Docstoc

PERTH HILLS PLANNING BILL REPORT ON MUNDARING, HERNE HILL AND

Document Sample
PERTH HILLS PLANNING BILL REPORT ON MUNDARING, HERNE HILL AND Powered By Docstoc
					                 PERTH HILLS PLANNING BILL

          REPORT ON MUNDARING, HERNE HILL
             AND MUNDIJONG WORKSHOPS

                         22 FEBRUARY 2008

BACKGROUND

At the request of Perth Hills residents, Greens MLC Giz Watson has
developed a draft Perth Hills Planning Bill to better protect and plan for
the future of the Perth Hills.

To date, three workshops have been held to provide information to Perth
Hills residents on the draft Bill, and seek their feedback. These workshops
were held in Mundaring (9 February 2008), Herne Hill (10 February 2008)
and Mundijong (13 February 2008).

The workshops were facilitated by Giz Watson MLC and started with two
presentations: one by a representative of the Save the Perth Hills group
outlining the reasons why they wanted legislation to better protect and
plan for the future of the Perth Hills, and one by Giz Watson's research
officer providing some detail on the draft Bill.

Participants were then divided into groups to answer the following
questions:
 
 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?
 
 Are we heading towards this vision?
 
 If not, why not?

After reporting back on these questions, the groups convened again to
answer these questions:
 
 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?
 
 What planning objectives should apply?
 
 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

In closing each workshop, Giz asked participants for a general indication
as to whether they would like to see the draft Bill progressed.

This report provides a summary of some of the main themes emerging
from the workshops. An attachment to the report contains a verbatim
transcript of the notes taken by workshop groups.1




 While the text of the notes has not been changed, in some cases text has been
1

moved to group it under the focus questions.
RESPONSES TO FOCUS QUESTIONS


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Workshop groups commonly referred to the natural, scenic and lifestyle
values of the Hills. For example:
      - maintaining the Hills as "the primary green belt on the fringes of
          Perth"
      - "preservation of tree canopies"
      - "preserve the scarp as much as possible"
      - "preservation of biodiversity"
      - "treasure existing natural environment"
      - "recreational buffer"

In terms of vision for future development, there was a consistent theme of
wanting the Hills to be different from typical Perth suburbs:
      - "Perth Hills is not to be regarded as the metropolitan overspill
         for Perth"
      - "no high density suburbia"
      - "self-sufficient townships surrounded by bush"
      - "village style development and rural outskirts"
      - "avoid the 'dormer' suburbs"

A number of groups wanted variety in development in the Hills to meet a
variety of needs, including the needs of older residents who want to
remain in the Hills. Some groups also highlighted better infrastructure
and community services as part of their vision.


 Are we heading towards this vision?

Most workshop participants did not think that we are heading towards
their vision for the Perth Hills, although a number of participants in the
Mundijong workshop thought that the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale was
heading in the right direction.


 If not, why not?

A range of different reasons were given, including:
      - the lack of an underpinning plan for the Perth Hills to show
         where development can and can't occur
      - lack of protective legislation
      - the failure to make developers pay the full costs of development
      - WA Planning Commission policy to accommodate growth in all
         areas (Flats and Hills)


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Most participants thought a Perth Planning Bill could have a role to play,
although a number wanted to see changes made to the Bill.




                                    2

 What planning objectives should apply?

While some participants supported the draft planning objectives in their
current form, others suggested changes. These included:
      - recognition of buffer zones/greenbelts
      - recognition of existing land use and non-conforming use rights
      - removal of the reference to "restoration of the natural character
          of the area" as this could unduly restrict development
      - development a new objective concerning "fair natural justice,
          compensation"
      - developing a new objective concerning fire management in the
          Hills
      - including a new principle aimed at promoting the ability of Perth
          Hills communities and individuals to derive a living and create
          local employment from their properties
      - including just two objectives, built around the issues of water
          and flora/fauna


 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

A number of suggestions were made for possible changes to the
mechanisms in the Act. Most of the discussion focused on the role of the
Perth Hills Planning Committee and the need for an overall plan for the
Perth Hills.

Perth Hills Planning Committee

A number of participants commented on the role of the proposed Perth
Hills Planning Committee in reviewing and providing advice on
development applications.

Some participants thought that this represented an undesirable new layer
of bureaucracy and red tape.

On the other hand, others supported the review of development
applications but thought that the Committee did not have enough "teeth"
as its role was advisory.

One group suggested that a Hills Planning Authority, similar to existing
redevelopment authorities and reporting directly to the Minister for
Planning, should be established.

