11.2 sustainable development · no. 2. other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal....

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 11 MARCH 2015

14

11.2 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT 2 AND STRUCTURE PLAN FOR

FINAL APPROVAL - LOT 300 SALTER STREET, GRACETOWN


15

1. Colin Sheffield 17 Seahawk Rest Gracetown Affected Property

17 Seahawk Rest, Gracetown

1. Little confidence in developers’ ability to manage and implement a Fire Management Plan.

2. Believe a second access road is mandatory for a development of this size due to the evident fire risk in this location.

Fire Management

A Fire Management Plan (FMP) has been prepared. The implementation of the FMP will need to be signed off by the Shire and DFES. The FMP contains a range of measures including:

Manage the areas between dwellings within 2t/ha of fuel (100mm in height) via mechanical slashing.

Upgrade Cowaramup Bay Road with a 20m buffer (5t/ha) either side of the existing carriageway where possible with additional passing bays every 200m.

Construct a range of accesses and firebreak within the development.

Install fire hydrants and retrofit hydrants to the existing townsite.

Install a 15m slashed low-fuel buffer around the entire town, with a 40m wide Hazard Separation Zone and 20m wide Building Protection Zone.

Upgrade the existing community building at the oval as a fire refuge.

Construct a fire proof helicopter pad.

Implement minimum building construction requirements.

Install 300kL of storage for fire suppression (20L a second for four hours).

Second Access Road.

The potential for a second access road has been comprehensively analysed through the process of Structure Plan preparation. The findings and expert opinion of DPaW, DFES and an independent risk analysis performed by a qualified consultant, has found that a second access road is not necessary and that fire protection is best provided in other ways, as detailed in the FMP.

That the proposal be adopted inclusive of a (modified) FMP and a requirement that the full suite of fire management measures be implemented for the entire townsite in conjunction with the first stage of subdivision.

2. Rick Short PO Box 419, Margaret River

1. Proposed new townsite shouldn’t go ahead without another exit road as in an emergency it would be a disaster.

1. See response to submission No. 1 2. Noted 3. Beach Access

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1.

ATTACHMENT 2


16

2. Lots 1 & 14 should be away from existing townsite (up other end).

3. Not a lot of beach area for extra people.

The pressure on existing beach infrastructure at Gracetown, is only partially increased as a result of the subject proposal. The strong population growth being experienced in the Shire generally, particularly that set to occur in Cowaramup, and the popularity of the area with tourists contributes more specifically in this regard. Notwithstanding, the proposal offers some potential to upgrade facilities at the beach to cater for increasing visitation. Measures proposed have been outlined in a ‘Community Initiatives Plan’ and include parking improvements at the swimming beach and provision of a marine rescue facility.

It is recommended that the full range of infrastructure upgrades proposed for the beach foreshore area are included in the Developer Contributions Plan to provide a strong statutory basis for their implementation.

3. McKinney Nominees Pty Ltd 18 Walba Way, Swanbourne Affected Property

Lot 136 Walton Way, Gracetown

1. Object to the establishment of a second access road.

2. Second road will increase through traffic in long term.

3. Area for road and adjacent beach should be retained in its natural state as much as possible.

4. Issue of fire risk can be managed in alternative ways.

1. Noted. This position is supported by relevant Government agencies.

2. Noted 3. Noted. See Submission 2 with regard to

proposed improvements to beach area. 4. Noted and agree.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 2. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

4. Jessica Anderson 2/7 O’Halloran Lane Mosman Park Affected Property

21 Osborne Street, Gracetown

1. Concerned about cost legacy for existing townsite who will be forced to connect to sewerage and water – the cost to hook in cost to decommission a septic tank.

2. Swimming beach is only 60m wide and the next closest swimming beach is Gnarabup and/or Injidup. The beach is already used by many people who aren’t from Gracetown. In peak periods the car park gets full. Development will have people driving to the beach but don’t want to see the carpark increased or to have it bitumised.

3. Footpath to beach is horrendous and would like to see it go back to a gravel path. Feel gravel roads hold the rural character but with increased traffic there is a tendency to seal.

4. Like to see alternatives explored.

1. Water and Sewer

Implementation of the proposal will require a Waste Water Treatment Plant to be constructed by the developer, to which all new dwellings will connect. The WWTP will return treated water for use in homes. Potable water will be provided by on-site rainwater tanks, as is the case for existing dwellings. The WWTP will provide an opportunity for existing dwellings to connect and thus cease the potential pollution of groundwater via the current on site, methods of effluent disposal. The requirement to connect (at the landowners cost) to a reticulated sewer service when it becomes available is mandated across the State. As such measures will be put in place to require the developer to fund 50% of the cost for existing residents to connect. See response to submission No. 2. 2. See response to submission No. 2.

It is recommended that the proposal be supported inclusive of the requirement for the developer to implement the WWTP and that existing residences be subsidised for 50% of the cost to connect. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


17

3. Noted.

5. Emily Anderson 14/4 Bulimba Road, Nedlands Affected Property

Lot 46 Osborne Street, Gracetown

1. No bitumen carpark near beaches. 2. No extension of car park at current swimmers

beach. 3. Concerned on volume of people accessing this

area currently without proposed development and the impact it is having.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 2. 3. Environmental Impact

The proponent has completed a wide range of environmental studies, necessary to satisfy the requirements of DPaW and the EPA. The fauna study finds that the impact on fauna and fauna habitat as a consequence of the proposals proceeding will be low given the relatively small areas involved and the fact that species and species habitat are well represented in adjoining areas. Of a site area of 287ha, 30ha will be impacted upon in some way through development and associated fire management. The remaining 257ha of UCL will be amalgamated with the National Park.

It is recommended that Council note the general support for the proposal by DPaW and the EPA and the requirement for the proponent to implement an Environmental Management Plan which will address any relevant environmental issues.

6. Eve Clarkson 7c Keane Street, Peppermint Grove Affected Property


1. Concerns with traffic leaving and entering the town past shops, houses & beach, need traffic calming measures.

2. Costs of infrastructure for landowners. 3. Pressure on swimmers and beach. 4. Building codes on new and old townsite – No

garden (introduced plants), no bitumen, No silver/white roofs and control colour of walls exterior to a natural palatte.

1. See response 2. Infrastructure

Infrastructure items which will be provided by the developer as a consequence of the proposal, but which will be beneficial for the wider community are:

WWTP

Recycled water available to existing residences

Road upgrades including Cowaramup Bay Road and intersection of Bayview and Salter Street

Entry statement

Pedestrian network

Formalisation of parking at swimmers beach

Implementation of a FMP

Provision of Marine Rescue Facility

Upgrade of Community Hall.

Upgraded power infrastructure 3. See response to Submission No. 2. 4. An integral component of the proposal is

design guidelines which have the objective

That Council notes the requirement for the proponent to implement a FMP, Traffic Impact and Management Plan, Developer Contributions Plan and prepare built form guidelines which address the submitters concerns.


18

of retaining the ‘Gracetown aesthetic’.

7. Gary Webb Affected Property


1. Proposal is an obscene over development and over exploitation of a unique area.

2. Should be scaled down or abandoned.

1. The subject site has been identified for ‘development investigation’ since 1998, when it was included as such in the LNRSPP.

The submitter’s comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

8. Julian & Margaret Frayne 20 Hurstford Close, Peppermint Grove Affected Property

5 Galliers Road, Gracetown

1. Blocks are too small for holiday and permanent residents.

2. Enclave developments without fences and adequate room for children/pets are inappropriate in country areas.

3. There is minimal room for rainwater tanks above ground and to put in underground tanks would be costly.

4. The present town’s population and surrounding area are already placing significant pressures on the limited resources (beaches/boat ramps). Another 500-700 people will further congest the bay.

5. Development won’t improve the local shop sales as most people shop for supplies in Margaret River or Cowaramup.

6. Plenty of land available to make 1000sqm min blocks. Go back to drawing board on block sizes.

7. Concerned with the grey water plan. 8. Agree with consultants conclusions on 2

nd road

– present road is upgraded and adequate ‘safe areas’ in precinct of beach be made for sea evacuation.

1. Prospective purchasers will need to consider whether the lots are suitable for their needs prior to purchasing.

2. As above. 3. The lots have been designed to provide

sufficient room for dwellings and rainwater tanks.

4. See response to submission 2. 5. Noted 6. The size of lots is in a significant way

dictated by the intention of minimising impact upon the surrounding environment by minimising clearing and increasing the size of the National Park.

7. Noted 8. Noted and agree.


9. Jeffrey Jones PO Box 278 Cowaramup Affected Property

8 Bayview Drive, Gracetown

1. Waste water treatment is imperative. 2. Second access road is much needed, will be

costly but is important. 3. During construction of subdivision and building

dwellings it will be dangerous for children who use streets not to mention a fire escape route.

4. Understand bottom line controls most decisions but it could be achieved with forward planning in the proposal.

1. Noted and agree. 2. See response to Submission No.1. 3. As in all new communities, some minor

adjustment to road use may be required in order to take account of construction traffic.

4. Noted. 5. Noted



19

5. Consider options.

10. Brian Sierakowski 1/8 Avonmore Terrace, Cottesloe Affected Property

Lot 138 Langley Crescent, Gracetown

1. Gracetown can’t sustain any further residential development or tourism development.

2. Pressure on Gracetown with growth of surrounding areas is already evident.

3. Effect on fauna is already evident. 4. Many environmental, economic and social

impacts. 5. Is no orderly and proper expansion of the

Gracetown townsite? 6. Shire has failed to address sustainability

measures. 7. Shire has failed to consider significant

indigenous heritage and foreshore impacts. 8. Emergency services are seriously limited. 9. Hasn’t been a proper risk assessment of a

secondary access road to Gracetown. Failure to provide a second access road is neglect and a danger to all residents.

1. Noted 2. See response to submission No. 2. 3. Noted 4. See response to Submission No. 5 5. Noted 6. The Shire is not the proponent and

therefore the responsibility for addressing various issues including sustainability items lies with Landcorp.

7. See report for outcome of Shire’s consideration if these issues.

8. Noted 9. See response to Submission No. 1.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 2 and 5. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

11. Ian Englert 856 Cowaramup Bay Road, Gracetown Affected Property

Lot 124 Georgette Road, Gracetown

1. Believe it’s wrong for Council to ask for submissions when we don’t have all the details.

2. What water rates will we pay? 3. Who pays for the maintenance of the water

plant? 4. Gracetown is in an extreme fire risk area and

second access road is needed, for safety and traffic management through “Old Gracetown”.

5. Cost of water treatment is expensive, why not save all those millions and force all homeowners (old & new Gracetown) to install their own A.T.U. this way we would save millions not only with the building and running of the proposed water treatment plant but there would be no digging up of roads. Essentially you would achieve the same overall environmental result apart from fire hydrants, however if a wild fire attacks the town the fire hydrants would be useless defence.

6. The proposed water treatment plant depends on ‘water input’ to work. Gracetown is nearly a ghost town for 9 months of the year so ‘water input’ will be minimal.

7. If you go ahead with the ‘Water Treatment Plant’

Request for Further Details

1. The planning process is an iterative one whereby each step in the process requires additional levels of detail. The detail provided prior to advertising was considered by Council to be sufficient at that time. Further detail has since been requested and provided by the developer. Further detail will follow in subsequent stages of planning.

