMORE: If you wish, we can be pro-active and actually contact them now.

MR STERNDALE: I really would appreciate it. I mean, I have got a residential buildingblock I would like to build on and six months' delay is starting to cost a lot of money.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

29

MS GUSTAVSSON: For the panel, the vegetation complex - we were advised by ourbotanically people it's actually Forrestfield transition to Darling scarp leading more Darling

scarp because of the impact of the existing buildings and so forth.

MR STERNDALE: Unless you have any other questions, I'm basically completed. Thank

you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sterndale for taking the time to come this morning. It

has certainly given us a lot of insight into the issues that you're concerned about and wewill certainly take your concerns on board. You obviously have some idea of what DPI

officers are thinking and there's obviously more dialogue that needs to go on, particularly ifwe can assist you in any way with your application at the DOE for clearing.

MR STERNDALE: I think what Kieron and Cate just mentioned - they will actively helpgetting the environmental clearing permit through. I mean, I have no intention my wife

would kill me if I cleared the property. I just want to clear that area where the house goes

onto.

CHAIRPERSON: Of course as a landowner you have got a property that's zoned fordevelopment.

MR STERNDALE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing is going to take that away from you, I suppose.

MR STERNDALE: Up until a couple of months ago there was a few people that weretrying exactly that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STERNDALE: In particular, Cate she's been very accessible with information andthat sort of thing and also sending us out the draft letter with the DPI's recommendation to

take it out of the MRS.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STERNDALE: It calmed a lot of nerves.

CHAIRPERSON: Sure; and, of course, future development on the land is strictly outsideof the scope of this amendment but there's no doubt about it that the department will do all

it can to help you.MR STERNDALE: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sterndale.

30

MR ATHOL FARRANT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Farrant, I'm Corinne MacRae. How do you do?

MR FARRANT: Good, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Farrant, I believe you're the original landowner of this subdivision. Isthat correct?

MR FARRANT: No, my grandparents went there in 1890 having come from an overlandtelegraph in Eucla and their sand patch where some of the great grandparents were for25 years.

CHAIRPERSON: Goodness.

MR FARRANT: It's been in the hands my grandfather died in 27, my grandmother in 43,my father in 74, and so hung around my life supporting him and keeping it going, and wehave had five generations living on it and there are three generations, myself, my cousin,my son and his family, in separate houses. My daughter's about to build there and my

other son so we're fairly attached to it. I appreciate our indigenous people's reactiontowards their land and I feel very strongly at times and I get myself rather upset. That's notthe only with blood pressure in the family in the last recent years.

It was if we were rich landowners. It was a tie around our neck all our life, in effect, but we

didn't want - I was going to say the Alan Bond's of this world to get hold of it. We hung inand in more recent years when this last section was subdivided it was costing $25,000 ayear to pay rates and taxes so you're selling a block of land and passing it through and the

anxiety, etcetera. I have got a photo here taken about 99, I think, which I'm sure will

interest Cate's gone but Kieron might be interested. It's taken for the zigzag. It's the old

homestead with the hay shed. That's the cottage which is still there. My daughter's goingto build right by that site now. The land in question is around here, but just to show you, itisn't the nice virgin piece of bush that was talked about that we were setting out tomaliciously destroy. That's the feeling I have. I have a strong persecution right through the

subdivision which is we weren't able actually to do it till 89. We started the last 100 acres

in 89-90.

A point I make is Mr Sterndale's comment that he was unaware it was special rural. I sold

most of the land personally and every sale - John bought it from a second person, butevery sale I made on the document was put, "This land is zoned special rural and the buyeracknowledges receiving a copy of what special rural is." Special rural was the preservationof trees; not bushes, trees, and I might add John's block where he wants to build his housemight have about two or three bottlebrushes. In the area he wants to build on it's got sometrees, but there was an area that my cattle used to go because it was out of the easterlywinds and it was a grassed area and if I couldn't find them, I knew where there were

about three spots and that was one of them. I don't know if Kieron would like to see that.

31

The impression given is I have felt at times that I was a bushranger, a speculativedeveloper I'm not sure; almost a criminal, to be quite honest. It's a feeling as if peoplewho own land have got it through - and there's another scene. I mean, will look at Ridge

Hill this is in the thirties, as far as I know. That's Gooseberry Hill Hill. You can see thetrunks of the trees there. Now, that's all solid bush now. That's another one, Kieron.

That's Gooseberry Hill Hill. It wasn't till the coming of scheme water and septic tanks to putwater through that - so now it looks like a solid piece of bush. The area of this farm, ineffect, was pretty bare land. My grandfather, I think he was an Englishman who had beenin the Persian Gulf - had a dream of having a place in the hills, but he shouldn't haveplanted trees. You can see the young fruit trees down there as a matter of fact. Anyway,I'm going to waste a little bit of time getting a few credentials of myself.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all right; take your time.

MR FARRANT: I was on the shire in the sixties for two terms. There was a period whenKalamunda had a population of eight or nine thousand. We did the first approvedMetropolitan Town Planning Scheme. So we built the first swimming pool in themetropolitan area. We built the library which received plaudits in America for smallcommunity activities. At the time, talking of my own efforts, my initiative got the railwayreserve made into parkland or recreation parkland. I belong to a group now which isgradually restoring it and the bush is coming back. It's like a vein through the middle of the

town which goes on for miles.

The Ledger Road Reserve was just Crown land and I suddenly thought, "That will be allhousing," and Gooseberry Hill had no recreation ground and I said in 50 years' time that will

be needed but it's already being used. So I just mention I have been a naturalist clubmember for about 20 years and a member of the Railway Reserve Committee. I have

joined the Range Land Society. I became very interested in our pastoral land. I made asubmission to Tom Stephens in 98, Upper House, and I have since made a submission tothe department and also to Alannah Mac Tiernan. Last year I went to a Range LandSociety conference in Alice Springs at my own cost pushing the barrow of bothconservation and Aboriginal rights for land. I think that's enough. In the fifties I was on theNative (indistinct) Council trying to bridge that and Sister Kate's. I was on the council.

I divert for a little bit, but the land down over here - I lived over on Gooseberry Hill Roadwhich was a part of the same property until I moved where I am now. It was interesting to

see the planners describe the bush as pristine bush. It had had a house, it had a poultryfarm, an intensive (indistinct), and it had two children's horses and had some sheep to keepthe grass down and yet it was pristine bush and anyone reading the file said, "Oh, it'spristine bush."

Now, I will get down to business. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm the personwho carried out the subdivision of the land, including site 217 on behalf of the Farrantfamily and myself. I owned four hectares where I'm living on the Farrant Estate which goes

back to 1890. The family first settled here in 1890-91.

32

It now has had five generations of Farrants live there. It is the final area of what wasoriginally 550 acres of which at this stage there are still three Farrant families living thereand two others who intend to do so.

116 acres are incorporated in the Darling Range Regional Park. I think that was bought inthe mid-sixties, from memory, for about $700 an acre. It's a pity we didn't still own it. In 79

the shire recommended the land in question be zoned special rural and we joined ourneighbours to employ one planner, Russell Taylor, who was the doyen of special rural. Hehad studied it and been to Queensland where it initiated. Russell became a good friend.He drew up a cohesive subdivision. The area was approximately 250 acres, 100 hectares,and created 80 by one hectare special rural lots and public open space. The portion ofSwan location 1763 held by us was approximately 100 acres or 40 hectares.

A detailed submission has been submitted and I hope you have seen that and the photos in

it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have.

MR FARRANT: It consisted of 12 one-hectare lots, of which nine have been developed,one I commend to you for fuller information to the report, particularly why the reasons itshould not be included. I think Mr Sterndale covered that fairly comprehensively. The areaof site 217 was the last area to be developed in approximately 1995. This coincided withthe commencement of preparing Bush Forever and we had been told by the departmentthere has never been an on-site inspection.

In 1998 and 2004 I consulted the relevant managers of Bush Forever and queried why itwas being included and the answer was, "We are short of land at Forrestfield Complex,"and it needed to make up which I found was a very irrational - not irrational thought. I won't

say "irrational", but not rational thinking. The other thing I will mention there, coming backto John Sterndale's house building, is at that time, 98, I had seen David Nunn - he was themanager of Bush Forever - and asked him to give us a specific letter saying we could go

ahead and build on the block, which he did give me, but when I sold the first block on RidgeHill Road and again I put in the sale agreement that it was covered by Bush Forever andthe future owner came down to see Bush Forever, they said, "You can't build there. You'renot allowed to build there."

This is an act that's still not in Parliament. It's still not approved. This was in 98 and it wasonly that I had this magic piece of paper which was, "Oh, isn't that surprising. Yes, you canbuild." Now, John has faced that same problem in the last seven months of trying to gethis plan. They lose the piece of paper all the time. I feel for him because, as I say, indoing this subdivision it was as if I was a speculator, developer. I'm not sure where thehorns grew from but they grew. There was a lot of grind. It occupied too much of my life.

John is facing that. I pick up later on my two blocks.

Incidentally, through the fence to the east on former Farrant land - that's now the regionalpark, the 116 acres - the flora is similar best quality bushland.

33

This we are told is not in the metro area and cannot be included in preserving because it'snot in the I find that again not very rational thinking. Despite our requesting sinceSeptember 04 for a site inspection to show the housing development the development

that has taken place, as you see on the land, has quite changed it. It was only in the lastmonth there was a physical inspection and, surprise, surprise, they found it was notForrestfield Complex flora. It was being recommended to be excluded from Bush Forever.Has that actually happened? Have you had a recommendation?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's the advice that Cate has given us.

MR FARRANT: Yes, I just wanted to hear it myself. They also said that when it wasroadside inspected in the nineties that it was in most excellent condition. This is false. I

had been grazing cattle on it in the nineties and my family for 100 years. To illustrate I nowshow you a photo of it in the early 1900's. To this, I might add, are the other reasonsincluded in our written submission.

I want to be clear here. The reason I put cattle on it was there could have been a potentialbushfire problem. My uncle had had cattle on it before me and my grandfather before thatand the cattle protect it, but I under-grazed it so the bottlebrush survived, or a lot of it did. It

didn't all survive. But it became fairly open and that has since grown back, but as the treeshave come back - you might have noticed in the photo there are not too many trees in the1900's. As the trees have come back and grown, the bottlebrush is deteriorating.

I have now lived there nine years, having moved from the other end of Swan location 1763and I see the changing bush and I find it's quite intrusive that someone comes and tellsyou, without coming to look at it for seven years and I think public relations of Planning

need to be brought up to date and some decent liaison done. It says it in the act. It says

I only read it the other night, you know, this ought be done with friendly - in 98 I did havetwo young people come and talk to me and tell me what preservation of bush was about,which was rather interesting. I had no idea what it was about until then, if I can be a little

bit - -

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Farrant, have you got much more to add?

MR FARRANT: Not much more. I will make it quick. I will read it quickly. Also the BushForever states they wanted rural lots of a minimum of 10 hectares. Development of suchlots can be 10 per cent - developed only 10 per cent. I think John's covered that. I won't

say any more. Having included our 12 one-hectare lots to the extent approximately10 hectares, a recent reference from Planning referred to only letting us clear 1000 square

metres. This makes it virtually impossible to build a house. Mine is only a 240 square

metre house but it's cross-shaped to pick up the views. If I put a rectangle around it, I have

the bush within two metres of the house.

The ranger says I have got to clear 20 metres from the house and this has been an annual

battle. I will come to that. A hectare block requires boundary firebreaks which are about1200 square metres on a hectare block.

34

One of the things the ranger insisted between my house block and John's is a battleaxeblock which is three metres of bitumen. We had a stand-up battle. We were to clearthree metres of the bush on our side and John on his because that wasn't our land.They're the battles that go on; the joy of being (indistinct) I think it used to be called.

Summing up - I think I have got about three summings up here. Site 217 (indistinct) to themanager David Nunn and not on rational reason but because they were short of land.Site 217 was grazed over 100 years. I topped Midland Market on two occasions with my

Angus cattle. I must admit I was very proud of that. It was known as the bull's paddockbecause my grandparents kept a bull in that paddock. I grazed it until the mid-ninetieswhen the fence was removed to enable subdivision. When the department commencedBush Forever in 95, there was one house on the site and I think this is where the problemcame. It still from the air would have looked reasonably bushy. It only had a couple ofyears, from what I can remember, without cattle on it.

In 98 when the first publication came, there were four houses and that's what I tried to drawto attention to say with this development the bush will go, and it does go. The currentsituation is there are nine fully developed; one approval in process; two have not beendeveloped but will be. They're owned by me and I kept them because they give me accessto the people I have become rather attached to. I have the run of the full place, but one ofthese days I won't be here and so they will want to be disposed of. What I would like issomething from the department saying, "Yes," and we have had a letter in at thedepartment for, I guess, a month now asking us to say, "Yes, you can develop a house onit." That's I ask but not with 1000-square metre minimum. We would still ask that and thatalso would apply to John's block.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR FARRANT: I have probably got more bush on mine, but I have got a three and a halfacre block because I was a bit selfish and pinched the surplus so I have a bit moreopportunity to keep some bush, but I would like that to be put in writing so it's at leastavailable and we don't have to go through it again. I don't want another blood pressure

attack. Fully developed blocks are developed far in excess of 1000 square metres. If one

refers to the special rule definition under which they were developed, it refers topreservation only. I think most people are too young here to know that special rule wasdeveloped in the seventies to enable people to keep horses and for rural use and it said"and for the preservation for trees" and that's what I gave every buyer. I don't think any

other real estate person has ever done that.

I have lived on Swan location for 50 years. I'm rather loath not to have space around me.However, time runs out and they will probably be disposed of. Incidentally, they weresubstantially degraded by watsonia and I spent large amounts of time pulling, spraying andcutting flowers off so they didn't seed and I did that all along the creek line and the councilfinally finished it off.

35

Another inclusion - this is coming down (a) the inclusion of site 217 is not in keeping withBush Forever as to the fact that it's already subdivided into one-hectare sites which theproposed act precludes and they're not 10 hectares unsubdivided but nearly fullydeveloped.

Most are fully developed and are part of a total subdivision of 80 hectares special rural lotswhich surround it. An inspection on side would illustrate this. This we have never beenable to achieve. The department have told us that it has never been physically inspected.The development would, I suggest, be in the order of 3000 to 5000 square metresminimum to fully developed. Whatever the outcome, could there be clear instruction toallow me to develop. We have done that. After a hard battle they conceded. My

neighbours just had similar problems.

If you do not allow this, then I'm being punished for what has been a lifetime of involvementin this area conforming with zone rules. I refer you also to our detailed submission and thephotos but believe you need an on-site visit to really understand the situation. I hope

honesty, fairness, justice and commonsense will prevail. Living through the eight years ofindecision has had considerable adverse affects of health largely due to the lack of liaison

and commonsense. I might add, when we were subdividing the main area, the bushfirepeople looked at the creek line from John Farrant Drive down and said, "We don't want that

as public open space. It's hard to look at." Now, I could have said, "Beaut; another threeblocks." The family - out attachment said, "You can't do that. Creeks are for kids to go andcatch tadpoles," and we got it put in. If I suffer a persecution complex, I feel there's a bit of

justification.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Farrant, I think we will have to wind up now.

MR FARRANT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for coming in this morning. We have reallyappreciated hearing about your family's involvement with the land since the 1890's andcertainly appreciate the concerns that you have regarding this amendment and we will takeon board all that you have said today, as well as the department officer's recommendation.

You have requested an early response to your letter to the department regarding yourdevelopment opportunities.

MR FARRANT: Just the fact that they could be - a similar manner -

CHAIRPERSON: That's right. That's outside the scope of this amendment, but I canassure you - - -

MR BEARDMORE: I'm not aware of any letter, but if there is one on file, Athol, then I'm

happy to respond to it.

MR FARRANT: It certainly was sent to you.

36

CHAIRPERSON: The officers will follow that up, Mr Farrant, and rest assured there still becommunication, a lot of communication, between yourselves and the department. So with

respect to this amendment I think we will be making our recommendations to theCommission and taking on board everything that you have said today.

MR FARRANT: Thanks for your patience.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for coming in.

MR FARRANT: There has been a long history.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand. Thank you very much.

37

MR KYLE PASSMORERepresenting Bunarak Pty Ltd

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for stepping in. The other ones have arrived yet so we mightas well get started with you. Now, you are representing Bunarak?

MR PASSMORE: Bunarak which is a family owned company, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae. I'm the chair of this Hearings Committee. Greg isour environmental consultant who is an independent person on this committee. We're hereto listen to your submissions and we have certainly read the written submissions.Whatever amplification you can provide us we will take on board. We are not adecision-making committee. We will recommend to the Planning Commission and so itgoes on to Parliament, etcetera, via the Minister and the Governor. So you are a publichearing. The proceedings are taped and will be in Parliament as well on transcript.

MR PASSMORE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So 15 minutes, thank you very much.

MR PASSMORE: I probably won't take that long. I actually didn't expect it like this. I

actually thought it would be an open forum, not actually discussing directly with you guys. I

have come into this - basically we have never really bothered with the land a great deal andnever done a lot with the land. My father has always looked after it and he passed away acouple of years ago. As executor of the will I have sort of landed the job. So over the lastprobably 18 months I have had to try and come to terms with exactly what's happened,how, why, when and where.

As a family, we're not totally against what you're trying to achieve. It's just the way in whichit looks to me on what I consider well-kept files - how it's come about to get where it istoday. I mean, when you read a lot of the information that we have been able to receive orgot back from people that have been involved in this in changing the zoning, you know,based on studies that read like "not fully tested", "not fully sampled", you know, "believe tobe this there" and "believe to be that there", I would have thought as a government orbodies of government you have got to be fairly precise and accurate with what you're tryingto achieve based on accurate information. I bring your attention to page 15(6),paragraph 2:

The onus is on the proponent to provide sufficient evidence and to demonstrateto the decision-making body that a proposal or decision is consistent with thepolicy or that a deviation is justified. Any proposal that deviates from the policywill not be supported without overriding justification statement of fact.

38

We have got nothing as a statement of fact or anything like that in the file to justify what'shappened because the Harrisdale Swamp is in our files and yet you seem to want to placeit back on the proponent. I would like someone to explain what you mean by "proponent".Who is the proponent?

CHAIRPERSON: I think Cate would be the best person placed to answer that.

MR PASSMORE: I mean, if the government is rezoning your land, am I the proponent oris the government the proponent?

MS GUSTAVSSON: May I clarify a point? Your land is already parks and recreation andit has been for some time. This particular process that we're here for today is that we'reidentifying your property within a Bush Forever protection area. In doing so, we are notproposing a rezoning. The Parks and Recreation reserve is already there.

MR PASSMORE: Yes, but I'm trying to work out how it got there.

MS GUSTAVSSON: It was placed there in previous amendments and -

MR PASSMORE: Based on what?

MS GUSTAVSSON: That would have been based on vegetation values, the requirementand the identification of this area as significant areas, and that has already been processeda number of years ago. So this particular session here for the Bush Forever is that we're

just identifying existing parks and recreation within a Bush Forever protection area.

MR PASSMORE: Okay, but, like, I have asked the question. Who is the proponent based

on this here?

CHAIRPERSON: That's a general step.

MR PASSMORE: Are we the proponent or is the government the proponent? It looks to

me like the whole thing has been set up and it's open to interpretation and all sorts of

things which ends up costing like, our family is an example. The land is our asset but thefamily is not monetarily wealthy. Now, with all these things that you're bringing in, doesn't itopen it up to interpretation of how, what, who, when, and going to cost people a hell of a lot

of money?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Passmore, I think it's important to understand that the land iscurrently reserved for parks and recreation so this process is not about undoing that.

MR PASSMORE: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: We can't undo that. To unreserve a piece of land requires anotherprocess, an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme, and I doubt if that, you know,

is being contemplated at this point in time.

39

The property being currently reserved for parks and recreation will eventually be acquiredby the Planning Commission, as its statutory and legal obligation to acquire Parks andRecreation land. So this policy layer is just that. It's a layer of policy that sits above allParks and Recreation reserves which determines different measures that Planning can useto determine what sort of development can take place on the land.

MR PASSMORE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So the underlying reservation of your land, parks and recreation, doesnot change at all and it can't be unchanged through this process.

MR PASSMORE: Yes, because that makes it quite awkward for us. I mean, a study has

supposedly been done that we don't even know anything about. There's nothing on recordof any study in our files in any way, shape or form and the when I get information back, it'sall wishy-washy, you know, "not fully tested", "not fully sampled", not anything.

MR BEARDMORE: I think the rationale behind the reservation many years ago was theJandakot Botanic Park study, the Jandakot (indistinct) study which was done many yearsago. It also identified areas which (indistinct) whole Jandakot Botanic Park (indistinct) oneof them, from memory, and that's why it would have been (indistinct) Parks and Recreation

at that time. So it would have been based on historical studies, the rationale, beingreserved for Parks and Recreation - - -

MR PASSMORE: Is there any chance of getting a copy of that study? I mean, somebody

that's been on the land at least, because we have got no record of anybody even being on

the land.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Passmore, we can certainly assist you with that sort of informationand certainly we can refer you on to Mr Tim Hillyard who is the officer at Department ofPlanning and Infrastructure that deals with valuation issues and compensation issues andacquisition issues. So if you're unfamiliar with that sort of process, that could be a goodpoint of reference for you to start with.

MR PASSMORE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's outside the scope of this amendment. This particular processthat we're looking at - your parcel of land can - should a special control area policy layer beapplied to your particular parcel of land.

MR PASSMORE: Okay. I have asked you some questions on this one here basically.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask what that document is?

MR PASSMORE: Statement of Planning Policy.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR PASSMORE: Page 8, paragraph 3:

Consider private land conservation to protect and manage Bush Foreverreserves proposed and existing in private ownership or portions thereof as analternative to the state acquisition where appropriate in particular where there isno public access or public land management requirements for compensation.Alternatives to state acquisition include conservation covenants, landmanagement agreements or legal land management agreements or similar.

Can you explain what that is?

CHAIRPERSON: I think we're getting into the realms of a statement of planning policyissue which I find difficult to explain in this forum because we're really looking at, you know,the issue of the policy over your land. That's a draft statement of planning policy whichwon't be finalised until after all the submissions are heard, but the important point I wouldlike to make is that your parcel of land being reserved for parks and recreation will beacquired at some point in the future by the Planning Commission.

MR BEARDMORE: If I may clarify that, basically what that is doing is trying to the

Commission doesn't normally (indistinct) acquire that. It encourages people to continue toenjoy their property until the time in which they wish to ask the Commission to purchasetheir land. Now, obviously there's a lot of areas which are parks and recreation. Some ofthose areas may not be essential for public access so there may be opportunities by whichto protect the vegetation through the Parks and Recreation reservation, but also allowpeople to continue to stay on the land while the vegetation is protected. So that's basicallylooking at other ways by which we can sort of retain the land in public ownership whileprotecting the vegetation but also at some stage in the future (indistinct) by which theCommission can buy the land, etcetera. So it's trying to encourage, you know, ongoing(indistinct) for conservation.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the land being used for at the moment?

MR PASSMORE: We have only ever used basically dead trees for firewood and runningsome animals on it, bits and pieces. I'm only talking running the dogs and that sort ofthing, and growing potatoes many, many, many years ago. We have owned the land forabout 100-odd years. We haven't done a great deal with it. We have actually looked afterthe land and we feel like we're being penalised for doing so. The neighbours allsurrounding us - you know, it was basically a rubbish tip across the road and, you know, myfather used to empty rubbish out of the bags and drop it back at people's houses if hefound the address in it. So, I mean, we have been praised for looking after the land but we

feel like we have been penalised for doing it also. I mean, they have offered us 1.2 in 1990,1.3 in 2004 and it's value as a joint development with somebody and surrounding urban is$35,000,000. Now, obviously we don't expect $35,000,000 but 1.3 is a joke and thisnegotiated outcome is just not working obviously.

41

I think why owners like us get so irate, upset, in the system is that it seems that - you don'tseem to have to justify anything you have done with if, buts and maybes and when it comesto the negotiated outcome, we're stuck in a non-competitive place and that's really our onlygrief with the whole thing. We don't particularly mind what you want to do. It's just how youhave gone about it and basically the end result to us is just absolutely negative on behalf ofwhat we consider all Western Australians. I mean, if that's the case, to benefit from theselands that you want to acquire, surely they have got to pay a reasonable amount of moneyfor these things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Once again, Mr Passmore, that's outside the scope of thisamendment.

MR PASSMORE: Yes, I understand, but I just want to understand this, you know, whatyou mean by what is it, conservation covenants.

MR BEARDMORE: Basically there's three covenanting programs in place at the momentin Western Australia. There's a covenanting for conservation land management.

MR PASSMORE: So you're going to place a covenant on our land basically.

MR BEARDMORE: It's up to you.

MR PASSMORE: No.

MR BEARDMORE: It's up to you. They're voluntary, so basically if you want to protect thebush and place a covenant on your own - -

MR PASSMORE: And if you just leave the bush as is, as we have always done?

MR BEARDMORE: That's fine.

MR PASSMORE: People dump cars and rubbish all on it, as they have done are we

responsible for that?

MR BEARDMORE: We would encourage ongoing maintenance, duty of care, but throughconservation covenants (indistinct) tax exemptions as well; for example, the stategovernment at the moment last year recognised covenanting programs for exemption fromstate land tax. So, for example, there's the CALM one. There's the National Trustcovenant. They're the two main ones we put out because they have ongoing stewardshipadvice through those programs so people will come out there and talk about the covenantand talk about ways by which you can manage the bush and ways of providing fencing andongoing (indistinct). So there's two programs there. if you're not interested in stateacquisition, there's obviously some problem there.

MR PASSMORE: We are; a reasonable price.

42

MR BEARDMORE: If you want (indistinct) this opportunity to the private conservationmanagement which achieves the same outcome (indistinct).

MR PASSMORE: So we're not going to have legal agreements or anything placed on usunwillingly.

MR BEARDMORE: We don't compulsorily acquire land. We don't put a covenants onwhich are involuntary. As I say, the original purpose and intent of this reserve was part ofthe Jandakot Botanic Park so obviously at some stage in the future there's going to bewhen land is acquired, there will be an overall major plan prepared by the manager ofCALM, Conservation and Land Management, to sort of manage this for public interest(indistinct) Yanchep National Park.

MR PASSMORE: That's all then.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR PASSMORE: That's basically all I had.

MR WOODMAN: Sorry we couldn't help you more.

MR PASSMORE: That's all right; never mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for coming in and expressing your concerns to us in person.It certainly helps us to understand - - -

MR PASSMORE: Fair and reasonable is all we want.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR PASSMORE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much, Mr Passmore. If you would like to contactMr Hillyard at some point in the future, if you haven't already -

MR PASSMORE: Thank you.

43

MR BRIAN HURLEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hurley, I'm Corinne MacRae. I'm the chair of the HearingsCommittee. This is Mr Greg Woodman. Greg is an environmental consultant who is theindependent person on this committee.

MR HURLEY: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: We are appointed by the Commission to hear your submissions andwe're not a decision-making committee. We will be making recommendations to theCommission and from there it goes on to the Minister, to Governor and then to Parliament.It's an opportunity for us to hear first hand and for you too to amplify your writtensubmission and perhaps any points of clarification that we can make to help you in someway we can. You have requested a public hearing. The proceedings will be taped and atranscript will make its way to Parliament at the final outcome.

MR HURLEY: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have got about 15 minutes.

MR HURLEY: Okay; not a problem. Now, I received a letter on 10 May stating that it wasgoing to be the recommendation that the proposed Bush Forever concept on site 217 is tobe removed. Does that mean anything, or is it like everything else that's been done withthis procedure where it's just written but nothing happens?

CHAIRPERSON: There's a recommendation from the officers that will come to us and wecertainly have had that recommendation. We will then forward our conclusions to thePlanning Commission. Of course the ultimate decision-maker is Parliament, but certainlywe will take on board recommendations from the officers as well as listening to yoursubmission. So that carries a fair bit of weight.

MR HURLEY: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't give you any guarantees, I'm sorry. As you know, we're not adecision-making committee so I can't commit this committee at all or the Commission toany final decision.

MR HURLEY: Right. Well, this saga has been going on since 1999, I think, was the firsttime I got a letter, which I had obviously forgotten about until I was rummaging through filesa couple of months ago because I have just moved house four or five years ago up to thisplace at Ridge Hill Road. I obviously didn't take a lot of notice of the 99 letter because Ithought it must have been a joke talking about reserving properties or Bush Forever in thisparticular area because the area has been subdivided. We were building houses. I wasbuilding a house, my wife and I, and of the 12 hectares or so in the subdivision - you know,as I said in my letter to the Commission, what's left to protect?

44

I mean, the property was variously over the last 100 years a sheep farm or a cow farm, andon our particular block between everything we've got to do to satisfy the shire and FESAbetween firebreaks and leach drains, etcetera, etcetera, and plus the house of the10,000 square metres on the block there is perhaps 1200 square metres of moth-eatenmongrel scrub left to save. It seemed to me that when these processes are put in train, itwould be a good idea for someone to go out and look at the block on the ground ratherthan work from ancient aerial photographs. I believe that nobody has been on site fromany of the departments to see whether anything was worth saving until Cate came up acouple of months ago. So, as I say, this sage has been going on, as far as I'm concerned,since prior to 1999 and nobody has been on site.

It's not as if we're a long way out of town. I mean, Gooseberry Hill or where we live isactually closer to here than the Cappuccino Strip in Fremantle. There's really nothing thatthis Bush Plan is going to do for me. It's not going to hinder me. It's not going to doanything. The only reason I came along here was to express my disapproval I'm not sure

quite what the word is - about the whole Goddamn process where nobody goes and has alook on the ground. Someone sits in an ivory tower either in Forest Chase or in St GeorgesTerrace and says, "This would be a good idea," and then it's left to the people affected toget up and complain about it and stop it. That's about all I have got to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Hurley. Greg, do you have any questions?