A number of participants suggested that the Bill should be changed to
ensure strong local representation on the Perth Hills Planning Committee.
One group suggested that everyone on the Committee "must be either
residents or have a demonstrated connection (see Aboriginal Heritage
Act)".

Other participants suggested that the composition of the Committee
should be reviewed to ensure that relevant statutory authorities are
represented - such as possibly the Environmental Protection Authority or
Swan River Trust.


                                   3
A Plan for the Perth Hills

A number of groups suggested that the Bill should provide more specific
guidance for development in particular areas through either "sub-zones"
or a requirement for a Perth Hills plan to be developed:
   - "the Bill needs to define sub-zones"
   - "there needs to be a statutory planning instrument that protects
       scarp values"
   - "overall plan for Perth Hills 'blueprint'"
   - "overall strategic plan … put moratorium on development until
       adopted"


 What boundaries should be used?

A number of different comments were made on the indicative boundary in
the draft Bill, including:
      - extend to Dwellingup
      - extend further south to the Metropolitan Region Scheme
          boundary
      - at least take in southern Serpentine-Jarrahdale boundary
      - south west highway is not a good boundary as it divides 3 towns
      - scarp zone that is visible from Perth needs protection, but
          current boundary goes too far east
      - agree that zone should extend east to boundaries of local
          government districts

RESPONSE TO QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE BILL SHOULD BE
PROGRESSED

As noted above, at each of the Mundaring, Herne Hill and Mundijong
workshops participants were asked whether they would like to see the Bill
progressed further. The total number of participants (excluding the
presenters, facilitators and organisers) for the three workshops was 59.
Of these, 3 people indicated that they did not want to see the Bill
progressed.

CONCLUSION

The workshops offered strong support for continued work on the Perth
Hills Planning Bill, and a number of ideas for ways in which the Bill could
be improved. The workshop outcomes will be considered, alongside
formal submissions on the draft Bill, in deciding whether the Bill should be
progressed, and if so in what form.




                                     4
                                                             ATTACHMENT

                                Mundaring

                                 Group A

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Lack of availability of planning/design/services for over 55 and older folk
who want to remain in the Hills

Maintain the Hills as the primary green belt on the fringes of Perth

Prevent further development         that   is   not   supported   by   local
services/infrastructure

Preserve and environment that is unique, and ensure sustainable
development that enhances this environment, not detract from it

Landowners are personally responsible for the environmental health of
their property

Promote alternative and ecological development that meets environmental
needs

Meet the needs of landholders on different size blocks, so that rural
holdings are not penalized financially as land zoning increases rates and
taxes

Allow for a blended community so that diversity of land use, demog.,
populat., is maintained, and different lifestyle choices offered.

Infrastructure such as medical, public transport needs to be regionally co-
ordinated

Townships and nearby degraded farmland to be the focus for development
which should not be allowed to encroach into quality bush habitat

Landholders who maintain their natural bush should not be financially
penalised by amended zoning, should be rewarded by rates for their
conservation practices

Maintain private land rights, but promote positive conservation practices

Existing populations are underserviced by infrastructure and community
services and this needs to be addressed before significant population
expansion is allowed


 Are we heading towards this vision?

 If not, why not?


                                     5
Unsustainable subdivisions which are subsidized by ratepayers in another
locality, who then miss out on services

Fragmented local councils with different priorities

Local councillors who change every 4 years and have their personal
preferences without appreciation for long term consequences

Elected councillors, officers have their own agenda

Not enough community opinion

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

 What planning objectives should apply?

 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Not support another layer of bureaucracy, red tape.

Yes

Attractive is set of guidelines for overall vision of direction and future of
the Hills - promote consistency

A committee makes WAPC answerable.

Taxpayer burden.

Committee members to reside in the area.

Regional planning design - committee to have influence.

The Bill needs to define subzones.

The Bills need definitions to be refined and made more specific.

Define an appeals process.

The Bill to demonstrate accountability for decisions

Lack of community input into the Committee

Bill continues through changes of Councils

The Bill does not compensate for lack of strong community representation.

Define delegated authority to avoid Committee perusing applications for
garden and chook shed size applications

No power to prevent a WWTP, govts will still do as they wish.


                                      6

 What boundaries should be used?

South west highway is not a good boundary as it divides 3 towns

Both sides of Gt E Hwy perhaps to York

Not to include Avon Valley Region because of separate identity

Scarp zone that is visible from Perth needs protection

Bill goes too far east and econmpasses too many diverse area identities,
land use zones, enviro zones

Easier if Bill extends to Shire boundaries to make administration simpler

Still need zonal definition

Why not to southern boundary of Serpentine




                                     7
                                  Mundaring

                                     Group B

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

1. Maintain/enhance/treasure existing natural environment and cultural
   and historical heritage of the area for future generations.