2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. As above 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 4. 6. Noted 7. Noted. 8. Noted.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1 and 4. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


20

it will give nothing but trouble and Council will be left ‘holding the bag’.

8. Individual ATU’s are a good resolution and the only other reliable system is to install retic water – run the pipe down from Cowaramup and send the sewerage back in the same trench to Margaret River.

12. Ann McFarlane PO Box 331, Cowaramup Affected Property

1 Earl Place, Gracetown

1. Hardly any infrastructure has been done by local or state authorities in Gracetown since mid 70’s. Gracetown is in a desperate need of an upgrade and more so if we intend to house another 140 blocks.

2. Where the subdivision is being located is at the top of Salter Street which means traffic through town, if this is the route (Salter St) more round-abouts, speed humps and calming devices will need to be put in place to make it safe for foot traffic.

3. Salter Street is often out of control with people speeding along the road and is dangerous for pedestrians etc.

4. There is no footpath from Langley to Georgette along Salter Street so pedestrians have to walk on roads.

5. An idea that has been talked about is to take the road to the proposal along Bayview and around the current oval, tennis club, Hall and SSR shed following existing fire break, which means most of the clearing has already been done and would also take the road around the townsite. This would give the residents some sense of normality, familiarity and safety. This would also provide a good fire break/buffer for the hall which I heard is going to be a ‘safe place’ should a fire start.

6. If new proposed road if taken around the hall wouldn’t speed bumps, footpaths and round-about and people could walk along Salter Street to the beach via an internal footpath, making it more people friendly.

7. Be a shame to see the main road to the subdivision to go between the town site and the recreational area.

1. Noted and agree. The proposal provides an opportunity for State Government investment in the town.

2. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

The proposal includes an extensive network of pedestrian pathways and improvements to road geometry and construction to facilitate improved amenity and movement through the existing and proposed residential areas. The Proposal includes a detailed traffic management plan that evaluates future mitigation measures including the way in which construction traffic is to be managed.

It is recommended that Council note the requirement for the proponent to prepare and implement a Traffic Impact and Management Plan, which will outline in further detail the road and pathway upgrades required to be implemented by the developer. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


21

8. After the last few fires we noted FESA stated the small towns were a very high fire danger risk and have second road access. Road suggested around the oval would sure make for a good fire break to the south for the safety of the towns people,

9. The new Gnarabup subdivision didn’t affect the local Prevelly community at all.

13. Gary Berson 121 Rosalie Street, Shenton Park Affected Property


1. Don’t believe the proposal should go ahead as there is no second access road proposed to alleviate the higher bush fire risk and agree entirely with the points and arguments set out in the document entitled “Summary of Second Road Access issues for Gracetown Proposed Residential Development by LandCorp – April 2013.

2. For there to be serious consideration to increasing the risk by double the size of the town without providing a second access road in accordance with the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines would be an extraordinary decision.

3. Agree with the document entitled “Review of Reclaimed Water Preliminary Design Report (GHD Report) and LandCorp Fact Sheet 7” and agree with the each of the points made in that document which was prepared by the Gracetown Progress Association.

4. Amendment shouldn’t be approved until the fully tested and costed waste water system proposal is received.

5. The local community in Gracetown has raised the issue with the Shire and WA Government and LandCorp that Cowaramup and surrounding areas is growing at a rapid rate and this will affect the amenity of Gracetown. Community was assured that a detailed analysis of that issue will be carried out and taken into consideration in any proposal.

6. In summer particularly the beach becomes so crowded and the car parking so dangerous, that many locals already stay away.

7. Been in many discussions regarding this project

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. Noted 4. See response to Submission No. 4. 5. See response to Submission No. 6. 6. Noted 7. See response to Submission No. 1.



22

and these were based on assurances that any development would not increase the fire risk, there would be a second access road, any waste water treatment plant would be either cost neutral or would cost no more than other residents in Cowaramup and Margaret River and development wouldn’t occur without serious analysis done of growth in Cowaramup and surrounding areas and its affect upon the amenity of Gracetown.

14. Gabrielle Bell 130 West Coast Terrace, Trigg Affected Property


1. Object that without a second access road prior to development and subdivision, Gracetown will lose its current amenity & traffic safety.

2. As an area of extreme fire risk there is no amenity to consider the lives of an extra 156+ residents.

3. The second access road will provide emergency access and quicker response into Margaret River.

4. The proposed grey water treatment plan doesn’t have any certainty around costs which in turn would increase holiday rates for long term holidayers.

1. See response to Submission No. 1 2. See response to Submission No. 1 3. As above. 4. See response to Submission No. 4.


15. Sarah Paull 4 Gallin Court, Leeming

1. Second access road should be built before development is allowed.

2. Important to ensure appropriate investment is made in the road and pedestrian infrastructure in the existing town and the bay, through installing new dual use paths, addressing unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities. This will help maintain the safety and social values of the town and the main swimming and surfing areas in the bay.

3. Furthermore the waste services to be implemented must be provided at the same pricing others in small towns within the region pay and there must be a guarantee that this relative pricing will always remain.

1. See response to Submission No. 1 2. See response to Submission No. 12 3. See response to Submission No. 4.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 4 and 12.

16. Neil Bennett PO Box 1395, Canning Vale Affected Property

1. The area is already over stressed at peak holiday times with people from the new Parkwater Estate and the Cowaramup Townsite relying on the main beach in Gracetown to be

1. See response to Submission No. 2. 2. Noted. 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. See response to Submission No. 12.



23


there local and the area will not cope with the added population.

2. Shire needs to ‘spread the load’. 3. Second access road recommended by experts

after the November 2011 fires should go ahead to enhance fire control and evacuation possibilities. Evacuation by sea should be quashed as no one has control over the ocean conditions on any day, let alone when there is a fire.

4. During peak times the traffic problems are intolerable. Overflow of vehicles and trailers create a very dangerous circumstance. How many more cars, boats and trailers come with the proposed 135 lots.

5. Currently we have ample water by way of rain and holding tanks and a perfectly functioning septic system. Landcorp is proposing reticulated sewerage system and a water reclamation system – are these systems proven to be workable? Is there enough water available for it to operate effectively? Will there be enough throughput for it to operate effectively and be financially viable? How much does the infrastructure and plant cost? Who pays? How much does it cost to operate and maintain? Who Pays?

6. Our block is on the low side of the street, does this mean our sewerage will have to be pumped to the system? How much is a pump and the connection? Who pays? How much does it cost to operate and maintain the pump? Who pays?

7. Water reclamation is a fantastic concept, should be compulsory for all new homes and water reclamation to existing homes is an afterthought and only partially effective. Will involve retrofit plumbing which is expensive, who pays?

5. See response to Submission No. 4 6. See response to Submission No. 4 7. See response to Submission No. 4

17. Wayne Baddock PO Box 229, Cowaramup Affected Property

Lot 2 Bayview Drive, Gracetown

1. Pre requisite for any proposed expansion must be second road access and improved traffic management with existing townsite. This is required even without an expansion of the townsite.

2. Past experiences and the more recent fires at

1. See response to Submission No. 1 2. As above 3. As above. 4. See response to Submission 12. 5. See response to Submission 2. 6. See response to Submission 1 and 12.



24

Gnarabup indicate a second road access is critical for both access of emergency services and possible evacuation of residents.

3. Bush Fire Management Plan Guidelines 2010 state no coastal areas such as Gracetown sitting in extreme bush fire areas, should be developed without a second access route.

4. New development south of the townsite will further increase traffic through the existing townsite as there is no proposed diversion around the townsite, such as exists in Gnarabup/Prevelly.

5. Gracetown main beach is one of the only safe swimming beaches in the Shire and so attracts families and tourists into the townsite.

6. The development, plus extensive works required in the existing townsite to meet proposed waste water requirements, will mean numerous construction vehicles will be required to travel through the existing residential townsite. It’s totally unacceptable and any development should not only have a pre requisite that second road access is required but that all construction vehicles use this access wherever possible to minimise their impact on the existing residential townsite.

7. Independent Landcorp Risk Assessment on second road access by Strategen is anything but independent in their own words as they have been working for Landcorp for many years. Shire should have insisted on a truly independent assessment. It’s unbelievable the Shire requested the assessment be done by developers when Shire has a representative on State Gov’ts Working Party which is looking into which second road access is feasible.

8. Strategens risk assessment report defies logic when listing factors to minimise risk to Gracetown in event of fire. None are costed and include massive road clearing, rebuilding fire shelter areas at hall, helicopter evacuation by sea. Many facts make this totally unreliable and extremely risky for volunteers – such as fire

7. See response to Submission No. 1. 8. See response to Submission No. 1. 9. See response to Submission No. 1.


25

embers, poor visibility, sea conditions and boat ramp/beach access.

9. Before any proposed townsite expansion was talked about traffic management was already established as a major issue by residents. Second access must be built prior to any development and existing traffic management issues must be resolved.

18. Arthur Armstrong PO Box 2, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Condone Landcorps Ideology Vision development.

2. Nothing is financially sound and know there is no success to what they intend to do as the costs will be prohibitive to anyone living there permanently.

1. Noted. 2. Prospective purchasers will consider costs

prior to buying in this area.


19. John MacAulay PO Box 354, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Regardless of the townsite expansion, Gracetown needs a second access road for fire fighting, emergency vehicles, and rise in sea level which will breach the existing road.

2. Sewerage system costs will be beyond what I can afford.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission 4.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1 and 4.

20. Geok Sing Knor 15 Morning Cloud Vale, Willeton

1. State’s Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines, areas in extreme bush fire risk are required to have two access roads to main road networks to enable safe escape routes.

2. Fire Management Plan prepared by FirePlan WA for Landcorp in 2010 stated “second access road to Gracetown is to be constructed. Shouldn’t be dependent upon whether a new development proceeds, given the current lack of fire management measures in the existing townsite”.

3. The development, associated construction traffic, popularity of beaches and increased tourism will exacerbate issues in the coming years, increasing fire and traffic safety risks.

4. Development shouldn’t be allowed to proceed without the second access road being built. It is also important to ensure that appropriate investment is made on roads and pedestrian infrastructure by installing new dual use paths, addressing unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities.

5. Proposal outlines centralised wastewater

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. As above. 3. See response to Submission 2 and 12. 4. See response to Submissions 1 and 12. 5. See response to Submission No. 4. 6. See response to Submission No. 4.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 2, 4 and 12.


26

treatment plant, reticulated sewerage network and wastewater recycling scheme to the town. This is the first time that such waste water treatment and recycling serves have provided in this way in WA and yet no comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken.

6. Landcorp have provided estimates of charges to residents but there is no assurance that costs will be in line with the estimates. There has been no indication as to who will pay for installation and maintenance of the pipes and associated pumps necessary to connect around half of the existing lots to the sewerage line, and collection of waste from public toilet blocks. These services must be provided at the same pricing as other small towns have paid.

21. Mark & Stephanie Stowell 3 Osborne Street, Gracetown

1. State’s Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines, areas in extreme bush fire risk are required to have two access roads to main road networks to enable safe escape routes.