MR WOODMAN: No, that's fine, Mr Hurley. Thanks for coming in and telling us yourconcerns. We certainly understand a little bit about what you're talking about. We havehad several submissions on this particular Bush Forever site already this morning. Theyhave been giving a lot of the background.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Farrant has been in and Mr Sterndale has been in.

MR HURLEY: Yes, I knew they were coming in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so we got a lot of the background information.

MR HURLEY: I have spoken to them a number of times.

CHAIRPERSON: It is very important that you did come in yourself to put forward yourcase and for that I thank you for making the time available and certainly we will be taking all

those issues on board. Is there any sort of assistance that Cate or Kieron Beardmore cangive you in the meantime, certainly the lines of communication are open.

MR HURLEY: As I say, I don't have a problem. That's not the reason I came in. There's

nothing in the Bush Plan proposal that can affect me because it's all done; you know, the

horse has bolted, so to speak, but I really came in to complain about the way the system

work, or doesn't.

45

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly that's a point that you have made and made well, but over

the years there has been no (indistinct)

MR HURLEY: That's the word I was looking for, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and that's certainly a valid comment that you have made. Anythingelse you would like to add?

MR HURLEY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

46

MR PETER MEAD AND MR IAN CURLEWISrepresenting St Mary's Anglican Girls School

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 47 to 54 inclusive.

DR PAUL VAN DER MOEZEL AND MR TASIO COKISRepresenting Eglinton Estates and Landcorp

CHAIRPERSON: Hi. I'm Corinne MacRae.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Hi, Corinne; Paul Van Der Moezel.

MR COKIS: Tasio Cokis.

CHAIRPERSON: How are you. Greg Woodman is an environmental consultant and anindependent member of the committee. Thank you for coming in a little bit earlier. We'rejust trying to squeeze everybody in.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Good.

CHAIRPERSON: We're the Hearings Committee. There is a third member of thecommittee who's unfortunately on her way from Canberra so there are just the two of ustoday. I'm a member of the Planning Commission and Greg, as I said, has been appointed

as an independent person. As the Hearings Committee we're here to hear yoursubmissions and anything that you can amplify. We have read your written submissions.We are not a decision-making committee. We will be recommending our conclusions tothe Planning Commission who then recommends to the Minister and Governor and it goes

on. That's the process.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: it's a public hearing so the proceedings will be taped and the transcriptswill be made available when the amendment is tabled in Parliament. So that's the process.If you would like to start now, we would very much like to hear from you.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Can I clarify one thing first because there were two documentsthat were out for comment at the same time? There was the actual MRS amendment andthen there was the statement of planning policy. Our submission covered both in the oneletter. Is today just about the MRS amendment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's correct.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: So it's not about the other issues with the statement of planningpolicy.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's correct. The statement of planning policy will be completed at

the end of this process.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: I thought that might be the case. I just wanted to clarify that.Our presentation will be fairly brief then because it's really a one-issue presentation on the

amendment.

55

MR COKIS: I can distribute the drawings if you like.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Okay.

MR COKIS: Just to clarify, I'm the project manager for the Alkimos-Eglington area andthere's a current amendment out for the Alkimos-Eglington area. Paul Van Der Moezel andATA Environmental are our environmental consultants. So we represent effectivelyLandcorp and Eglington Estates and WA Carpenter Properties who are the three majorlandowners in the Alkimos-Eglington area. What I'm about to give you and pass around isa current metropolitan region scheme for the area.

MR BEARDMORE: Is the amendment - -

MR COKIS: I will give you one too, Kieron, and the amendment advertising closed on May13. I will leave it up to Paul.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Yes, I guess it's a fairly simple submission that we made.Basically the special control area in the amendment has been proposed over the currentBush Forever sites, according to the current, MRS amendment but we're going through, asTasio mentioned, an amendment to the MRS to change a fair bit of the Alkimos-Eglingtonarea which includes the Bush Forever sites that has been out for advertising twice.

MR COKIS: Twice.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: The second time has just closed, May 13. It is being formallyassessed by the EPA as an environmental review, a section 48 assessment, and oursubmission was that we considered it premature to put a special control area over the Bush

Forever sites. It's currently in the MRS zoning until such time as the EPA have assessedand then the WA Planning Commission have also assessed the submissions and the majoramendment.

The consideration for holding over or in fact really excluding the Alkimos-Eglington areafrom the amendment that you're dealing with was not without precedent because theStakehill Swamp Bush Forever site 275 was excluded for that very reason, the exact samereason, we believe, because it was going through an MRS amendment which was alsobeing assessed by the EPA. I suppose, concluding our argument, we would like to beconsidered in the same way as Stakehill Swamp has been considered to avoid - not aduplication but to avoid going through this process for the special control area zoning tohave it changed if the EPA and the WA Planning Commission - whatever their decision isgoing to be on the current MRS amendment. Tasio, did you have any other -

MR COKIS: No, I think that's it in a nutshell. I suppose the only point I would add is oneof the sites on the original MRS the site where lot 101 is which is where the waste watertreatment facility is located.

56

At the time this MRS was in place, which has been many years now, they were looking at aone-kilometre buffer and so the bush to the north and the private recreation to the south, inour view, are in the MRS amendment to facilitate that one-kilometre buffer. We have anagreement with Water Corporation to relocate about 750 metres inland and work on a600-metre buffer which obviously we're negotiating through now as part of as Paul says,

it's part of the section 48 approval for the proposed MRS and I suppose through thatexercise it threw up into question that site there. So its been through the planning processthat we have been going through over the past - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Many years.

MR COKIS: - many, many years that we have done the extensive amount of work onthe ground to really look at the sites and look at the sites in light of the relocation of theAlkimos waste water treatment facility.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask, Tasio, is that a high school site there?

MR COKIS: No, that's an outfall site.

CHAIRPERSON: Related to that.

MR COKIS: Yes, what they require is a site initially to build their first outfall, which they'reseeking approval on now. We're currently in a section 48 process because of the proposedamendment. The Water Corporation are in a section 38 process for delivering the Alkimoswaste water facility. Part of that process is the delivery or the need for an outfall and whatthey require is an area where they actually lay their pipes out, join them up, string them out,once, probably twice, during the life of the project. There's all this debate about whetheroutfalls should be allowed or whether they shouldn't be allowed, but in fact we have to planfor an outfall at this point in time. So that will effectively be a park adjoining residential for40 years initially for 15 to 20 years and then for another 20 years after that until thesecond outfall goes in, then it will be a construction site for probably nine months whilstthey build their outfall.

CHAIRPERSON: Understood. Greg, do you have any questions?

MR WOODMAN: No, it's pretty straightforward, this one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so. Kieron, would you like to amplify anything regarding theMRS amendment?

MR BEARDMORE: I confirm Paul's point that we obviously do follow the P and R as itexists at the moment and any changes that occur through the current amendment,provided they're gazetted and approved by Parliament, we will obviously change ourspecial control area to reflect that. It's a little bit different to Stakehill because Stakehill is

just in a Parks and Recreation reservation. It's not looking at the special control area.

57

Say for the sake of argument that Parliament and the decision-making bodies decided thatthe P and R in this area should not change if that was the case, then obviously a specialcontrol area would remain over the existing P and R so it gives us, I suppose, a sort of asafety net to say to the community that we are going to need special control areas to reflectthe P and R -

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: So for Stakehill Swamp - I think I know what you mean. That's

unlikely to ever get a special control area.

MR BEARDMORE: Not through the current process because the current process justchanges it to P and R. It may be at some time in the future. Once that process has beenfinalised and once council has had a closer look at the local scheme in terms of what areasoutside of the P and R should or should not be protected, then those two processescombined can then inform us in terms of whether a special control area should actually goover Stakehill Swamp but, as you know, that's quite a sensitive issue so that again willrequire another amendment or go through an amendment to show Stakehill Swamp is aspecial control area.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: The difference is that Stakehill Swamp currently is not P and Rreserve - -

MR BEARDMORE: No, that's right.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: - whereas we do have it here.

MR BEARDMORE: That's right, yes.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: The reason for the submission is that this project has gone on fora long time and it's still got a way to go. We don't want any further delays that areunavoidable at this point in time. If we can avoid them now, let's do it. If by changing thespecial control area leads to another delay, then we don't want any more delays basically.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to reiterate, the Alkimos-Eglington amendment will define the Parksand Recreation reserve finally.

MR COKIS: So in terms of time frame the current MRS amendment that we're in is behindthis one. Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: That's right.

MR COKIS: This is the hearings of the Bush Forever MRS.

CHAIRPERSON: The Bush Forever, yes.

58

MR COKIS: So our hearings are probably not going to be for another couple of months.

CHAIRPERSON: The Alkimos-Eglington, that's correct.

MR COKIS: I suppose at some point you will be coming to some finality on the BushForever MRS amendment - - -

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, I know what you're saying; yes.

MR COKIS: - - - whereas we will still be a couple of months

CHAIRPERSON: Out of kilter.

MR COKIS: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR COKIS: Cross that bridge when we come to it.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, it is a little bit unfortunate, but as a rule special control areas aresort of - the underlying zone doesn't change so if development is in accordance with theunderlying zone and reserve, then special control area boundaries don't change. It's only

where they're not in accordance with that. That's the advice I have been given today. So,for example, if you had a special control area over an urban zone and basically you wantedto develop that and the actual urban zoning changed or the special control area changed -sorry, the urban zoning changed and you wanted to develop a different area, that's fine.The special control area just doesn't affect the zoning of the land. So provided thatdevelopment is in accordance with the urban zoning the special control are boundarydoesn't necessarily have to change to accommodate that. Do you know what I'm trying tosay?

MR COKIS: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: It's a policy overlay. It's not a zoning or a reserve so it's not sort ofpreventing development from happening. I will just give you an example. The UWA sitewhich is - it's probably not a good example.

CHAIRPERSON: They're not here today.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: I do represent them.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you?

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Yes.

59

MR BEARDMORE: It's all in the public arena anyway, but if, for example, the actualspecial control area had to change for the UWA site to include that area and they camealong and said, "We want to urbanise this area," and we move from the special controlarea, the urbanisation doesn't have to wait for the removal of the special control area

because it's still in accordance with the underlying zone.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: That could be confused for people that see that it's a specialcontrol area, the cross-hatching over it and - - -

MR BEARDMORE: Sure, yes, because in reality what we would do then if that portion

was to be urbanised, we would change the special control area to just reflect the areawhich is going to be conserved, but we're not saying that that urbanisation should wait untilthe special control area boundaries change because it's in accordance with the underlyingzone.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: So what's the process of changing the special control area?

MR BEARDMORE: Unfortunately they're going to have to go through amendments.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: So whether or not it was left off, which is what the submission is,or it has to be changed subsequently, both would be an amendment.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right.

MR BEARDMORE: As I say, if the urbanisation is in accordance with the zoning whichoccurred through this process, there you don't have to change the special control area

MR COKIS: To continue

MR BEARDMORE: - - to continue the urbanisation. You do that. You change thespecial control area but it doesn't have to wait. That urbanisation doesn't have to wait forthat to occur. I can try and clarify that if you want just so it gives you some comfort.

MR COKIS: That would be good. What is the timing for finalisation of this amendment?

CHAIRPERSON: This amendment - I think the sort of indicative time is

September-October.

MR COKIS: Of this year?

CHAIRPERSON: We can't predict that obviously, but, yes, I think it definitely will be ahead

of the Alkimos-Eglington.

MR COKIS: Yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure how many submissions have been received on that.

60

MR COKIS: About 20. We won't get to the DOE and EPA till September-October. Westill need to do a bit of work on it.

CHAIRPERSON: Numbers of steps.

MR COKIS: That will be good, Kieron.

MR BEARDMORE: That's my understanding at the moment, but I will definitely try and

clarify that.

MR COKIS: Yes, that would be great, just to understand what happens if the amendmenttakes over or is set and the Bush Forever amendment says something else.

MR BEARDMORE: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much, gentlemen. Thank you for coming in and explainingand hopefully you get some more clarity. Thank you, Paul.

DR VAN DER MOEZEL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Tasio, thank you.

MR COKIS: Thanks.

61

MR GRAHAM PARTRIDGE, MR IAN BIRCH AND MS MARLENE ANDERTONRepresenting the Town of Cambridge

MR PARTRIDGE: Sorry, I got the time wrong, quarter past 12.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all right. We have had a bit of a buffer anyway.

MS ANDERTON: Hello, Marlene Anderton.

CHAIRPERSON: This is Greg Woodman. Now, as I have explained many times thismorning, we're the Hearings Committee and we're not a decision-making committee. Wemake recommendations to the Planning Commission on the outcomes of all the hearingsand the submissions. We have read the written submission you have made. This is apublic hearing so the proceedings are taped and the transcript will be available inParliament as a public record of the hearings. So, Ian and Marlene, you have got about15 minutes.

MS ANDERTON: I won't be speaking today. I have just come with Ian. Ian is going to bespeaking.

CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

MR BIRCH: Yes, I have written something out so I might just read that but if you want tointerrupt and ask questions I would like the opportunity to edit it or at least correct itbecause it's hot off the press.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR BIRCH: I would like to begin by just commenting on the Bush Forever process. I

understand that it's perhaps not entirely about that, but I guess it just appears to us, andI'm sure to many others, that sort of every skerrick of bushland has been identified andincluded in Bush Forever with the view that the detail will be sorted out later. Certainlythat's what we see with the issues we have got and, you know, this might be all very wellbut it does create uncertainty with landowners and, as such, I think it is unfair in thatrespect.

Throughout the Bush Forever process the Town of Cambridge has continued to voiceconcern regarding the inclusion of two particular areas within Bush Forever sites. That's

the areas known and M and N. I will give you a copy of a plan that shows M and N which ison West Coast Highway either side of The Boulevard which is land that is zoned urban andowned freehold by the town. The other areas is AK Reserve which has become prettyfamous, I think, over the last few months which is the area earmarked for sporting facilitiesfor the Perry Lakes project. The town at every opportunity has voiced its concern aboutthat and we have never had any response whatsoever to our submissions other than to seethe areas keep cropping up in new incarnations of Bush Forever.

62

The town has got three Bush Forever sites in its boundaries and all of these are locatedtowards to the coast. The sites are 310, 312 and 315. By and large we don't take issuewith these sites being identified. In fact in many respects they're fairly obvious. Theygenerally cover natural coastal dunes in the Bold Regional Park and are mostly reservedfor Parks and Recreation under the region scheme. So in principle the concept we don'thave a problem with in the areas identified. It's those particular areas that I mentioned

before, M and N and AK Reserve, that we are particularly concerned about.

As I said, whilst we understand that the current MRS amendment is more to do withproviding statutory provision for Bush Forever sites, if I can put it in those terms, ratherthan dealing with the actual sites themselves I think it's difficult to talk about one withoutreferring to the other. The town's submission to the Commission n October last yearfocused on those two areas. Also I think - and we will continue to say this as a town it

bears mentioning that the town gifted over 400 hectares of freehold land, a lot of which waszoned urban under the region scheme, for Bold Regional Park so there's no question of thetown's commitment to protection of bushland. It's a question, I suppose, of what is enough.I would suggest that this gesture by the town would be unsurpassed in the state to give thatmuch land up, freehold land, for the protection of bush.

The concern we have with regard to the inclusion of the two specifically mentioned areas,M and N and AK, is - I guess ifs the additional layer of bureaucracy which we must contendwith in progressing any proposals we might have for these bits of land and that's why I saywe don't think it's appropriate that they are there and as they are, we have then got to gothrough an additional layer of approval. This layer in all likelihood could involve more thanone government agency which is only going to further delay any proposals that we mighthave, and I Will come to particularly AK Reserve which is a present one.

I want to make some comments about the Planning Commission. These are made in themost positive terms, but I do have some doubts about the capability of the PlanningCommission to process Bush Forever matters in a timely manner. As I said, it's not acriticism of the Commission or the staff, but I think it's a matter of fact in terms of theresources and the increasing level of involvement in all manner of land developments and

the increasing layers that seem to be placed on land development.

It seems that the DPI policy division is furiously churning out policies. However, I don'tknow whether there's the resources available to carry out the implementation and theregulatory function that these policies require. It's all very well to have the policies but then

they have got to be administered. Just by way of an example, some months ago the townsubmitted its beach development plan for endorsement by the Planning Commission and todate our inquiries reveal that nothing has happened. it just hasn't progressed and so Ithink that's a genuine concern. It's more an operational matter but I think it's somethingthat should be taken into consideration in adopting policies.

In this regard I think that if there are going to be policies adopted, then there should besome kind of time limit set on the Planning Commission and any other agencies that mightbe involved with which they have to respond to applications or development proposals.

63

Similarly and I know it's not part of this exercise the EPA - it would be nice if they hadsimilar controls on them so that things just don't take forever to get through.

As I mentioned before, time is of particular importance in relation to AK Reserve. As theCommission is certainly fully aware, the Perry Lakes Stadium redevelopment projectinvolves the relocation of sporting facilities onto AK Reserve and the Minister for Planninghas been very public in urging the town to get on with this project and we just see theinclusion of AK Reserve as a Bush Forever protection area having the potential tosubstantially delay getting on with that project.

The town has recently decided to refurbish the existing Perry Lakes Stadium as it is and torelocate Rugby and basketball on AK Reserve so that's going to reduce the amount of areaof bushland that may be required for any development on that site, but even in the eventthat the facilities can be entirely located on the cleared area of AK Reserve, it's still

adjacent to a Bush Forever site and so there still would be this approval process that wewould have to go through, unnecessarily we think, to progress the development of thesporting facilities.

Now, just in saying "unnecessarily", in looking at the feasibility for AK Reserve for sportingfacilities, there was a suitably qualified person - I'm sorry, I wasn't able to get the exactqualifications but they were expert in the field of horticulture and arboriculture and such.Their conclusion with AK Reserve - they assessed the bushland in AK Reserve and theassessment was that it had little value as a wildlife linkage due to its location anddegradation.

It has limited ecological value. No significant flora were found. It has no regionalconservation value and individual trees in small areas of AK Reserve should be used fornative foci, garden landscaping and, where possible, trees should be considered in in-siteplanning design process. We want to stress that any design that we would take onirrespective of Bush Forever we would be looking at how we can maintain the generalgreen ambience of that area and so the design would look at significant trees, anysignificant vegetation and to see how we could design around that.

There are just another couple of general points, I suppose, on this whole amendment.With regard to negotiated planning systems, I couldn't see a process. I think there needsto be a clear process that everyone understands set down as to how these solutions areestablished. That process needs to be seen to be fair and balanced and fully transparent.I think it's probably a bit haphazard at the moment and certainly from experience - not that Ihave had personally but the town has been involved in with the lot 118 site. I know therehas been some frustration involved because of a lack of openness of the process.

I think it would be of benefit if we're going to have these negotiated planning solutionsbecause I think it's a good idea, but I think a clear process and a fair process would helpgreatly.

64

In relation to local bushland areas, which is also part of the SBP, the town is engaged inthe Walga Perth Bio-Diversity Program so we're progressing that and we're happy toconsult with the Planning Commission and other relevant agencies, as outlined in 5.3(1)(f),and getting WAPC endorsement under 5.3(1)(h). I think that can be a positive thing butagain I just question the time that that would take and the ability for the stretched DPI andPlanning Commission to take on yet another responsibility, I suppose.

In summary, in principle the sites that are identified in the town we accept and weunderstand. We think that if you're going to have a Bush Forever-type proposal, then theywould be obvious ones. It's just those two particular areas that we think don't warrantbeing included in the site and our concern is the effects that will have in progressinganything we might want to do on those sites in the future and the one that's of immediatepriority to us is, of course, AK Reserve. Thank you. Did I make it?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ian. Greg, do you have any questions?

MR WOODMAN: No, I don't have any.

CHAIRPERSON: Ian, with areas M and N you're saying that that's an area of concern as

well. That's land that's zoned urban for P and R under the council scheme. Do you notsee the special control area as complementary to the council's scheme zoning?

MR BIRCH: It might be, but I guess P and R is not just bush preservation, it's recreationas well, and so there could be other - I mean, like AK Reserve. It's P and R and we'reputting recreation there. It is freehold land. It's, I suppose, in many respects by anaccident of history that it's undeveloped. It could have easily been developed, I guess,over the years like the rest of City Beach has but it's left over. I don't think there was anydeliberate act to create a bush reserve or an active recreational area. So I guess that's the

concern. It's really confining it to just a preservation area now, a bushland area. Theremight be other good uses as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Kieron, would you like to comment on that?

MR BEARDMORE: Yes. Obviously what we try and do is give higher policy standing forthe Bush Forever protection areas for the bushland within Parks and Recreation reserves inthe local scheme, but through the SBP we do still acknowledge wider recreational needs inthose sorts of areas and we encourage, you know, management plans where someresolution or agreement with the Commission could be determined in terms of what areascan be developed for recreation and what areas should be protected for bush. We try touse that as a framework for future decision-making and obviously the approval process willbe a lot more smoother where a management plan is in place to ensure that all our needsare sort of satisfied really.

On some of your other points, if I may, the negotiated planning solutions you know, it's a

fair comment that what we need is some clear criteria by which everybody understandshow those things are sorted out.

65

The bushland SBP at the moment the draft one and the final one is proposed to haveplanning assessment criteria which are in theory your negotiated planning solution criteriaso everybody can clearly see exactly what the decision-making framework is for a particularsite. So that's something which we're keen to put in place in the SBP.

Also unfortunately we can't fetter the EPA which is where we would like to reach some kindof outcome. EPA have publicly said that where there is a reasonable outcome, they will notassess those sorts of outcomes. However, they still might get third party referrals andthey're still perfectly within their right to, for whatever reasons, go through an assessmentprocess.

The local bush issue - obviously we're keen on sort of encouraging local bushlandstrategies. There were a lot of submissions on the SBP from councils wanting Commissionendorsements of those strategies because they recognised that the Commission throughrezonings or subdivision applications has a lot of development control powers. It wants to

make sure it doesn't spend a lot of time and resources producing these strategies but theycarry no weight with the Commission so they were obviously keen for Commissionendorsement to those sorts of things really.

Finally, the AK Reserve obviously there's been some discussion already with the BushForever office on that and primarily the Bush Forever protection area follows the existingParks and Recreation reserve, but again the bushland SBP states that we're not interestedin cleared or degraded areas within the reserve and we can accommodate future

MR BIRCH: There is a bit of bush there as well.

MR BEARDMORE: There is a little bit of bush and it's probably questionable, as you sayyourself, whether it comes under the definition of bushland because it has no understorey.It's fairly weedy. Having said that, there are obviously some tall trees there which probablywe need to sort of consider and try our best to sort of conserve that and establish linkage

opportunities where possible. Linkages are never easy, of course, because a lot of themtend to more conceptual than realistic.

MR BIRCH: We have always said there's a linkage across the road.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR BIRCH: Down Perry Lakes Reserve into Bold Park.

MR BEARDMORE: I think the Perth Greenways Project and Bush Forever itself identifiedthe link through the Rowe Reserve linking the UWA site to Bold Park.

MS ANDERTON: Underwood Avenue.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

66

CHAIRPERSON: Just as another clarification, Kieron, even if the site were removed fromthe policy overlaying measures, there is still the clearing controls of the EP Act.

MR BEARDMORE: That's correct, yes. So any development application, except whereexempt for prescribed uses which I don't believe a sporting facility would be, but anydevelopment application would require a clearing permit from the DOE so you can get ridthe protection area but there's still that sort of overriding need to get - I'm not saying thatthey would have a problem with that but that's unfortunately another process.

MR BIRCH: Yes, I wondered whether the fact that it's Bush Forever places any higherimportance on getting that other clearance.

MR BEARDMORE: That's a fair point. They are identified as environmentally sensitiveareas, but again they would obviously take the advice of this office and they're not

interested in cleared or degraded areas themselves. They have certain criteria by whichthey determine clearing applications in terms of the sort of diversity and significance of thebush and those sorts of things and they themselves would obviously have a closer look atthe bushland values of that site.

MR BIRCH: Another point I haven't got in my notes, if I can mention it, I suppose is I havedifficulty seeing how this fits in with the Network City Program because obviously theNetwork City's talking about compact you know, managing growth and so forth and itseems to me if we're quarantining every bit of bushland that's left, then how are we goingto achieve the two objectives?

MR WOODMAN: That's a planning issue really.

MR BEARDMORE: There's obvious tensions between the need to preserve theenvironment and the need for consolidation. You're never quite going to get away fromthat because even in the UK where I came from they have green belts and once you starthaving green belts and limits to growth land values increase and the values of those greenspaces in the urban network get more valuable in terms of future development and the

values in the land so it puts a lot more pressure on that green space, but it's not to say weshouldn't have that anyway because a lot of the green network within Perth performslegitimate environmental function, Bush land has water quality and ground water protectionfunctions as well as that.

MR BIRCH: Yes, absolutely. There has to be a balance though, doesn't there?

MR BEARDMORE: Sure; absolutely, yes.

MR BIRCH: The city is growing.

MS GUSTAVSSON: May I also point out that the Bush Forever protection area isdefinitely not a sterilisation boundary. It is there as a management tool to assist in properand orderly planning. It is not there for sterilisation.

67

MR BIRCH: That's why I come back to this negotiated planning solution. I hear whatyou're saying about the criteria, Kieron, and I saw those and they mostly seem to makesense.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR BIRCH: I think it would be nice to have an actual formal process.

MR BEARDMORE: Sure.

MR BIRCH: It's such an important thing that maybe some kind of formal process that's fairand it might avoid a lot of frustration and argument.

MR BEARDMORE: Sure, I hear what you're saying. There is a flow chart at the back ofthe SBP which tries to do that, but it's not to say there can't be more complementaryguidelines which could, you know, put a little bit more flesh on the bones of those sorts ofthings really because the SBP - it can't be all things to all people, I suppose, and it probablygives the heads of power in a policy sense and then we can look at more detailed aspectsof decision-making or referral process and all those sorts of things which need to sit under

that main policy framework.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions? No. Anything else you would like clarified?

Thanks very much for coming in. You submissions are not a different from many of theothers we have had this morning. Everyone seems to be questioning the process of BushForever and how we have arrived at the point we have which has taken a considerableamount of time, since 1998, but this amendment process is going to wrap a lot of thoseissues up hopefully by September-October. So thank you for your time.

MS ANDERTON: Okay. So we will know by September-October or it will go to theMinister?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we hope to get it in Parliament September-October. Is that right,

Fred, our best estimate at this point in time?

MS ANDERTON: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

68

MS SHARNI HOWERepresenting Mrs Lyn Yelland

CHAIRPERSON: Greg Woodman is an environmental consultant who's on theHearings Committee as an independent person.

MS HOWE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As you're probably aware, we're the Hearings Committee that will belistening to all the submissions.

MS HOWE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You are making one on behalf of one of the landowners.

MS HOWE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this a private hearing? No, it's not. Sorry, I beg your pardon; I gotthat wrong. Sharni, we're not a decision-making committee at all.

MS HOWE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We're making recommendations to the Commission. So you have gotabout 15 minutes.

MS HOWE: I won't need 15 minutes. I have read the documentation. Because the

landowner can't be here it's a friend of the family, a farming family they asked me if I

could just come today. I would like to, firstly, thank Cate for meeting us on-site. I found

her very reasonable to deal with and went through all the issues with us, and I have readthe recommendation that was contained in Rob Griffiths' letter and basically the landownerand myself agree with that recommendation. It would appear to us that the summationcontained in there is fair and reasonable saying that the land in question this is luckily one

of the sites where a portion of the land has already been sold and, you know, gone into theflood plain and the protection. We're sort of talking about this section that's still withinlot 503.

When you go on-site, you can clearly see, as is referred to in that letter, that the area doesnot have natural bush. It's terraced; it's manicured; it's been fenced along this boundaryline. It has got exotic species in it and lawn and retaining walls so it didn't seemappropriate that it warranted, you know, protection under the Bush Forever sort of act. Sobasically we thought that this letter contained a fair summary of our own view and we wouldlike to see, you know, supporting yourselves, you know, shifting that line to coincide withthis, for instance, the boundary line on this particular lot. How the hell you deal with theothers I'm not sure, but it seemed appropriate in this case that that be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Cate, can you verify that?

69

MS GUSTAVSSON: The special control area our recommendation is to remove thespecial control area. However, within this particular amendment we're unable to deal withthe Parks and Recreation reservation and that was explained to both Mrs Yelland and toSharni.

MS HOWE: To be fair, the owner wasn't particularly aware of the recreation zone. It's a

case where they were farmers from Calingiri where on-selling their farm they had boughtthis lot as their whole future, and her husband unfortunately died of leukemia late last yearand so she is very unaware of all of these things and just had a bit of a panic and I agreedto just help her out and Cate was really quite helpful just explaining actually there is a zonethere and that would still be there even if the Bush Forever moved and she is aware of thatand I will sort of help her understand those sorts of things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just take it one step at a time.

MS HOWE: Yes, I just seems that this particular site because that hand-over of thelower portion has occurred, she does manage the site very well, you know, consideringtheir aren't funds available to manage that recreation zone. She does do that. That's her

attitude. As I say, I will have to cover that bridge on the recreation zone. So she's awareshe can't build, you know, she's got to take all these things into cognisance, but theybought it on the understanding it was a subdividable lot and, you know, I think just had a bitof a knee-jerk reaction when something extra like Bush Plan comes across and it seemslike, you know, a burden to her on first sight, but Cate was quite useful at explaining thatthere were considerations for that site anyway. Just in viewing the site, there isn't bush inthat portion and it does seem, you know, illogical, sort of thing, but putting aside all therecreation reserve issues (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Very good.

MS HOWE: We contemplated not coming but because, you know, you had made aside

your time and it's a huge undertaking, I thought we will do the right thing in case there was

a question.

CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you for coming in.

MR WOODMAN: It's good of you to come in.

MS HOWE: So thanks for you time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much, Sharni.

70

MR FRANK BORRELLO

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae, Frank.

MR BORRELLO: Hi, Corinne; how are you?

CHAIRPERSON: You know Kieron Beardmore and Cate Gustaysson.

MR BEARDMORE: I have dealt with your brother or your cousin.