2. # 8 of Bill's objectives.

3. Perth Hills is not to be regarded as the metropolitan overspill for Perth.


 Are we heading towards this vision?

Not heading to this vision.


 If not, why not?

Economic interests supercede environment

Local government does not represent local interests

Lack of knowledge and awareness

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Adequate provisions for enforcement, effectiveness and monitoring.

Recognition of existing environmental policies and law e.g. Swan Valley
and Canning River Protective Policy

Appears to be a toothless tiger

Ensure that individual Shires work together for a coordinated and
consistent approach to planning


 What planning objectives should apply?

Clause 6(c) - Conflict of Interest

Shire representation

But see clause 15(2) - Disclosure of Interests - would knock out President
of Committee?




                                        8

 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

10.4 - What if local Council refuses to accept advice of Committee?
Provisions to rectify injustice/appeal/final say

Review composition of Committee
                ie EPA? Swan River Trust?
                Policy? Yes Shires
                Admin? No - Shires


 What boundaries should be used?

Existing boundaries -

We agree

East - Shire boundaries

West - where 'Green Belt' starts
(trees vs dense housing)




                                   9
                                 Mundaring

                                     Group C


Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

More community input

Preserve clean water

No high density suburbia

Preservation of tree canopies

The Hills are the "lungs of Perth"

Development of eco-tourism

Maintain village style development and rural outskirts

Maintain the semi-rural nature of the Perth Hills


 Are we heading towards this vision?

The Hills are at the crossroads…development or environment?


 If not, why not?

More people = more rates but extra infrastructure costs

Lack of community input / State government not listening

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes

The Bill needs to be "watertight" - it’s a large area

It would help to stop "ad hoc" developments


 What planning objectives should apply?

As mentioned in Perth Hills Planning Bill brochure (8 points)

Any residential developments must be environmentally friendly and
sustainable



                                       10

 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Government legislation


 What boundaries should be used?

Historical land use capabilities

Look to go further south to Dwellingup in line with Mandurah

Perth Hills PC would address development on a case-by-case basis
(National parks, regional parks, state forest, hobby farms, vineyards,
orchards, farms, village)




                                   11
                                Mundaring

                                  Group D

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Maintain values

Environmental

Lifestyle
       - interest groups
       - zoning

Beauty and amenity

Not too many restrictions on individual

Appropriate assessment/research

Environmental concerns
      - water
      - trees/improving cover

Recreations

Appropriate development, partic. Aged

Holistic overview

No dense development in environmentally fragile areas or bites into social
fabric


 Are we heading towards this vision?

No - fragmented planning

Maybe - community aspiration/input

Concerns re layering of admin/councils/…/bureaucracy

Closer than 12 months ago


 If not, why not?

Need Save Perth Hills political party

Lack of overarching planning structures

All 3 levels of government are developer-driven


                                        12
People are greedy, including decision-makers

Consultation with Noongars

Appropriate Land Use
     - maintain and plan for
     - needs zones within Zone

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes with provisos.


 What planning objectives should apply?

   1. + air quality, + enviro health of Perth
   2. Yes
   3. + waterways
   4. Yes
   5. Yes
   6. Yes + non-aboriginal
   7. "+enhance and complement the environment and amenity of the
      area"
   8. + enhance + do not detract
   9. To promote the ability of P.H. communities and individuals to derive
      a living and create local employment from their properties that is
      consistent with the other planning objectives of the Act.


 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Act is mechanism

State with overall plan for Perth Hills 'blueprint'

(d) everyone must be residents or demonstrated connection (see
Aboriginal Heritage Act)


 What boundaries should be used?

[no comment]




                                       13
                                  Herne Hill

                                  Group A

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

A balance
      - identify areas that are 'developable' without spoiling the present
          amenity
      - development must go hand in hand with infrastructure (schools,
          police, water, power) prior to development

A "sensible" expansion of Perth

Identify 'zones' of development within shire/city through cooperation of all
relevant authorities (i.e. where development can and can't occur). Base
these on existing 'village' centres.

Consider the need for commercial/light industrial development as well
as/to complement areas. These will sustain the residential communities
and means that people can live and work within the Hills. Avoid the
'dormer' suburbs.

Consider an alternative
Power - self-sufficiency of homes - technologically possible (almost)
Water -

Enhance the existing amenity, flora and fauna - open access without
fencing to allow free movement of fauna, wildlife corridors (legal liability)


 Are we heading towards this vision?