2. Fire Management Plan prepared by FirePlan WA for Landcorp in 2010 stated “second access road to Gracetown is to be constructed. Shouldn’t be dependent upon whether a new development proceeds, given the current lack of fire management measures in the existing townsite”.

3. The development, associated construction traffic, popularity of beaches and increased tourism will exacerbate issues in the coming years, increasing fire and traffic safety risks.

4. Development shouldn’t be allowed to proceed without the second access road being built. It is also important to ensure that appropriate investment is made on roads and pedestrian infrastructure by installing new dual use paths, addressing unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities.

5. Proposal outlines centralised wastewater treatment plant, reticulated sewerage network and wastewater recycling scheme to the town. This is the first time that such waste water treatment and recycling serves have provided in

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. As above. 3. See response to Submission 2 and 12. 4. See response to Submissions 1 and 12. 5. See response to Submission No. 4. 6. See response to Submission No. 4.



27

this way in WA and yet no comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken.

6. Landcorp have provided estimates of charges to residents but there is no assurance that costs will be in line with the estimates. There has been no indication as to who will pay for installation and maintenance of the pipes and associated pumps necessary to connect around half of the existing lots to the sewerage line, and collection of waste from public toilet blocks. These services/systems must not be upwind of the houses/townsites. These services must be provided at the same pricing as other small towns have paid.

22. Judith Kealy PO Box 1336, Busselton Affected Property

20 Percy Street, Gracetown

1. Concerned with the lack of infrastructure for the town. If and when the subdivision goes ahead it must bring with it mains water and sewerage.

2. Even though we get enough rain for household use, scheme water would improve the amenity of the townsite. This would allow infrastructure to be developed i.e. ovals.

3. Sewerage is a must and the AMR Shire shouldn’t be expected to carry costs of the proposed waste treatment plant. Aren’t enough full time residents to make enough sewerage for it to work.

4. Am for development but as long as it addresses criteria that other developments in the Shire have had to address. i.e. power, water, sewerage, kerbing, public open space.

1. See response to submission No.4. 2. Recycled water provided by the WWTP will

provided a secondary source of water. 3. Noted and agree. The WWTP will achieve

this objective. 4. Noted and agree.


23. Alma Dender 15 Mac Farlane Rise, Duncraig

1. Vehicle access to the town is restricted to one narrow and circuitous roads, which has limitations. Road is a hazard to both vehicular and pedestrians in peak times.

2. More pressing fact is that there is only one access in and out of a town which sits in a high fire risk area. The town’s volunteer fire service is at one of the town and is also restricted with access issues. Towns bore is situated at the end of town, which is then inaccessible if the fire is in the town itself.

3. Alternative access road should be considered for safety reasons as well as decreasing

1. See response to submission No. 12. 2. See response to submission No. 1. 3. As above. 4. Noted. 5. Agree that individual backup power supply

for existing residences is an important issue for landowners to address.

6. See response to Submission No. 4. 7. Noted 8. See response to Submission No. 4.



28

congestion which will occur on the towns roads if development goes ahead.

4. Climate change experts are advocating increased fire and safety measures for rural areas due to increased health and decreased rainfall.

5. Town uses only rainwater stored in tanks and run by electric pumps. This poses two issues in the event of a fire – lack of volume of supply and if power lines are burnt then there is no electricity to pump water.

6. Having read reports I don’t believe that Gracetown residents have been fully informed of initial and ongoing costs. Also concern that this a trial run of what could be considered new technology. Has there been a thorough and independent examination of the environmental impact of trenching and connecting homes and removal of native growth.

7. Needs to be more evidence of the existing septic systems leaching into the Bay waters, more information on these needs to be provided to the GPA.

8. Grey water use appears to be a good concept, however costs, initial, ongoing and environmental, to individual home owner’s needs to be more clearly outlined.

24. Mick Mahony 26 Rise Court, Mount Richon

1. Main concern is the second access road this should be essential even without the new development.

2. Agree with the reticulated sewerage and waste water recycling, but feel it’s unfair for a small community to bear the brunt of the cost for a ‘test case project’.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Small scale WWTP technology is not new

and has been used in other communities across the State and the world.


25. Dick Laurie 35 Merlin Drive, Carine Affected Property


1. Need to ensure there is never any further development after this one (promised to make area national park but this needs to be crystal clear in writing).

2. Need to ensure there is a second access before any development commences.

3. Ensure Landcorp addresses a number of traffic management issues to make the town safer for

1. There is no further development potential identified in any applicable strategic planning document and land surrounding the subject site will be required to be amalgamated with the National Park as a consequence of the subdivision.

2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 12.



29

all (mainly the two main roads – Bayview and Salter).

4. Make sure the waste water system for the town doesn’t have operational issues (i.e. tried, tested and independently verified before installation) and that it’s affordable for residents.

4. See response to Submission No. 4.

26. Douglas Lowson 1. Object to the whole development as it will destroy its quiet, ideal setting.

2. Can’t grow the township by placing it further into “extreme” fire danger area and have no allowance for an access road. Don’t want a road but with development, infrastructure is required to support it.

3. Development needs to be tested and ensured that it all works within the environment it’s placed in, both above surface and subterranean. Impacts with installation, duration, maintenance and costs (paid by who?).

4. If second access road isn’t an option then enhancement of emergency services FOR Gracetown AT Gracetown needs to be reviewed and funded.

5. Alarmed at the proposal and lack of foresight/planning for emergency evacuation. View of building a development with no structure to allow for its evacuation is frightening.

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. The developer will be responsible for the

implementation of the proposal to the Shire’s satisfaction and any issues arising will need to be rectified by the developer.



27. Judith Berson 121 Rosalie Street, Shenton Park Affected Property


1. Gracetown is the access point to the beach for neighbouring town and surrounding farm lands. Increase in population in these areas over the last few years has resulted in an increase of people utilising the natural assets of Gracetown. Is new developments planned for Cowaramup and the population will increase as will numbers utilising the beach at Gracetown.

2. Swimming beach is quite small and if overcrowded it will no longer be an attractive place to visit. There are also associated risks for the water environment if the beach is overcrowded.

3. Over peak times and summer weekends the car parks are overflowing so they are forced to

1. See response to Submission No. 2. 2. As above. 3. See response to Submission No. 12 4. Increased utilisation of subject area

(primarily) has its origins outside of the current proposal. However the subject proposal provides the opportunity to enhance infrastructure to cater for demand.



30

park on the main roads, creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians. Is also little room for increased parking and increasing the traffic flow in the town adds more concerns for safety and amenity in the area.

4. Impact of the increased utilisation of the natural features should be assessed before we destroy what people currently are able to enjoy.

28. Geoff Davieson 113 Ranch Road, Marigimiup Affected Property


1. Cowaramup Bay is a small bay with limited swimming and parking options. Development will put unreasonable overcrowding pressure on the limited swimming beach and parking options. The Bay doesn’t have the capacity to comfortably accommodate the increased number of dwellings proposed.

1. See response to Submission No. 6. See recommendation in response to Submission No. 6.

29. Tiffany & Steve Willcox PO Box 448, Cowaramup

1. A second access road should be required for the proposed development. Emergency Services, Residents and visitors need an alternative access in or out.

2. Developer needs to listen to residents and look after their needs.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Noted and agree.


30. WRB Hassell 20 Loneragan Street, Nedlands

1. Critical second access road is built before development is allowed to proceed.

2. Important that appropriate investment is made in road and pedestrian infrastructure in the existing town and bay by installing new dual use paths, addressing unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities. This will help maintain safety and social values of the town.

3. Proposal outlines a centralised wastewater treatment plan, reticulated sewerage network and wastewater recycling scheme to the town, with initial cost of infrastructure funded by Landcorp. This is the first time that such a waste water treatment and recycling services have been provided in this way in WA and yet no comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken.

4. Landcorp has provided estimates of charges to residents, however there is no assurance that the actual costs will be in line with estimates. As

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 4. 4. As above.



31

proposal stands residents or the Shire will be required to underwrite operating and maintenance costs, which maybe more than the estimates provided. Has been no indication who will pay for installation and maintenance of the pipes and associated pumps necessary to connect around half of existing lots to the sewerage line, and the collection of waste from public toilets. These services must be provided at the same pricing as other small towns.

31. William Manners PO Box 55, Margaret River Affected Property

Lot 167 Earl Place, Gracetown

1. Second access road and traffic management as Gracetown is in an extreme fire zone.

2. General infrastructure today doesn’t cope with peak times.

3. Who is going to pay for ongoing operating costs of Waste Water System.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to submission No. 6 3. See response to Submission No. 4.

See recommendation in response to Submission No.1, 6 and 4

32. John Fiorentino PO Box 80, Margaret River

1. Believe it’s necessary to have a second road available to Shire and public for safety reasons.


33. Ralph Gomez 142 Gay Street, Huntingdale

1. Main concern is there is only one access road. Second access is a must even without new development due to the high fire risk.

2. Agree with the reticulated sewerage and waste water recycling.

3. Believe it’s also unfair for a small community to bear the cost for a ‘test case project’. Should be something the Shire balances out with other regions.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Noted. 3. The community will not bear the cost for

construction of the WWTP which will be provided by the developer.


34. Mark Zagar 19 Goonang Road, City Beach

1. Should be no further development after this one. Landcorp promised to make the area National Park and this should be put in writing.

2. Second access road should be in before development to avoid another disaster and to manage increased traffic caused by their development.

3. Landcorp must address a number of traffic management issues to make the town safe.

4. Landcorp must ensure that waste water system for the larger town doesn’t have operational issues and existing residents can afford it. If developers want it for the new development, it shouldn’t have that impact on the residents who have been there for years.

1. See response to Submission No. 6. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. See response to Submission No. 4.



32

35. Peter Hyatt PO Box 179, South Perth

1. Object as the beach area at Gracetown is not sufficient to support the increase in housing and population. It will have a negative effect on the beach environment and surrounding area.

2. Infrastructure is also inadequate with respect to road access.



36. Sacha Messer 30 Catesby Street, City Beach Affected Property


1. Supportive of sustainable development BUT we are asked to provide an opinion on the proposed development without enough information about proposed changes and details of the likely impact on the environment, existing township and its residents/visitors.

2. There is no economic feasibility information as to whether the concept is viable or not.

3. Number of significant issues that haven’t been considered yet and should be fully evaluated before any decision is made.

4. Further technical studies and economical evaluations need to be carried on the following critical items:

Impact on environment and the limited amenities by doubling users.

Limited facilities like car parking at swimmers beach, boat ramp is inadequate.

Consider impact on existing township with regards to traffic management (during construction and future), increased rubbish, community ablutions, noise management, degradation to vegetation – How are going to manage these issues? What detailed planning and costing have been allowed?

Sustainability of new community from a point of water supply, water storage, waste water treatment, electricity and increased traffic impact through existing township.

Bush fire risk management is a major risk that the community is exposed to and without some major upgrade to access in and out of the town, there is a potential disaster waiting to happen. Plan must include second access road to provide adequate fire management capability.

Proposed Waste Water Treatment plans are

1. See response to Submission 11 2. The viability of the project is a matter for

the (developer) State Government who will make the decision as to whether to proceed or not and at what time.