MR BORRELLO: I'm sure you would have dealt with a few Borrellos. I'm just one of them.

MR BEARDMORE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Borrello, I'm the chair of the Hearing Committee and we have beenappointed by the Planning Commission to hear all the submissions. We will be makingrecommendations to the Planning Commission. We're not actually a decision-makingcommittee ourselves.

MR BORRELLO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The proceedings will be taped and the transcript will go to Parliament.

MR BORRELLO: That's okay.

CHAIRPERSON: You have about 15 minutes if you need to go that long.

MR BORRELLO: Yes, fine. Firstly, my name is Frank Borrello. I'm one of the registered

proprietors and landowners of the property known as lot 2477 Flynn Drive, Neerabup. It's

the matter relating to MRS scheme 1082-33. Firstly, on behalf of the family I have met with

and I'm spokesman in this matter. We have put in a written submission, as theCommission is aware. I have taken the opportunity to bring a bit more of a personalrepresentation to the committee hearing.

Based on a couple of observations where I come from - and I'm pretty well, I believe,

qualified to speak on this. I have sat on the restructure the Neerabup industrial area

structure plan since 1995. I have represented the Borrello family which is one of the sixlandowners and have been on this steering committee or discussion group since 1995. I

wish to add from the beginning we acquired the property in 1975 for the purposes ofhorticulture pursuits ironically out of the resumption by the Western Australian PlanningCommission for Yellagonga National Park. So from our property in Kingsley we relocated

up to Flynn Drive.

Now, our intention was to create horticulture pursuit on the property and subsequently clearit over a period of time. The Waters and Rivers Commission came in in 1982 and basically

ceased any further expansion of our market garden operations due to water controls.

71

We were told in the mid-eighties - I'm not exactly aware of the date, but we were told thatthe land under the MRS scheme became industrial and the land was future earmarked forthat purpose. As we couldn't increase or expand our horticulture pursuits, it was probably abetter option for our land subsequent.

We were advised in the mid-nineties about the advent of the Bush Forever concept. Thatcame in the form of a letter. We were asked to put a submission or comments on it. Weexpended quite a bit of money on that and we used Master Plan to put a submission on ourbehalf but we never got a response to that letter other than to say that the land wasearmarked as significant and it was marked for future bush plan.

Now, I have to say this because the family asked me to say this: we chose to beenvironmentally correct to our property and as a result of that - see, that area that isdesignated Bush Forever was the second stage of our market garden operation. Had it notbeen for Waters and Rivers, that land would have been cleared today. The word got outthe Bush Forever was coming in and a lot of people cleared a lot of land. We chose not to.We could have. We could have bulldozed that land.

The land is already clear-felled. It's not bushland that's been there for hundreds andhundreds of years. It's basically predominantly woolly bush which can only grow once land

is predominantly cleared. It requires cleared land to generate itself We were told it wassignificant because it could be a food source for a rare native black bee. We were told this.We put our representations up but Bush Forever continued on with their plan. We havesubsequently maintained and paid the rates and taxes on that property ever since day one.

My association with Bush Plan and the officers dealing with Bush Plan I must admit - I'll be

right up-front is far from satisfactory. We have been kept in the dark. We have receivedbits and pieces of correspondence over time. I have made direct overtures to officerswanting to resolve some issues, particularly on a future compensation basis and we weretold that this would be addressed some time in the future.

As a result of the structure plan, we were advised that the Bush Forever site was preferredto be done on a negotiated outcome from the result of the structure plan. I had seen some

merit initially on what that entailed; not knowing what that entailed but I did see where they

were trying to come from. The irony of all this is there are only six landowners thatcomprised the Neerabup Bush Forever site at that time. Of those six, five had significantBush Plan sites on their properties, namely, City of Wanneroo, Landcorp, CSR and theBorrello family. So I found it very difficult how the developers would compensate thelandowners when all of them face the same problem.

Where the Borrello family are coming from is that under the MRS scheme the land wasdesignated industrial prior to the Bush Forever. I only ask the committee that it put forward

our requirement that the land be brought under the MRS scheme and with that comes the

afforded compensation abilities under the MRS. I find it very difficult to explain to an80-year-old mother that someone has come along after owning land since 1975 and thesepeople want the land. They keep talking about negotiated outcomes.

72

There are no provisions in the Bush Forever structure plan for that. The City of Wanneroorejected that and so did the Western Australian Planning Commission - did not make it acondition on signing off of the structure plan and therefore it's left this thing again in limbo.

We believe that part Bush Forever site already is the land across the road which forms partof the same Bush Forever site as ours has been brought under the MRS scheme. It refers

to that it's been bought for the purpose of management. I find that fine, I have no problem

with that, but they seem to exclude across the road the line from our property saying, "No,yours will come under negotiated outcome." If it's being brought under the MRS scheme,as I believe - the Bush Forever site say that it's a significant part of the corridor and habitat,

and even the Western Australian Planning Commission in 1997 rejected our sandextraction over that site because it felt that there was significant and rare fauna on theproperty or could be.

I believe that the MRS scheme provides under parks and recs for that to be controlled and Ihonestly believe a fair outcome would be if the property was presented under the MRS,then the Borrello family can move when and if required at a future time to apply thecompensation basis under the MRS scheme. I was told by the former Minister, when I hadseen him, Mr Kierath - he advised me that "If the land was significant and it was required by

the people, then the people would adequately compensate you".

As I previously stated earlier, I have no confidence in the Bush Forever structure. It's not

being personally critical of any officer, but I feel that the lack of direction from them, thelack of consultation - yes, we do get little pamphlets; yes, we do get letters. They don'tmean much but we do get them. The fact that no officer from the Bush Forever were everin those since 1995 I sat on those committees. I paid to be part of that committee. Wewere never visited by Bush Forever people or anyone to tell us what, where or how and

when asked many times why they weren't representative, the answer from the committeewas that they didn't seem to have a need to be there.

Now, to me, I find that very disheartening. To this date, as a result of the restructure plan, Ihave received an inability to bring the property under any horticultural relief. I have justreceived a land tax bill for $107,000. 107,000 every year I have to find for that property,25 per cent of which I cannot even touch. I cannot do nothing with it. I can't extract sandwhich is high quality there. There's 8,000,000 cubic metres of extractable sand underneaththat property. We have been told we can't; fair enough. The family conceded that if thatproperty is required for Bush Forever, then fine. All we ask is to be dealt with like any otherperson in this state, that it be brought under the MRS scheme so we can follow throughthat. The negotiated outcome everything put forward to us at the moment is totally, totallyunsatisfactory.

Finally, I just want to say on behalf of the Borrello family - and, as I said, I speak for mymother who's in hospital at the moment. She's absolutely distraught by this Bush Foreverand if some of these officers seen the outcome in the last few years, maybe they will take a

good look at themselves.

73

The Borrello family has been devastated because it can't do what it wanted to do on theproperty and because Bush Forever haven't made a decisive move on the property as toownership, compensation or otherwise, we have suffered dramatically.

The only other thing is we have owned three properties in our lives; one in Main Street,Osborne Park - market garden resumed by Main Roads; two, property in Kingsley, HockingRoad - market garden property resumed by Metropolitan Regional Planning. However, inboth those cases we were dealt with fairly with a market valuation compensation. Whilstwe didn't like the idea of losing our properties, we were still treated as landowners fairly andequitably and we only ask the same thing. You have come to our doorstep again with theBush Forever. All I ask from the Bush Forever people is you give it consideration and bringus under what we request. On behalf of the family that's all I have got to say. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Borrello for that. We have certainly heardyour case put forward very, very forcefully and very clearly. Greg, do you have anyquestions?

MR WOODMAN: No, it seems the main issue for Mr Borrello is really one ofcompensation which I don't think comes under this particular hearing.

MR BORRELLO: No, it doesn't, but the recommendations are that - we have got noconduit at the moment to bring our case forward other than to say in the hearings it talksabout negotiated outcomes and so forth. It refers to that in our property. What we're onlyasking is that the committee bring forward to the appropriate people that the Bush Foreversites, particularly where they're privately owned - there's only a small proportion of them -come under the umbrella and under the watchful eye of the MRS scheme and leave it atthat.

All the government owned lands in here, by the way recommendations are they come inunder the MRS scheme. Now, I know they say, "It's for management purposes." Well,then I say my property is no different. There is no difference between - there's only abitumen road separating one property that the Bush Forever said is under MRS and mineacross the road which they say they want to do a negotiated the fact is they have gotnothing to negotiation with. They have written a letter to me, asked me what I want to do,but there's no substance in it.

So the family are just simply saying we accept the fact that it's going to be Bush Forever.We will not argue the point that there's a reason for it to be retained. We won't argue thatpoint. We won't go down that line. We put our original submission in. We believe that itdidn't require to be retained but there is this corridor that they are looking at. We haveaccepted that and we have set the land aside for that purpose. All we ask for is that it bedealt fairly under the MRS. Now, whether you have got the ability to recommend that - I'mnot fully aware of the scope of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Scope of the amendment, yes.

74

MR BORRELLO: But it's the only way I can bring this forward. I have already, as I said,

put my written submission in. Mr Beardmore indicated he has spoken to other familymembers. I'm sure he's aware of their angst about the whole thing and I won't go into that

any further, but again I thank you for at least the opportunity. Whether nothing comes out

of it or whether it does, at least on behalf of my mother I gave her 15 minutes of words.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You did very well. I'm very pleased with that. Thank you for coming,

Mr Borrello.

MR BORRELLO: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it, thank you.

75

MR NELSON HINCHCLIFFRepresenting Peet & Company Limited as trustee for the

Burns Beach Property Trust

MR HINCHCLIFF: I'm Nelson Hinchcliff. Mr Hardy can't make it.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr?

MR HINCHCLIFF: Hinchcliff.

CHAIRPERSON: Come forward.

MR HINCHCLIFF: I'm from Peet and Co.

CHAIRPERSON: You're from Peet and Co.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae, Mr Hinchcliff.

MR WOODMAN: Greg Woodman.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Pleased to meet you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm a member of the Planning Commission, Mr Hinchcliff, and Greg isan independent member of the committee.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: He's got environmental expertise and we're using him very much, Ithink, for the purposes of these hearings. We are here to listen to your submissions on topof the written submissions which we have ready already and we will be makingrecommendations to the Planning Commission. We're not actually a decision-makingcommittee.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Okay. Well, this was only put on me at the last moment, for a start.Unfortunately Mr Hardy couldn't attend. Basically we're simply reiterating our submission.What we're really say is that had it not been for the freeway reservation the land wouldhave been included in the residential zone. There are no environmental reasons why theland shouldn't be there's nothing special about the land other than the adjacent land inKinross. It is also at the moment the subject of a claim for compensation and there's noreal reason other than the freeway reservation why the land is proposed to be reserved.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's currently reserved for parks and recreation.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes.

76

CHAIRPERSON: So your company is in the middle of negotiations with the Commission, Itake it, for acquisition of the land.

MR HINCHCLIFF: That's right, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So the zoning doesn't change or the reservation hasn't changed.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Doesn't it?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR BEARDMORE: What we're trying to do, if I may, is just put what we call a BushForever protection area, special control area, over land which have bushland values. Thatincludes lands which may be already reserved under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme forparks and recreation. So we're not changing the Parks and Recreation zoning reserve onthis land.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: Compensation will still apply. All we're saying is that there's bushlandvalues in there which we need to protect as part of its future Parks and Recreationreservation, you know, to stop footy ovals and that sort of thing once it's acquired bygovernment. So compensation mechanisms still apply and the valuer will value it

accordingly.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Okay, but it was my understanding that, depending on the outcome ofthe negotiations with the Planning Commission and the acquisition, it may well be that theland can still be developed in some form or other.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it's reserved Parks and Recreation. If the Commission acquires itfor the purposes of parks and recreation, it will eventually transfer it to the ConservationEstate.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes, sure, but it hasn't been acquired yet.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR HINCHCLIFF: That's what I'm saying.

CHAIRPERSON: That again is a process that's occurring outside this amendmentprocess so that's an issue that presumably Peet and Co are taking up with Mr Hillyard of

the Department -

MR HINCHCLIFF: That's right, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: - - for Planning and Infrastructure on behalf of the Commission.

77

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes, we are.

CHAIRPERSON: Those negotiations can take a long time or they can be fairly, you know,

brief.

MR HINCHCLIFF: They have been taking a while at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: So it has gone down that route.

MR HINCHCLIFF: There has been an offer and we're considering that.

CHAIRPERSON: That's an independent process so that offer is not dependent on thisamendment process, neither is this amendment process dependent on (indistinct).

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing changes in terms of the land reservation.

MR HINCHCLIFF: But again it was my understanding that had it not been for the freeway,that land could have been included in the residential zone. There's nothing environmentallyspecial about it.

MR WOODMAN: it does contain vegetation that was identified under Bush Plan and BushForever for conservation. On that fact alone it does have environmental value, but in termsof any other special overriding environmental features such as declared rare flora or faunaand other things, from this documentation it appears it doesn't have it but it still does haveenvironmental value or it wouldn't have been included in the Bush Forever process.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes, sure, but again if that freeway hadn't gone through there, it's gotno different environmental value to the land immediately to the west of it which was zoned

residential.

MR WOODMAN: Which was zoned residential?

MR HINCHCLIFF: The land immediately to the west.

MR BEARDMORE: I think there's a map there.

MR HINCHCLIFF: In other words, all of Kinross.

MS GUSTAVSSON: The issue of parks and recreation has been dealt with in a previous

MRS amendment.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Right.

78

MR BEARDMORE: I think whether or not that land can be developed for urban in thecontext of any valuation exercise I suppose is up to the valuation process to determine thatsort of issue really, if that's the point you're trying to make.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes, sure.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, so we can't really comment on that valuation process.

MR HINCHCLIFF: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: As for previous MRS amendments which set aside land for parks andrecreation, that is something that's a framework within which we're currently working. Thisamendment won't undo it or do anything else to it.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Okay, fine.

CHAIRPERSON: The land was obviously reserved for the Neerabup Regional Park andhence that's where it's value is.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes, okay; fine.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR HINCHCLIFF: I can't add any more.

CHAIRPERSON: All right then. Thanks very much for coming in, Mr Hinchcliff, andrepresenting Peet and Co.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Thanks for your time.

CHAIRPERSON: Give my regards to Warwick.

MR HINCHCLIFF: Yes, I will. Thanks very much.

79

MR TREVOR MORAN, MR COSIMO AND MR ANTHONY SORGIOVANNI

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 80 to 85 inclusive.

MR MARIO CARBONE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Carbone?

MR CARBONE: Call me Mario.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you do. My name is Corinne MacRae.

MR WOODMAN: Greg Woodman.

MR CARBONE: How are you?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for coming here today, Mr Carbone. As I said, I'm a memberof the Planning Commission and a member of this Hearings Committee. Greg is anindependent environmental consultant helping us out with the hearings. The HearingsCommittee have been convened to listen to the submissions put forward by yourselves ontop of your written submissions which we have read. We're not a decision-makingcommittee. We will be making recommendations to the Planning Commission who willthen forward its recommendations to the Minister, then the government and then off tostate Parliament.

MR CARBONE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: You have got about 15 minutes. The proceedings will be taped and atranscript will go to Parliament as part of the public record of these hearings.

MR CARBONE: Sure. Who's the Minister in charge at the moment obviously of theplanning section?

CHAIRPERSON: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is Alannah MacTiernan.

MR CARBONE: Okay. As you're aware, I'm one of the owners of 34 Elliott Road,Wanneroo. We have actually purchased this property about 30 years ago. There wasnever any mention of this property at the time becoming a reserve. It seems that this Bush

Plan Forever was probably introduced by, I would say, the government as a political stuntat the time, from what I could gather, and it's just been taken up by the Labor Party.

On the property I have met with two people from your department. Now, I still can't see anyvalue of the land to Bush Forever. I mean, there's nothing on there but rats and mice. It's

not natural bush. There is no native birds. I will go through it in point form. It's not anatural wetland. The property's not a known geographical landmark and it's set back fromWanneroo Road close to urban. Like I said, the surrounding trees are not native andthere's not types at all of breeding birds. There never has been.

The back of the property which the Water Corporation owns was cleared. I mean, at thetime it was cleared and they ran scheme water. I'm sure you're quite aware of it.

86

The land remains cleared today and it didn't seem like it actually had any complaints fromany government department to do so. They just went out there, cleaned it and did whatthey had to do. So there can't be any environmental needs there for any type of wildlife ifthey actually go there and just clean acres after acres. That is still that way there. There isno real significant importance if they can do that.

The land, I reckon, is not large enough to be ecologically sustainable for anything and in allfairness - I mean, you're just creating a perfect habitat for criminal activity, drugs, assaults,and that's probably one of the downturns. I don't know if you have ever consulted thePolice Department to see what they think of it, but there's no mention that the police agreeto it or disagree.

I have sort of read through all these books but there's no real evidence of native plants onthe property and to me it's just like whoever said that they want to take this portion of theproperty for Bush Forever hasn't really done their homework on it. Like I said, we have got

a property of mice, feral cats, feral dogs and rats. I know for a fact because the neighbourhas to continually place rat poison. There's nothing else there.

I'm all for areas like Yanchep National Park. I mean, that's more than enough. That is notreally that far from what you want to actually call Bush Forever. I'm all for that, but thatshould be more than adequate for Perth's needs. Also I honestly believe that Bush Forevershould be only targeting Crown land and State land. Now, when we purchased theproperty, we actually worked for it. We sort of paid it off. I mean, we didn't get help fromthe State government. We didn't ask for any help, and I don't think it's right that theyshould just turn round now and say, "We actually want to resume it." You have got theformer letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CARBONE: Yes, so I have gone through the pipeline and, like I said, once it goes tourban property, it has got value. At the moment as rural I mean, the value of it is reallyquite low. So it's like we've sat on it for so many years. We don't sort of, like, intend givingit so easy. At this stage we don't intend employing a lawyer but we will if Bush Foreverdoes continue to say it wants to take it. Basically that's all I have to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Carbone. We certainly do appreciate the strength ofyour feelings on this matter. You raised a couple of issues and I think you have mentionedin your submission too that you have requested justification or the value of the property forBush Forever purposes. That's one issue.

MR CARBONE: That's right, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Your written request has been unanswered. Perhaps in this forum wecould answer that for you. The second question that you raised is more of an issue. Youtalked about the resuming or the resumption of this property. That is not what is beingproposed under this amendment.

87

Certainly the control has been there in terms of putting a policy over your land or all theBush Forever sites in the metropolitan area to protect the bush that's there. So it doesn'tstop you using your land and it certainly doesn't mean that, you know, the property will beresumed. So perhaps just on those two issues, the first one, Cate, regarding theenvironmental values of the property?

MS GUSTAVSSON: Certainly. The environmental values - the land was assessed in2002, the portion that is being proposed for the Bush Forever property, and that wasKarrakatta Central and South Complex of which only 8 per cent is being proposed forpreservation. In regards to Yanchep National Park, Yanchep is actually Cottesloe so it's acompletely different vegetation complex between the two properties.

In regards to the resumption, as the chair has specified, the Bush Forever protection areais a management boundary. It's not a resumption, nor is it changing the underlying zoning

of the land. In that regard, if you were contemplating further development, then thatdevelopment would be looked at in regard to the rural complementary implementationguidelines and the guidelines are set down in the statement of planning policy.

MR CARBONE: What happens if it does go urban? If that property goes urban, do wehave the right then to urbanise the rest of the property?

MR BEARDMORE: If I may, as you're aware, there's the East Wanneroo (indistinct)strategy that's been released, a discretion document. A number of options were putforward in that document and one was the urbanisation of areas of East Wanneroo andareas outside of the Bush Forever site can certainly be -

MR CARBONE: Yes, but that's outside the Bush Forever site. Say our property doesbecome urbanised in the next 10 years.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR CARBONE: Then do we have the right to urbanise the rest of the property that BushForever claims?

MR BEARDMORE: The Bush Forever (indistinct).

MR CARBONE: Yes. That's one of the questions. The other thing is you said there wassome type of flora. How much percentage? You said there was a flora that

MS GUSTAVSSON: Sorry, the Karrakatta Complex.

MR CARBONE: How much of it is on the property?

MS GUSTAVSSON: On the actual property itself. It's 36 per cent of your overall property.

88

MR CARBONE: We only did a five-minute visit and they worked out there's 36 per centthere. How did you work that out?

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's based from the aerial photography.

MR CARBONE: Aerial photography.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's correct.

MR CARBONE: But hang on; that was prior to the Water Corporation clearing theproperty.

MS GUSTAVSSON: The Water Corporation hasn't cleared any part of your property.

MR CARBONE: No, it has. It actually has cleared the back section and placed all theirwater pipes through there. It's acres and acres of property.

MS GUSTAVSSON: Yes, that's not part of your property. It's not within your -

MR CARBONE: Yes, but, sorry, youse didn't object to the Water Corporation clearing theland. You just let them do it. Like you said, it's only a hearing. Later on I will be employinga solicitor if it comes to that point.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, Mr Carbone, but, just to sum up, there has beenvegetation on the property which is approximately 36 per cent of your property.

MR CARBONE: I mean, you're saying aerial photographs - 36 per cent well, that'sridiculous. You can't take aerial photographs and say there's 36 per cent of what?

MR WOODMAN: Of your entire property.

MR CARBONE: Of the entire property.

MR WOODMAN: That's the proportion of your property that's under that vegetationcomplex.

MR CARBONE: But if it's the entire property, we have got 10 acres.

CHAIRPERSON: The rest of it isn't recognised as Bush Forever.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That's confirmed, so the rest of your property is not affected by the BushForever protection. It's that portion of your property which has the vegetation complexwhich is regionally significant

89

MR CARBONE: Sorry, where this vegetation native; which parts of Australia?

MS GUSTAVSSON: It's the Swan Coastal Plain.

MR CARBONE: It's a coastal plant.

MS GUSTAVSSON: Plain.

MR CARBONE: So what do you call the coastal plain?

MR WOODMAN: We have got maps.

MR CARBONE: How far does the coastal plain come in?

MR BEARDMORE: This is the Perth metropolitan region portion of Swan Coastal Plain.The Swan Coastal Plain actually goes up towards Jurien and - - -

MR CARBONE: Yes, but how far in does it go in? It goes in 30 kilometres -

MR BEARDMORE: That's the scarp there so it's basically whatever - the plain is actuallyfrom the coast to the scarp. That's a completely different region. So basically this is calledthe Swan Coastal Plain Bio-Region.

MR CARBONE: Okay. A question for you then.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR CARBONE: If there's 30 per cent on our property, just how much is actually in thatentire area, including the reserves?

CHAIRPERSON: There's 30 per cent of your property.

MR CARBONE: No, besides our property being 30 per cent, how much other of this type

of plant is there in the state?

MR BEARDMORE: Here you go.

MR CARBONE: No, I don't really need to look at it, but how much?

MR BEARDMORE: Okay. I will tell you then.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it 8 per cent or 10 per cent that they're trying to preserve.

MR CARBONE: Yes, but how much is in the rest of the state?

MR BEARDMORE: 18 per cent.

90

MR CARBONE: In the rest of the state?

MR BEARDMORE: In the Perth metropolitan region of Swan Coastal Plain and we'retrying to protect 8 per cent of that 18 per cent.

MR CARBONE: So you're going to destroy 10 per cent and it doesn't matter.

MR BEARDMORE: Well, basically 10 per cent (indistinct).

MR CARBONE: Well, that's true then, but the Water Corporation has destroyed morethan it's fair share, is that correct, and that's okay? So it's okay for a governmentdepartment to step in, wipe out whatever it wants and everyone's happy with it.

CHAIRPERSON: That's something that's - - -

MR CARBONE: That's what we have got here. I mean, they have gone in, they havedone what they like and everyone, "No problem," and it's okay, but then your individuallandowner - you want to make up for it. Where was Bush Forever then?

CHAIRPERSON: The issue with Water Corporation is not something that we're in aposition to respond to at these meetings. Obviously we're not here representing the WaterCorporation and all we can do is take on board your concerns and the strong points thatyou have made regarding your property and hope that, you know, we have provided someclarification to you.

MR CARBONE: All right. Thanks very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CARBONE: See you later.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Mr Carbone.

91

MS MARY VICINI

CHAIRPERSON: My name is Corinne MacRae.

MR WOODMAN: Greg Woodman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm a member of the Western Australian Planning Commission andGreg is an independent environmental consultant who's helping us out on these HearingsCommittees. We have been appointed by the Commission to listen to the submissions thatpeople want to make at this forum. We have read your written submissions and we'retaking all your considerations on board in our recommendation to the PlanningCommission. We're not making any decisions as a committee. We recommend it to thePlanning Commission and our conclusions will then be forwarded on from the PlanningCommission through to the Minister, through to Parliament at the end of the day.

MS VICINI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The proceedings of this forum are being taped and a transcript of thatwill be available when the amendment goes to Parliament and that will be tabled then so it'sall on the public record. So you have got about 15 minutes.

MS VICINI: I have written mine out so I can read it to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VICINI: Basically my land that's affected is lot 202 Watsonia Road, which you will beaware. My husband and I purchased Watsonia Road, Maida Vale in 1975 as five acres of

rural land. We envisaged building our dream home on this land. Unfortunately before wecould put our dream into reality my husband died in 1976 leaving me with our 11-month-olddaughter. After his death the land was transferred to me and I paid out the debt owing onthe property; no help from the government, of course.

In 1983 the rural zoning was changed to special rural and in 1994, 11 years later, I decided

due to escalating government charges to subdivide the land in half, creating two lots of two

and a half acres. In 1994, after subdividing, I sold lot 203 Watsonia Road which is alsoaffected but is another owner, but kept lot 202 Watsonia Road for sentimental reasons andalso with the knowledge that at a later date I could then pass this land unencumbered toour daughter as a connection to her late father, but in 1999 all that changed. The

government had other ideas and they decided that this beautiful block of land that hadbeen untouched for ail those years suited their purpose to be included in their land grabknown as Bush Plan.

92

My first submission to the Governor was in 1999 and my views have not changed. Land inthe immediate vicinity of the site is currently developed and being used for a variety ofproductive and income-generating purposes such as nurseries or stabling or just to enjoytheir piece of land, so why should I be penalised because I have chosen to hold onto myland and have left it in pristine condition? I feel I should have every right as a lawfullandowner to use my land as what it is zoned for like everyone else in the area. f don't

think that's asking anything that's unreal.

With regard to the configuration of the site, it is clear the irregularity of the proposedboundaries of the Maida Vale site do not meet the normal criteria for a viable, ecologicalunit, according to Bush Plan report. The shape of bushland areas is an important factor insite selection with a compact shape being preferable to an elongated shape. Rememberthere's only two and a half acres. I would be prepared to permit removal of selectedvegetation from the site for translocation to the adjacent reserve which includes hectares of

degraded vegetation.

When one looks around the metro area and surrounds and sees the bush and environmentthat is being destroyed by developers, obviously with government approval, how dare you

tell me what I can and can't do with my land? As a consequence of governmentinterference, I felt it necessary to place my property, lot 202 Watsonia Road, on the openmarket to see what effect Bush Plan, Bush Forever would have upon its sale - this was8 February 2005 - considering the Department of Planning and Infrastructure had sentcorrespondence to me dated 22 December 2004 with an article, "How does Bush Forever

affect me?"

Question: do I have to stop using my Bush Forever land? Answer: no. Any existing lawfuluses may continue. Question: does Bush Forever affect the zoning or reservation of my

land and in part the current zoning? Example: special rural or urban of your land stillapplies with all of its provisions and restrictions. The proposed Bush Forever protectionareas and existing P and R reservations do not affect existing land uses which cancontinue at their existing approved levels of activity. Question 3: what about my futureplans? In part again: Bush Forever does not affect your existing lawful land uses and doesnot necessarily preclude future development.

So with this sounding like nothing has changed one can still build a house, have a shed,have a pool, like everyone else in the area, that is why I decided to place the land on theopen market. The selling agent was inundated with calls of interest and without Bush Plan

or Bush Forever interference the land would have been sold. Remember there is a scarcity

of this type of land in this area and this is a beautiful block.

The government departments involved in Bush Plan and Bush Forever each give differentversions as to what can and can't be placed on the land. The Environmental Departmentwent as far as to say they tell what can be placed on the land and in all possibility nothingcan be placed on the land. So with so much uncertainty and restrictions prospectivepurchasers have baulked at purchasing the land. It has since been withdrawn from the

market.

93

In concluding, I would like my entire block of land to be 100 per cent excluded from yourBush Plan Forever. If this is not the case, then I want the government to purchase the landat fair market value plus, bearing in mind that my block of land was purchased prior to

capital gains tax and anything I purchase now will incur capital gains tax and I believe Ishould be adequately compensated for this. As the government will be the only purchaser I

have, I believe this should then be treated the same as a compulsory acquisition.

would also like to question the validity of this committee to hear the submissions as it

appears there is no independent member on the committee representing the peopleaffected by Bush Plan, Bush Forever like a member from, say, Coalition for Property

Rights. I firmly believe these hearings have been constituted to appease the aggrieved

landowners whose fate has already been predetermined. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vicini, for that submission. You have obviously putforward your two scenarios, one of which to either have it 100 per cent excluded or if that's

not to be the case, then the government to purchase including things like the capital gains

tax and treat it as a compulsory acquisition.

MS VICINI: I mean, I can't keep a block of land I can't do anything with. I have been

paying taxes on it for 30 years, so why should I keep paying them?

CHAIRPERSON: With respect to the point of compulsory acquisition, that's outside thescope of this amendment. We're not in the position to recommend one way or the other,

but have you approached the department trying to initiate some sort of dialogue with the

department on acquisition of your property?

MS VICINI: I was told that apparently there's all these theses and dah, dah, dahs onthere, and I was asked - well, actually I was told basically that nothing would be able to be

done on the block of land and that if I wanted them to purchase it, I would have to actually

send a letter, which I did do. I don't have to go ahead with it, but obviously who else isgoing to buy it? Who's going to buy a block of land they can't put anything on?