Are we getting there? No/maybe, but if the Bill has bite


 If not, why not?

There needs to be an underpinning PLAN which shows where development
can/can't occur

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes, with more "bite"

Overall plan for development zones, green zones etc

If this plan is arrived at via consensus between local government
authorities then it would give them clarity



                                     14
Work hand in hand with Federal Government's 'peri-urban' studies (could
give this Bill more impetus)

Must not be seen as 'regressive' - must not paint what is there as 'bad'
but that this Bill is looking to the future

Issue of compensation may need to be addressed, where landowner is
dispossessed of some of the intended use of the land


 What planning objectives should apply?

Objective 1 (Water)
      - self-sufficiency
      - treatment plants
      - grey water - use it
      - set aside areas; catchments for future dams
      - development has minimal impact on watercourses etc

Objective 2 (Flora and Fauna)
      - extensive audit of flora and fauna - look to UNESCO??
      - Set aside 'bushland forever' areas
      - Extend national park?
      - Limited housing within national parks! - USA/Canada?
      - Controlled development
      - Best management practices for fire management             when
          development occurs (volume of fuel…)


 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Big issue with clause 10(4) and the requirement "to have due regard" -
does this statement effectively give the Perth Hills Planning Committee
real power? Does it give the Bill the 'bite' needed?


 What boundaries should be used?

[No comment on this issue]




                                  15
                                 Herne Hill

                                  Group B

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Cadastral boundary
No - site plan to broad - (breakups)
Vision statements -
Subzones - set zones - mechanisms across shires
Hubs - greenery
Controlled development

Specific rules:
Eastern edge of shires
Right to farm
Farm zone
Preserve
Bonds on development on environmental land

Vision statements theme - unite 7 Shires

Recreational buffer

Shire - international … - not over private land

NO - Narrow - Water Catchment -

Perth   Hills Vision
   -    water catchments
   -    protection of water
   -    policy (State) - Water Reform Act - locks up development

Greenbelt


 Are we heading towards this vision?

Intent
Take out restoration
Writing is not the same of vision of Bill
Concept - agreed
S Firests, reserves - reserve Council/State - knock out


 If not, why not?

Bill not to be used as compensation for failure of developments.




                                     16
Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes, not in the current form

Special Policy Area

Works against objectives

Cannot blanket Bill in each zone (locality)

Yes - mechanism, consider development, framework.

Inappropriate development - such as Landcorp as example

Impact private landowners

"What are we doing here"

Used to lock up land

Is the Bill there just for the sale of a Bill - or is it a Bill for protecting the
vision (impact on one person - and not on another group)?


 What planning objectives should apply?

Remove reference to registration

Colours of area - definition

Fair natural justice, compensation

Intent looks like an environmental Bill, not a development Bill

Overriding legislation - Act degrees of intent

Limit - conservation value

5.8 to be rewritten

common sense in planning - current land use - non-conforming use rights'

vision - question: what are conservation values

definition of development - in summary of Act


 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Bill - way of incorporating with local government legislation

No! Shire - has a … if Town Planning Scheme


                                       17
Special Planning Policy over 7 Shire against objectives of the Bill

Flexible…objectives of Bill

Planning committee - not local people - ANYONE experienced in those
fields

Q Is the Committee be independent excluding Councillors

Review 5 years - another government entity

A lot of ground work

Declare no pecuniary interest in draft

Who is writing regulations?

What Department - planning SP or Department of Environment and
Conservation?

Rewrite

$10,000 fine to low and do not have to get off committee

Accountable - responsible - no responsibility to community


 What boundaries should be used?

[No comment on this issue]




                                     18
                           Mundijong Workshop

                                   Group A

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Preserve scarp as much as possible - no scarring

Committee to plan scarp values:
  - biodiversity
  - scenic values
  - water catchment
  - pollution
  - limit development

Incentives to preserve vision

Make this a model that can be applied elsewhere


 Are we heading towards this vision?

Workshop is heading in right direction


 If not, why not?

[No comment on this issue]

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes

Additional body - delays.       Some LGA's - no transparency - proposal
creates transparency

Protecting Hills with legislation is necessity


 What planning objectives should apply?

Benefits for environment, for inhabitants, animals…

Control of design and development

Need to prioritise objectives to reflect vision e.g. create subzones, limit
population, policies to protect flora, fauna, biodiversity




                                       19

 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Need to have a look at various redevelopment authorities to develop a
short term Authority to … reporting directly to the Minister … - possibly
called Hills Planning Authority - recognise that it is not possible to initiate
a Bill that involves a budget item in the Upper House


 What boundaries should be used?