3. See above. 4. See above. 5. Noted.



33

unclear in regards to technical feasibility and economic viability of operating a system as proposed. What’s the cost of the new system for existing community and how are we going to be hooked in. Unacceptable that existing residents should be obliged to pay the costs which supports the new development. Cost impact should be borne in a head works charge which should be absorbed in the overall new development costs.

5. Oppose the development as presented until all the information as above is provided.

37. Don & Barbara Wilkie 903 Cowaramup Bay Road, Gracetown

1. When LNRSPP was under discussion it was stated that the Gracetown expansion wouldn’t take place unless there was proper reticulated sewerage and water supply provided, why has this requirement been shelved? Could a commercial development expect same leniency?

2. Understand that the proposed treatment plant is a new design and hasn’t been trialled in WA. What guarantee can be given that this design won’t emit any offensive odours?

3. Completely unacceptable that Landcorp are allowed to engage consultants of their own choice and hide behind the recommendation that there is no need for a second access road.

4. Believe it’s necessary for a second access road to be built for safety and local amenity reasons.

5. Lessons that should have been learnt from the 2011 fires appear to be ignored.

6. Development in its present form will involve a serious increase in traffic, both heavy and light which will have to pass through the existing townsite.

7. Traffic management improvements (Fact Sheet 5) will do nothing to address hazards to which residents, visitors and children will be exposed.

1. The proposed WWTP fufills this requirement.

2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. As above. 5. Noted and disagree. 6. See response to Submission No. 12. 7. As above.


38. Marc & Rosalie Tomlinson PO Box 301, Cowaramup Affected Property

1. Don’t support the subdivision as the beach and boat ramp can’t cope with existing pressures placed on them now at peak periods.

2. There is a lack of safe walking/cycling path that

1. See response to Submission No. 2 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submissions No. 1 and

12.



34

32 Claret Ash Court, Gracetown links the town with the beach. It will be dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists due to the increased traffic resulting from the proposed development.

3. Is a number of issues that need to be addressed prior to subdivision proceeding:

Second access road is required as an escape route and needs to precede the subdivision.

Increase in traffic resulting from the subdivision makes it imperative that a path is constructed before the subdivision commences.

Safe walk path connecting the townsite to North Point, the beach and South Point.

39. David Foulsham 22 Boscombe Avenue, City Beach Affected Property

Lot 21 Bayview Crescent, Gracetown

1. Bayview Crescent already subjected to increased traffic volumes particularly during peak periods.

2. Development will attract higher traffic volumes during civil works and then home construction period.

3. Without the second access road traffic volumes in Bayview Crescent will become unbearable and unsafe and fire hazard will be exacerbated.

4. Expansion of the townsite should be postponed until existing townsite is fully developed.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 12 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. The subject proposal is not to allow

immediate subdivision and development which will be subject to further planning processes and a decision to progress the development by State Government.


40. Laurence Freedman 30 Aruma Way, City Beach Affected Property


1. Supportive of sustainable development BUT we are asked to provide an opinion on the proposed development without enough information about proposed changes and details of the likely impact on the environment, existing township and its residents/visitors.

2. There is no economic feasibility information as to whether the concept is viable or not.

3. Number of significant issues that haven’t been considered yet and should be fully evaluated before any decision is made.

4. Further technical studies and economical evaluations need to be carried on the following critical items:

Impact on environment and the limited amenities by doubling users.

Limited facilities like car parking at

1. See response to Submission No. 11 2. Viability is a matter for consideration by the

developer. 3. Noted. 4. See response to Submission 1, 2, 4 and

12.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 2, 4, 11 and 12. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


35

swimmers beach, boat ramp is inadequate.

Consider impact on existing township with regards to traffic management (during construction and future), increased rubbish, community ablutions, noise management, degradation to vegetation – How are going to manage these issues? What detailed planning and costing have been allowed?

Sustainability of new community from a point of water supply, water storage, waste water treatment, electricity and increased traffic impact through existing township.

Bush fire risk management is a major risk that the community is exposed to and without some major upgrade to access in and out of the town, there is a potential disaster waiting to happen. Plan must include second access road to provide adequate fire management capability.

Proposed Waste Water Treatment plans are unclear in regards to technical feasibility and economic viability of operating a system as proposed. What’s the cost of the new system for existing community and how are we going to be hooked in. Unacceptable that existing residents should be obliged to pay the costs which supports the new development. Cost impact should be borne in a head works charge which should be absorbed in the overall new development costs.

Oppose the development as presented until all the information as above is provided.

41. Greg Crawford PO Box 234, Cowaramup Affected Property

Lot 27 Claret Ash Court & Bay Road

1. Not against development but feel extending the Gracetown townsite without a secondary access road and major pedestrian and parking improvements.

2. There is already pressure on the limited beach space from existing satellite subdivisions.

3. Another road, bike and walking paths are crucial to the safety of the town and occupants.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 2 3. See response to Submission No. 12.


42. Robyn Bowler 6 River Way, Salter Point

1. Several issues that I am concerned about are that the second access road must be addressed

1. See response to Submission No.1. 2. As above.

See recommendation in response to Submission


36

Affected Property

Lot 100 Georgette Street, Gracetown

and operational before the residential expansion goes ahead and the reticulated sewerage waste water treatment plant is unnecessary and the residential expansion connected before the existing residential area.

2. Second access road was recommended in a 2010 Fire Management Plan prepared for Landcorp.

3. Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines states there should be 2 access roads.

4. The expansion places more people and property in an extreme bush fire risk area without adequate protection.

5. Second access road is also required for the increase in heavy vehicle traffic. There are already traffic management issues in the town and the current road won’t cope with heavy vehicle movement that is required during the development phase. The pedestrian traffic in town cross the only road through town (Bayview Drive). This is the same road that all heavy vehicle and domestic traffic would use during development.

6. The scale of economy would defy any private company to attempt this reticulated sewerage and waste water treatment system. There is an issue with in non-peak tourist season whether or not there will be enough through put to sustain they system? What are the operation issues that come with such a small through put and ongoing costs? What assurances have we that our sewerage rates will not be increased

7. Current Gracetown residence should not be landed with the cost of the installation of this system. Even a percentage of installation cost is not good enough.

8. Issues such as the cost and easements through peoples land to connect to sewerage as not been divulged to the residence of Gracetown to date.

9. Find it fascinating that a township needs to be built in order to install this experimental sewage and waste water system.

3. As above. 4. The proposed FMP will provide adequate

fire protection in the view of the responsible agencies (DPaW and DFES)

5. See response to Submission No.1. 6. See response to Submission No. 4. 7. See response to Submission No. 4. 8. See response to Submission No. 11. 9. Noted.

No. 1, 4 and 11. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


37

43. Shane Carvill 18 Osborne Street, Gracetown

1. The community requires two access roads, due to site works, earth work equipment being brought in during construction stage.

2. Bush fire access escape.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. As above.


44. Robert Purser PO Box 149, Cowaramup

1. Don’t think the Gracetown residence should bear any financial cost in regards to waste treatment.


45. J A Elliott PO Box 308, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Don’t object to further development in Gracetown but believe it must be designed to be sympathetic to the environment, have consideration for the impact on existing landholders and comply with all the conditions necessary for the safety of Gracetown residents and visitors.

2. Two concerns with the proposed Landcorp Development, the provision of a second road access and the provision of a sewage treatment system and treated waste water system.

3. Read the ‘Independent Risk Management Assessment Gracetown Second Access Road Report’ prepared by Strategen for Landcorp and it wasn’t very reassuring that the opening paragraph stated that Strategen has been working closely with Landcorp in recent years to support the Gracetown development does little to inspire confidence in the professed ‘independent’ report.

4. Comments made on the report are as follows: Bushfire Implications

Report says a second access road may be compromised during a fire, this is correct but that is why an alternative access is necessary so if Cowaramup Bay Road is compromised then you can use the second access road or vice versa.

Report states that fuel hazard reduction on second access would increase the disturbance footprint, what is more important, lowering the risk to people’s life, health and property or an increase to the already cleared road area?

Safe fire refuge is at the community centre or the beach, nowhere in the report is there any assessment of the danger of smoke inhalation

1. Noted and agree. 2. See response to Submissions 1 and 4. 3. Noted. 4. See response to Submission No. 1 and 5. 5. See response to Submissions 1 6. See response to Submissions 1 7. See response to Submissions 4 8. See response to Submissions 4 9. See response to Submissions 4



38

and smoke inhalation is recognised as a major cause of fire related injuries. The suggestion of boat and helicopter evacuation is laughable – what size helicopter will be available? Where would the boats come from, how would you load people, enough life jackets, they equipment to handle passengers safely and where would they go? There is no information on how a possible air or sea evacuation from the beach would be possible.

Environmental Impacts

Report states Environmental impact occurs wherever roads are construction through bushland, I am a support of conservation measures but some cases there are other considerations which take precedence. Risk Evaluation Summary

No mention of the fact that the road provides a substantial firebreak and access for fire fighting units which can prevent the spread of a fire. Cost to the developer

Can only draw conclusion that the report want’s the cost to the developer to be a consideration in not constructing the second road access. The Shire has a record of setting conditions of an alternative road access in other development in which the cost to the developer was not a consideration. Noted that cost to the developer is raised a number of times in the report. 5. Supporting evidence in the report to

substantiate recommendations was either weak or missing.

6. Reports conclusion that both the second access road and Cowaramup Bay Road could be closed by a bushfire at the same time seems unlikely. If a fire came from the north east direction and close the Bay Road then it must have started up north have been burning from sometime to create a fire front big enough to close the road. So there would have been warning of its approach giving Gracetown residents the option to leave by second access road. This can also be said it a fire started south


39

east of second access road and travel north. Realise scenarios is hypothetical but so is the report scenario and report has given no detail on how their recommendation would be implemented.

7. Expansion of the Landcorp development sewage treatment system should only be considered if the connection cost and future running costs to existing ratepayers is not out of step with costs to other ratepayers. Would seem that Landcorp can’t justify cost of sewage treatment system just for its own development and requires the inclusion of existing ratepayers to make it viable.

8. Fact Sheet 7 by Landcorp indicates existing ratepayers could pay $8000 to $15,000 to connect but also indicates Landcorp will be required to contribute to costs but avoids giving any figure.

9. Future management of the system by a private company is a concern in that their bottom line will be to show a profit above their running cost. Provisions need to be made to ensure costs are in line with other ratepayers in the Shire.

46. John Vieira G3/9 Bowman Street, South Perth Affected Property

6 Bay View Drive, Gracetown

1. Overhead power line in existing Gracetown should be removed and converted to underground power simultaneous with development of new blocks. Landcorp states they want new part of town to ‘maintain and incorporate character of existing townsite’. Leaving power poles in the old part will be an eyesore and will highlight the ‘difference’ between old and new, when Landcorp want new and old parts to integrate with each other.

2. Critical the second access road is built before the Landcorp development is allowed to proceed as it will allow an additional exit route for residents and fire fighting equipment and to reduce traffic congestion though the old part of town not only during construction stage but also with the new 140 new homes.