CHAIRPERSON: You have certainly raised a very good point there. We have seen yourproperty and you're right, it's an absolutely beautiful block.

MS VICINI: It's a beautiful block ,yes, and I tell you what, what I should have done to it is

done like a lot of other people, bulldozed the lot. It wouldn't have had a thing then; nothing.

I have left it alone and it's a beautiful block and I tell you what, the real estate agent even

had somebody flew from Port Hedland that would have bought it and he actually rang me

himself and said, "Well, can you tell us more about all these restrictions?" and I could only

tell him what I knew, and everyone he rang he got a different version. He was told, you

know, basically he won't be able to put anything on it and he said, "Why would I buy it?"

CHAIRPERSON: You made a very good point there, Mrs Vicini. Greg, do you have

anything to add? I mean, from the environmental point of view we have obviously admired

your block very much and thank you so much for preserving it.

94

MS VICINI: Well, I'm penalised today. I'm sorry, but I am penalised today because I have.

MR WOODMAN: Bush Forever aside, the values of your block do place considerableenvironmental restriction on you via several different Western Australian acts which is veryunfortunate. It wasn't obviously your desire to retain something for conservation.

MS VICINI: No, I'm sorry, I'm not into that. Unless everybody else in Australia is going todo exactly the same to the same value, then fine, I don't have a problem with it.

MR WOODMAN: I have got nothing else to add. Having seen the block from the road andread your submissions in the past, it's probably worthwhile, I think, furthering discussionswith the office of Bush Forever about the potential future of your property. We understandyou're placed in a very difficult position having kept it for so long and in such good conditionwithout having realised what was actually sitting on it. I don't think I can really say muchelse.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think in terms of what action you would want to take and

obviously you have taken some action already with regards to approaching the departmentwho acts on behalf of the Commission to acquire the property. We can't take it any furtherat this point in time. It's outside the scope of this amendment. We're really looking at thespecial control area over your property and anything else beyond that is outside what thiscommittee can actually influence. I hope you can appreciate that.

MS VICINI: I can appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: We can't influence any negotiations that you may or may not want tocarry out with the department.

MS VICINI: I mean, you have been out there and you have seen the block. Now, you cansee everybody else in the street there. They have done what they have been allowed to do

which if I had built on that, that's exactly what I would have done, right. You have got thenursery up the road who's cleared everything. I say good luck to him today. I'm sorry, butthat's how I feel. Now, does that not look a stupid piece of like this just coming through as

I'm saying about the configuration of it all; you know, you have got all these other blocks.Now, if that had been a total amount like, say, 20 acres, 30 acres, then I could say, "Well,okay, maybe," but you have got one little block sitting in amongst all these other things.What value is really there?

MR WOODMAN: I do understand it has been selected for this process for particularreasons, but as I said, despite Bush Forever the other values that are on the block arecovered by different legislative altogether and would still unfortunately impose quite asignificant restriction on you. The Bush Forever policy itself and particularly this processmerely is formalising the an attempt to formalise protection of bushland as such ratherthan the other individual features of your property such as rare flora and threatenedecological communities.

95

MS VICINI: Why can't they just be translocated down to the back? You can't tell mebecause there's a boundary where the reserve is and there's a boundary here that all of asudden this stuff doesn't grow down there. That's rubbish.

MR WOODMAN: It's more complicated than that unfortunately.

MS VICINI: I mean, how complicated do we want to make it?

MR WOODMAN: We're all slaves to the system unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Vicini, is there something that perhaps either Kieron or Cate couldhelp you with now in terms of the - you have obviously made an approach to thedepartment and the process that would be following on from that I mean, it's obviously not

something that we can control but obviously you have started a dialogue and that can becontinued.

MS VICINI: So I take it from the way you're speaking that there is no chance of this beingtaken out of the Bush Forever.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I can't give that commitment. All I can is what you have initiated interms of a dialogue with the department is not something that we can control. It's outside

our scope. So we will be looking at in particular over the next few months the outcomes of

any of those negotiations, if there are any. This will probably not get finalised till aboutSeptember or October, this whole amendment process. I mean, that's as much as I cansay. I can't commit the Commission or the government or Parliament to any deliberations

at this point in time.

MS VICINI: I mean, like you say, you know, like, there was all these other things that, youknow, like, you still can't do. All those other people that have built there have been able todo what normal people can do, build a house, build a shed, grow some fruit trees, have ahorse, dah, dah, dah, dah; you know, that's all I'm asking, that that be able to be done, thenat least if I don't want to keep it any more, I can at least sell it on the open market.

MR WOODMAN: I understand.

MS VICINI: I'm in the situation whereby I have got this block of land and I can't doanything with it. I can't sell it as I have tried the process and that was the very reason why Idid it, because when I got the literature from the Department of Infrastructure, it was like,well, business as usual. You can still do what you like, within the law, I'm talking about,okay. That's not the case. So, I mean, why do they even put those things out to people tosay, "Well, you can do this. You can do that," and then when it comes to the crunch, you

can't do it?

96

MR BEARDMORE: I think the letter was trying to express that we're not trying to preventpeople from, you know, building a house on their property but obviously the values aresuch on this property - there's been some mention to you that it might be in everyone's bestinterest if it was acquired by the state because the values are such because, as Greg'spointing out, if you were to remove the Bush Forever protection area, you still unfortunatelyhave got other legislation which may constrain what you can do like the WildlifeConservation because of declared rare flora and the clearing permit regulations as well.So unfortunately it's not just the Bush Forever protection area that might constrain you. Asa rule Planning would not sort of refuse a building - allowing a building envelope butbecause of all those other pieces of legislation and the constraints, there may be moreadditional controls over and above what we can actually, you know, allow or not allow.

MS VICINI: I have basically put my submission there.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right.

MS VICINI: My view hasn't changed; that's it. What happens, happens. I think it's very

unfair but anyway -

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, we have certainly given your submission a lot of thought. Wehave been out on site as well to have a look at it. It's obviously something that is a difficult

issue for us as a committee, as they all are. They're difficult issues, particularly affectingprivate landowners. So we do take into very serious consideration everything thateveryone has said at these Hearings Committees with an open mind and trying to achievea good outcome for individuals or the community at large and that's our responsibility in

advising government at the end of the day.

MS VICINI: The other thing is too with the panel that was picked, why was there notsomebody - as I have stated in my stated in my submission, why was there not somebodythat actually represents people like us that are affected by this? Why don't they actually siton there and also be able to put - see, I guess because you probably have never gonethrough it, you are emotionally removed from it. People who are affected by it - they should

have a representative on there as well so they can actually put those issues forward. It's

not just a money issue and a zoning issue. It's an emotional issue, it's a stress issue andeverything else that we have to go to. I mean, we have to sit down and write thesesubmissions. I mean, it mightn't seem much to other people but we physically have to sitdown there and do it and try to justify, shall we say, why we should be able to keep ourland. We're like being treated as the criminal.

CHAIRPERSON: That's certainly not how we would treat this whole situation, Mrs Vicini.You have understand that we certainly do not feel that way at all, but in terms of how wegot here, this whole Bush Forever amendment has been a very long process and over theyears there has been a group that was established called the Bush Forever Advisory Groupwhich actually advised the Planning Commission on the way to bring forward to thisamendment the whole Bush Forever and the Bush Plan issues and that group comprised awhole range of people.

97

There were people in the private property industry representing private property owners.There were valuers on that committee. It was a very large and very comprehensive andextensive committee that actually advised on the process to get to this point where we aretoday. So what you see here is actually the culmination of many years' work involving allthe different representatives who all have an interest in bush issues. So it's somethingunfortunately you can't see at this point in time but it has occurred over the years.

MS VICINI: No worries.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for coming in.

MS VICINI: Thank you.

98

MR PETER AND MRS KAYE PEARSON

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 99 to 103 inclusive.

TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

Day Two

Thursday 26th May 2005

MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE HEARING SUBMISSIONS ON METROPOLITAN REGIONSCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1082/33 BUSH FOREVER and RELATED LANDS

Day 2 - Thursday, 26 May 2005, 6th Floor Conference Room, Albert Facey House,469 Wellington Street, Perth

The Committee was established by resolution of the Metropolitan Region Planning Committee(MRPC) on 8 February 2005.

CHAIRPERSON Cr Corinne MacRae

MEMBERS Cr Elizabeth Taylor

Mr Greg Woodman

IN ATTENDANCE Mrs Cate Gustaysson

Mr Kieron Beardmore

Ms Julie Davey

IN DPI STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PERIODICALLYMs Ruth SandriMs Bec RyanMs Carissa Lloyd

Member of the Western AustralianPlanning Commission

Member of the Metropolitan RegionPlanning Committee and Chairman ofthe Eastern District Planning Committee

Independent, with environmental expertise

Department for Planning andInfrastructure

Department for Planning andInfrastructure

Department for Planning andInfrastructure

Ms Karen SandersMs Hermione ScottMr Tim Hillyard

Presentations to the hearings committee commenced at 9.00am.

The proceedings were recorded by 'Spark & Cannon Pty Ltd'.

The following people made presentations to the Hearings Committee:

Mr Shane Johnson for submission number 57.Mr Johnson represented himself.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

Mr David Lindsay for submission number 60.Mr Lindsay represented himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

Mr Antonio Yozzi for submission number 12.Mr Yozzi represented himself.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

Mr Jason Wallis and Mr Erwin Roberts for submission number 75.Messrs Wallis & Roberts represented Emanuel Exports.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

5) Mr Peter Goff for submission number 76.Mr Goff represented Stock land Trust Group.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

6) Mr Peter MacLean and Mr Peter Deague for submission number 79.Messrs MacLean & Deague represented Metropolitan Cemeteries Board.This was a public hearing see transcript.

7) Mr Gerard Kearney for submission number 150.Mr Kearney represented Mrs Sue Kearney and himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

8) Mr Jeff Strahan, Ms Kim Kyle and Mr Wayne Barber for submission number 114.Messrs Strahan & Barber and Ms Kyle represented Feegate Pty Ltd.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

9) Mr Tony Macri for submission number 26.Mr Macri represented Mrs Concetta Macri & himself.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

10) Dr Flora Franzinelli and Mr Cyril Tolson for submission number 31.Dr Franzinelli and Mr Tolson represented Dr Franzinelli.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

11) Mr Alan Churley for submission number 120.Mr Churley represented Tigerhawk Pty Ltd.This was a public hearing see transcript.

12) Mr John Stevens, Mr Peter Goldsmith and Ms Margaret Kingsburyfor submission number 151.Messrs Stevens & Goldsmith and Ms Kingsbury represented the Friends of Piney Lakesand Winthrop Murdoch Community Group.This was a public hearing see transcript.

13) Mr Tim Houweling, Dr Peter Keating and Mr & Mrs Ten Vaanholtfor submission number 6.Mr & Mrs Ten Vaanholt, Mr Houweling and Dr Keatingrepresented Mr & Mrs Ten VaanholtThis was a public hearing see transcript.

14) Mr Tim Houweling, Dr Peter Keating and Mr Vic & Mrs Laura Fullinfor submission number 137.Mr Houweling, Dr Keating and Mr & Mrs Fullin represented Elvi Pty Ltd.This was a public hearing see transcript.

15) Mr David Mitchell and Ms Teresa Gepp for submission number 112.Mr Mitchell and Ms Gepp represented Conservation and Land Management.This was a public hearing see transcript.

16) Mr Scott Kerr for submission number 140.Mr Kerr represented WR Carpenter Landholdings.This was a private hearing the transcript is not published.

17) Mr Doug Smith for submission number 93.Mr Smith represented the Town of Kwinana.This was a public hearing see transcript.

18) Mr Stuart Saggers for submission number 90.Mr Saggers represented Ms Summer Marriot and himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

19) Ms Christine Nield for submission number 171.Ms Nield represented hersetf.This was a public hearing see transcript.

20) Mr Max Hipkins for submission number 24.Mr Hipkins represented himself.This was a public hearing see transcript.

Cr Corinne MacRae declared the hearings closed at 4.36pm.

CHAIRPERSON:

DATE:

cy,t,c, ace

MR SHANE JOHNSON

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 1 to 7 inclusive.

MR DAVID LINDSAY

CHAIRPERSON: Hello, Mr Lindsay?

MR LINDSAY: David Lindsay, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae. This is Greg Woodman and Elizabeth Taylor.Mr Lindsay, we're the Hearings Committee that has been appointed by the PlanningCommission to listen to all the submissions that are coming in. We have read your written

submission. We're not a decision-making committee. We will be making

recommendations to the Planning Commission and from there it goes forward to theMinister, to the Governor and to state Parliament. You're having a public hearing so theproceedings are being taped and a public record of that will be made available.

MR LINDSAY: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have got about 15 minutes.

MR LINDSAY: Well, where I'm coming from is that, first of all, I'm a land holder on theSerpentine River as part of my place has been excised into the Bush Forever system, but Iam also chairman of the board of Serpentine-Jarrandale Landcare and it's from both ofthose points of view that I wanted to make the submission this morning. I used to be aprofessor for agriculture at UWA.. I'm retired and now I own 10 hectare of land onSerpentine.

I wanted to make just two points. One is the logic behind most of the submissions. Thehuge pile of stuff that came out to us was pretty off, in my view, but the logic that I wouldlike to submit to you about is that if you have you can only have two reasons for wanting

to do the Bush Forever planning, that is, either the private owners of land havedemonstrated that they are incapable of looking after it in a sustainable way themselves orthat some government authority somewhere has demonstrated that they can look after it

better. It seems to me that's the only two reasons for this whole proposed legislation being

put forward.

The reality is that both of those statements are completely wrong. There has been and

this is a very important point. Landholders in the last 20 years have changed theirphilosophy enormously through the whole Landcare system and there is demonstrableevidence that private land holders have become incredibly responsible for what they'redoing and what they're looking after in a way that they didn't do 20 or 30 years ago.

In fact it seems to me in reading, which I did fairly carefully, the 170-odd pages of stuff thatwhat's being talked about there is a response to what landholders used to be 30 years ago,that is, they weren't combined into activities that looked after things. They didn't have theresources and they didn't have the knowledge to do it, but now they do and they have

demonstrated they can.

8

All over the country is evidence of that enormous change. In fact one of the most dramaticchanges in the philosophy, I suppose, of land holding in Western Australia in it's wholehistory is this change and that's being completely ignored in this whole development that'sbeen put forward.

The second part is whether the government departments can handle it better; in otherwords, by taking the responsibility for the actual management of the land even though theownership is going to, if this legislation goes through, still remain with the land holder, butnot as freehold but with some sort of restriction on it which will cost money no doubt. Thecynicism of land holders in our area anyway, and I think elsewhere, comes from the factthat in the Serpentine-Jarrandale Shire we have got a number of government departmentsthat own land and they have demonstrably shown that they cannot look after it sustainable.That's a fact.

We have got CALM that owns large lumps of land. We have got the Railways Departmentthat owns railway land. There's the Health Department that owns land at Whitby Falls, themental asylum and so on. In each case land holders that have got a common boundarywith them are completely and utterly frustrated by the fact that they have to look after, forexample, vermin, certainly declared weeds, this sort of thing, whereas apparently thesegovernment departments do not have that restriction put on them and they certainly don'tand, worse still, they make themselves - they are repository for every known declared weedthat exists probably in Western Australia with things like Cape Tulip, Patterson's Curse,blackberries, African Love Grass, all those things. If you want to see the best cottonbush

which is a really nasty one. If you want to see the best examples of those in WesternAustralia, go to the government land where it is.

Now, in the face of that you have got people who receive this sort of stuff and they'resaying, "How they hell can these people handle land better than we can when we'veactually demonstrated we've done a better job?" I guess the most important thing I want tosay and it's the last thing I want to say is that I have been interest in Landcare stuff forsome time and, as I said, it has been a movement that has actually changed the philosophy

of the way land holders handle their land. Those people who aren't active in it are actuallygiven the hairy eyeball by those people who are to the point that that philosophy even thepeople who are not real active in it it filters down to them.

What has happened is that a number of people have had land in which they have actuallyameliorated that land, planted trees on it, developed and, you know, fixed it up, so tospeak, and found that that very land that was degraded at some stage which they had nowfixed up has now been included in this thing saying, "This is now wonderful land. We'regoing to tell you that you can't now be the sole responsible manager for it." What's

happened is there's an area of cynicism that's built up, and is building up, that is makingpeople stay away from Landcare. They're saying, "Why the hell should we be involved indoing all this" - I own land "spending cumulatively millions of hours of our time andmillions of dollars of our money fixing the place up in a sustainable way when in fact thatvery sustainability makes us a target for being taken over by the government of the day?"

That's an issue that I think hasn't been debated at all, and in the end there is no way thatany government department is going to manage that whole thing. They have got to do it

9

with the cooperation and consent of the people that actually own the land. If you have gotpeople who own the land actually being made more and more irate by the fact that theyhave been almost well, certainly their efforts have been ignored and they have been toldthat they really can't handle the land.

You have got a thing that is totally and utterly counterproductive and that I see as thebiggest problem that exists in this whole business. It is actually going to developsomething which is going to do just the opposite of what they're actually proposing to do.The irony of 170 pages of good trees being sent out to people to tell them why they shouldbe looking after their trees is something that, you know, hasn't escaped too many people.That's all I wanted to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much for that, Mr Lindsay. You have raised an interestingpoint here where you are talking about government taking responsibility for themanagement of these Bush Forever sites. I would just like to make it clear that thisparticular amendment, and for your property anyway, is not in any way, shape or formassuming either responsibility of ownership of the Bush Forever site. You remain theowner and you remain the manager of the land. What this amendment is doing is providinga policy under which people like Landcare and councils and other sods of interested people

can operate under. So from a Landcare perspective I would see this policy ascomplementary to the activities and in fact reinforces the good management practices thatLandcare already do.

MR LINDSAY: One would like to think that's the way it's going to go. The problem is thatagain what's been demonstrated is something quite different. Certainly CALM has donesome wonderful things and is doing wonderful things but it's legislative arm or it'spoliceman's arm has a recent reputation of being completely heavy-handed. You know theexamples of chop down a tree to allow a bus through because (indistinct) and that sort ofthing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LINDSAY: That sort of thing is very much in the back of people's minds as they readthis document. There's nothing in that document that says, "This will not happen. You willnot be able to - if you do something outside of some guidelines which we will specify, wewill punish you for it in some way." The other one is certainly there is no way in which theland which is proposed under this legislation is going to be of the same value as it was as a

freehold. I mean, there are arguments put up - well, they're not arguments put up. They'rejust statements put up that it won't change the value of the land. That's a lot of rubbish.It's clearly a lot of rubbish. People will buy freehold land and pay more for it than they willfor land with any sort of covenant on it at all and this will have a covenant on it. There's nodoubt about it.

10

CHAIRPERSON: It won't be a covenant. It becomes part of a policy that applies to it. In

many ways there are many different policies that apply to any development on land

whether it's a local government town planning scheme or other sorts of policies. This isbasically another policy to assist decision-makers on how to protect bush. The policydoesn't say you can't do you're land is not sterilised.

MR LINDSAY: But who are the decision-makers? I mean, at one time it was the individual

landholder who was the decision-maker and that's certainly been withdrawn.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Certainly if you wanted to carry out an activity on your land or putin a development application I'm not quite sure which is yours. It's lot 845. It's zoned

rural, isn't it?

MR BEARDMORE: The shire is.

CHAIRPERSON: The shire is.

MR LINDSAY: That's it there. My land starts there and goes down here. I have got about

(indistinct) frontage to the river.

MS GUSTAVSSON: Yes, the Bush Forever from those current

MR LINDSAY: So quite a large paddock in there is -

CHAIRPERSON: The policy doesn't affect cleared land.

MR LINDSAY: No, it doesn't, but if you decide, as I have done - and a lot of the treesincluded in that are trees that I have planted down along the river, that side there. I put

trees in and made it therefore a target for being - the actual decision that I made to planttrees and therefore reduce it's value as a grazing proposition and so on is now turningagainst me in saying, "Now you can't use that land in the same way as you did before."That, I think, is part of the cynicism that I and a lot of my neighbours are very

MS GUSTAVSSON: The Bush Forever protection boundary is a management tooloverlaid with current zoning. So the land will continue to be zoned rural and that particularboundary there is there to assist and manage the vegetation along the river. Also it followsa number of boundaries, including the buffer applies by the Department of Environment for

the wet area.

MR LINDSAY: The river reserve.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's correct. We're actually not sterilising the use of that land.The Bush Forever protection area is there to assist yourself and future generations inkeeping that vegetation at its, you know, best possible level of conservation.

11

MR LINDSAY: I hear what you're saying, but I don't know what you mean. I mean, we

have already got the river reserve which is totally if I don't do something with it - and I do.I spend every year spraying out the weeds that come down from further up the river and soon, the cape week and the Watsonia and stuff like this. I do it; nobody else does. All that'sdoing is actually taking more of what I'm going to be responsible for and I will have to do itas well, but there will be other restrictions like fire control and things of that sort which I will

then have to do according to somebody else's restrictions and so on.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's a local government requirement, yes.

MR LINDSAY: Well, it is, but what I'm saying is that local government requirements seemto be for the citizens of the shire and certainly not for the government departments that areactually putting the place under much greater pressure from vermin, from rabbits and foxesand so on, on the one hand, from weeds certainly, on the other, and in many cases in firecontrol which is nowhere near as rigid as individuals are doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth, did you have something?

MS TAYLOR: Thanks, chair. Mr Lindsay, I just was interested - now that you havepointed out your property to me I'm happy with that. You have a 30-metre foreshorereserve, do you, around the river where you are? Is that what you're talking about?

MR LINDSAY: Well, there is some sort of reserve. The boundary - which I suppose isthat yellow line there.

MS TAYLOR: That's right, yes.

MR LINDSAY: You can see how that's now expanded well out from those and that area

there has gone -

MS TAYLOR: You mentioned something about CALM, the Railways and the HealthDepartment.

MR LINDSAY: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Can you just tell me where the land belonging to CALM is so that I can get

an idea where that is?

MR LINDSAY: Sorry, I did say that I'm not talking about in terms of my land at all.

MS TAYLOR: No.

MR LINDSAY: They don't exist there but further up the river they do and certainly alongthe railway reserve it is enormous.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have got a foreshore reserve which is under the town planning

scheme is a reserve under the scheme.MR LINDSAY: Yes.

12

CHAIRPERSON: Is there an MRS, P and R reservation in this area?

MR BEARDMORE: No, not as yet. I'm sure in the fullness of time - but basically that's thelocal scheme reserve. I suppose what Bush Forever protection area does (indistinct)riparian vegetation. In reality if you were to take away the Bush Forever protection area -as you're probably aware, Mr Lindsay, as well, there's a number of other state policieswhich protect riparian vegetation so it's a sort of policy initiative of the government to(indistinct) EPP, for example, to try and protect as much riparian vegetation as possible.So this is what we're mapping. We're mapping riparian vegetation and the actual reserveat the moment is just obviously the actual decreed area itself.

MR LINDSAY: (indistinct).

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, sure.

MR LINDSAY: I hear what you're saying but I don't know what you mean because, youknow, when people say, "We're doing this to protect you," and all that sort of thing I have

been there for nearly 20 years and I have not seen anybody, anybody, do anything exceptme and I really have a lot of trouble thinking that anybody can do anything else when theytake over more of the land presumably to protect it and do all the things the same.

MR BEARDMORE: I suppose (indistinct) putting policies in place which will ensure thatthe vegetation will be protected in a decision-making sense that, you know, will encourageLandcare groups and people such as yourself to sort of manage the bush and then atsome stage in the future I'm sure there will be sort of a management regime put in place to

sort of protect it in the fullness of time.

MR LINDSAY: My worry is that, you know, the Landcare side of the thing is actually losingits momentum precisely because of the threat of this sort of legislation. People are seeingit as counterproductive.

CHAIRPERSON: Greg, do you have any questions?

MR WOODMAN: No.

MR LINDSAY: Because the people who are going to look after the land are going to bethe people that are there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lindsay, I think Greg might have a question.

MR LINDSAY: Sorry, yes.

MR WOODMAN: I don't really have a question, but in terms of one of the points youforward with regard to the local landowners I am aware that just down the river there's theLowlands property.MR LINDSAY: Lowlands, yes, the Richardson property.

13

MR WOODMAN: I think they have actually welcomed this policy over land and beenworking hand in hand with the government departments on conservation so, you know,there may be a good local person to talk to if they're willing.

MR LINDSAY: I don't talk to Richardson regularly. I mean, you know, at Landcaremeetings - he's a member of the board of Landcare and of the River Group which I belongto as well. He's approving this?

MR WOODMAN: From what f hear.

MR LINDSAY: Not that I hear at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, Mr Lindsay, I think we had better wrap this up, but I would justlike to sum up here by saying that you have raised a good point here in terms of clarity ofthe documentation and clarify of the reasons for going down this path and perhaps theremight be some, you know, misunderstanding out in the community as to whether this isactually a resumption or whether it's a management tool or a policy and perhaps we needto take that on board and clarify that exactly. If we mean that we're not going to resume,then that's what we should say.

MR LINDSAY: Yes, I recognise that, but it is changing it from private ownership private

title to another sort of title. That is for certain.

MR WOODMAN: I don't think it is.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not the intention, but I guess we need to make that very clear.

MR LINDSAY: That's certainly what is said and certainly there's this - the vibe that I'mgetting are all the people say, "Why the hell is this happening?" and the statements in thereare saying in terms of clarity, "This will not affect you one iota," you know, and it won'taffect the management of the land or anything else. If that's the case, then why the hellare you doing it at all? The logic of that is not very clear whatsoever. If it's not going toaffect anything, why do it? But clearly it is going to affect something.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's to assist - - -

MR LINDSAY: People are saying, "What is behind there that is - you know, "What is this

the thin edge of?"

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, it's certainly very helpful to hear that from you, Mr Lindsay, and

I think you have certainly put your case forward probably on behalf of a number of yourneighbours as well.

MR LINDSAY: Yes, well, I wanted it to be (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. Thank you very much.

MR LINDSAY: All right, thank you.

14

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for looking after your land.

15

MR ANTONIO YOZZI

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 16 to 22 inclusive.

MR JASON WALLIS AND MR ERWIN ROBERTSrepresenting Emanuel Exports

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 23 to 31 inclusive.

MR PETER GOFFrepresenting Stock land Trust Group

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 32 to 35 inclusive.

MR PETER MACLEAN AND MR PETER DEAGUERepresenting the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board

CHAIRPERSON: Peter MacLean?

MR DEAGUE: Peter Deague.

MR MacLEAN: I'm Peter MacLean.

CHAIRPERSON: Corinne MacRae.

MR WOODMAN: Greg Woodland.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, we're the Hearings Committee appointed by the PlanningCommission to hear all the submissions that are coming forward over the next few days.Greg is an environmental consultant. He's an independent member of the panel andElizabeth is a member of the MRPC and I'm a member of the Planning Commission. We'renot a decision-making committee and we will be making our recommendations to thePlanning Commission and from there will go forward to Parliament hopefully in October thisyear. You have got a public hearing and the proceedings will be taped and a public recordwill be available when it gets to Parliament. All right.

MR DEAGUE: Excellent.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you're ready.

MR DEAGUE: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity. I think you might have

copies of this plan but I will circulate them just in case. I suppose the very first aspect isboard is really quite concerned to have this scheme amendment suggested from the pointof view that the board has been working for the Inter-Agency Cemetery Working Group forthe last four years or more to arrive at negotiated outcomes under the Bush Foreverguidelines.

That is a concern particularly as it wasn't mentioned to us by the Department of Planningand Infrastructure and also that the board has something of a deficit of 250 hectaresrequired if we're looking at a sustainable cemetery system through the whole metro region.So any land that's taken off the board is obviously being fought quite fiercely by the boardbecause it's not being replaced by any land and so therefore the discussions over BushForever have been quite long and protracted and quite vigorous debate over the yearsbecause there is no compensation for the board. Land is taken off us and, of course, ourrole under the Cemeteries Act in being able to provide the social service of funerals isseverely debilitated by Bush Forever, but needless to say we have been working with theDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure and the Department of Environment to achievesome sort of outcome.

36

Over the last couple of weeks Kieron Beardmore and myself and Gary Whisson have meton site and have agreed on the land which is indicated in red at the very bottom section -it's 29 hectares - as land that is regarded as the best quality land to be set aside for BushForever and it's contiguous with Water Corp land and also some other open spaceassociated with Hepburn Heights. So to the board it's quite a good outcome and Isuppose, it nothing else, that the amendment to the Metropolitan Regional Scheme wouldbe restricted to only that portion of land and not to the whole of Pinnaroo.

The other aspect in regards to this 29 hectares is the board would still wish the fact thatthere is no scheme amendment on this portion of land, the reason being that we hadagreed with the Inter-Agency Cemetery Working Committee to arrive at an understandingof how we manage the Bush Forever land and also to agree on a master plan for thebalance of the cemetery land which is quite substantial on endorsing the master plan forour cemetery activities. So it wouldn't mean that we would just clear all the land, but wewould certainly look at a sensible design that reflects environmental outcomes, not justsocial needs for the community.

The other aspect is the board has always abided by planning considerations that are, I

suppose, greater than the scheme amendment. Pinnaroo is also constrained as a(indistinct) area as well so we work with the Department of Environment in that regard andalso in regards to other requirements whether it's a building construction with thedepartment or with EPA in regards to emissions from our cremators and the like. So wehave a good record of abiding by government guidelines so again it did concern the boardthat this type of scheme amendment would be proposed across the whole of Pinnaroo.

The other aspect would be that it would have the potential to severely impact on ourservices under the act in regards to provision of burials and memorials. The board plansessentially 100 years ahead, but it's certainly been five years of clearing land and theprocess hasn't been clearly defined under scheme amendment as to how long that wouldtake and again if the outcome was negative, what would the government do? It's not just aconcern for the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board, it's a concern for the whole of government,certainly for the WA Planning Commission in fulfilling a social need which is obviously tobury people.