Probably be restricted to Perth Metro region at this stage but we recognise
this will leave south west … at risk.




                                      20
                               Mundijong

                                 Group B

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Protection
      -   Biodiversity
      -   Water…
      -   Scenic/amenity
      -   Recreation (passive)
      -   Clean air
      -   Ag and Horticulture

Promotion
     - Tourism
     - Recreation
     - Management - Responsibilities

Collaboration
Inclusion
Bushforever
ORV's
Amenity
Heritage
Forest and PHZ values (start pint)


 Are we heading towards this vision?

YES (Maybe) (No)
No landscape protection in plans
Lack of planning uniformity/purpose
LGs and DPI-WAPC to be bound by common/agreed values
Uphold local government sensitivities and values - recognise difference


 If not, why not?

Development costs (all) to be borne by developer
DPI-WAPC - policy/purpose not strong enough
Department culture not conducive to PHZ philosophy
… acceptance of values/future
competing dept aims - purpose - Acts
plans in conflict PHZ - FMP - W+R - CALM
Danger - Bill could 'water' dpwn LG plans and may offer
development outcomes by default
Departmental decision-makers making decisions that are at odds to
agreed planning ideals/values


                                    21
And the SAT

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes - but is adding extra time to assessment - can this be …

Is it going to have enough teeth ie advisory or deliberative preferable

Must be aware of diluting a local government's (eg SJ) strong protection
ie l. governments to have discretion to have scarp protection provisions in
excess of statutory provision but not create provisions which fall below the
(statutory) level of protection.


 What planning objectives should apply?

Agree with 8 in Bill.


 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Bill raises values but there needs to be a statutory planning instrument
that protects scarp values - mandatory

Role of a landscape protection zone in the MRS


 What boundaries should be used?

Boundaries - extend to Dwellingup, at least to MRS boundary (and
therefore SJ boundary).




                                     22
                                  Mundijong

                                  Group C

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Part of the SJ Vision
       - tourism
       - SJ Strategic Plan

Buffer zone to climate change

Trails - separate

Off road vehicles
       - management
       - find a location

Land for wildlife

Climate change

Fire planning (high fire risk)


 Are we heading towards this vision?

SJ Landscape Protection (Zone, Policy). Since 2002, statutory force.

SJ Rural Strategy - Agriculture Protection

Local Government opposition (many not all Councils)

Village focus - Mundaring towns, SJ Green Town Study (with buffers)


 If not, why not?

Blanket Policy over large areas

Sub Zones - local consideration/factors

WAPC Policy - accommodate growth in all areas (Flats and Hills)

Developer driver - land speculation

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes



                                      23
Proper community consultation and feedback

Address compensation (if necessary)

Collaborative planning/share knowledge

Regional grouping

LG and State … in between (SE District Planning Committee)

Perth Hills Planning Committee


 What planning objectives should apply?

Buffer zones/greenbelts
Biodiversity buffer in climate change

Fire management across the hills
      - co-ordinated planning
      - frequency of fires
      - timing

Cluster developments
      - share a common
      - cattle and kangaroos graze off green belts


 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Policies and strategic plans - develop policy

Implement these policies

Overall strategic plan (10 years) - put moratorium on development until
adopted


 What boundaries should be used?

Chittering to Dwellingup

Adopt this and keep following scarp

At least take in shire boundaries southern SJ shire boundary

Albany Highway in SJ East Boundary

… Boundary East




                                      24
                                 Mundijong

                                    Group D

Session 1


 What is your vision for the Perth Hills?

Self-sufficient townships surrounded by bush.       Slef-sufficiency includes
water, sewerage, with adequate access.

Preservation of biodiversity

Prevent subdivision of rural land/orchards


 Are we heading towards this vision?

Some are: some aren't.


 If not, why not?

But developers putting pressure.

Lack of protective legislation

Session 2


 Could a Perth Hills Planning Bill have a role to play?

Yes? Advice? Status

Can a committee dampen developer influence?

Does it address lack of 3 rd party appeal and SAT

Will 7 Shires agree? Will it be in place to save Gidgie?

Too much red tape? Extra red tape is a further protection.


 What planning objectives should apply?

 What mechanisms should be used to achieve those objectives?

Perhaps: A broad, overarching Bill that can be defended.

Guidelines/details in "sub-zones"


 What boundaries should be used?

Perhaps: Take boundaries to Dwellingup




                                      25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:24
posted:4/9/2010
language:English
pages:25
Description: PERTH HILLS PLANNING BILL REPORT ON MUNDARING, HERNE HILL AND ...