3. Proposal outlines a centralised wastewater treatment plant, reticulated sewerage network

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 4.



40

and wastewater recycling scheme to the town. This is the first time this type of system has been provided in this way in WA and yet no comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken.

4. Landcorp have provided estimates of charges to residents, however, no assurance that the actual costs will be in line with the estimates. Proposal currently stands with the residents or Shire being required to underwrite operating and maintenance costs, could be more than the estimates provided. There is also no indication who will pay for installation and maintenance of pipes and pumps necessary to connect around half of the existing lots to the sewage line, and collection of waste from public toilet blocks at main beach and South Point.

5. Proposal refers to future renewable power solutions, no commitment appears to have been made. If intention is to install wind turbines these need to be located out of sight of town and far enough away so that problems associated with wind turbine sound and vibration are avoided.

47. Jill Anderson 31 Leon Road, Dalkeith Affected Property


1. It’s imperative a second access road is constructed whether or not a new development proceeds. This will allow a safe escape route and an alternative/additional access to town.

2. Already significant traffic management issues impacting on the safety and amenity of the town. Work needs to be done on parking, road alignments, pedestrian safety and unsafe traffic flows.

3. Proposal outlines a scheme where existing landowners will be required to connect to reticulated sewerage network and wastewater recycling to provide ‘black water’ to the new development for use in toilets and gardens with initial cost to be funded by Landcorp in line with the sustainable policy for the development. Appears that the small blocks in the planned development will be of a size whereby the roofs of houses will not be capable of catching

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. Potable water for each new dwelling will be

sourced from that lot. The WWTP does not return potable water.

4. See response to Submission No.4. 5. Noted. 6. See response to Submission No. 4. 7. Noted.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 4 and 12 Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


41

enough water to supply all needs of individual homes. Existing Gracetown residents will be subsidising the water supply for homes in the new development.

4. Landcorp has provided estimates of charges for existing residences but no assurances these will be in line with actual charges. No mention of connecting the treatment plan to public toilets blocks at main beach and south point. No indication of who will pay for installation of pumps and maintenance of pipes when sewerage will need to be pumped uphill to meet the line. No clear information about how the low occupancy rates of homes in Gracetown will impact on water flow to the treatment plant, nor the issue of running trenches through the notoriously hard limestone cap rock around town.

5. No scientific evidence based research which indicates there is a serious pollution problem in the townsite or Cowaramup Bay from septic tanks in the townsite. Septics from the public toilets at the beach are closer than those on any residential lots.

6. Residents are asked to sign up to a scheme which is a first for WA, yet no comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken. Residents will be ‘guinea pigs’ for such systems and will be paying for a scheme they do not want or need.

7. If the services are provided they must cost the same as in other small towns within the region.

48. WRB Hassell 20 Loneragan Street, Nedlands

1. Critical the second access road is built before the development is allowed to proceed.

2. Important to ensure appropriate investment is made in road and pedestrian infrastructure in existing town and bay, by installing new dual use paths, addressing unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities. This will help maintain the safety and social values of the town and main swimming/surfing areas in the bay.

3. Proposal outlines a centralised wastewater

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 4. 4. As above.



42

treatment plan, reticulated sewerage network and wastewater recycling scheme to the township with initial capital cost of infrastructure funded by Landcorp. This is the first time such a waste water treatment and recycling service has been provided in this way in WA and yet no comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken.

4. Landcorp has provided estimates to residents, but there is no assurance the actual costs will be in line with the estimates. As it stands now the residents or the Shire will be required to underwrite the operating and maintenance costs, which will be significantly more than the estimates provided. Has also been no indication who will pay for installation and maintenance of pipes and associated pumps necessary to connect around half of the existing lots to the sewerage line, and collection of waste from public toilets. These services must be provided at the same pricing that other small town in the region pay.

49. David Anderson 31 Leon Road, Dalkeith Affected Property


1. Second road access is essential. 2. If development goes ahead the passage of

trucks for house construction will destroy the amenity of existing houses.

3. Purpose of development is to raise funds for Landcorp yet existing owners are to be saddled with unknown costs for a sewerage scheme of which they have no need and which is untried.

4. Suggested there will be no easements through existing lots for the sewers which means the sewers will run along the roads with lot owners on the lower sides will have the cost of pumps, their maintenance and constant power charges. It’s said the scheme needs constant use to avoid blockages. Only 37 houses out of 150 are occupied full times and there is nothing to suggest that the occupation rate of the new development will be any different. Proposal is not to connect the 2 change rooms to the sewerage scheme yet their septics are closer to the bay than that of houses which means there

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Noted. 3. See response to Submission No. 4. 4. As above. 5. Noted. 6. See response to Submission No. 4. 7. Noted.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1 and 4 . Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


43

is no concern for contamination. 5. Sewerage scheme is being developed by

private company who will need to recover all construction costs and ongoing running costs.

6. Costs of the scheme if loaded entirely on to owners will mean that those of limited means will have to sell and that would include permanent.

7. Cowaramup Bay is a recreation area not only for residents but for the whole hinterland which has a rapidly growing population. Beaches and parking areas are already overcrowded and this overcrowding will make Gracetown unattractive as a holiday/tourist destination.

50. Craig Elliott PO Box 268, Cowaramup Affected Property

Lot 12 Bayview Drive, Gracetown.

1. New development will impact considerably on existing amenity of Gracetown. Beaches can only accommodate a certain number of people and they are already overcrowded during peak periods.

2. Townsite already has a number of traffic management issues from the amount of traffic. No detail as to how the increase in traffic is to be controlled to address speed/hooning. Extra traffic has no benefit to the Gracetown community and places residents/visitors at risk.

3. No mention of heavy traffic management during development. Where is the waste to be transported or stored?

4. Proposed block sizes are small, where are trade vehicles parking during construction of houses.

5. Current state of facilities in the town is pathetic and it’s obvious the Shire doesn’t have the ability or inclination to maintain its assets.

6. Should consider reopening Percy Street and create a one way in one way out scenario.

7. Southpoint carpark should be closed and moved to in front of the commercial development (restaurant/store). Existing carpark to be rehabilitated for foot traffic with emergency access if required.

8. Traffic report numbers are understated and inadequate.

9. Greater commitment from Shire and DEC in

1. See response to Submission No. 2 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. Construction waste 4. It is appropriate for matters of this level of

detail to be dealt with at subdivision and development stages.

5. See response to submission No.6 6. See response to submission No. 12. 7. See response to Submission No. 2. 8. Noted 9. The submitter raises an issue which is

outside of the scope of this Amendment. 10. See response to Submissions 1 11. See response to Submissions 1 12. See response to Submissions 1 13. See response to Submissions 1 14. See response to Submissions 1 15. See response to Submissions 1 16. See response to Submissions 1 17. See response to Submissions 1 18. Noted. 19. See response to Submissions 4 20. See response to Submissions 4 21. See response to Submissions 4 22. Noted.



44

their management of the foreshores in the Bay and surrounding National Park. These areas will become under greater pressure with the increase in visitors and residents. Current management of dogs in these areas is questionable and impacts on nesting areas of indigenous birds and the quality experience on the beach themselves.

10. Second road access (SRA) was included in the original townsite planning and hasn’t been implemented, road should be built to meet the original plan regardless whether the proposed development goes ahead.

11. Emergency response times will be decreased by the development of the SRA. Previous experiences (Gnarabup/Prevelly) has shown the requirement for a SRA.

12. Doubt whether the report (Stratagen) is independent or just serves to articulate the case again the SRA.

13. Report downplays the significance of recent fires, dangerous strategy considering human life is at risk.

14. Report uses weather data from Witchcliffe, this data doesn’t represent the weather conditions at Gracetown.

15. Report concludes the fire is increased by the SRA? This is contrary to the position of WAPC, DoP, FESA in the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines.

16. Why does report use a cleared width of 120m for the SRA and base environmental risk on this assumption? Caves Road is only 25m wide and is a main feeder road.

17. Report highlights potential additional financial risk to Landcorp and approval delays as a result of the SRA. This is no different to any other developer in the region.

18. There are additional costs within the report that could impact on residents as authorities look to recoup their expenses.

19. Waste Water system is an unproven system which is unnecessary or financially viable. Why


45

existing residents should be expected to incur costs for a pilot project.

20. Consideration to subsidise existing residents to self-sufficient composting sewage system required.

21. Introducing a water source to sensitive areas can create downstream issues with use of chemicals and fertilisers being introduced to the ground water resource.

22. Seems to be considerable costs involved with the development. Landcorp need to consider living cost implications the development will have on existing local residents.

51. Ray Hoareau 7-23 Hardey Road, Glen Forrest Affected Property

6 Georgette Road, Gracetown

1. Strongly endorse the concerns and course of actions proposed by the GPA with to respect to – provision of a second access road and costs associated with the proposed waste water system.

1. See responses to Submissions 1 and 4. See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1 and 4.

52. Judith Byrne PO Box 324, Cowaramup

1. The ‘Bay’ is one of the most perfect, beautiful stretches of natural rock, bush outcrops and pristine waters. Why change it with human ugly intervention. People come from all over the world, even our own Australians visit beautiful Gracetown. Why would you want to ruin this natural beauty and fill it with buildings.

1. The proposal does not result in any additional buildings being developed within close proximity to the bay itself, rather, a limited number of dwellings will be situated behind the existing settlement.

The submitters comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

53. Jay Laurie 60 Kitchener Street, Trigg Affected Property

26 Bayview Drive, Gracetown.

1. Opposed to enlarging the footprint of Gracetown from its existing size. The land that is available for further development should be predominantly allocated to National Park, subject to the land necessary to construct a second access road.

2. Not aware of a valid community based rationale as to why the development should proceed.

3. If against the views in my submission, it is to proceed, its paramount that funds are used to provide substantial benefits to the local community and development should cause them no hardship – whether financial, amenity or other terms and the balance of the gazetted area must immediately become national park so no further expansion can occur.

4. Gracetown must have second access road. The second road is critical whether the development

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. The proposal is being progressed in line

with the LNRSPP 3. Development of the site will not require any

financial contribution from existing residents.

4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. As above. 6. 6-18 See responses to Submissions No. 1,

4 and 12.



46

proceeds or not as it will help reduce the fire risk.

5. Need for second road is supported by WAPC, DoP, FESA and Fire Plan WA (June 2010).

6. Strategen Report (Mar 2013) is unreliable and clearly not independent, been designed to give Landcorp the answer it is seeking – no need for a second access road. Seems the financial risk for the development seems to be the key reason why Landcorp don’t want the second road. In any case the costing of the second road looks inflated as they assume 120m wide road reserve – that width is out of whack with practices elsewhere and query whether its real design was to produce a (misguided) environmental impact finding in relation to the second road.

7. Another failing in their report is its fire risk mitigation strategies – town hall and the proposed sea rescue can’t be relied upon due to impossible access to jetty, swell and inefficient evacuation method having regard to the small size of boats that could access the jetty.

8. The second access road was seen necessary when the town was first plan in the 60’s. There is a gazetted road strip already.

9. If development proceeds there will be massive amount of construction traffic both heavy and light. Traffic must use the second access road both for amenity and the fact that the existing roads aren’t designed for it.