We don't have enough land. If there are too many constraints placed on cemeteries,effectively we will be going back to government saying, "Well, what can we do? We don'thave the land." Karrakatta is full now. There's no spare land at Karrakatta. It's purelybased on a process called "cemetery renewal", so we just don't have the land to give up,nor do the board want to be constrained by additional regulations that inhibit our provisionof those services.

The other concern is that under the Planning Commission's bulletin, number 69 which isJuly 2004, to quote, it mentioned that the status of key outstanding negotiated planningsolutions with cemeteries is the status and negotiations is to be determined.

37

The way the board understood this would be is that through the Cemetery Working Groupthat's how it would be determined, the ultimate being a cemetery master plan that would beagreed certainly with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Department ofEnvironment and that's what we have been working towards.

The board hasn't been willing to roll over on this issue and so therefore it might beconstrued that we're being difficult people to deal with, but we have certainly taken a rolevery sincerely in the provision of funeral services to the community and we believe we

wouldn't be doing our job correctly if we just said, "Take the land," because it would causea problem to the government in the future. Again although we're talking about Pinnaroo,

any planning constraints really affect all our cemeteries so we need to be quite cautious on

that implication.

Similar to our concern is the fact that the Bush Forever site implementation option 3 whichis a negotiated planning solution for land zoned under the MRS - again we understood thatto be a negotiated outcome, not an amendment to the MRS that would impose quite severe

restraints on the board. That's basically all I have to say unless Peter wants to addanything.

MR MacLEAN: I think Peter has covered it. Outside of the immediate consideration weare impacted at our Midland and Guildford cemeteries by Bush Forever to a very large

degree and, as Peter highlighted, over the whole metro area we're about 250 hectaresdown on our projected burial land requirements. We have been trying through governmentagencies to get replacement land over at least 20-odd years without success. There's awhole range of reasons with environmental, social in terms of, "We don't want a cemeteryin our backyard," and that sort of thing.

It's very difficult and if it wasn't for the cremation rate and the work that we're doing inrenewing which is in itself controversial, renewing areas of Karrakatta, we would be in direstraits. After Karrakatta and certainly in the northern corridor this is a terribly strategicallyimportant cemetery facility. I guess the only thing to add in the way that the cemetery hasbeen developed it's probably quite unique in the degree of environmental attention that wehave given to the development.

CHAIRPERSON: It's beautiful.

MR MacLEAN: It is lovely. We have retained as much of the natural bush as possiblewhilst still having functionality for our purposes under the act and so we see that thenegotiated outcome for the Bush Forever, the 29 hectares, has spread. If that's within our

management plan and preserved in Bush Forever, plus the fact that we're basicallyprotecting a whole lot of bush over the rest of reserve in our master plan, we don't need theadditional constraint of the whole site being impacted by the amendment that is proposed.So that's just adding to things.

CHAIRPERSON: That's pretty straightforward, I guess, from our point of view.

MR MacLEAN: Yes, it is.

38

CHAIRPERSON: 1 just have a question. With regards to any future development, for wantof a better word, that you do here, you would still be subject to other regulations, wouldn'tyou, in terms of clearing?

MR DEAGUE: Well, yes, that's another concern. Recently at an on-site meeting with theDepartment of Environment officers they mentioned about the clearing permits. Althoughthat's a 60-day period, I understand that's now projected out to 90 days through workload.I mentioned that, you know, our client service base have stated we need a children's burialsection up there and that we can't expect families to wait. To give an example, we mightget a child that's dying of cancer that would come out to the cemetery and actually seewhere they might be buried. You can't say to that family, "Well, you'll be buried here," andthen (indistinct) and buried in this new section. That's part of the social aspect that's notreally considered in some of these environmental constraints.

We plan as much as we possibly can within that five-year period but we still have issuesthat the community want that we believe we need to be able to act on pretty quickly.Another example is we have worked with the police on a homicide victim's memorial atPinnaroo and it's a very, very sensitive outcome with the police and the community. If

we're constrained by too much planning approval process, it makes it very, very difficult.

I do understand though that the Department of Environment have said that we could applyfor an overall clearing permit for Pinnaroo which on, I suppose, a very black and whiteunderstanding it sounds quite good, but my concern is the sincerity of this because it wouldbe advertised to the public and if people complained that we're clearing bush at Pinnaroo,what do we do? We have got to develop. It's a cemetery. It's a very awkward one for us.We do value the environmental aspects of the bush and certainly with the futuredevelopments that we propose we would still keep that mix so it's got very much a KingsPark feel, but at the end of the day it is a cemetery and unless the government provides anadditional section of land, we're stymied.

MS TAYLOR: Can I just ask a question? I'm a bit of a lateral thinker and you made methink about the differences about the children's area and the homicide area.

MR DEAGUE: Yes, sure.

MS TAYLOR: It might be worth considering an eco-burial site rather than planting theroses and the trees for people. You might like to do an eco-burial site which would, of

course, save the necessary -

MR DEAGUE: Yes, that's something we have looked at with the Quindalup dune systemwhich is the section up here where being essentially a dune, you know, we have got to be

very, very careful what we do there so in conjunction with DPI and the Department ofEnvironment we would actually look at some form of memorials or even what they callgreen land burials as well where you might actually just bury essentially in the bush but still

have some sort of marker so people know where they're buried.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

39

MR DEAGUE: Yes, that's certainly something we're looking at. Again that reflects that

community need. If we find a section of the community want that type of burial ormemorialisation, that's what we reflect, which was actually done at Midland Cemetery aswell.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR DEAGUE: So, yes, I certainly agree, Elizabeth.

MS TAYLOR: I have to declare conflict because my brother's down here. It's a beautiful

area.

CHAIRPERSON: It is; yes, I certainly know a young girl that was buried there. It was very

moving too to go into that area. I guess, as far as the future planning goes, a master plan

is useful. I mean, that's useful tool, a management tool, a useful planning tool.

MR DEAGUE: It is. We do have one now that goes back to the eighties.

MR MacLEAN: Yes, mid to late eighties.

MR DEAGUE: By Peter Carlo, but it's very much balanced on a landscape architecturalconcept so we have to basically throw that out and start again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DEAGUE: Which we don't have a problem with.

CHAIRPERSON: No, this gives you a little bit more certainty with you're forward planning.

MR DEAGUE: It does; exactly.

MS TAYLOR: Can I just ask, chair put me off my first question. You talked up-frontabout the negotiated outcomes for boundaries.

MR DEAGUE: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: So you have had discussions regarding - - -

MR DEAGUE: Yes, we had discussions with a couple - - -

MS TAYLOR: Are they progressing all right?

MR DEAGUE: Well, we have basically agreed, haven't we, Kieron, on this bottom sectionof land that's defined in red?

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As opposed to

40

MR DEAGUE: As opposed to the whole of the site, yes. I mean, if the schemeamendment's restricted to that 29 hectares, then that certainly is a better outcome for theboard than all of Pinnaroo.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly; that's fairly straightforward for us.

MR DEAGUE: That's good, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very good. If there is nothing more to add, thank you very much forcoming in.

MR DEAGUE: Thank you for the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: We have enjoyed listening to you. It's certainly a very interesting part ofplanning for the future.

MR DEAGUE: It is.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't often think of it that way, no.

MR DEAGUE: Thank you very much.

41

MR GERARD KEARNEYRepresenting Mrs Sue Kearney

CHAIRPERSON: How do you do; I'm Corinne MacRae. This is Greg Woodman aneElizabeth Taylor. Mr Kearney, you probably heard me go through my spiel with theHearings Committee.

MR KEARNEY: I did, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so I don't need to go through that again.

MR KEARNEY: You probably get tired of saying that over and over and over.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm saying it in my sleep.

MR KEARNEY: You would be.

CHAIRPERSON: We have actually heard from one of your neighbours yesterday.

MR KEARNEY: Peter came in yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right, yes.

MR KEARNEY: I was actually in Melbourne till last night so I dropped in to him see himjust to see if you beat him up too badly. He wasn't bleeding. Okay. Will I just start?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KEARNEY: Thanks for the opportunity. I'm sure everyone's saying that anyway. I'msimilar to Peter, I guess. I'm sure you have got this letter or something similar.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we're aware of that letter that's gone out.

MR KEARNEY: Rather than complaining I'm really here to endorse and support whatthey're saying in there. It's very similar to the submission I put in. The wording in particularsays to realign the BFPA to the eastern boundary so that my lot and Peter's lot and Max

and Jenny's lot won't form part BFPA. I think that's a sensible outcome and it's proof that I

guess this process works if it's followed through.

I want to point out too though, because it does mention here other planning guidelines,we're already aware of the Swan River Trust governance over our property and things likethat. We wouldn't consider bitumising the whole thing anyway. That's not why we livethere and not why we bought the house there. It's also important I don't know if pointed

out, but it's not obvious from the aerial photograph but the land we're talking about -imagine my house sitting there. The land that we're talking about is like that down to theriver so it's not a great spot for a swimming pool or something like that. You couldn't

develop it anyway and we certainly have no plans to develop.MS TAYLOR: Mountain goat country, is it?

42

MR KEARNEY: Sorry?

MS TAYLOR: Mountain goat country.

MR KEARNEY: It certainly is. The only thing I have really done is fence it to keep myboys from going down there. It's good for snakes. So the only work we're doing therereally is restoration, preservation, clearing out any exotics that are trying to take over andvery keen to find a way to prevent the erosion at the bottom. I have spoken to a few people

about that. If we can slow the boats down coming up the river, that would be - -

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard that before. We heard that yesterday.

MR WOODMAN: That was a very interesting submission, yes.

MR KEARNEY: Yes, I ring the water police whenever I can, but they're never up there; notsurprisingly, they can't cover the whole river, but there's some very bad boats and very badboat owners that come up there constantly washing both sides. It gets to the Success Hillside, gets to the Guildford side and comes back and just - if we do any hard surfacing, we'lldestroy Guildford and if they do any hard surfacing, they destroy our side so there's got tobe balance there.

So I guess it's clear in there that the original inclusion was based largely on the aerialphotograph and then a scribbled line. It was quickly identified as an error once thebotanists came. They were fantastic. It only took them five minutes, I think, to have a lookand say, "No," but they still cut it off and said, "No, it's not there." As much as I referred tothem as biologists in my submission (indistinct). I kept looking at it saying there's

something wrong.

I would like to strongly suggest, if I can, though that whatever comes out of this committeeas a recommendation that it's important that - I guess it's the last line in paragraph 3because there's no ambiguity there. It says, "Our officers recommend a realignment withthe BFBA to the eastern boundary of these lots so that these lots will not form part of theBFBA." I'm just a bit concerned that if someone puts it up and says - just like the scribbledline on the map we end up with potential ambiguity again of - it's a digital photograph whichgets a bit stretched and pushed, or "Where is that textered line again?" I guess that's why

we're here today.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right. I think we will be specific and talk about the easterncadastral boundary.

MR KEARNEY: There's no ambiguity there. Lastly, I just request that I be kept informed

of the progress on the recommendation. I suppose specifically if this committee supports it

or endorses it, I would like to know that. I would definitely like to know if this committee

doesn't support or endorse it. That's probably more significant.

CHAIRPERSON: We would have left town by then.

43

MR KEARNEY: That's right so that I can look at what other avenues and what else Ineed to do at that point rather than waiting till the end. Obviously the earlier in the process,the cheaper it is to fix. It seems like a fairly solution to fix it. So in closing I guess it was asimple mistake. That's not pointing blame. There's a lot of area to cover. If you look at the

photo, it's green. Ifs connected there. That's probably significant land. Someone hasdrawn a line around it. Once you have a look, it's not. So a simple mistake with a simplesolution. I compliment the work of the botanists and hope that the recommendation goesthrough as is.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kearney. I will just ask Cate. Cate, what's the processwith the Hearings Committee making a recommendation to the Commission? I mean,there's a point at which we can release some sort of recommendation to affectedlandowners, but in past experience do we do that as a matter of course or do we wait for itto come out at the other end?

MS GUSTAVSSON: We wait until it has been endorsed by the WAPC, then from there itgoes to the Minister's office. So once that has been endorsed by the Western Australian

Planning Commission, then we can let you know that the recommendation of the WesternAustralian Planning Commission is to the Minister to endorse the whole of the amendment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so that would probably be in a couple of months.

MR KEARNEY: A couple of months.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KEARNEY: Because we have put a submission in, that loop's closed, is it?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's certainly our intention.

MS GUSTAVSSON: Yes.

MR KEARNEY: I'm just concerned with the recommendation as to then perhaps take youout of BFPA. You might actually fall off the list of contacts as well because you're nolonger in the loop.

MS GUSTAVSSON: No; no, you're in the loop until -

CHAIRPERSON: You're still a submitter. You still made a submission so you're still onthe record in our register.

MR KEARNEY: All right, good.

MS TAYLOR: Can I just ask a question, chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: If I could just ask you, this is your lot here. It's 28, is it?

44

MR KEARNEY: That's right.

MS TAYLOR: Does that go through your house?

MR KEARNEY: That's my house, the red, yes. I think it does, yes.

MS TAYLOR: It looks like a building.

MR KEARNEY: Yes, that's my house; yes.

MS TAYLOR: Yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Kearney. I think that's very straightforward.

MR KEARNEY: Thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.

45

MR JEFF STRAHAN, MS KIM KYLE AND MR WAYNE BARBERrepresenting FEEGATE PTY LTD

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 46 to 52 inclusive.

MR TONY MACRIrepresenting Mrs Concetta Macri

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 53 to 60 inclusive.

DR FLORA FRANZINELLI AND MR CYRIL TOLSONrepresenting Dr Flora Franzinelli

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 61 to 64 inclusive.

MR ALAN CHURLEYRepresenting Tigerhawk Pty Ltd

CHAIRPERSON: Hello. I'm Corinne MacRae, Mr Churley.

MR CHURLEY: Hello; pleased to meet you.

CHAIRPERSON: This is Greg Woodman and Elizabeth Taylor. Alan, you're representingTiger Hawk today. Is that correct?

MR CHURLEY: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As you know, we're the Hearings Committee that has been appointed bythe Planning Commission to listed to all the submissions and to read the reports and tomake a recommendation to the Planning Commission at the end of this process and thenfrom then on it goes to the Minister and to Parliament. So we're not a decision-makingcommittee at all.

MR CHURLEY: No, I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have got a public hearing. So just to let you know, the proceedingsare being taped and a public record of it will be made available when it gets to Parliament.

MR CHURLEY: That's fine, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. When you're ready.

MR CHURLEY: Firstly, thanks very much for allowing me the opportunity to appear heretoday. You will be pleased to hear I'm not going to read my whole submission to you.Hopefully I won't need the full 15 minutes. I thought it might be helpful if I just summarise, I

suppose, the key points that I made in our submission. There has been a development

with respect to an inspection of the site which you may or may not be aware of. So just forthe assistance of the hearing I have just made a shod note of a summary of my essentialpoints and attached that letter. What I thought I might do is briefly run through thesubmission and then obviously if you have got any questions, I will endeavour to answer

those.

The first point in my submission and, I guess, one of the fundamental concepts waswhether or not site 217 can be classified as regionally significant bushland. Now, the

submission that we made or I made was that, in my view, admittedly as a layman, I didn'tsee that the site met that classification and, secondly, there had been disturbance insite 217 through lawful and proper development which, in my view again as a layman, didn't

meet the classification. Subsequently, as I understand it I wasn't actually physicallypresent - representatives from DPI visited the site and subsequently issued this letter which

I have attached dated 10 May.

65

The thrust of that was that the bushland in the site is more representative of Darling Scarp

Complex rather than Forrestfield Complex, whatever that means, and there was also anacknowledgment in that letter of, as I said, a level of disturbance that in my interpretation isinconsistent with inclusion of the site. That's lawful and proper building that has occurred

over the period of the last few years. I suppose the thrust of my submission there is thatthe site is not regionally significant bushland and I would submit to the members that theletter from DPI which is obviously as a product of a review by - qualified people have

formed that view as well.

Leaving that aside, the basic concept is: is it significant bushland? I think if it's not, then it

should be removed from the site or from the policy. Leaving that issue aside, I just want tomake some general comments on what I understand to be the Statement of Planning

Policy if the policy were to be implemented over the site. As I think you will be aware from

my submission and submissions of others, the site is comprised of a number ofone-hectare lots and without going into all the ramifications of the Statement of PlanningPolicy, it's to my view really inappropriate that the Bush Forever policy apply to this type of

lot.

The fundamental concept there is that not less than 90 per cent of each lot is really

retained as native bushland and in a one-hectare lot if you allowing for a reasonablebuilding envelope and firebreaks and outbuildings and roads or driveways and that sort of

thing, it's really you know, to have reasonable use of a one-hectare lot it's just actually

impossible to meet that 90 per cent threshold. Again my reading of the draft Statement of

Planning Policy was, you know, really that the policy should be aimed at lots than

10 hectares. I guess I can understand there may be an argument that if you're entitled touse one-hectare, that's reasonable use of that lot. As I said, on a one-hectare lot it is just

about impossible to have reasonable use and meet the requirements.

The last comment that I have is really what I view as sort of the retrospective effect of the

inclusion of private lots within the Bush Forever policy. You need to understand I

purchased that lot a number of years ago and built subsequently. We bought it because of

the unique amenity of the site so we're not anti-bushland. I mean, we choose to live there

because we like it and we have full acceptance of the existing town planning scheme and

DPI requirements.

I felt compelled to make a submission and to appear because in my view whilst I fully

understand the objectives behind the policy, to apply them to small lots which are withinprivate ownership and in a manner that in my view retrospectively limits your right to

reasonable use and enjoyment is just unfair. I mean, that's a general comment and forms

part of my submission. It would have a negative effect on value and, as I said, whilst I

accept and everyone must accept planning policies, I just think it is an unfairimplementation of this particular policy. That's all I have got to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Mr Churley. As you probably know, we have heard from anumber of your neighbours yesterday so we're well aware of the issues and also, as you're

aware, with the letter from Department of Planning and Infrastructure with the officerrecommendation it's a fairly straightforward case for us. So I don't think we can really ask

you too many more questions or add anything more of any value to this process.

66

MR CHURLEY: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: Obviously we will keep in touch. By the time the Commission meets adetermination on this matter I think after that point the landowners will be made aware of

the final determination of the Commission. I think that's the process, isn't it, Cate?

MS GUSTAVSSON: Yes.

MR CHURLEY: Alf right.

CHAIRPERSON: So that would be in a couple of months' time?

MS TAYLOR: Can I just ask a question through the chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Mr Churley, you're really discussing the Statement of Planning Policy. I

mean, your own site 217 is all okay as far as you're concerned because I know you arelooking aft the bush. So the Statement of Planning Policy - does that bother you in relationto the Bush Forever? You made a comment - I was just trying to find it in the SPP aboutthe size of lots and private ownership on the SPP.

MR CHURLEY: Yes, I think I cross-referenced it in my submission, perhaps notdirectly.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you were making more of a general observation.

MR CHURLEY: Yes, I did think I had read somewhere in the policy - -

CHAIRPERSON: Kieron, perhaps you could clarify that.

MR BEARDMORE: Basically the policy applies to future development considerations.

MR CHURLEY: Right.

MR BEARDMORE: Now, for existing development and existing usage we can't encumber

those sorts of uses. So basically the 10 hectares is what we see as an ideal benchmark.

Now, obviously one hectare is one hectare (indistinct) two-hectare sites exist, subdivided,

etcetera, and smaller lots were we tried to avoid small lots where we could but obviously

at the time we felt (indistinct) the Forrestfield Complex where we still needed to make the

10 per cent target so unfortunately we had to identify some areas which were a lot smaller

than we would ideally like in the ideal world, but the policy does apply to futuredevelopment, not to existing development.

MR CHURLEY: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.

MR CHURLEY: Thanks very much for your time, yes.

67

MR JOHN STEVENS, MR PETER GOLDSMITH ANDMS MARGARET KINGSBURY

Representing Friends of Piney Lakes and Winthrop Murdoch Community Group

CHAIRPERSON: It's Mr Stevens, isn't it?

MR STEVENS: That's right, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We met at the Fremantle Eastern Bypass Hearings.

MR STEVENS: That's right, Corinne, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae.

MR WOODMAN: Greg Woodman.

MR STEVENS: Hi, Greg.

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth Taylor.

MS TAYLOR: How do you do?

MR STEVENS: Hi, Elizabeth.

MR GOLDSMITH: Peter Goldsmith.

CHAIRPERSON: How are you, Peter.

MS KINGSBURY: Margaret Kingsbury.

CHAIRPERSON: Hello, Margaret. It's Margaret Kingsbury, Anton. Did you get that?John, you're getting to be an old hand at these hearings.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I will just explain that we're the Hearings Committee appointed by thePlanning Commission to listen to all the submissions and to actually read the submissionsas well and we will be making a recommendation to the Planning Commission on thisamendment so we're not a decision-making committee at all. We will take on board all theconcerns that you have and any sort of clarification that you would like at this point in time.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Kieron will be able to answer any questions that you have of a technical

nature.

68

You have got a public hearing so the proceedings of this are taped and they will be madepublic and be on the public record when the amendment goes to Parliament. So whenyou're ready.

MR GOLDSMITH: Could we maybe start off we have done some brief notes so what wewould like (indistinct) could we just leave those with you? I don't think you need them nowbut maybe they might be just a reminder down the track. The first thing we would really liketo do is try and point out what we see is the significance of the Piney Lakes Reserve.(indistinct) They are wetlands. So we're looking at that area there which are the Bee liarwetlands, We have got the inland developments and the coastal developments and we seethis really as a very strategic area and the stepping stone across into the northern greenbelt. It's about 67 hectares in total, of which about 50 hectares is bush area with about17 hectares of parkland and reserve.

Currently about 50 per cent, so probably in the order of 20 to 30 hectares, is alreadynominated bush and wetland conservation. So what we would like to expand upon is thestrategic location of it in regard to that whole complex and then also the bits that make upand the improvements that are going on and we really feel that that should be extended.Now, we have got two concerns. There are things that are really pushing us to try and getthat additional protection in there and maybe, John, you could talk about the concerns orthe protection that we're seeking.

MR STEVENS: Yes, the two major concerns we can see are pressures on this area ofwetland from the surrounding land usage and the second concern is that in the currentMRS amendment that we're discussing here there's no actual specific proposal coveringarea 339. It's not actually mentioned as a proposal. Many of the other areas that arenumbered have a proposal associated with them but this area, 339, isn't mentioned at allso we would like to see a proposal. So those are our two concerns, the pressures that are

coming on that area and the fact that the amendment doesn't actually include a proposalone way or the other for it.

Firstly, if I could outline the concerns that we have, one of the major concerns stems fromthe Freight Network Review which was carried out several years ago. The Freight NetworkReview came up with 21 options for the road network and two of the options which I havepictures of here showed the diversion of Murdoch Drive through this reserve. That's

option T and that was option H. If you look at the reserve, you will find that Murdoch Driveis shown being diverted from it currently runs right round this edge of the wetland to joinRise ley Street so as to form a grade separated intersection there. So we see that as amajor pressure on this wetland.

You can see that in greater detail. This is just a blown-up picture of that little area. Youcan see what happens here. You get this road coming right through this part rather than

running where it runs at present. So we're quite concerned about that being a futurepressure.

69

Even though lots of people have said those options will never be proceeded with, alreadyyou can see traffic banked up on here, traffic banked up on here, traffic banked up onLeach Highway at these locations. You can see the pressures now and so that's one of our

major concerns.

MR GOLDSMITH: I think also with the general government move to improvedinfrastructure that's even going to be worse from now on. It's not going to get any better.Leach Highway has been, as you know, developed into a major traffic route now and thepressures are really on with rail, freight network, everything going through that area and we

really want to try and preserve this little patch.

MR STEVENS: Have I been clear on the two concerns that we're bringing to the table

here?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEVENS: One's an obvious one like that.

CHAIRPERSON: That is an option that was proposed during that whole Freight NetworkReview analysis of options.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I was involved in that actually. That option actually just dropped off in

the end.

MR STEVENS: Yes, I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEVENS: It's interesting to note that alignment that's shown on there for theproposed realignment of Murdoch Drive was actually the originally planned alignment forMurdoch Drive when the subdivision of Winthrop was being planned because it makessense. You would bring Murdoch Drive and Rise ley Street together, maybe underneathLeach Highway, and have a grade separated intersection eventually. So it's not just theFreight Network Review that thought up that. That's how it was originally going to be.

CHAIRPERSON: That was its genesis.

MR STEVENS: You can see how that pressure would come perhaps in the future so it'snot an illogical, irrational fear.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The other concern you have is Leach Highway and any futureplans for Leach Highway would have an impact on Piney Lakes.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask you a question? You talked about there isn't a proposal.

70

MR STEVENS: Yes, am I mistaken?

MR BEARDMORE: If I may clarify, basically there isn't a proposal to reserve this land.The proposals that there were with the amendment before specifically relate to thereservation of some land through this amendment, but the amendment also proposes theestablishment of a Bush Forever protection area over existing reserves and private land.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: Now, being as this is an existing reserve, what the proposal is that aBush Forever protection area be established over this land.

MR STEVENS: Okay.

MR BEARDMORE: So that's the proposal. What that actually does is then you have torelate it back to the bushland SPP which is the policy framework for those Bush Foreverprotection areas. In the bushland SPP, for example, for Parks and Recreation reserves itsays there will be a presumption against clearing within Bush Forever reserves subject to,

you know, certain exemptions.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: So, in effect, the combination of the Bush Forever protection area andthe SPP will give greater policy standing to protection of bush within Piney Lakes Reserve.

MR STEVENS: Okay.

MR BEARDMORE: So that's what this is. That would be the intent of the proposal - - -

CHAIRPERSON: This is reserve lands already, this Piney Lakes Reserve.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, it is already -

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I think we just need to clarify that in our report that it is anexisting Parks and Recreation reserve so it's coloured green on the Metropolitan Regional

Scheme.

MR STEVENS: Yes, okay. Perhaps it's my misunderstanding, but I was thinking if therewas a specific proposal in the amendment, then it could list some of the recommendations,if the Hearing Committee were to support them, that we have made further in oursubmission. Perhaps that would be a way of containing those - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this amendment process is not so much about looking at proposals

for any parcel of land. There's basically two issues.

71

One is either reserving the land for parks and recreation, which obviously is not the casehere because it's already reserved, and, secondly, the other arm of the amendment is toapply a policy over all Bush Forever sites and, in particular, over all reserve lands and thatpolicy is to actually be the implementation framework, I suppose, for determining the sortsof development that can or cannot occur on Bush Forever sites.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that is a level of policy control, if you like. It's actually a management

tool. It's there to assist the decision-making authorities make their determination onwhether or not you can put a building at Piney Lakes and what needs to be cleared or ifyou're talking about a rural property, whether a bore can be sunk in a portion of the land

that has bush. I mean, those sorts of things require an overarching policy to guidedecision-making and that's what this particular Bush Forever policy is about.

MR STEVENS: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: It applies to all reserve lands. So in terms of a proposal there isn't aproposal as such. It's basically either reserved and/or protected.

MR STEVENS: Okay. I'm conscious of our time here. If we don't have a proposal then as

the submission has suggested, is there a way of encapsulating, if our recommendationsare valid, our recommendations in this process?

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth?

MS TAYLOR: I hear what your concerns are and you're wishing to tighten it up, I'vegathered.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: I think if we put the Statement of Planning Policy which I have just referred

to as being 5.2.1 I think, Kieron, it's the right one.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: That we refer to that matter because it is already a protection area and sotherefore section 5.2.1 in our report should apply. Through the chair, is that quite correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the Statement of Planning Policy will be finalised at the end of this

whole process.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the overarching policy.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

72

MR GOLDSMITH: Are you saying that although it's a reserve, only some of it is BushForever?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR STEVENS: Only part of that reserve is designated Bush Forever, as I understand atpresent.

CHAIRPERSON: Kieron?

MR BEARDMORE: The whole of the P and R is a Bush Forever protection area, but thepolicy only affects the bushland within the Bush Forever protection area. So, for example,if there's cleared areas within the reserve at the moment, in theory the policy doesn't applyto those cleared areas. However, it would be subject to other planning controls; forexample, for the sake of argument, if you want to put a footy oval in cleared areas, in a Pand R reserve, it's a decision of the Commission because it's reserve land and they wouldlook at a whole suite of other policies, etcetera.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: If you want to put a footy oval in a cleared area, then the policyapplies and the policy says that there is a presumption against clearing except undercertain circumstances like a management plan is being prepared for the whole area whichsays for whatever reason there's an overriding need for this and there could be some offset

measures and mitigation measures.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: I'm not saying that will occur, but I'm simply saying that the policy issaying a presumption against unless there is, you know, like a management plan which hasbeen endorsed by council, council have been through the public process and all those sorts

of things. So the policy does give greater standing for bushland protection within Parksand Recreation reserves really.

MR STEVENS: May I just ask a question of Kieron?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go ahead, John.

MR STEVENS: Kieron, when we were putting together the submission, I think I came to

see you in January this year.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR STEVENS: I can't remember when it was - and expressing all these things to you.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

73

MR STEVENS: One of the suggestions you made that we should incorporate in oursubmission was to look at - because the mapping of some of the areas was quite old, tolook at or ask for a remapping of some of the areas, a relook at the mapping - - -

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, sure.

MR STEVENS: - because some of the bushland is regenerating and our group isactually actively involved in that. Margaret can speak to that point quite well of what wehave been doing.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, absolutely.

MR STEVENS: It's in our recommendations.

MR BEARDMORE: If it's part of any more detailed planning for the area, then obviously ina management plan exercise you want the latest information because you can't really rely

on the mapping which is done from aerial photography and ARC WA mapping to200 per cent. So if through a management plan exercise the area was remapped to showthere are bushland areas in the policy as well, although the map at the back of the policyindicates - I think you have it there, this one here, the implementation plan. The mapping inthere includes bushland as mapped in 2001 by ARC WA. However, the policy in the SPPalso says that that kind of mapping is subject to on-site verification and confirmationbecause we recognise that the mapping is not going to be deadly accurate. So there isopportunities there to say that the policy applies to bushland and, you know, obviouslysome of that was subject to those sorts of on-site verification.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What in particular would you seek to have included in this amendment,or would you like to see something done further down the track?