10. If development proceeds the amount of traffic will increase significantly and the Transcore’s report understates this. There is already a heavy load on the town because of its attractions. The Transcore report refers to levels of traffic on a small number of days when surf is good, this is incorrect, as it is very good often and popular. The traffic stats will show that. Find the report very unreliable as the consultant spent no more than 1 or 2 days in total in the Gracetown area.

11. Second road will allow a large volume of traffic


47

to use surf breaks without running through town. It will reduce the load on the town roads. The road will also make it safer for pedestrians accessing the beach as they have to cross the main road that cars use to access the attractions.

12. Approval to a development must be clearly stated to be conditional on addressing traffic management issues the town has. Developer must be made to commit to fixing those issues prior to being given any approval. If development does proceed it must improve the safety and amenity of the town.

13. The key fixes that need to be done in regards to traffic management issues are:

Second road,

Slow traffic along Bayview (no speed bumps),

Fix the Salter St intersection at Bayview corner, these are the 2 busiest roads in the Bay,

Increased parking at South Point.

Fix Salter & Georgette intersection.

Install footpath along the west side of Bayview heading north from Percy Street to the existing footpath.

14. Understand the development involves specific and significant increased fire management activities at a cost, existing property owners must not bear any of those increased costs.

15. Proposed new waste water system needs to get properly risk assured and costs and 100% cost subsidy to existing property owners for connection.

16. Feels there is a lack of rigour in the process and an element of optimism and Gracetown will become a test pilot for a system that is very likely to have issues.

17. Never seen evidence justifying why existing property owners should have to change their existing sewerage practices.

18. In order for any new WWS for the development to function it would need the volumes from the


48

existing property owners. Other words it won’t work from a technical perspective unless at some existing property owners connect and provide flow to it. This should be checked and if incorrect then existing property owners should be entitled to elect whether they connect or not. If existing property owner connects to system they should haven’t to bear any costs at all.

54. Chelsea McKinney 1. Generally supportive of the idea of development Gracetown BUT have some concerns about the development in regards to environmental and safety aspects of the development.

2. Need to protect the biodiversity of the area. 3. Commitment to honour previous Minister’s

commitment to transfer the land to National Park.

4. Need to protect visual amenity of the area, don’t want to see car parks and other development stand out like sore thumbs.

5. Need to establish footpaths and safety road management – crossings, footpaths and measures to slow traffic.

6. Need to keep service costs reasonable specially with the Water treatment service.

7. Limited mobile phone coverage. 8. Need to increase fire safety measures without

resorting to building a second access road.

1. See response to Submission No. 5. 2. As above 3. As above. 4. Agree. 5. See response be to Submission No. 12. 6. Agree. Mechanisms will be put in place to

ensure that this is the case. 7. A phone tower has been approved for

Gracetown via a separate application. 8. Agree. The proposed FMP achieves this

outcome.


55. Stephanie Wall 4 Carran Rise, Hillarys Affected Property

U1, 14 Georgette Road, Gracetown

1. Second access road is critical to the new development.

2. Strongly opposed to increased traffic through the existing townsite.

3. Current road and pedestrian access infrastructure is also substandard and adding further traffic volumes will only make it worse.

4. Second road should be behind the community centre.

5. Facilities at the community centre/ playgrounds won’t stand up to the increased number of families to the area.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. As above. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 6.


56. Phillip Wall 4 Carron Rise, Hillarys Affected Property

1. Strongly believe the development should include underground power and sewerage to the existing townsite.

2. Developers expect the town to agree to the

1. Noted. 2. Noted 3. See response to Submissions 1



49

U2, 14 Georgette Road, Gracetown

proposal without trying to improve our services at all.

3. Strongly believe in the second access road to the town as the increased traffic through town will be unacceptable and will change the aspect of the town. The second access road should run behind the community centre as there are many blind spots that already exist.

Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

57. Phillip Covell PO Box 69, Cowaramup

1. There is an urgent need to have another emergency access road. Sale of 140 lots could help pay for the road costs.



58. Rebecca Gorta PO Box 59, Cowaramup Affected Property

25 Brockman Road, Cowaramup

1. Agree with comments made by the GPA and agree with the following comments:

2. Critical that the second access road is built before the development is allowed to proceed.

3. It’s important to ensure that appropriate investment is made in the road and pedestrian infrastructure in existing town and bay by installing new dual use paths, addressing unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities. This will help maintain the safety and social values of the town and swimming areas.

4. Services must be provided at same pricing as other small towns within the region have paid.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. Noted.


59. Jeff Roberts 18 Bernard Street, West Leederville Affected Property


1. It’s imperative that overhead power pole systems in the existing town are removed and converted to underground power simultaneous with development of new blocks.

2. Landcorp states they want to maintain and incorporate the character of the existing townsite and by leaving power lines in the existing townsite will only highlight the difference between old and new.

3. Critical second access road is built before development is to proceed as it will allow and additional exit route and will reduce traffic congestion through old part of town.

4. Proposal outlines a centralised wastewater treatment plan, reticulated sewerage network and wastewater recycling scheme to the township with initial cost funded by Landcorp. This is the first time such a service has been

1. Noted, however this is not the intention of the developer.

2. Noted 3. See response to Submission No. 1 4. See response to Submission No. 4 5. See response to Submission No. 4 6. See response to Submission No. 1 7. Noted – no wind turbines are proposed.



50

provided in WA and yet no comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken.

5. Estimates have been provided to landowners, however, no assurance the actual costs will be in line with the estimates. Has been no indication as to who will pay for the installation and maintenance of the pipes and associated pumps necessary to connect half of the existing lots to the sewerage line, and the collection of waste from the public toilet blocks.

6. These services must be provided at the same pricing that other small towns in the region have paid.

7. Proposal refers to future renewable power solutions, but no commitment appears to have been made. If wind turbines are to be installed they need to be located out of site of the town and far enough away so associated noise problems are avoided.

60. Julie Holmes Lot 117 Georgette Road, Gracetown

1. The completion of a second access road is a requirement before development is allowed to proceed. Road will improve the general safety issues in the event of a fire and also with traffic management for the town.

2. Also important that appropriate investment is made in road and pedestrian infrastructure in existing town buy installing dual use paths, addressing unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities.

3. Needs to be greater detail provided on the connection costs to existing residents on the operation and maintenance aspects of the waste water treatment plant.

4. These services must be provided at the same pricing that others in small towns within the region pay.

1. See response to Submission No. 1 2. See response to Submission No. 12 3. See response to Submission No. 4 4. As above.


61. Anthony Holmes Lot 117 Georgette Road, Gracetown

Same comments as Submission No. 60. 1. See responses to Submissions No. 1, 12 and 4.


62. Alister Home 62 Begonia Drive, Singapore Affected Property




51


63. Christele Home 62 Begonia Drive, Singapore Affected Property




64. Ganan Capital Pty Ltd 30 Aruma Way, City Beach Affected Property


Strongly oppose the development until substantial further information is made available to ensure that future development is environmentally and economically sustainable and require further information on the following issues: 1. Impact on environment. 2. Impact on limited facilities e.g. parking, beach

access. 3. Increased traffic impact on existing

infrastructure – traffic flow, lack of parking, upgraded boat launching facility.

4. Increased use of surfing spots and their limited parking facilities.

5. General degradation of the fragile coastal environment with the increased pedestrian traffic.

6. Increased use on the limited public ablutions. 7. Management of increased general refuse

created by the increase in people using the limited facilities.

8. Managing the increase in noise in the township. 9. Policing the size of the increased community. 10. Supply and storage of water for the increased

community. 11. Visual impact any development will have on the

landscape. 12. Not enough information available whether the

proposed plant is either technically or economically feasible.

13. Existing residents who are already self-sufficient shouldn’t be financially impacted by the development, both initial and future operating expenses.

1. See response to Submission No. 5. 2. See response to Submission No. 6. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. See response to Submission No. 2. 5. See response to Submission No. 5. 6. Noted. 7. Noted 8. Existing mechanisms are in place to deal

with excessive noise if this proves to be an issue.

9. The size of the community is set by the number of existing and proposed dwellings.

10. See response to Submission No. 4. 11. See response to Submission No. 5. 12. See response to Submission No. 11. 13. See response to Submission No. 5. 14. See response to Submission No. 4. 15. See response to Submission No. 1. 16. See response to Submission No. 1. 17. See response to Submission No. 6. 18. See response to Submission No. 5. 19. See response to Submission No. 5. 20. See response to Submission No. 6. 21. See response to Submission No. 6.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.


52

14. Technically how will existing homes are connected to the new sewerage treatment plant? What level of compensation is proposed?

15. Fire risk management currently in the town is inadequate. What’s proposed for future risk mitigation with the township increasing.

16. Town requires another access road to Caves Road and increases in importance if the new development is approved.

17. Increases in users will require an upgrade to existing electricity supply. What is planned?

18. Telecommunications are inadequate to serve current number of users. What is planned by way of increased fixed line capacity, mobile facilities and NBN roll-out? Who will bear the costs of upgrades.

19. If township is to double what provisions are going to be provided to upgrade public transport facilities.

20. Existing town has a general store with limited facilities and supplies. Restaurant at best operates part-time. Increasing the size of the town requires facilities to be upgraded, what been proposed?

21. Increasing the town will require sporting and recreational facilities. Current facilities are inadequate. What is proposed?

Until the above are all answered insist the Shire commit to further studies and evaluations.

65. Jessica McFarlane PO Box 493, Cowaramup Affected Property


Second access road must be constructed as a condition of the new development and laid before any development commences for the following reasons: 1. Emergency service access in the case of fire

and any other emergencies. 2. To solve traffic management issues relating to

poor footpaths, absent footpaths resulting in pedestrian traffic on road, absent crosswalks, absent traffic calming and signage.

3. To ensure amenity of the town is maintained the second access road should be considered to run around the back of the current town hall.

4. Maintain the existing amenity of the existing

1. See response to Submission No. 1 2. See response to Submission No. 6. 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 12. 6. See response to Submission No. 4. 7. See response to Submission No. 5.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 12.


53

townsite. Costs relating to fire management activities within new development shouldn’t be passed on to existing residents.

5. Support investment into traffic management initiatives including pedestrian infrastructure that benefits not only new development but town as a whole.

6. The waste water treatment plant proposed is experimental and the information provided to residents/ratepayers has been insufficient, and must be supplied prior to any development or agreeance for plant implementation:

What is the impact of smell on the townsite?

What is the cost of plant, hook up, surveying current blocks, pump maintenance?

How will waste product be removed from the plant? Will it be transported through the town, how often and what will be associated traffic and noise?

How much electricity is required to operate the pumps?

What’s the noise level from the plant, will it impact the amenity of the town?

Environmental emissions?

What’s the maintenance cost of plant and are residents expected to pay? What would the special rate be?

7. In favour of renewable energy and protecting the environment, but am keen to ascertain whether there will be a positive impact upon the environment, whilst maintaining the amenity of the town, and being affordable to run and maintain.

66. Kylie Collier 4 Reuben Street, Beaconsfield Affected Property


1. Concerned there is only one access road in and out of Gracetown.

2. Gracetown is in an area of extreme fire hazard and you would think that by increasing the population, Landcorp would consider a second access road to ensure safety of residents.

1. See response to Submission No. 1 2. As above.


67. Lucas Englert PO Box 109, Cowaramup Affected Property

1. Second access road is necessary with the new development. If Cowaramup Bay Road is affected and blocked, residents need to have an alternative route to escape.




54

Georgette Road, Gracetown

68. Talei Manners PO Box 55, Margaret River Affected Property


1. Roads, 1 road into the bay, extreme fire zone, lacks infrastructure and variety, no mobile service, emergency services is limited with phone services.

2. Gracetown needs a footpath to cater for tourists/residents. All roads should be sealed as the traffic is always congested.



69. Stephen Collier 4 Reuben Street, Beaconsfield Affected Property


1. Concerning that Landcorp are looking to profit from the development but aren’t prepared to commit to funding a second access road, it shows little or no commitment to the local community.



70. Mrs June Bennett 11 Ballater Hts, Bibra Lake Affected Property

140 Langley Crescent, Gracetown

1. The local beaches are under great pressure with the expanding local population in surrounding areas.

2. Beach parking and boat ramp are under pressure in peak times.

3. We already need another road into the bay plus a bike/walk path from nearby caravan park.

4. Second access road is required due to the fire risk.

5. Why do existing residents have to be made to change our existing and functioning septic systems and rainwater tanks if the new development goes through.

1. Noted 2. Noted 3. See response to Submission No. 1 4. As above. 5. See response to submission No. 4.


71. Richard O’Donoghue 21 Sandpiper Cove, Busselton

1. Second access road seems essential for safety reasons. However, this is an issue now and should not depend on any new development.

2. Lack of footpaths is glaringly obvious. 3. Boat launching facility becomes overcrowded,

second facility is needed. 4. Beaches are already busy at peak times.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. Noted. 4. Noted.


72. Margaret Muirhead 4 Albion Street, Cottesloe Affected Property


1. Development shouldn’t take place until a second access road has been completed for bushfire protection, safety, noise, dust, disruption caused by trucks if they go through the town.

2. Waste Water Management haven’t been supplied with enough details as to cost, efficiency, disruption for a system which will only affect water to my toilet.




55

73. Petrina Crostella 11 Davies Road, Dalkeith

Affected Property

3 Salter Street, Gracetown

1. Critical second access road is built beforedevelopment.

2. Will improve unsafe traffic flows and roadalignment, current plan shows Salter Street as amain connection between new development andCowaramup Bay Road cutting the town off frompark etc.

3. What about realignment to the south of tenniscourts to maintain safety, social values andpedestrian infrastructure of the town.

4. Water Treatment Plant – estimated cost givesno assurance of true cost to residents. Noindication of who will pay for installation andmaintenance and operating costs. Like serviceto be provided at same cost as other smalltowns.

5. No mention has been made of undergroundpower.

1. See response to Submission No. 1.2. Salter Street already forms a division

between town and park.3. As above.4. See response to Submission No. 4.5. Underground power will be provided to new

residences.



74. Patrick Kelly 38 Larch Loop, Margaret River

1. It’s outrageous to expect existing residentsshould have to pay to join new waste watersystem.

2. Don’t necessarily believe a second access roadwill solve the fire issues. Refuges close to thewater would make more sense.

1. Agree. Se response to submission No. 4.2. Agree. See response to Submission No. 1.


75. Chris & Terri Dale 91 Napier Street, Cottesloe

Affected Property

5 Earl Place, Gracetown

1. Considering the town is virtually empty 10months of the year, can’t see the justification forthe development to proceed.

2. No justification for the imposts in terms of trafficand stretching of limited infrastructure andnatural resources.

3. If development is to go ahead it’s critical that asecond access road is built for fire and trafficmanagement purposes.

4. Waste Water system being considered to allowthe development must be fully and properlyresearched. The construction, maintenance andrunning costs shouldn’t be borne to existingresidents or the Shire. Services must beprovided at the same cost as other small townspay.,

1. Justification for the proposal ‘in principle’ isthe lands identification in the LNRSPP as‘development investigation area’.

2. See response to Submission No. 63. See response to submission No. 1.4. See response to Submission No. 4.



76. Wayne Martin CONFIDENTIAL

1. Fully endorse the GPA’s submission.2. Second access road from the south is essential.3. Strategen report is seriously flawed and

1. Noted.2. See response to Submission No. 1.3. DFES support one access road.



56

contradicts FESA’s policies. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

77. Neil McKerracher CONFIDENTIAL

1. A second access road is already necessary.2. The suggestion of evacuating hundreds of

people by helicopter or sea is disturbing.3. Consideration of a further development without

imposing a strict requirement of a second roadin light of this life threatening risk would beimpossible to justify.

1. See response to Submission No. 12. Noted3. See response to Submission No. 1.



78. Andrew and Lyn Harding 8A Solomon Street, Fremantle

Affected Property


Support the GPA’s views/arguments and suggestions in relation to the following: 1. Second access road before development

commences.2. Improving road, pedestrian and parking

infrastructure in existing townsite.3. Estimates of charges to landowners need to be

accurate for water treatment plant, sewerageand a thorough risk assessment done on wastewater recycling scheme prior to commencing.

4. Cost borne by landowners must be reasonableand comparable to other regional coastal areas.

1. See response to Submission No. 12. See response to Submission No. 123. See response to Submission No. 44. Noted.



79. Pat Goodheart 7 Carron Road, Applecross

Affected Property


1. Second access road is a critical priority beforeanything else is allowed to proceed.

2. Current road into the bay and through thetownship needs to be addressed. Footpaths,traffic managed and beach car parks need athorough overhaul.

3. Concerned about the proposed waste water“experiment”. Don’t want to be used as a ‘pilotscheme’.

1. See response to Submission No. 12. See response to submissions 2 and 12.3. See response to submission No. 4.


80. Alma Dender 15 MacFarlane Rise, Duncraig

1. Vehicle access to the town is restricted by onenarrow and circuitous road, which haslimitations such as narrowing at the creek bridgeand in peak times this area is a hazard for bothvehicles and pedestrians.

2. It is the only access to a town which is in a highfire risk area. The volunteer fire service issituated at one end of the town and is restrictedin access. The towns bore is also situated at theend of town which is inaccessible if the fire is inthe town itself. It’s insufficient to expect

1. See response to Submission No. 122. Noted. The preparation and implementation

of a FMP and reticulated waste waterservice will enhance fire protectionmeasures.

3. See response to submission No. 1.4. Agreed.5. See response to Submission No. 5.6. Noted7. See response to Submission No. 4.




57

residents to head to the beach. 3. Alternative access road which isn’t

recommended by a report tabled to the GPA should be reconsidered for safety reasons, to decrease congestion on roads with the expansion of the town. FirePlan WA 2010 recommends a second access road yet appears to be disregarded.

4. Town uses only rainwater stored in tanks and rely on electric pumps to supply homes. In the event of fire if power lines are burnt then there is no electricity to pump water and also the lack of volume of supply are serious issues to consider.

5. Don’t believe the residents have been fully informed of initial and on-going costs. Concern that this is a trial run of what is considered new technology. Has there been an independent examination of the environmental impact of trenching and connecting homes, of removing native growth in the area.

6. While there is argument that existing septics are leaching into the Bay, this report doesn’t seem to have been freely supplied to residents. More evidence of environmental impacts is needed.

7. Grey water appears to be a good concept, however costs, initial, ongoing and environmental, to individuals needs to be more clearly outlined.

81. Esme & Wayne Bowen 152 West Coast Terrace, Trigg Affected Property


1. Disruption to the amenity of the Bay and increased traffic and road safety dangers. 3 entry roads that feed onto Langley from the development will make Langley a busy thoroughfare and the road isn’t designed to manage traffic load increasing e.g. no pathways, no road shoulders and runoff.

2. Increased traffic dangers by the extra vehicle traffic. Increased traffic calculations in Transcore Traffic Report are flawed, the numbers are much higher. Need to refer to the Uloth report for more information (prepared for GPA).

3. Pedestrian, children, bike riders currently have no defined pathway past shop area, away from

1. See response to submission No. 12. 2. See response to submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 12 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 1. 6. See response to Submission No. 1. 7. See response to Submission No. 4.



58

vehicle traffic. Increase in vehicles and pedestrians will be an increased risk to the safety of users.

4. Without a second access road there should be NO further development. When Gracetown was first developed in the 60s a second access road was proposed.

5. Please confirm the costs for our property of the Specified Area Rates this proposed for the Fire Management Plan?

6. If the town is doubled the construction traffic should access the area via the second access road and not past current residential areas.

7. Is a lack of clarity around costs for the current residents with the water proposal. Can’t understand the future effects of these systems if there is no business case and future budget costings for current residents.

82. Nicholas Anderson 31 Leon Road, Dalkeith Affected Property


1. Having only one access road in and out of the town represents a large risk and with or without the proposed development the second access road should be constructed. Current situation sees cars dangerously passing through the town to surf spots (south). This is a hazard pedestrian traffic. A second access will dilute traffic passing the shop where pedestrian traffic is busiest.

2. Are numerous issues with the proposed waste water treatment system. Landcorp should provide assurances that a cap will be placed on the cost to householders with excess being covered by them which includes installation, ongoing running costs and maintenance of the system.

3. Additional issues such as what happens to the waste if the pumps fail, costs to houses on lower lots to pump waste to sewage line, will lack of use during quiet periods affect the system as population is seasonal.

4. There is proposed clearing around the proposed development for fire breaks which will require ongoing maintenance. The cost of maintaining the firebreaks shouldn’t be passed onto the




59

existing householders as it is a sole benefit of new dwellings.

83. Judi Englert C/- Post Office, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. If the development gets the go ahead then a second road is necessary. If a private developer was doing this the stipulations imposed on them would be harsher.

2. Proposed waste water treatment system, residents haven’t been given clear answers especially regarding costs and it’s obvious there are other cheaper options that haven’t been investigated e.g. a reticulated water system from Cowaramup or separate ATV units for each home.

3. Why does the Shire want us to comment when we don’t know ‘the answers’?

1. See response to Submission No. 1 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. See response to Submission No. 11


84. Tom Jamieson 149 Waddell Road, Bicton Affected Property


1. Prefer if development didn’t proceed but if it does there is need for greater assurances to be given in relation to traffic management, community safety, water and sewerage supply and access to local amenities.

2. The impact of additional traffic flow especially during construction is underestimated.

3. Although concerned about the environmental impact it appears that a second access road is essential in order to help control traffic flow.

4. Don’t object to contributing a reasonable amount towards the new water and sewerage system but object to contributing to any costs related to construction and connection.

5. At various times Gracetown’s amenities come under intense pressure and at these particular times the parking provision and pedestrian safety becomes a major concern. Even with the recent expansion of the boat ramp facilities the parking is often overflowing onto the road verge and main beach parking area. More parking and much better and safer pedestrian access is required. Possible solution would be to improve boating facilities in other areas outside Gracetown to share the load.

1. See response to Submissions 2, 4 and 12. 2. Noted 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 2.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 2, 4 and 12. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

85. June Skates 11 Hoxton Rise, Carine

1. Opposed to the redevelopment which is obviously a money making venture which has no regard for the unique natural beauty of

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. Noted



60

Affected Property


Gracetown which has been carefully preserved by residents.