MR STEVENS: I think there are three specific things that we would like to see includedand those are the recommendations that refer to remapping of the two types of areas.There's a conservation category wetland and there's a regionally significant bushland.Those are the two areas shown on those maps. So a remapping of both those areas. I

would imagine if they're remapped, they would expand because the bushland hasregenerated around those areas. So there are those two, and the third one is I'm not sure

if it's appropriate but to integrate something in the amendment that aligns itself with theBeeliar Regional Park Draft Management Plan and the Piney Lakes Management Plan.Both those plans include wording that opens the way in the future for a reclassification ofthat land to class A.

Both those management plans refer to this type of land as having that possibility in thefuture and so we would like to see the same wording that's in those other plans reflected inthe amendment.

74

CHAIRPERSON: I take advice from Kieron on this, but I think that's outside the scope ofthis amendment. The SPP, the Statement of Planning Policy, that will accompany thisamendment further down the track does require management plans and managementstrategies to be implemented.

MR STEVENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Obviously you have read that. So I think that's something that's reallyoutside the scope of this amendment, that particular issue. I mean, the remapping issue Ithink is something we can look at, but I think future management plans of both Beeliar andPiney Lakes is something that is outside the scope of this amendment. Kieron, would that

be about right?

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, basically we support and encouragement management planexercised through the Bushland SPP and any kind of a future management planning forPiney Lakes which incorporates any up-to-date mapping of bushland, you know, isobviously encouraged and supported.

MR STEVENS: Yes, okay, fine.

MR BEARDMORE: I hope that satisfies.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're looking at some point in the future of classifying those tworeserves to A class reserves or class A reserves.

MR STEVENS: If they eventually met that criteria, and the wording in the BeeliarManagement Plan that covers this area and then the actual Piney Lakes Management Planthat also covers this area both include that wording. I just thought it appropriate torecommend that as being reflected in this MRS. It was an opportunity to reflect it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's a different process, a class A reserve. It's a decision ofParliament in the end, of course, as you know.

MR BEARDMORE: It is.

CHAIRPERSON: That follows a different process altogether to a Metropolitan RegionScheme Amendment. Peter?

MR GOLDSMITH: Could I just move on just a little? I know we're running out of time. I'mnot too sure when Kieron says all bush area will be considered to be Bush Forever and Ithink at present the designated bush areas start - - -

MR BEARDMORE: That's the mapped area, yes.

MR GOLDSMITH: We're extending this substantially.

MR BEARDMORE: Sure.

75

MR GOLDSMITH: We have planted something like 50,000 trees - well, native bush overthe last three years. So that is extending quite substantially. The one thing about thesewetlands is that - I was going to say "pristine" but it's not. It's high quality water. It's one of

the few wetlands that does not have rural run-off or drainage directed into it. It's beautiful

quality water.

Where I was going was I would like - and it depends on your definition of "bush". I would

like to include everything within that area under that protection because this is a verybuilt-up area. Everybody likes their green lawns and all that sort of thing. The reason whythat's pristine is because of that (indistinct) and I would love it if we could incorporate that17 additional hectares. There's one other aspect. If we could do that, it would bring us intoline with the Indigenous Heritage Protection Act both at State and government level and wewould then be working to the same boundaries.

MR BEARDMORE: If I may clarify that, the area you're referring to there is still within thePiney Lakes Reserve at the moment, the Parks and Recreation reserve.

MR GOLDSMITH: Yes.

MR BEARDMORE: So the whole of the Piney Lakes Reserve is in the Bush Foreverprotection area and what we're seeking to protect is bushland in there. So those areas youmentioned there which are not currently mapped as bushland in the SPP, if they are shownto be bushland, then they fall within the ambit of the policy.

MR GOLDSMITH: That's not actually bushland. That is parkland at present. It's reserve,

it's dog-walking area, it's open area, that kind of thing, but what I'm saying is that it doesform such a protective barrier to the quality of that wetland that we would love, if we could,to add any additional protection to that. Also, it does help to inhibit any future roadsthrough that area. It could be that we get this protected but this is not extensivelyprotected.

MS KINGSBURY: You're saying because that's cleared, it doesn't come under - -

MR BEARDMORE: No, what I'm saying is the whole of the reserve is under the BushForever protection area.

MS KINGSBURY: Even though only that one part has been mapped.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, the whole reserve is.

MS KINGSBURY: So how do we know that?

MR BEARDMORE: The policy actually in the SPP applies to bushland. That fact that onlythat part is mapped is of really no consequence. We just mapped areas based onphotographs, but if subsequent studies show there is additional bushland beyond what ismapped, then the policy applies because it's bushland and that's what the policy applies to.

76

MS KINGSBURY: So all that area at the moment that's some sort of bush apart from thegrassed areas would be covered.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right, and the more bush appears, then the more it's coveredunder the policy until eventually the whole area is covered under the policy by virtue of the

fact that you have replanted.

MR WOODMAN: Are you aware of the criteria under Bush Forever for inclusion of bushwithin the Bush Forever policy? It's got to be in a condition of good or better. It's good or

better, isn't it, still?

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR WOODMAN: There is specific criteria that your bushland needs to come up to to beclassified as bush.

MS KINGSBURY: And the remapping then is that referring to it as Bush Forever site, is it?

MR WOODMAN: You would actually need to have the site assessed properly and thenremapped.

MR BEARDMORE: Because this mapping in Bush Forever at the moment doesn't includescattered vegetation. Scatter vegetation as well is not under the definition of "bushland". It

has to be good or better which has a bit of understorey and those sorts of things really. Soif it does come under the classification of bushland, then it's affected by the policy and thepolicy applies.

MS KINGSBURY: Yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

MR STEVENS: Just at the risk of going over this repeatedly, the map shows a redboundary surrounding a white area.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR STEVENS: Then within that white area there's a blue cross-hatched area and withinthe blue cross-hatched area there's a dark green area.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR WOODMORE: The dark green area is the bush. The blue cross-hatched area wouldbe the CCWs and the white area is just the white area.

MR BEARDMORE: It's not mapped as bushland.

MR WOODMORE: That's right.

77

MR BEARDMORE: I may be bushland but it's not mapped as bushland at the momentbecause these maps are 2001.

CHAIRPERSON: In 10 years' time it could possibly be mapped as bushland if it's

regenerated.

MR STEVENS: Okay; but I understand you to say that all within that red boundary is Bush

Forever?

MR BEARDMORE: In the Bush Forever protection area, but the policy only applies tobushland because, for example, it's very hard to sort of map in the MRS just the remnantbushlands so to a large degree we follow Parks and Recreation reserves which is PineyLakes Reserve. So the whole of Piney Lakes Reserve is in the Bush Forever protectionarea, but the policy only applies to bushland within that Bush Forever protection area.

MR GOLDSMITH: So if pressure came in that area, we could get a quick remapping andestablish which then qualified under that protection.

MR BEARDMORE: Mapping on remapping - if the policy says "bushland" and it falls withinthe definition of "bushland", then it's affected by the policy.

MR WOODMAN: Regrowth and regeneration can be classified as bushland if it's reached

a certain stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Your submission is actually quite the inverse of many that we have had.You actually want the reverse of many proponents today. You actually don't want thedevelopment on the cleared areas and we have got many other people saying what canthey on the cleared areas. So it's a first. So thank you very much and well done for all thehard work you have been doing in Piney Lakes.

MR STEVENS: Thank you for listening to us.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a fantastic area.

MR STEVENS: Good. Thank you very much.

78

MR & MRS TEN VAANHOLT, MR TIM HOUWELING, and DR PETER KEATINGRepresenting Mr & Mrs Ten Vaanholt

CHAIRPERSON: We have Mr Ten Holt?

MR HOUWELING: No, my name is Tim Houweling. I'm a solicitor.

CHAIRPERSON: Tim Houweling; how are you?

MR HOUWELING: Mr Ten Holt.

MR VAANHOLT: Ten Vaanholt.

MR HOUWELING: Ten Vaanholt.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae.

MR HOUWELING: Dr Keating and Mrs Ten Vaanholt.

MR WOODMAN: Greg Woodman.

MS TAYLOR: Elizabeth Taylor.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Houweling, you're all speaking on this matter?

MR HOUWELING: Yes, we are.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to clarify, we're the Hearings Committee that has been appointedby the Planning Commission to listen to all the submissions. We are not a decision-making

committee. We will be making recommendations to the Planning Commission and thosedeliberations will then go on to Parliament hopefully in October, I believe. You have

requested a public hearing and I just advise you that the proceedings are being taped and

a public record will be made available when it goes to Parliament. So when you're ready,

thank you.

MR HOUWELING: Allow me to start by saying that the land in question is considered not

to be an area of land that is so significant that it needs to be retained. Now, no doubt you

have heard this on quite a number of occasions today and you may choose to think, "Well,

I'm sure everybody feels that about their land." I want to ask Mr Ten Vaanholt to tell us alittle bit about what he does on that land. I also want Dr Keating to tell us a little bit about

his findings in respect of his finding whether or not it's ground truthed in the report that you

have got before you and the report on which you will be relying. So we want to provide that

other perspective and we come here today having done some homework. So f will just

lead off by briefly saying that there is a report that no doubt you have seen, I take it, the

report produced by your officers, with photocopies of particular

CHAIRPERSON: We have read your submission.

79

MR HOUWELING: Mr Ten Vaanholt carries on an operation on the land and he'sself-employed and he grows cucumbers over the land. He does so in a number of tunnelsand he has been carrying on a commercial operation from this land for - how many yearsnow?

MR VAANHOLT: Nine and a half years.

MR HOUWELING: Nine and a half years. The plan that I have here which is an approvedcopy of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrandale is his bushfire management plan. As you wouldno doubt be aware, bushfires are matters of significant concern and he has in place abushfire management plan requiring him to manage the land in a certain way.

This is Cumming Road at the front. The land which is considered to be so significant that itneeds to be retained is land that generally follows this line here. I say here "generally"because it's not easily discernible from the maps. The area that is considered to besignificant contains his driveways, his water tank and various other things, as well as thearea on the - at least the furthest point of the tunnels towards the eastern side. Is that

correct?

MR VAANHOLT: Northern.

MR HOUWELING: The northern side and further back along the back of his property.Now, he has access to his tunnel sheds and they're called tunnels on this particular planby way of a driveway and he also needs to keep access along that part of the land that isconsidered to contain this significant vegetation. I can see an aerial photograph. Wehaven't been provided with that photograph at this point. If I could ask Mr Ten Vaanholtjust to tell us about what he's doing on the land and what his future plans are as well.

MR VAANHOLT: I'm a second-generation primary producer. It started off my mum and

dad's farm and gradually grew. I started up my own operation. I wish to have the sameopportunities for my family to be a third-generation farmer and one day I would like toexpand my business and not be impeded with Bushland Forever or wetlands. There's alsonotes been taken there that I have dumped rubbish down the back. They might how can Isay it? Bronwyn might say it's rubbish but really it's decomposing sawdust, perlite, andthere was one photo with a little bit of plastic there from the tunnel house. I don't knowwhether you have been privy to these photos or not, but generally at the end of the day Iwish to just keep on doing what I'm doing, eventually expand my business and grow aseconomically sustainable and I can't see why I can't continue on doing what I need to do.

MR HOUWELING: The report that you have there - I think notes should be taken of theemotive language which is used which is "dumped". Now, this material at the bottom thereis the material that he uses to grow his vegetables in so it's hardly material that one wouldconsider to be dumped on the land, quite unlike anybody putting some grass clippings atthe back of their property.

80

If you note that type of emotive language, it would, in our view, be the method by which thishas been approached. Can I go across to Dr Keating and ask for him to give his analysisof the environmental significance of the land, having regard to the botanist's report as wellas his own report and observations of the land and significant matters raised in the Bush

Forever policy area.

DR KEATING: The Bush Forever original planning set this aside as an extension of theModong Reserve behind on the basis that it was a conservation category wetland. I have

looked a the conservation category wetlands as determined by Hill which formed the basisof all State government policy on wetlands and it has not been considered a conservationcategory wetland. A very small part of this block has been considered what's called amultiple-use wetlands but that's the part that has now become a driveway and a house.

I have investigated the property with the view to ascertaining its wetland status because theHill document on wetlands in the Swan Coastal Plain states quite clearly that it is a large

part of it's done as a desktop survey. It has to have field verification and the basis of fieldverification relates to ground water levels and evidence of inundation and water perching.When I undertook these investigations in the very recent past it was after 210 millimetres ofrain in the previous three weeks. If it was going to be wet, it would be wet. The water tablewas in excess of two and a half metres down. Ordinarily a wetland has a water table in the

order of 600 millimetres or higher.

When I looked at the vegetation on the site, I did not believe any of it was typical of wetland

vegetation. It is typically called Banksia heath land and it's considered upland vegetation.That particular type of Banksia heath land is the most common floristic vegetationassembly on the Swan Coastal Plain. It's noted that around about 28 percent of it remainsof the original which, from memory, constituted about 55 percent of the entire SwanCoastal Plain, therefore what's there and what's represented is not particularly rare orendangered. There is, I think, a 230-hectare reserve behind it that is vested in CALM and

it's certainly going to be preserved forever.

In summary, I guess the other reasons why it was considered for Bush Forever were that itwas over a proclaimed ground water protection area and that it was on the Peel-Harvey

catchment. Now, both of those factors were taken into consideration when developmentapproval was given through the shire and the Department of Environment had theopportunity to review that and the Water Corporation who are responsible for ground waterprotection zones. You will notice there are a number of greenhouses along this strip.

The reason that they exist as intensive horticulture over a tightly managed ground waterprotection area is Mr Vaanholt's operation, like the others, rely on recirculating hydroponics.They do not discharge nutrients into the environmental. They operate in greenhouses.They're extremely frugal with their use of water. They are in fact, I believe, a very goodexample of how environmentally responsible horticulture will grow and develop in this State

and I think that to compromise the ability of these fine examples of modern-growingpractice and environmentally sensitive practice to be stymied by what I believe is amisrepresentation of their land as conservation category wetlands would be a shame.The process of becoming a conservation category wetland is a hierarchical process.

81

In the first instance it has to be demonstrated that it is a wetland, then it is subject to aBulletin 686 review which will categorise it either as multiple use, resource enhancement orconservation category. The fact that it is not a wetland means that you don't need that, butwere it the case, because that 686 review looks at typical wetland features, the amount of

bulrushes, the amount of reeds, the closure of wetland species like melaleucas, it wouldnot be at all categorised as conservation category wetlands because it doesn't have those

wetland features. It's dry-land vegetation as the pictures that were provided and even thedepartments own report says it's predominantly upland vegetation of Banksia (indistinct).All of those are plant species.

There is therefore a paradox that, on the one hand, it was set aside on the basis of being aconservation category wetland. The departments own investigations say that it doesn'thave wetland species on it. Notwithstanding that there is a list that says some of these are

wetland, for instance (indistinct) are seen as wetland species. (indistinct) the Swan River

myrtle grows up in the Darling Range, for instance. It is not exclusively wetland. It can be

in wetland but it's not a market or an indicator of wetland species. Melaleuca (indistinct)

paperbark likewise in (indistinct) of the Perth area recognises that it borders wetlands and aclosely related plant that kind of looks like it Melaleuca (indistinct) only occurs in wetlands.

So there is some equivocation about wetlands but the important point here is governmentpolicy on wetlands as (indistinct) quite clearly says that wetlands relate to hydrology to

where the ground water is and that vegetation is a useful indicator of where boundariesmight be at a first pass so that hydrological studies can be more focused. The onlyhydrological studies I'm aware of are the ones that I have conducted recently there and, asI said, unfortunately definitive hydrological studies have to take place over a longer term

because ground water moves.

The hydrology of the Perth area is very well known through - the works of the WesternAustralian Geological Survey through Davidson has finished and we know that this type of

formation, the Bassendean sand formation, varies by around about one metre per yearfrom the minimum to the maximum, yet there's a long-term variation above that, but at this

time of year the ground water is two and a half metres at least. Unfortunately that's as long

as my shovel was. It wasn't particularly wet down the bottom. This is clearly not a wetland.

As I restate, the type of vegetation that is represented there is the most common remnant

vegetation that's on the Swan Coastal Plain and, as such, I would just say that it would be

counterproductive in, I think, the State's long-term environmental interests because I workextensively in the horticulture industry. I'm fully aware of the impacts of nutrients on ground

water pollution. This is a shining example of efficient production that has no deleteriousimpact on the environment. It would be just too ironic to have an environmental issue thatisn't really substantiated or at least not proven to my satisfaction stymie the development of

that business.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Dr Keating.

82

MR VAANHOLT: Can I just state at the end of that we have spent a lot of money onbuying the latest hi-tech computer equipment from Holland, in excess of 50 grand, just tomonitor what goes in the pot, what comes out of the pot and if there is too much drainagecoming out of the pot, the computer calibrates and changes the next watering time back sothere is never an excess of over-watering done so there is hardly any nutrient run-off at allbecause we have spent the money just like the nurseries down the road from us. They

have all got Preeva computers all from Holland, 50,000, 100,000. They have all spentmoney. Why? Because the shires want it. We cannot do anything without it. You cannot

get permission to do anything on our land if you do not have technology. We have spent alot of money on technology. If we don't have technology, we don't grow well.

MR HOUWELING: Could I just ask if you could point on this map - and what I'm showingMr Ten Vaanholt is a map of the land. You were speaking before about intending toexpand your operations. Are you able to identify where you would be hoping to expandyour operations as you're moving through?

MR VAANHOLT: We would like to expand down through here. We need access for roadsand trucks to travel down through here. Here is a fire management plan with a firebreak. I

think it's four metres wide at the moment. So, you know, we would like to continue toprogress as the future holds to move down the block. It's whether we can or not.

MR HOUWELING: I think that we're coming close to the time which we have got. Allowme just to quickly say, and then I will come across to Dr Keating if he's got anything else to

say, the impact from a legal perspective of placing a category conservation wetland overhis land is one impact that's already being considered. Now to place that land into BushForever zoning or at least have the protections of section 37 of the Metropolitan RegionalScheme, that is, what's proposed in this particular instance, will stymie his ability tocontinue to grow his business. It will stymie what Dr Keating describes as very effective

environmental management. It is not necessary to have a buffer to any other wetlandaround the area. Dr Keating's evidence, clear, unequivocal, uncontradicted evidence, mustbe taken into account by this tribunal, in our view, to consider whether or not this area ofland ought to be included holus-bolus in the proposed reservation. I use the word"reservation" broadly because, of course, this is proposed for a planning control area.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I get your pardon?

MR HOUWELING: It's proposed for a planning control area.

CHAIRPERSON: This area?

MR HOUWELING: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR HOUWELING: That's our instructions from your officers.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just have that clarified from Kieron?

83

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, basically what we're proposing there is a Bush Forever protectionarea which a policy overlay in the Metropolitan Regional Scheme. Under section 33 we'reactually amending the Metropolitan Regional Scheme. Section 37 really is a planningcontrol area and normally they're put in place prior to acquisition of land to enable theCommission to purchase land where it can be agreed with the landowner or actually(indistinct) Planning Commission and that's not the case here.

MR HOUWELING: Are you saying that you're proposing to place it within the MetropolitanRegional Scheme?

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, there's a policy overlay in the MRS.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a policy overlay. It is, I suppose, a management tool. It's a method

by which decision-makers can be informed as to what sort of development is acceptableand not acceptable.

MR HOUWELING: Right. Well, certainly when it was explained to me and in ourdiscussions, we identified at that particular point in time that it would become a matter of asection 37 planning control area. Now, quite clearly whatever the proposed amendmentsare to the legislation, this will stymie any ability of any person into the future to obtaincompensation. Think about it.

MS GUSTAVSSON: May I add to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask a question first?

MR HOUWELING: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Regarding the existing conservation category wetland over the property,have you or suggested to your clients that they request the DOE to remove that orinvestigate the removal of it?

MR HOUWELING: I should ask Dr Keating in respect to that.

DR KEATING: I have only been brought into this very recently. My experience recentlywith the Department of Environment in asking for change in what's now called thegeomorphic data set is it's really very long term and very hard and it's unfortunate that thisBush Forever process is coming to an end. My experience in other areas where I haveinvestigated and concluded that it's not wetland the process takes 18 months. I'm sayingthat this has never been considered wetland, especially it's never been consideredconservation category wetland. The current geomorphic data set does not consider it awetland. For it to be set aside on the basis that it was clearly a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: I guess that's something that we can't deliberate on at this point in time.We would have to look into that further.

DR KEATING: I can certainly make the documentation available for you.

84

MR HOUWELING: That is the clear, uncontradicted evidence of Dr Keating.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. We will have to confirm that with DOE, of course. Greg, do youhave anything to add on this matter?

MR WOODMAN: It's plain that you're actually taking issue with the studies that have beendone to date identifying the boundaries on the property and that's obviously something thatwe're going to have to look into a bit more closely pretty much to see exactly where weneed to go in the decision-making process under the criteria of Bush Forever. I don't think

there's any other information I can ask for at the moment. I think a lot of information needs

to be looked at before we can make a determination based on that.

CHAIRPERSON: We will do that.

DR KEATING: If I could just comment there, I do not dispute what is stated in this - whatvegetation groups are there. What I'm saying is the reason why it was set aside is it wassaid to be conservation category wetland. This report says, as I state again, it's

predominantly upland vegetation (indistinct). That is not conservation category wetland

material. It never was a wetland. The wetland mapping that was done originally and

published in, I think, 99 did have a very small area here that on the wetland geomorphicdata set says "resource enhancement wetland" which is a lower category thanconservation.

That was the principal dispute. Now, I point out here that, as is my experience withDepartment of Environment botanists, there are many plants that can grow in a wetland or

a dry-land. They by seeing that will err on the side of saying, "Well, that constitutes awetland because there's a melaleuca preciana growing there." Even though the policydocument that guides the State quite specifically says that melaleuca preciana is a goodindicator of where the border is, it's not within a wetland.

That was the point I was trying to make and illustrated by saying things like hypocalmnaaugustafolia. Here is said wetland preference wet, yet - this is the Swan River myrtle. It

certainly grows on the coastal plain but it grows all the way up into the Darlington area and

over into John Forrest National Park. It's quite dominant there. There's a little bit of bias inhere to push it towards making it wet, whereas there is no evidence whatsoever and it is infact against previous investigations.

CHAIRPERSON: Your point is that from the hydrological examination of it you can see no

evidence of it.

DR KEATING: It's not a wetland.

MR WOODMAN: If it's in the geomorphic data set, it is; if it's not, it's not. It's pretty cut

and dried. If it's within an EPP, then it occurs there or it doesn't occur in an EPP.

85

DR KEATING: I will make just one other point there. In the recent past the geomorphicdata set has been digitised in that it has been transferred from the original mapping bySeminuik and Seminuik and turned into a digital data set. I know of many areas where the

digitiser used some interesting imagination to shift boundaries and generally expand themwith no basis in fact and there are a number of those cases that are now before theMinister for the Environment as various landowners have raised a dispute where theypurchased land examining this, saying, "It's not on the data set, we're fine," and then theyfind that suddenly it's come on the data set. This is why it's rather difficult now to get goodinformation out of the geomorphic data set. In fact even today, this morning before I came

in, I went onto the geomorphic data set to get access to it and again it's down. It's a very

unreliable piece of information to get hold of. It might be back up this afternoon, but I canassure that the data settlement wasn't working this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth, do you have any questions?

MS TAYLOR: Just a very quick question, if I could, through the chair, or two questionsactually. Is the area designated PP1? Can anybody tell me that?

CHAIRPERSON: Ground water protection.

MS TAYLOR: Priority 1.

DR KEATING: It's priority 2.

MS TAYLOR: Priority 2.

DR KEATING: The boundary of priority 1 and 2 actually goes through the ModongReserve there.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you for that. Just quickly, if I may ask a question on the expansionof the area that you were talking about, Mr Ten Vaanholt, could you just show me on herewhere that would be?

MR VAANHOLT: It would be a continuation of the tunnels I have here.

MS TAYLOR: You can mark it.

MR VAANHOLT: I can mark it.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR VAANHOLT: In future I wish to come all the way down here.

MS TAYLOR: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the rear of the property? Is that a future consideration at

all, or is that further down the track?

86

MR VAANHOLT: That's further down the track, but I need to maintain a fire managementplan and my fire management plan states eight tonne per hectare. So you can read intothat what you will. That's why we go through the shire and the shire - we have to come upwith a fire management plan. Why? For insurance purposes. I do not wish to be liable for

land that is overloaded.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. If there's nothing further to ask or to clarify

MS GUSTAVSSON: I wish to clarify one point. The selection of this site was notspecifically and only because of the wetland. There were a number of issues, including thewetland, but also the bushland value which is separate to the wetland.

MR HOUWELING: I think that's worthy of Dr Keating responding to that.

DR KEATING: I can only go on what the documentation says and the documentation here

refers to what I refer to, that it's a conservation category wetland, one, that it's over aground water protection area, two, that it's part of the Peel-Harvey catchment, three. If you

can bear with me, I will refer to those in more detail.

MS TAYLOR: Can I just ask Dr Keating while he's trekking through the pages quickly, thecategory wetland area are you saying that bushland is there because of the wetland andso therefore the significance of that relates to the wetland rather than the bushconservation?

DR KEATING: I believe it relates to the wetland, particularly in the context that theModong Reserve behind it certainly does have areas that are wetlands and it's, I think, a

232-hectare reserve. I have found the implementation considerations which I will repeat

are the location of conservation category wetlands subject to Peel-Harvey Coastal Plain

catchment location of scheduled fauna. I haven't found any of the scheduled fauna on it.

Sorry, I didn't mention that. Underground water pollution control area gazetted proposedpriority which is priority 2 identified as rural living in the Serpentine-Jarrandale - whateverJLUWS is. As I say, I'm only responding to the information that is available to me about the

basis for why it was selected.

MS GUSTAVSSON: May I also refer you to volume 2, Direction of Bush Forever Sites,pages 278, 279 and 280 which further clarifies those points for you? That's this document

here.

DR KEATING: Sorry, what were those pages again?

MS GUSTAVSSON: It's pages 278 through to 280.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that we really can't get into any sort of discussion about thevegetation in a sort of on-the-spot examination or clarification of the vegetation complexes.I think we will have to bring this to a close, if you don't mind, but we have certainly take on

board your concerns.

87

One is that as far as the CCW is concerned you don't believe that it is a CCW site and youhave highlighted issues with water hydrology not being in keeping with a CCW definition.You were concerned about your expansion of your business in the future

MR VAANHOLT: And I'm a young man.

CHAIRPERSON: and certainly in terms of the constraints on your land with BushForever protection area which I will have to say is not any sort of planning control area. It is

a policy overlay on the land which will help decision-makers determine where developmentcan occur and how much clearing should occur. All those policy measures are in theStatement of Planning Policy. At the moment it's just a draft. It hasn't been finalised yet.So in the same way that you apply to have a house extension you go to your counsel to getthe rules and regulations. This is a sort of policy in a similar way. It's a very crude way ofexplaining it, but it's so complicated trying to simplify it

MR VAANHOLT: It's complicated for the simple man who works with his hands.

CHAIRPERSON: It is, absolutely, and we certainly do recognise that.

MR HOUWELING: It's becoming more complex because of legal methods by which thegovernment is choosing to restrict this person's development potential.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HOUWELING: I think you have missed over significantly and glossed overDr Keating's assessment that there is no significant vegetation over this land. I think that's

worthy of - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I haven't finished yet actually.

MR HOUWELING: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: So taking into account the difference of view on vegetation complexes, Ithink that's something that we will have to investigate further as we will have to with theconservation category wetland as well.

DR KEATING: I have gone very quickly through 278 to 280 and I can't see any mention ofthese lots and why they're significant. It refers to the Modong Nature Reserve. It doesn't

mention that it's 242 hectares, sorry; no, I can see no mention here at all of these lots.

CHAIRPERSON: If there's any further information you could provide us with, Dr Keating,in the intervening weeks, please do that and we will certainly examine it closely and seekfurther advice from DOE officers. All right.

DR KEATING: Would it be useful if further information and photographs attesting to theground water I'm not sure whether you consider that that is relevant. I merely saw it asrelevant because that was what I read in this book as the basis for why that particular areawas being preserved.

88

Now, I can certainly get further ground-proofing and documentary evidence. To actuallyfind out where the ground water is we're going to have to get a machine in there and dig itbecause it's too far to dig by hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, but in terms of the vegetation if that's an issue, thevegetation complexes that are on the site - if you have some further information on that,please provide us with that. It will be very helpful.

DR KEATING: We will certainly do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you for coming in.

89

MR TIM HOUWELLING, DR PETER KEATINGAND MR VIC & MRS LAURA FULLIN

Representing Elvi Pty Ltd

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, we haven't met.

MR FULLIN: My name is Vic Fullin.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Fullin, how are you?

MS FULLIN: I'm Laura Fullin. I'm Vic's daughter.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae.

MR WOODMAN: Greg Woodman.

MS TAYLOR: How do you do; Elizabeth Taylor.

CHAIRPERSON: As you may have heard already, we are the Hearings Committee. Weare to listen to all your submissions and to make a recommendation to the PlanningCommission. We're not actually going to be making any decisions ourselves but we will

take on board all your concerns. Certainly any extra information that you may have toprovide us with we will certainly take on board when we make our recommendation to the

Planning Commission. That's the process that we go through. It's a public hearing so theproceedings are taped and a public record will be made available when the amendment is

in Parliament. So when you're ready.

MR HOUWELING: Again Dr Keating is here to assist us in respect of the environmentalsignificance of the land or at least what has been observed from the perspective of whether

or not this land is to be considered to be worthwhile retaining as a Bush Forever site.What's not clear to us at the present time is we note that within the yellow book, being the

Metropolitan Regional Scheme Amendment No 1082/33, this is proposal number 51. It's

the land which is owned which is called lot 69 on Hale Road and Ranford Road.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HOUWELING: Now, there has been confusion as to whether or not the balance of the

land, being this area here, is in fact included already as part of the MRS.

MS GUSTAVSSON: It is already Parks and Recreation.

MR HOUWELING: So the land that is owned by Mr Fullin through his company Elvi PtyLtd is land which is now proposed to be completely affected by any implementation of

policy considerations or MRS amendments, that is, the land that is now proposed to be

included is the land that falls on the southern side of what is existing Parks and Recreation

reserve, being the land abutting the government land as lot number 70 which, incidentally,

is zoned industrial. So Mr Fullin's land is proposed to be included and the other landowned by government is proposed not to be included.

90

Now, I want to just lead off by asking because I think the personal perspective is always

worthwhile Laura Fullin if she could just give her perspective on particularly proposalnumber 51, this area here, and her observations as a person who has seen this land forquite a period of time because in our discussions previously it has, in my view, proved it's atleast worthwhile to have that incite.

MS FULLIN: Over the years I remember after my father bought the land. I alwaysremember it as just a lot of sand with a few odd shrubs, vegetation, but sort of just lowshrubs. Us as kids at the time I mean, we just used to run through and the biggestproblem was always getting sand in your shoes because it was just very sandy. Therewasn't anything there, you know, like a normal bush that you go through where there's

anything a little higher or, you know, proper bushland. So it didn't seem to be of any realsignificance at all, you know, just these odd little things here and there.

Now, however, after so many years because my dad bought it in 1980 we haven't beenable to, like, clear any of it for the purpose my dad bought it for which was industrial. Thegovernment at that stage had told my dad it would be industrial so based on that advice myfather bought it. The shrubs have now grown up, although it's only regrowth because therehas been actually a couple of bushfires which had actually just, like, burnt most of theproperty. So it's really only regrowth since those fires. I think they were sort of, like,around the late nineties, 2000, somewhere around there. There had been a couple. So it's

only the regrowth from there.

I have noticed now, like, when we go out, like, the shrubs have since, like, actually grown,you know, fairly tall; you know, they're sort of taller than what I am. So now I would never

actually go running through that property at all because - I don't know, there could be

snakes or something there. I don't know, you know, because it looks like pretty messy,shrubby-type bush, not that nice sort of pristine sort of bush that you see in other places. I

just wouldn't walk through there any more. Some of the shrubs are now taller than me.There's a lot of grass there. So there's really not much.

I have noticed though that also the shire isn't maintaining one of our drains which is like,

we're on the corner of Ranford and Skeit Roads and there's an open drain on Skeit Roadand that's not being properly maintained so, like, if there is any sort of decent amount ofrainfall, with all, like, you know, foliage or rubbish that sort of gets caught up in the drain,

some of it will spill over actually onto our property, but otherwise where they also say there

should be some wetland it was mainly just, like, really, really dry soil. There might be a

small pocket mainly where that drain can sort of seep over onto our property. That's really

my experience of seeing it over the last, you know, 20 years since 1980.

MR HOUWELING: Dr Keating, you have attended on the site and had a number ofobservations and you have also had regard to the report that has been provided to us by

the Western Australian Planning Commission under FOI in respect of this land and have

regard to the purpose for which it's considered to be significant bushland. Are you able to

make comments in respect of your observations and the observations contained within the

reports that you have had an opportunity to read?

91

DR KEATING: I have only had a very brief opportunity. I again looked at the mapping of

wetlands as this was stated as being a conservation category wetland. Originally it

certainly was contained as a wetland in Hill and (indistinct). It was part of a large wetland

system which since Hill and (indistinct) I presume or at least I assume from my field

observations has changed significantly.

The reasons for that change have been the sealing and construction of the road, the

underlying drains associated with it, to very deep and significant drains that effectivelybound the entire property and have, I would presume, in most cases perhaps (indistinct)

the water table but the vegetation assemblage - I can't confirm that because most of what

is called a wetland seems to me, and it's consistent with what I have heard today, it being

originally completely cleared. It hasn't regenerated. There has been no vegetationbecause again the ground water was too low.

MS FULLIN: May I just interrupt? It was actually an oat farm once before my dad bought

it. It was an oat farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Oats.

MS FULLIN: O- a -t -s.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

DR KEATING: Of course oats are a cereal crop that's very poorly tolerant of water-logging

conditions like all tapioci grasses. Paradoxically there is an area on this report which saysit is a planned vegetation but because of the nature of the drain and the way its beenconstructed at the rear of the property, part of which has collapsed in, what was formerly

upland could now possibly be considered to be wetland vegetation because the ground

water level has risen by virtue of the maintenance of those drains. However, again

certainly not conservation category. The predominating species that are there are couch,

rye grass and pampas grass, all introduced weeds, and I believe the pampas grass isactually declared weed in this State.

The vegetation is - well, the area is particularly flat, as one would expect from something

formerly used for pasture and cropping. There are some vegetation types there but again

they're the very common types of Banksia heath land vegetation that constitutes the

majority of the Swan Coastal Plain. One of the problems with this land is that quite clearly,

and as I have discussed with the owners, they have felt very disinclined to manage it

because of their perception of being restrained from doing anything to it. It is now again

quite a severe fire risk, I think, because of the nature in regard to fuel that's there. There's

no easy access through the middle of it and I was only able to walk into it and drive around

the outside of it. So that constitutes a hazard, particularly with people leaving on these

sides of it as well. It could cause a fairly severe burn.

So again I unfortunately was only able to look at it this morning. I was called in at fairly late

notice. I note that most of the report actually relates to - most of this report relates to

vegetation values which they say are a very high priority to preserve, yet the keys also say

that it is partially degraded, this lot.

92

I would say it's extremely partially degraded, like 80 per cent of it, and the weed infestationnow severely compromises its ability to have conservation values. It could be brought backinto conservation value but my experience is that to do so requires an investment of aconsiderable amount of time and effort in management to take out feral weeds, to redirectwater.

I haven't seen how the local drainage plan works but there will certainly be downstreamconsequences of altering the draining so that it may return to a high water table as wasenvisaged when the Hill mapping was originally undertaken. I haven't had the opportunityto find out when these drains along here were cut, but it's recognised in Hill that thecreation of drainage has a profound influence on ground water tables, ground water tablesdetermine vegetation pipes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can I just ask a question at this point in time?

MR HOUWELING: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: The portion of lot 69 is currently reserved under the MRS. Would thatbe correct?

MS FULLIN: That's Ranford and Skeit Roads.

MR HOUWELING: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that portion is already reserved. Is that portion there alreadyreserved?

MS FULLIN: No, this is another person's property. This is ours.

CHAIRPERSON: This is yours, yes, 69.

MS FULLIN: And this part. This is all 69.

CHAIRPERSON: So this is currently reserved. Do you own this as well?

MS FULLIN: Yes, we own both.

CHAIRPERSON: You own the whole lot.

MS FULLIN: Yes, it's all the one lot.

MR FULLIN: Yes, family company.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's currently reserved.

93

MS FULLIN: The government's got these two blocks, 70 and 68, which was industrial landand my father approached them back in around 1980 to buy some of their industrial landand they asked my dad, "Why do you want such a big portion of land?" and my dadexplained what development he had in mind and so they actually suggested to him they

said, "Well, no, we're not looking at selling our property. However, the owner of lot 69 hasapproached us to see if we would like to buy his property because he's looking at selling,"and so they said to my dad after hearing his development plans - they said, "We'd love tohave people like you next door to us," so they gave him the contact details of the owner of69 and they assured my dad that that property, lot 69, was going to be rezoned industrial,as was lots 68 and 70. So my dad approached the owner with the contact details given bythe government and he bought it and instead of that we have ended up with bushproblems.

MR HOUWELING: Can I ask Dr Keating a question? Is there any significance about thisstraight line?

MS FULLIN: Yes, we were told at a meeting that we had at the government years ago I

wasn't there. My dad was there and I think his town planner was at that meeting. My dadactually asked them about this whole aspect of the vegetation and how they worked it outand the man said, "Can you excuse me?" and he went out the back and he said, "I'll makesome inquiries," and when he came back into the meeting, he said it was an 18-year-old

girl who when she was like, they were doing their, like, planning, She wanted to do astraight line from Matison Road which is across the road from Ranford Road and shewanted a continuation of it so she took Matison Road, extending it straight through ourproperty. If you see, the way that that line slopes on our property is actually thecontinuation, like he said, from Matison Road and on that basis they just said, "Okay, thatpart is Bush Forever," and the other part was left as rural.

CHAIRPERSON: Parks and Recreation, but nevertheless that line there is the cadastre

between the Parks and Recreation reserve at the moment.

MR HOUWELING: Yes, at the present time. Any ecological reasons for that, Dr Keating?

DR KEATING: None whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, nonetheless the line is there. Mr Houweling, I'm conscious oftime and we're running about half an hour late so if you wouldn't mind just summing upperhaps any further issues. You're basically objecting to the Parks and Recreation reserveover that portion.

MR HOUWELING: Yes, we are. Coming to the chase and some of those issues from asocial point of view - and I think you have got to take those things into account the Fullins

have already been impacted by the Parks and Recreation reserve that has been placedover their land, it's easy for you to sit here today and to say, "Well, they can just have the

whole of their land reserved." That's the easy choice. We ask you to give carefulconsideration to Dr Keating's report which says, "Look, I've been on this land. It's

degraded. There's nothing of such significance that needs to be preserved in BushForever into the future," and we ask you to give that careful consideration.

94

MR WOODMAN: Is there a report to come?

DR KEATING: If there's an opportunity, yes, there certainly is.

CHAIRPERSON: We would certainly like to have that.

MR HOUWELING: We will certainly be providing supplementary reports, written reports,that we would hope that this committee takes into account in making your submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. It's precisely what we would like. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much for coming in today.

MR FULLIN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It is good to hear from you. All the best.

95

MR DAVID MITCHELL AND MS TERESA GEPPRepresenting Conservation and Land Management

CHAIRPERSON: We next have CALM; apologies to all of you for keeping you waiting.It's David Mitchell, is it?

MR MITCHELL: David Mitchell, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae. This is Greg Woodman and Elizabeth Taylor. I

won't go through my spiel because that will just take up a few minutes. I'm sure youunderstand the process.

MS GEPP: We don't understand the process.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't understand the process.

MS GEPP: I haven't been to a hearing before.

CHAIRPERSON: We're the Hearings Committee appointed by the Planning Commissionto listen to all the submissions. We are to take on board everything that you have said aswell as the written submissions. We will be making our recommendation to the PlanningCommission. We're not a decision-making committee. From the Commission it then goesto the Minister and to Parliament. The expected timetable is October this year. It's a publichearing so the proceedings are taped and a public record will be made of it when it goes toParliament.

MS GEPP: Thank you. Shall we start?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GEPP: CALM was broadly supportive of the Bush Forever process and of the MRSAmendment but, as you will have a copy our submission, there were a couple of areaswhere we had some concerns. Two of these areas were concern over the possiblerequirements for CALM to obtain WAPC or local government approval for commonmanagement works on CALM managed land within the Bush Forever protection areas andsome inconsistencies between MRS and State Planning Policy text regarding whatapprovals might be required. There's also some concern over some comments in thedocument about the role of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in the SPPtext.

Since making that submission through the Bush Forever office and DPI we have beenadvised that there are mechanisms that can be put into place to allay these concerns. In

summary, we anticipate that a satisfactory resolution of these issues can be reached andthat while this might require some modifications to the MRS and SPP text, they wouldbasically address the concerns that we had raised and probably don't need any furtherconsideration.

96

The other main area where CALM expressed concern was regarding the rationale foraltering the tenure from a State Forest reservation to a Parks and Recreation reservationand following on from that a number of actual site specific proposals that went through thatprocess. At this point we say that CALM supports the introduction Bush Forever protection

areas but we do have concerns about areas with a tenure of State Forest with an MRSreservation to State Forest being altered to a Parks and Recreation reservation wherethere is no proposed tenure change for State Forest that reflects that.

It remains CALM's position that the reservation of areas with tenure of State Forest shouldonly be altered to Parks and Recreation where they have been identified in the ForestManagement Plan for a change in tenure to a National Conservation park or naturereserve. This position is one which we consider to reflect the statutory role and functions of

the Conservation Commission and of CALM and would also provide a greater consistencyacross the overall Metropolitan Regional Scheme area in reference to MRS reservation of

CALM managed lands.

Some of the points underlying how we got to that position would include that we would feelthat the existing State Forest reservation is an adequate and appropriate reservation forland that is State Forest, and noting that State Forest includes objectives for managementfor conservation purposes. We consider that the Bush Forever protection areas provideplanning protection under the MRS and the additional change to Parks and Recreation may

be unnecessary.

The CALM Act and the Forest Management Plan provide adequate planning andmanagement mechanisms for the ongoing protection and conservation of these BushForever sites, that the Forest Management Plan is the appropriate mechanism to determinechanges for CALM managed lands and we also have some concerns about the possibility

for confusion at both agency and within the public where you have areas that we areobligated to manage as State Forest appearing in the MRS's for Parks and Recreation and

that there may be some associated expectations about activities that can and can't occurand levels of management that may or may not occur that might be inconsistent. So, in

summary, our objections to the specific site proposals as outlined in our submission have

not yet changed.

CHAIRPERSON: David, is that it?

MR MITCHELL: The main reason we came along was just to outline that and then if thereare any questions you want to ask us or anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: Your management plans generally go through a public consultationprocess, don't they, so the ones that have been adopted have actually been through that

robust process.

MR MITCHELL: Yes, the Forest Management Plan itself has been through quite a largeprocess. We're talking mostly about the northern area there, upper Gnangara. So there'san ongoing process through Gnangara Park and then over a 20-year period a process ofremoving the pines and replacing them with something. So we would prefer to manage it inthat context, not bit by bit.

97

CHAIRPERSON: Greg?

MR WOODMAN: Obviously with the rezoning it takes that land underneath the CALM Act.

MR MITCHELL: No.

MR WOODMAN: It remains under the CALM Act subject to the requirements of the CALMAct and CALM management.

MR MITCHELL: It still remains tenure of State Forest, yes, and so therefore subject to theCALM Act, yes.

MR WOODMAN: Okay. So therefore there would be no watering down of some of themanagement that is possible under the CALM Act that isn't possible under other acts.

CHAIRPERSON: Eventually P and R is transferred to the conservation estate anyway allover the metropolitan region.

MR MITCHELL: Yes, so there are some areas within there that are proposed conservationreserve or national park.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MITCHELL: Those particular areas we're happy with them to come across becausethat then does reflect the future tenure.

MS GEPP: I guess what we're saying is that most of our nature reserves and nationalparks in the metro area are Parks and Recreation and areas that are going to have thosetenures in the future we would expect them to have that.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right, and, of course there's a whole swag of P and R that go tolocal government as well for vesting in local government. Local government and CALM

look after the conservation estate of Western Australia.

MR MITCHELL: There's going to be no change in the tenure or the managementarrangements for these areas at all. We're just sort of basically saying that as Theresahas said, we're happy for the Bush Forever protection areas being over there because thatprovides that level of statutory protection. It just seems a little bit - I don't know, maybe"redundant" might be the word.

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth, did you have a question?

MS TAYLOR: Thanks, Corinne, yes, just one. You have related in your submission alinkage to the draft bushland SPP and recognise that in your opinion some of thesechanges need to be made. You're making these changes in relation to the sites that youhave noted. Is that what you're doing? Am I linking those two together by chance or is

that

98

MS GEPP: I don't think I understand.

MS TAYLOR: You have got some changes to the -

MR BEARDMORE: I think it's the actual text.

MR MITCHELL: In our submission there is, I guess, different things. The submission isalso on the SPP, but I guess there are two things: (a) I don't believe you're dealing with theSPP text here at all - -

MS TAYLOR: No.

MR MITCHELL: - and also because we have been talking to Kieron over the last fewweeks, we're kind of happy with the changes that are being proposed in the SPP text andthe MRS text that they're going to fix up those concerns we had with it. Our concern aboutthe SPP text is that they could be read, if you read through the different sections, as sayingwe can't put a walk trail in or we can't do burning or we can't do anything without having togo through local government.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact you have already done that through your whole managementprocess.

MR MITCHELL: Yes, so we have a process where that applies.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MITCHELL: Then we just have specific site stuff and at the moment the main onethere is the State Forest reservation to P and R reservation. There are some othercomments in there about particular sites where we were just given corrections to some ofthe information that was in the MRS Amendment about who actually manages the land and

that sort of stuff.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else, Greg?

MR WOODMAN: No.

MR BEARDMORE: Can I just ask a question? Dave, you mentioned the fact that yousupport Bush Forever protection areas and also you were a bit nervy about the P and Rareas, although the policy implication of Parks and Recreation is giving, I suppose, higherpolicy status for bushland protection in Bush Forever protection areas, but you'reconcerned about P and R over some State Forest. What's your intention for those StateForest areas? You mentioned they were going to be managed for conservation.

MR MITCHELL: Yes.

99

MR BEARDMORE: So what's your concern in the fact that they become Bush Foreverand P and R if you are going to manage them for conservation?

MR MITCHELL: I guess one concern is the level of approvals that would be required.

MR BEARDMORE: We're talking the MRS text changes.

MR MITCHELL: Yes, that text there made it sound as if we had to go to local governmentbefore we did anything.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, sure.

MR MITCHELL: That sounds like it has been sorted out.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR MITCHELL: Then it just comes down to sort of a departmental policy to think about,that we have within the MRS a reservation that says, "This is State Forest."

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR MITCHELL: State Forest, as far as we're concerned, involves conservation action soit's not going to change the activity on there and so it just seems I guess the word is"redundant" to change it to P and R. It also makes external people a bit sure because, asyou know, there's a lot of confusion about reservation under the MRS and a Crown reserve.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes. Alternatively, could you also argue that people seeing StateForest in the MRS may be under the wrong impression that those areas are for timberproduction or are going to be clear felled unless -

MR MITCHELL: I mean, that's not the intent.

MR BEARDMORE: No, of course not.

MR MITCHELL: So I guess that's where people will have to - - -

MR WOODMAN: It doesn't change tenure. The land still remains State Forest.

MR MITCHELL: State Forest.

MR WOODMAN: It still remains Crown land.

MR MITCHELL: Yes.

MR WOODMAN: All right.

MR BEARDMORE: It's the planning recognition, I suppose, in the MRS that we're trying toachieve, as opposed to - -

100

MR MITCHELL: We would say that that planning recognition - I mean, you could quiteeasily say, "Let's include State Forest reservation that the Bush Forever protection areaswithin that generic group of bushland protection areas that are Bush Forever reserves,"because they will be treated equivalently.

MR WOODMAN: That's right.

MR MITCHELL: They have the same level of management and same level of protection.

MS GEPP: There's also the issues just relating to the CALM Act and the process for theForest Management Plan which is, as far as CALM is concerned, the mechanism by whichwe identify the changes in actual tenure.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, sure.

MS GEPP: Given that the current Forest Management Plan is 2003-2113 and a number ofthese areas haven't been identified for a change, probably for a number of reasons, meansit's a long time before - well, ifs 10 years basically before we get to that point where wemight put Bush Forever into the Forest Management Plan process.

MR BEARDMORE: If I may through the chair, would it satisfy your concerns a little bitmore - as you mentioned yourself, we're looking at some changes to the SPP text which

recognises CALM management plans and operational approvals, but would it also give youa little bit more comfort if the policy recognised in words the Forest Management Plan aswell because it's basically saying - as the overarching plan for all areas of the CALMmanaged estate in this sort of area.

MR MITCHELL: Are you sort of talking in section 16 are you talking about management

plans?

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, because we talk about recognition for CALM management plansat the moment but we don't use the words "Forest Management Plan".

MR MITCHELL: We would have suspected that a forest management plan is a CALMmanagement plan.

MR BEARDMORE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's under the umbrella.

MR MITCHELL: Hopefully.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes.

MR MITCHELL: Unless you want to specifically mention it.

MR BEARDMORE: It might help matters.

101

CHAIRPERSON: Or management plans perhaps prepared by CALM.

MR MITCHELL: Yes, the other thing is you're also broadening because the other thing we

also have is as well as actions under a management plan we also have activities on the

land under necessary operations and compatible operations so that's now included or isproposed to be included in the text there anyways. So that's sort of that whole range ofmanagement.

MR WOODMAN: One of the good things about the CALM Act has always been its only bitof legislation that provides for die-back management as well formally provides fordie-back management and as long as that isn't watered down for the change to P and R as

well - - -

CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't be.

MR MITCHELL: No. These areas they're not productive forest. There's going to be nomore pines put in there or anything like that so, as far as any of those other things, there's

no selling off of bits and that sort of stuff.

CHAIRPERSON: Terrific. Thank you very much for coming in.

MR MITCHELL: Thank you.

102

MR SCOTT KERRrepresenting W R Carpenter Landholdings

requested a PRIVATE HEARING and is therefore not included in this publication.

This hearing covered pages 103 to 107 inclusive.

MR DOUG SMITHRepresenting the Town of Kwinana

CHAIRPERSON: Hi, Doug Smith?

MR SMITH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae. How are you, Doug? This is Greg Woodman andElizabeth Taylor. Doug, just to explain, we're the Hearings Committee appointed by thePlanning Commission to listen to all the submissions. Greg is an independentenvironmental consultant.

MR SMITH: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth is on the Metropolitan Region Planning Committee and I'm on

the Planning Commission. So we're not a decision-making committee and we will bemaking recommendations to the Planning Commission who will ultimately make a decisionand then it goes on to Parliament, as you are probably aware. It's a public hearing. Theproceedings are being taped and a public record of it will be made available when it goes toParliament.

MR SMITH: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: When you're ready; sorry to keep you waiting.

MR SMITH: That's not a problem at all. Thanks very much for your time. I hope not to

take too much. I really just wanted to focus on a couple of areas of the amendment. It is

fair to say the council broadly supports the gist of the amendment, but there are a couple ofareas that we have some concerns with, one in particular, and that is the area located

between Thomas Road and Anketell Road in Anketell. That's Bush Forever area proposalnumber 32.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the one east of Treeby?

MR SMITH: Yes, it is. Probably from a context point of view, if I may, I will just provide

you with this is a preliminary draft structure plan that council is actually doing effectivelyputting a greater level of doing into the Jandakot Structure Plan proposals. Essentially

we're talking about this area located this is Thomas Road. That's Anketell Road. Thatpretty much reflects the edge of urban as shown under the Jandakot Structure Plan.

The gist of our submission more concentrates on achieving a balance between a viableurban cell we're referring specifically to this southern area and this is in the context thatAnketell Road will become a major freight route to the port, as Thomas Road is already amajor road to the port, and there is a need to make sure that we have got some strong, Iguess, inactivity between those two urban cells in the first instance and, secondly, to make

sure that we have sufficient, I guess, threshold urban areas to actually be viable. When Isay that, I'm talking in terms of generating sufficient population and the like to actually

sustain community facilities. In this particular case I'm talking of a primary school site.

108

I guess the inference would be if we took all of the constraints layer upon layer, the urbancell there may not even be of a size that could be justified.

I'm probably complicating this by the fact that - I appreciate this is a Bush Forever hearing,but this is also complicated by the fact that there is also EPP wetland influences over thisparticular area. So I guess when I speak broadly about conservation areas, I'm talkingabout both. Counsel has undertaken as part of its submission a general sustainabilitymatrix analysis of that area. It won't be a pure, I suppose, sustainability assessment butnevertheless it demonstrates the relationship and the benefits of achieving a viable urbansize, a viable conservation area and maintaining connectivity between those two areas.

I guess one of the primary thrusts of the designation of that as both Bush Forever andEnvironmental Protection policy wetlands is the notion of an east-west link. I will just drawthe panel's attention to the fact that the linkage is actually severely impacted upon by thefreeway reserve and the railway line so a linkage, I guess, only in notion rather than inactuality. So I would just reiterate council's view that the southern cell - and I guess whatwe're trying to do is find, in our view, a reasonable planning edge. You will find that thisboundary which is defined as the edge of urban development under the Jandakot StructurePlan also coincides with the ground water conservation zone.

Now, in this particular case that boundary actually tracks up somewhere through the BushForever area and what we're suggesting is demarcation between the Bush Forever areaand the future urban development should coincide with the edge of the ground waterconservation area. That would have the effect, as we indicate in our submission, ofbringing, I think, the population size of the lot units for that area to about 80 per cent ofwhat we have considered as a benchmark for a viable urban cell and that is a

neighbourhood size with a 400 to 450-metre walkable catchment as defined under"Liveable neighbourhoods". That's essentially what we're arguing.

I recognise that the special control area is essentially, I guess, a negotiation control than ait doesn't have the same weight, I guess, in terms of reservation but I just draw the panel'sto the need that - there's a requirement here to be flexible in order to achieve both of theoutcomes and that is viable urban cells and viable conservation areas.

CHAIRPERSON: Doug, before you move off this, can we just ask: is there any supportfrom the Town of Kwinana's point of view for any of this particular land holding to beurbanised? I notice that you have just followed the SCA boundaries almost to the letter.So you followed the boundaries.

MR SMITH: Yes, we're restricted in our structure planning to that that's shown as urbanunder the Jandakot Structure Plan. The structure plan will be before the Commission, Ibelieve, in a couple of weeks. So while we may have wider views and different views, wewill be addressing that through another forum. The Jandakot Structure Plan has beensomething like three or four years in the making and we don't wish to run it off the rails,quite frankly, so we will address those as a separate issue.

109

We certainly see some benefits in a wider urban corridor in that area, particularly when theState is investing significant infrastructure costs on a railway line, particularly the stations atMandogalup Road, Anketell Road and Thomas Road and the desirability of getting areasonable catchment to support and utilise that infrastructure. The only other areas thatwe had - and they weren't major concerns. They were more, I guess, minor matters. One

relates to the Bush Forever - -

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Elizabeth, yes.

MS TAYLOR: I just wanted to ask a question. We talked earlier about this powerlinereservation here. Does that go right down through this structure plan area?

MR SMITH: It does. It's another constraint to that urban cell. There's an easement30 metres either side so there's a 60-metre swathe through that area that can't bedeveloped. It can be used for parking and similar uses but that's about it.

CHAIRPERSON: What have you got up here? It's special residential.

MR SMITH: Yes, some of the areas we're looking at special residential. In effect, what it

is is a six or seven hundred-metre land parcel outside of the easement and the balance of itunder private ownership perhaps for urban farming and the like. We're also looking at theuse of elongated swales in those areas rather than, I guess, in preference to the use of

sumps. We certainly can't discharge to main drains because it's in the Peel-HarveyEstuary catchment and subject to the Statement of Planning Policy that applies to that. So,yes, we're trying to achieve maximum use but it's a bit of a headache, to put it mildly.

MS TAYLOR: Sorry, I put you off your second section.

CHAIRPERSON: Greg, did you have a question?

MR WOODMAN: Just on the plan I notice there's a proposed transport corridor orroadway through the middle.

MR SMITH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: This one here?

MR WOODMAN: Yes.

MR SMITH: Through that area there.MR WOODMAN: Yes.

MR SMITH: I think it's pretty critical because, as I say, this is a freight route, as is that.We need to make sure that we have got connection to the primary school, to

neighbourhood centres and the like between the cells. The alternative to that is havingpedestrians, particularly school kids, crossing major freight routes which is not desirable.

110

So I guess it's really the route of that connection that's pretty important. It's also fairlysignificant recognising that it is an area that's surrounded by bush that is prone tobushfires. In terms of developing or at least protecting general accessibility there's also theissue of emergency access and egress for public escape in the event of fires or access byemergency vehicles.

The key is really to, I guess, define what is the viable corridor through there. We certainlylooked at use of the powerlines since Western Power regularly goes through andsensitively prunes it. That's a bit tongue in cheek. One of the issues there, however, is thegradients of land. It's particularly steep. You're looking at an 8 and 9 per cent gradient inthis particular location so what we have endeavoured to do is to sweep and we're talking alocal distributor road. Ideally that should have a maximum gradient of about one in 20 andwhile that's not it, it's at least approaching that using a sideways sweep down thetopography.

MS TAYLOR: You have got a 30 per cent increase in freight coming up, haven't you, withthe extension to it?

MR SMITH: I'm not sure of the quantum but it's certainly significant, yes.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.

MR SMITH: I have learned something from today.

MS TAYLOR: There you go.

MR SMITH: There were two other areas, and again they are fairly minor. While wesupport the Bush Forever proposal in this particular area, we draw the panel's attention tothe linkage that already exists under the MRS. That's the Tramway Reserve which isbasically a connection of the Cockburn wetlands to each other down through theSerpentine River. We take the view that the Commission should probably review thatparticular linkage given that we will have that connection down through Bush Foreverarea 268, I think it is. That would make a fair bit of sense to us.

The only other area relates to Bush Forever 272. There's much, I think, inaccuracy in themapping. There are areas, for instance, that are reflected as Bush Forever that have beenformally developed for public parks and have been for five or six years or in fact probablymore. There's an area there - the reserve seems to be set up based on an oldunconstructed road alignment. It actually preserved that, when the reality is that there is aconstructed road and has been for about five years through that area so there needs to bea bit of a tidy up on that.

Council as part of the new metro rail proposal has agreed to pre-fund the construction of arail bridge link over the new metro rail and the connection of Johnson Road to SulphurRoad. Quite a bit of work has been done with the officers of the Commission to arrive at areasonable alignment and we believe that the edge, as reflected on the amendment asproposed, doesn't quite reflect that agreed alignment so we would suggest there needs tobe a tidy up on that.

111

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying that that should be pulled back to that road.

MR SMITH: It's really that southern edge there.

CHAIRPERSON: Southern edge.

MR SMITH: Yes, it's not so much a problem there. That should certainly come back tothat buffer because that is formal parkland and that edge should be and it's only a minor

adjustment. I appreciate we're talking about a strategic document, but nevertheless it doesclassify land so it's really an adjustment of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR SMITH: There are two other matters. There is a thin sliver of land included under theamendment that's shown on the eastern side of the new metro rail like, the RailwayReservation, that just, I would suggest, is surplus to requirements. We as part of structureplanning under the Bertram area are looking to protect a resource enhancement wetland inthis particular location and we believe there's some merit in retaining that portion of thatsliver with that in a local open space context but certainly not a regional open spacecontext.

The only other area that we have some concern is the proposal to rezone a fair section ofthe draining reserve in Bertram from urban to parks and recreation. We don't haveproblems with that classification per se, but I draw the panel's attention to the topographyof the area, that is, there are two areas of spoil either side of the drain which I believe wasdug in the 1920's. It's pretty well vegetated over that period of time. So no-one'ssuggesting that we bowl them over because I believe there's a fairly unique microclimatethere, but one of the problems that we have with that area is the potential for antisocialbehaviour.

We have driven down there a number of times while looking at this issue and there's a fairbit of evidence of trail bike riding as it is directly up the corridor. Now, these embankmentsare probably six to seven metres high either side and what we're suggesting is that eithersections of the embankment could be removed so that you end up with a passivesurveillance or our preferred alternative is to actually allow some minor encroachment ofdevelopment to actually provide passive surveillance along those corridors at selectedlocations. I guess it's ultimately up to the landowner and Department for Housing andWorks how that subdivision works but there's a couple of suggestions that have been put to

them as part of this amendment process.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SMITH: I think that is pretty much it.

CHAIRPERSON: That are there is proposed to go into P and R. Is that correct?

MR SMITH: Sorry, this particular - - -

112

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the area you have just talked about.

MR SMITH: Yes, from the edge the drain basically.

CHAIRPERSON: All that land is owned by DHW.

MR SMITH: I'm not sure. I think this is probably look, I'm not actually sure. It may be

allocated Crown land. Certainly DHW own those three land parcels.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR SMITH: I could be wrong. They may own that, but I think not. I can certainly check

on the ownership of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Is that the nub of it?

MR SMITH: It is, yes; thank you very much. I didn't propose to take up too much of your

time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Certainly it's a very comprehensive submission you havesupplied us with.

MR SMITH: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions, Greg?

MR WOODMAN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth?

MS TAYLOR: I'm fine, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: On that note, it was good to have you in today. it certainly clarifiessome of the issues for us here and some other issues that we have had on previous

occasions so that's been very useful.

MR SMITH: I will leave that for the panel. That's a preliminary draft only. It hasn't yetbeen adopted by council but I think it's pretty close to what will go to council.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Doug.

MR SMITH: Thank you very much.

113

MR STUART SAGGERSRepresenting Ms Summer Marriot

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Saggers and Ms Marri? Mr Saggers, is it?

MR SAGGERS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Hi; I'm Corinne MacRae. This is Greg Woodman and Elizabeth Taylor.

MR SAGGERS: How are you?

CHAIRPERSON: Just to run through again my little spiel, we have been appointed by thePlanning Commission to hear all the submissions. We're not a decision-making committee.We will make recommendations to the Planning Commission and they will make adeliberation on the whole amendment, the contents of it, which hopefully will get toParliament in October. You have got about 15 minutes. This is a public hearing so all theproceedings are taped and there will be a public record of it when it gets to Parliament. Sowhen you're ready.

MR SAGGERS: All right. Under the Bush Forever we're listed down as ruralcomplementary so our land is actually runs around the edge of the property here adjoiningto other parks and recreations lands behind us and joining up with another lot here, then itruns all the way down Watkins and onto Mundijong Road.

CHAIRPERSON: That's one land parcel, is it?

MR SAGGERS: Well, it's different land parcels but it's all talking about - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's the Bush Forever protection area.

MR SAGGERS: That's site 360.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So which is yours?

MR SAGGERS: So we actually run around the edge here, the big boomerang block onthe corner.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MR SAGGERS: 61.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

114

MR SAGGERS: What initially happened was we moved from Jandakot with our nurseryand we moved onto that property there hoping to open our retail nursery out on theSou-West Highway here because we have actually a long distance along the edge there.Now that it's being looked at for rural complementary - I think it's based only on the fact thatthe one next door is parks and recreation and if you have a look at the property next door,a lot of it is quite heavily degraded. There's some pretty bad stuff that goes on in there.

Each year there's cars been found. I'm sure it's the same problem with every councilproperty that isn't fenced. So we have a lot of trouble in that area, but across this side isactually a very pretty area. There's a pretty good little wetland in there and it looks asthough it's never ever been touched.

At the moment everything that's being looked at on our property is to do with these othertwo properties beside as well, but ifs a pretty poorly looked after area there. So we movedour business out onto this property with the view that we were going to build our housethere and set up our retail nursery as well as our growing areas. So at the present myproblem with it is if we go ahead and open our nursery, we're going to actually run out ofroom. If the rural complementary comes onto our property, we will then have to getapproval to go further into the areas of our property that we require because it's onlysix acres. It's a very small property. If we get the turn-down on it, then we're not going to

have a big enough area to grow plants and do our retail nursery area.

In the past 10 months we have had to put the business on hold for that fact because wecan't commit to the property any further until we know what's going on. So both ourstandard of living and our income have both dropped on that time so it has been quite hardon us. Personally we can't build on that property for the same reason. If we don't keep our

business on there, we can't build our house. The area that would be suited to the house isright where the 61 is which is actually one of the wooded areas. It's got quite a heavyamount of plant vegetation there and it would be about the only spot on that property whereyou could put a building envelope. Because of the size of the property, all this area and all

this area is just not - there's nothing there. You're only talking about a distance of 30 or

50 metres wide.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a very odd shaped block, isn't it?

MR SAGGERS: Well, what happened was the road used to run behind here and thenwhen the highway came through, it chopped about it really gave us this weird boomerangblock which is good for no-one. You can't really do much for it, but for us for growing areasand stuff like that it's perfect because we actually keep the top canopy in and we grow our

plants underneath so it's like a shade house for us but we're still looking after thevegetation and that's what's important to us because we haven't taken any of the bush out.We have really looked after the place, and it was in a pretty bad state when we first gotthere.

MS TAYLOR: Can I just ask one question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: You have moved from Jandakot, have you?

115

MR SAGGERS: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: That's all gone and finished?

MR SAGGERS: Yes, that was five years ago.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have had this property for five years.

MR SAGGERS: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: So you have been trying to do something with that.

MR SAGGERS: Yes. Where we are at the moment is we have just got a small area justin through here which is all the cleared areas that we use.

MS TAYLOR: Is it operating?

MR SAGGERS: Yes, we run our business from there.

MS TAYLOR: Okay.

MR SAGGERS: With plant production you don't actually need a lot of area to propagate

your plants. It's just all growing areas that take up the room.

CHAIRPERSON: Wholesale or retail?

MR SAGGERS: Wholesale and retail. So at the moment we are doing six markets aweek to sell our product because we can't retail from the area because we're not willing tocommit any more money to the property until we know what's going on.

MR WOODMAN: Can I ask a question? Has there been a vegetation assessmentcompleted for this lot?

MS GUSTAVSSON: Yes, DPI officers did attend the property with the owners' consentand the vegetation is Forrestfield and/or Guildford and in good condition. Some of theunderstorey has been removed for the retail purposes but the majority of the understorey is

in tact.

MR SAGGERS: That runs from this area here north and that small section in there.That's what talking of, isn't it?

MS GUSTAVSSON: It's the overall. What you can't appreciate from this plan is that theembankments from both the two roads is quite steep. It's quite high up.

CHAIRPERSON: That's your lot boundary there.MR SAGGERS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It drops away from there.

116

MR SAGGERS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you still drop away?

MR SAGGERS: From the middle of our property it still drops away probably five orsix metres and then straight down the embankment where the roads will cut through. It's a

very weird shape. So we feel that both our property and the property behind us would bebetter suited to other zonings, not this property here because this property is actually a verybeautiful property with the wetlands on it, but this in here - there's just absolutely nothingleft on this property and through here has just it's been destroyed at the moment. Sincewe have been there for five years I would say it's gone downhill about another 50 per cent

to what it was because there's no protection at all. The ranger's in there once a weekkicking all the kids out with their motorbikes and there's about 40 cars a year burnt out onthat property.

CHAIRPERSON: So its all council reserve.

MR SAGGERS: Yes. This used to be the tip.

MS It's all reserved for parks and recreation.

CHAIRPERSON: Under the MRS?

MS Yes, it is.

MR WOODMAN: What's the current zoning?

MR SAGGERS: Rural.

MR WOODMAN: It's rural; okay.

CHAIRPERSON: This strip here is proposed to go into P and R.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's a Crown reserve.

MS GUSTAVSSON: That's correct. That's the old railway line.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this road?

MS GUSTAVSSON: Road.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the old road.

MR SAGGERS: That's the railway line.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the railway line.

117

MR SAGGERS: Yes. This actually still has bitumen running along it so that's the old road.

That's where that property has come from. This property used to be part of the road.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SAGGERS: For the way that we see it the benefit to Bush Forever to create theproperty to rural complementary is of very little use when there's such a small amount of

area that could be used under rural complementary to be set aside, whereas the loss to us

would be enormous because that acre and a half or two acres will therefore mean that wecan't run our business from that property, and all we have done so far is look after it,

whereas we have seen the property behind which is Parks and Recreation Bush Foreverand it's just been destroyed.

MR WOODMAN: What is the total area of your property?

MR SAGGERS: Six acres.

MR WOODMAN: Six acres.

MR SAGGERS: Of which I think about an acre would be driveways with the shape of it.

CHAIRPERSON: And what isn't on the slope. I mean, we're talking about useable area.

MR SAGGERS: Yes, very minimal.

MS TAYLOR: You haven't built your house yet.

MR SAGGERS: No.

MS TAYLOR: That's where you would like to build it.

MR SAGGERS: Yes, it's the only spot where it could happen because of the boundary so

you if come 30 metres of the front and 10 metres off the back, you're sitting in the middle of

it.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR WOODMAN: That's right.

MR SAGGERS: That shed is a 20 by 30 shed so it's only 50 metres across there so youwould hardly even get a house in there. You definitely would not get a building envelope in

there.

MS TAYLOR: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Stuart, is there anything else you would like to add?

MR SAGGERS: No, I think that's it.

118

CHAIRPERSON: I must say you're taking this all in very good standing. I mean, it's toyour credit that you haven't, you know, got awfully upset about this. I mean, obviously it'sgoing to impact tremendously on your property and the fact that you recognise theconservation values around you is terrific. Good on you for that and we will certainly betaking on board what you're saying in terms of the limitation to your business on the site.

MR SAGGERS: And our personal living as well. We can't run our business from thereand we can't live there so it's going to cost us a lot of money to move and start againseeing it was Waters and Rivers Commission that kicked us off the Jandakot water mound.As with all the other nurseries, we have all been moved off the water mound.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAGGERS: The same thing has happened down in Serpentine where a lot of themare moving now so it's the same problem again. There's not much you can do about it in

the long run, is there?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR SAGGERS: It's unfortunate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is.

MS TAYLOR: You're doing six markets a week to - -

MR SAGGERS: To support ourselves at the moment because we need to retail from thereto make an easier life.

CHAIRPERSON: You have certainly given us a lot to think about and thank you verymuch for coming in. Sorry about the delay, but it's good to meet you.

MR SAGGERS: Thank you.

119

MS CHRISTINE NIELD

CHAIRPERSON: Hello; Christine?

MS NIELD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm Corinne MacRae. This is Greg Woodman and Elizabeth Taylor.Christine, you're here to talk to us about area 68 and a couple of particular issues you havewith land-filling on the site.

MS NIELD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to perhaps put everything in context, we're the Hearings Committeethat has been appointed by the Planning Commission to listen to all the submissions thathave come in. We're not a decision-making committee. We will be making ourrecommendation to the Planning Commission and from there it goes on to Minister and onto Parliament. We think around October is the time. Now, it's a public hearing so theproceedings are being taped and a public record of it will be made available when it gets toParliament. So that's the process that we're following at the moment. We're here to listento you and take on board anything that you might have to say or anything you can add toour advice-making.

MS NIELD: What advice would you be

CHAIRPERSON: Our advice to the Planning Commission. So anything that you canassist us we will take on board in the formulation of our recommendation.

MS NIELD: Okay. I would just like to thank you for this opportunity. I have been told that

you've looked at my comments and I just wondered if you had come to a decision.

MR WOODMAN: No, we reserve that.

MS TAYLOR: We listen to you first.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MS NIELD: I have made some notes. Anyway, I'm pleased that the Western AustralianPlanning Commission have noted Jackson Road and Bird Road as being worthy as aprotected area for Bush Forever since the area also includes EPP wetlands and lakes. I

also note that it has actually changed from the original. This is a map that's I got. It shows

you that it does have EPP lakes. This is a map that was prepared in 1995 where you have

actually taken off a portion of the wetlands. I got this from a neighbour who's quite happyto have the wetland protected. This map shows that your map doesn't extend as far as itdid in 1995, nonetheless we're satisfied that you are looking at protecting it.

120

I would like to make some comments about why demolition waste is a problem. What youmight see on this map I have showed you there - you can see the starting of the activity.We're concerned that this factory process has already started and is not only confined topart of the region of bushland, wetland, system 6 known as Bush Forever 68. Other sites

are under threat and if it's not your intention to protect an important piece of WesternAustralian history, the bush if it is your intention, then you must protect it under commonlaw or make laws to protect such valuable properties by providing integrity to this policy.

What I'm saying is state what you mean and not allow the factory process to get a hold todestroy the few remaining areas that have survived. Your map 1, Bush Forever, actuallyhasn't got a lot of areas over the whole and Serpentine-Jarrandale have even less areas sothis is, I believe, very important that you do impose conditions. I think the written conditions

should be in the wording of the policy, as I state in my submission, that no land-filling withdemolition waste should be allowed; not only should land-filling not be allowed, nostockpiling at all and it shouldn't be allowed in any properties that are recognised as BushForever - any property titles which, I'm trying to say, are recognised, any adjacentproperties or properties that abut property titles that are recognised as Bush Forever sites.

I have got some recommendation which I believe will make this policy work. As I said, no

demolition waste for land-filling or stockpiling should be allowed on titled properties I'm

probably repeating myself - which has a Bush Forever site or any properties that abut or isadjacent to the Bush Forever titles. My reasons why can be confirmed with evidence, if you

wish. It has adverse impacts such as property devaluation - that's already available in theGovernor-General's office - and land titles which (indistinct), problems with selling theproperty on the open market, no contaminants leach from demolition waste, and theauthorities such as the EPA, the DEP, Health Department all are completely aware of this.

Its a long-term problem, 100 years plus. We already have a (indistinct) lab result taken in

one year alone calculated by the Water Corporation which showed eight tonnes of dieldrin

in the run-off from a known land-fill site. Now, this land-fill site only commenced

approximately 1995. It's had all types of contaminants. One type is asbestos which isknown to be a health concern. EPA, DEP, Health Department know that it's trucked in in

an unsafe manner, exposed, crushed, broken, intermingled with other contaminants such

as what you would find in demolition waste. I've said dieldrin already, chlorpyriphus, heavy

metals. I can go on further but I think everybody gets the idea.

Demolition waste that is dumped at an unlicensed land-fill site does contain asbestos and

it's further crushed and left exposed to people of the community which cause anxiety.

There has already been a legal challenge with asbestos anxiety. Also we have Worksafe -

a company that's well known to the government - construction school training centre, who

advise people who take these courses in asbestos that it's known to have caused death in

children, and it's (indistinct) that the person who actually founded asbestos material died of

an asbestos related disease in 1898.

I'm sorry to say, but if you have any notion that the EPA or the DEP and other government

bodies will regulate, the practice has been so far that EPA does not assess an application

such an land-fill licence.

121

They generally pass it on to the DEP stating that conditions will be imposed under theEnvironmental Protection Act 1986 which is a works approval and management plan. I am

aware that the practice of the DEP is to issue a licence before the works approval iscompleted. This is not what we advise will occur but it does. The works approval is anenvironmental condition required to be installed to protect the environment, yet, as I said, inone instance alone and others have been brought to our attention - it hasn't occurred.

The works approval in the case of the one in this area was never completed, yet a licencewas issued and the commenced dumping of the land-fill was allowed. Generally - well,

actually in all cases, I have to say, it seems to be that all management plans are pad of apreamble of licence conditions which we are told are therefore not enforceable so it canbecome a worthless piece of paper. Why the EPA and the DEP allow this perhaps issimply because, as I said, they can't make the management plan part of the licenceconditions. Perhaps they won't. The second reason is some may businesses don't alwaysoperate with ethics and integrity in mind.

Now, I have history of perhaps the company shouts poor and they put themselves into aself-appointed administrator; liquidate the company; the liquidator states because of theenvironmental concerns the property cannot be put on the open market; no buyers comeforward so a new company is formed by directors, directors of the liquidated company; thisnew company buys everything lock, stock and barrel for 275,000 said to be worth over a

million.

We know that we're stating that these environmental concerns refer to land-filling withdemolition waste of approximately fixed 50 acres to date. The Minister for Environmentinforms the money owed to government will not be paid. One amount alone is about500,000. The Minister, Alannah Mac Tiernan, knows about this. I will not be referring toAlannah Mac Tiernan in the case of the 500,000 though. So if she's concerned with thispolicy, I believe she will have no hesitation in requiring the policy to be amended, nodemolition waste for land-filling, sorting or storing or stockpiling.

I have to add another comment about the word "significant". I believe that should beremoved where the policy refers to "significant indirect impacts" on page 23. Also I have acomment on memorials. They should have a positive statement such as "Bush Foreversites of significance to Western Australia". Also perhaps the Western Australian PlanningCommission should provide to the Real Estate Institute information that will develop BushForever properties as a value added. Perhaps the Valuer-General will have to reappraiseBush Forever properties.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Nield, can I just ask a question? The land-fill operations that arecurrently taking place are on lot 54. Is that correct?

MS MELD: If you look at that, you can actually see where it is.

CHAIRPERSON: That one there?

MR WOODMAN: Which one?

122

MS NIELD: Lot 1 Jackson Road. It's actually not operating at the moment.

MS GUSTAVSSON: I'll just point it out for you. That's land-fill through there and through

to there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GUSTAVSSON: The actual land-fill ceases on the boundary of the Bush Forever.

MS NIELD: The position at the moment is that it's before the State Planning Tribunal. I

don't know if you know this. The Shire of Serpentine-Jarrandale has opposed them filling

in the buffer fortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that?

MS NIELD: They propose that the proponent - he went supposedly broke and

repurchased the land through a new company called Phoenix Land Development Pty Ltd

and applied under the town planning law to be able to fill in the buffer. The Waters and

Rivers Commission have put together a statement policy where there are to be buffers in

relation to industrial-type development and he wants to fill in the complete buffer. So

there's only a small portion that hasn't been filled which keeps the area divided from the

Bush Forever site, you know, the land-fill divided.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS NIELD: At the moment it's before the State Planning Commission under his new

company name trying to fill that area as well so we have grave concerns.

CHAIRPERSON: So the council rejected the application.

MS MELD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So he's appealing that decision.

MS NIELD: Yes. So it's not an active site under law at the moment, but lot 54 also made

an application and the shire stopped that. The community kicked up and said, "No, this is

enough."

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly under the portions of land that are not identified for protection

any legal uses can continue and any uses that are lawful under the Town Planning Scheme

could be allowed where there are no impediments to that in terms of any conservation

covenants or anything like that.

123

So basically the Bush Forever policy applies to the Bush Forever protection areas; forinstance, if he applied to have a land-fill site within that protection area, certainly the policywould kick in and you would have to say that he would have no chance at all, but where it'soutside the policy area that would be subject to the normal approval processes of council,Waters and Rivers Commission or the Department of Environment, all those otheragencies that are involved in decision-making. There are a number of safeguards in place.

MS NIELD: There isn't because, as you can see, if there were safeguards I have given

you some information in 1996 when the government, the Department of Environment,found this site, they said that it wasn't an acceptable area. It had problems, you know,floods, it's low-lying, high water table level; all the problems that cause contaminants toleach and (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Nonetheless at some point he did receive approval, didn't he, thelandowner?

MS NIELD: But that doesn't make any difference. Approval was given incorrectly againstall their own recommendations. Approval was given under the pretence that they would putin place environmental conditions. That was under a works approval condition. A letter Ihave here from the department states they know very well it was never put in place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS NIELD: So what we're saying to you is that you have an opportunity now if you wish toprotect Bush Forever sites because this is not the only one. You will have it happeningand if you wish to protect them for infinity, you know, as part of Western Australian history,you have implement provisions that stop any contaminants. You look at weed infestation,

one alone. We're talking about ground water contamination, (indistinct) solids. The bushwill be affected by all sorts of types of contaminants that leach and are known to leach from

a demolition land-fill site.

I mean, you have got the current CEO who we met, a group of residents met, who firstviewed that site and said it's like a council tip. This is the current CEO of the DEP. So theattitude is, "If we can get away with it" - that's what we feel - "we will continue doing it," sowe're asking you to implement rules and regulations that will protect Bush Forever sites.Don't forget this is part of an EPP wetland as well which are very significant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS NIELD: You kind of recognise them as more significant perhaps in Bush Forever butthis is a system that was four and a half kilometres long at one stage and there's very fewleft in Western Australia, looking at your map 1, so that's what we're asking, to make surethe policy covers all potential effects that will have implications for any Bush Forever site.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much for that Mrs Nield. You don't have any more

questions, Greg?

MR WOODMAN: No.

124

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for coming in.

MS NIELD: Thanks for your time.

CHAIRPERSON: We do appreciate you giving up your time.

MS NIELD: I'm sorry I was a little bit late.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all right; we're running a bit late ourselves.

125

MR MAX HIPKINS

CHAIRPERSON: How are you?

MR HIPKINS: Good.

CHAIRPERSON: This is Greg Woodman.

MR HIPKINS: You're departing, are you?

MS TAYLOR: I have another meeting to go to, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: I have read your submission and I was very happy with it.

MR HIPKINS: Good.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Max, as you know, we're the Hearings Committee. I'm sureyou know the process. I don't need to go through that. Greg is an environmentalconsultant. He's the independent member of the committee. So you're putting up asubmission on the Underwood Avenue land.

MR HIPKINS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us about it.

MR HIPKINS: I realise you have had a long day so I will try and be brief. My submissionwas in two parts. The first part was general recommending that Bush Forever sites should

be recognised in the MRS. Now, for almost 40 years I have been a practising planner inWestern Australia and have had first-hand experience with the operation of the MRS andhow it affects lands with conservation value. It was very obvious fairly early in the wholeprocess the Parks and Recreation reserve in the MRS did not protect lands withconservation value. This was very obvious when the system 6 plan was released and therewas no immediate means of reconciling the development interests with conservations

interests.

I was formally on record as early as 1983 speaking at a Department of Fisheries andWildlife seminar on management of small bush areas. The topic of my talk was townplanning impediments and I specifically addressed this problem of sites with conservationvalue not having any recognition in their own right in the MRS. Of course, what thisallowed was if there's a demand for sporting facilities, then it's parks and recreation and sothe valuable bushlands were bulldozed and another oval was created.

So the purpose of making a general submission in supporting the acceptance of BushForever sites in the MRS was basically to balance the opposition which I anticipate willoccur from the owners of sites who are so affected and so it was a means of trying tobalance the equation and allow you to say, "Well, there were some people that generallyrecommended that it should occur." So that was the first reason for the submission.

126

The second reason was to try and encourage more protection for the Underwood Avenuesite. In a previous life I was a director at the City of Ned lands and in the late nineties there

was an attempt by the council the CEO and I went to see owners of undeveloped landwithin the City of Ned lands and the western suburbs and one of those owners was theUniversity of Western Australia. We said to them, "You have a large amount of land here.From the City of Ned lands' point of view if it was to be developed, it would assistdiversification of our income and assist our rate base. Can we do anything to assist you indeveloping the Underwood Avenue bushland?"

The response that we received from Alan Robson and others of his board or senate wasthat, "Under no circumstances are we developing the Underwood Avenue bushland. It has

an important research role to provide to the university. We are concentrating all buildings

on the Crawley campus. We are concentrating our recreation facilities around ChallengeStadium and the Underwood Avenue bushland is to be retained for research purposes onlyand under no circumstances would we entertain any development there." It was only ayear or two later when Bush Plan was released that the university changed their mind

because they saw immediately their options being limited. Although they didn't want to useit for any other purpose, they immediately initiated the moves to develop this land.

The land has very high values for conservation purposes, and I won't go into them all but itis very much a stepping stone for wildlife between Kings Park and Bold Park and theproposals to develop met with a lot of opposition. There was a deal struck between the WAPlanning Commission and the university and the Water Corporation who was also involvedbecause it had buffer areas around their water treatment works. The compromise was thathalf the land would be developed and the other half would be retained as a Bush Foreversite. Now, as you're aware, the smaller nature sites are the less successful and the lessthey're likely to survive and so there were appeals against this proposal to the Minister forthe Environment and the Minister for the Environment actually upheld the appeals and saidthat no development was to take place on that site.

So the second part of my submission and I may have misinterpreted. I didn't find thedocument that easy to track through, but I was under the impression that the documentonly protected half of the Underwood Avenue site in accordance with the compromiseproposal that was struck prior to the Minister for the Environment deciding the appeal. Sothe second part of my submission was to plead for the whole of the Underwood Avenue siteto be protected, both on the grounds that it's worthy of protection and also on the groundsof my earlier involvement with the university when they said they had no specific use to bemade of that site for building purposes. So that's my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. We are just having a look at the plan there, Max. Certainly thespecial control area policy overlay extends over most of the site.

MR HIPKINS: It covers the whole site.

MR WOODMAN: It covers the whole site.

MR HIPKINS: Okay.

127

MR WOODMAN: It's currently P and R?

MR BEARDMORE: No, it's currently urban and the Bush Forever protection area covers

the whole site. However, in the SPP it's still recognised as a negotiated planning solutionbecause that was the intent of urban zoning for the land.

MR HIPKINS: Okay. That, I suppose, reinforces my concern. If it's zoned urban and it'sstill subject to negotiation, my plea is to make it all non-urban to make it part of the BushForever.

CHAIRPERSON: The highest level protection would be P and R.

MR HIPKINS: For the whole site, yes.

MR BEARDMORE: Yes, the reason it wasn't shown as P and R is because through theBush Forever, as you're probably aware, is there was a commitment made by governmentthat urban lands would be subject to negotiated outcomes principally for a number ofreasons. One is to sort of acknowledge the commitments made under the zoning in theMRS and also, as you're aware, the sort of value of this land is exceptionally high not onlyfrom an environmental perspective but also from a cost perspective. To acquire this landwould be, I think, quite a substantial amount of money and the money which has beenassigned to Bush Forever has been up to 100,000,000 and that has to be spread acrossthe whole of the metropolitan region.

CHAIRPERSON: Over 10 years.

MR BEARDMORE: Over 10 years.

MR HIPKINS: Okay. Well, I mean, this is up to you to work out how you spend yourmoney, but to me as a planner it could remain in the ownership of University of WesternAustralia with the strict proviso that it's never to be developed. They have said to me in thepast that they had no intention of developing it. They have now changed their minds. Sohow you handle ifs up to you but I'm arguing that it's worthy of protection. You don't reallyneed to spend money on it. It's in safe hands. It's being well managed and what you needis a creative way of having to avoid spending money on it.

MR WOODMAN: It could go to P and R without a purchase of it, but I suppose the owner

then has the right to - yeah.

MR BEARDMORE: Compensation, yeah. If the university, of course, donated the land or

was prepared to protect it all, but fortunately or unfortunately they're view is that thereshould be some development potential on the land.

MR HIPKINS: Well, that's been decided now. The Minister for Environment said, "There'sno development potential."

128

MR BEARDMORE: If I could just correct you, if you don't mind, the Minister forEnvironment said that opportunities for further negotiations and development were part ofher statement when she said that the land was the current negotiation was unacceptable,but she did sort of leave the door open for future opportunities.

MR HIPKINS: Okay. Well, then I'm asking you to balance or to put forward the view thatthe land shouldn't have any development potential. It's value is as a whole piece becauseonce you start using some of it for development, then it's value for conservation purposesdecreases and there's no justification for it. The university has said they want toconcentrate their buildings on the Crawley campus and their recreation buildings aroundChallenge Stadium. So there's no need to have a compromise deal that gives them somedevelopment. That's the point that I'm trying to say.

MR WOODMAN: Have we got a valuation?

MR BEARDMORE: Can't be privy to that unfortunately.

MR HIPKINS: But on what basis do you value it, with development potential or without?

MR WOODMAN: It has to be valued without a P and R reservation.

MR BEARDMORE: Let me just say it would be a substantial proportion of the moneyallocated to Bush Forever.

MR WOODMAN: There's obviously significant value in the bushland which does restrictdevelopment potential.

MR BEARDMORE: I think these things are sort of outside this process at the momentunfortunately. They're in the Environmental Protection Act. The Minister for Environmenthas made a decision and obviously the need for negotiation or not, as the case may be,has sort of been dealt with through those processes.

MR HIPKINS: What's likely to be the next move, the university puts up anotherdevelopment plan with slightly less land developed? I mean, that's what can beanticipated.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose as the landowner, Max, that's their entitlement to do that.That's their right to do that and it will go through the process again.

MR HIPKINS: It's just a game to take as much or to get as much compensation as theycan when they never intended to develop it anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, of course, they're entitled to change their views over time, aren'tthey, as many landowners?

MR HIPKINS: Particularly when something like Bush Plan comes out - -

CHAIRPERSON: They're no different to any other landowner.

129

MR HIPKINS: and they can see a pot of money that they can take advantage of.

CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately as a landowner they have those rights to, you know, makethe call as they see it from time to time, which they have done.

MR HIPKINS: I'm hoping that you can put your thinking cap on and try and outsmart them.

CHAIRPERSON: We will try and be creative.

MR HIPKINS: Okay. That's all I had.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, thanks very much for coming in, Max. It's good to see youagain. Good to hear your point of view again.

MR HIPKINS: Good.

130