2. Welcome the suggestion that a second access road should be constructed.

3. There seems to be more lots in the current subdivision plan than were listed in the original plan.

4. If more lots are developed there will be overcrowding on the beaches and other limited facilities currently available in the bay.

5. Leave Salter Street undeveloped. More lots in the area would lead to significant loss of greenery and a less specious outlook.

6. Waste water costs – there are unnecessary additional impost on existing residents. Existing residents already have their own rain water tank and septic tank/sewerage. Existing residents don’t want another bill.

7. Strongly support the following (all of which can be done without releasing more residential lots):

Upgrade and irrigate existing sporting ground;

Improve parking and access to community sporting facilities;

Provide a community service and infrastructure site, with water reclamation, sea rescue, fire fighting tanks and telecommunications tower;

Implement a fire hazard reduction zone to south and east of townsite;

Improve pedestrian integration network;

Upgrade/improve parking for the main beach and main street;

Build the second access road.

4. See response to submission No. 2. 5. Noted 6. See response to Submission No. 4. 7. The proposed development has the

potential to harness significant State government investment in Gracetown, without any cost to ratepayers.


86. Henry Hawkesford 24 Cosgrove Street, Balcatta Affected Property


1. The volume of traffic in the summer could double. Parking areas are overdue for an upgrade.

2. Volume of traffic from Bay View Drive/Nicholson Street junction becomes dangerous in peak season.

3. Percy Street should be reopened for “out” traffic to help relieve volume.

4. Will be hazardous if development proceeded

1. See response to submission No. 2. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 12 4. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. Noted 6. The proposal does not include any retail

component. 7. No further development of Gracetown is

envisaged by local/state government



61

prior to a second access road. 5. Current parking layout is a joke. 6. What is planned for future ‘retail’ development

and where. 7. Forward planning – is Gracetown going to be a

small settlement. Should a portion of land west of the proposed development be reserved for potential development rather than hand all back to national park now.

strategic planning documents.

87. Stephen Rowe 10 Asten Road, City Beach Affected Property

16 Walton Way, Gracetown

1. Frightened that the fragile eco-system will be destroyed.

2. If it does proceed the proposed sewerage and recycling will be a financial disaster that will weaken the Shire’s financial position.

3. Think the cost of development will exceed what was budgeted.

4. Why take a financial risk that will have a dramatic impact on the environment. This development shouldn’t be a priority.

1. See response to Submission No. 5 2. See response to Submission No. 3 3. The cost of undertaking the development is

a matter for the proponent (State Government) to assess and make judgements upon.



88. Annie Silberstein 14 Willis Street, Mosman Park Affected Property


1. Gracetown needs another access road in case of another fire.

2. Facilities on the beach aren’t adequate enough for the growing population and the development will on exacerbate this.

3. Parking must be improved and pedestrian access around facilities improved, it’s currently very dangerous.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to submission No. 2. 3. See response to Submission No. 2.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 2.

89. Louise Crawford PO Box 234, Cowaramup Affected Property

27 Claret Ash Court, Gracetown

1. Gracetown is set amongst coastal heath classified as “extreme fire risk” vegetation and in a highly erodible landscape. By extending the townsite the community will be put at risk and the environmental impacts will be increased.

2. The townsite infrastructure is inadequate to support the town expansion. Presently stormwater flows to Huzzas car park and half flows into Cowaramup Brook and on into the bay. During stormwater events residents on the low side of Bayview Drive can be flooded by stormwater. The town’s stormwater infrastructure is inadequate and overloaded. Shouldn’t extend the townsite without improving the stormwater infrastructure.

3. Development must supply its own water and

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Construction of the subdivision will include

implementation of an Urban Water Management Plan which will see best practice storm water management upgrades implemented.

3. See response to Submission No. 4. 4. See response to Submission No. 5. 5. See response to Submission No. 1. 6. See response to Submission No. 5. 7. The level of fox baiting and weed

management that occurs in the adjoining National Park are matters for the State government and are unrelated to the proposal at hand.

8. As above



62

disposal. If it’s not financially viable then the development shouldn’t go ahead and the present Gracetown shouldn’t be expected to pay.

4. Wildlife corridors need to be provided as the townsite is surrounded by National Park.

5. One access road is inadequate considering the size of the town is doubling. It would also provide access for increased support and management of the National Park to reduce the negative impacts.

6. Flora Road along Cowaramup Bay into Gracetown needs to be preserved. It’s an important wildlife corridor.

7. Increasing the townsite will increase the impacts on the National Park. Fox baiting is already non-existent due to the closeness of the residential area. Weed management at present is inadequate and underfunded.

8. Management and financial support of the National Park must be improved to counteract the increased negative impacts from a larger Gracetown.

9. Townsite is increased infrastructure supporting the National Park and Marine Reserve must be increased. Basic National Park camping (e.g. Contos) should be provided to reduce illegal camping.

10. Emergency service infrastructure must be improved providing a proper management base for Sea Search, Rescue, Fire Brigade, DEC and Fisheries. Communication tower is essential.

11. The new development will be for millionaires. New properties will mostly be holiday houses for the wealthy who will not be permanent residents. There will be little new long term residents adding very little social structure to the present community. This will add more pressures to an already limited and tired community of permanent residents that provide volunteer services at Gracetown.

9. As above. 10. A mobile phone tower is proposed for

Gracetown. 11. Noted

90. Mick Manolas PO Box 331, Cowaramup

1. Lack of second access road - Independent report Landcorp obtained is worrying as it




63

Affected Property

Cnr Salter and Earl Place, Gracetown

recommends the complete opposite of DFES stated standard option.

2. Plan seems risky as there does not appear to be enough households feeding into it constantly to make it work. Looks like it is expensive to build and run and why is it being proposed for this development. Residents on the low side of the sewer line will need a low pressure pump, who pays for the pump and power.

3. Submit that the condition of a by-pass road on the developer (i.e. Gnarabup subdivision) be imposed in the Gracetown development to enhance safety and preserve amenity of the existing townsite. A road on the firebreak around the hall/tennis courts will enhance fire fighting access and therefore effectiveness in the event of a fire from the south.

4. Seems to be many conditions either left out or diminished for the development that would be highly unlikely to happen to any other developer. If they want an experiment for their water system, then it should be their experiment, not the communities.


No. 1 and 4.

91. Rodney Paull 4 Gallin Court, Leeming Affected Property


Items 1 to 5 below must be completed before development proceeds or as conditions of the development: 1. Second access road must be completed before

development proceeds. 2. A detailed design, detailed risk assessment and

review by the Shire & Gracetown community for the waste water system must be completed before the development proceeds. The entire WWS has unacceptable uncertainty for the Shire and Gracetown community that must be resolved and must be completed before the development proceeds.

3. At present there doesn’t seem to be any commitment on any facilities by Landcorp at present. Landcorp should commit to community facilities as a condition of development.

4. Existing owners must not be charged specific area rates for the Landcorp fire management plan ongoing maintenance requirements for the

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. See response to Submission No. 6. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to submission No. 12. 6. Noted.



64

new development including 40m around development, 80-100m separating existing and new development and 20m around dwellings. Landcorp has designed the new development with these features and the cost should be to the new development only.

5. Appropriate investment must be made in the road and pedestrian infrastructure in the existing town and bay as a condition of development. Development will impact traffic in the existing town that needs new dual use paths, unsafe traffic flows addressed, road alignments adjusted and parking areas provided. This is needed for traffic safety of all community and visitors using roads and footpaths.

6. Support the designated land transfer to National Park.

92. Alison Paull 4 Gallin Court, Leeming Affected Property


1. As development progresses feel it no longer has any of the existing sustainable positives for Gracetown that was promised.

2. The initial plan had a second road, green power plant, sustainable sewerage system (that shouldn’t cost the rate payer more than Margaret River or Cowaramup).

3. Not against the proposed residential development if the remaining 231 ha becomes part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park and second access road must be constructed before development starts to keep heavy construction vehicles from impacting on the beach, shops and walking trails access areas.

4. Grey water system is extremely complex in design, untested and not enough thought or detail provided. Applaud the environmental motivation but don’t feel I should be forced to participate in this potentially expensive grey water system.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submissions 1 and 4. 3. See response to Submission No. 5. 4. See response to Submission No. 4.


93. Sarah Paull 4 Gallin Court, Leeming Affected Property


1. It’s critical that the second access road is built before development is allowed.

2. Important to ensure that appropriate investment is made in the road and pedestrian infrastructure in existing town and bay by installing new dual use paths, addressing

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submissions 6 and 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 4.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 4 and 6. Other comments do not warrant modification to the


65

unsafe traffic flows and improving road alignments and parking facilities. Will help to maintain the safety and social values of the town and the main areas in the bay.

3. Waste services to be implemented must be provided at same pricing as others pay in small towns.

proposal.

94. Peter Anderson 10 Percy Street, Gracetown

1. Damage to our developed block would be huge. 2. As a retired person we can’t be expected to be

asked to pay for a service we don’t want or you can’t tell us how much it will be.

3. There are so many sums in the project that do not add up.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. Noted.


95. Noelle Anderson Percy Street, Gracetown

1. Insist there should be a second access road. Increase in traffic continues to destroy the peaceful walks and the safety.

2. Waste Water Treatment will be a disruption to our established property. Providing an open cheque to Landcorp or whoever operates the waste water facility with no guarantee of any end cost to us. Outrageous elderly residents have been asked to fund a project we are against.



96. Heather Mann 12 Haynes Street, Wembley Downs Affected Property

Lot 78B Georgette Road, Gracetown

1. It is critical that a second access road into Gracetown be built before the Landcorp development is allowed to proceed.

2. Unsafe traffic flows around the existing car parks and commercial area in Gracetown and the lack of pedestrian infrastructure around these areas need to be addressed and upgraded, if the Landcorp development proceeds.

3. Proposed wastewater system needs to have a comprehensive assessment to ensure that it can operate in Gracetown. There needs to be a commitment that it cost home owners in Gracetown no more than home owners in other small towns in the region.

4. Stormwater run-off as a result of the Landcorp development needs to have a detailed assessment and adequate provision made to ensure the surrounding bush and existing

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 4. 4. Agree. Implementation of an UWMP will be

a requirement of any future subdivision. 5. Noted.



66

homes in Gracetown are not adversely impacted.

5. Existing stormwater drainage system must be upgraded if the Landcorp development proceeds.

97. Claire Parker PO Box 316, Cowaramup

1. It’s imperative to have a second access road to the bay for safety reasons and is to be constructed before the development proceeds.


98. Tanya Dyson 21 Aruma Way, City Beach Affected Property


1. Opposed to the redevelopment as don’t believe the town currently has the required infrastructure to support the increase volume of people the development will bring. Concerned the current lack of access to the town and the environmental and economic impacts of the proposed redevelopment.

2. Imperative from a safety perspective that a second access road is built regardless whether the proposed development goes ahead. Only one access road to the town goes against the advice of the FirePlan WA Fire Management Plan prepared for Landcorp in June 2010 is negligent.

3. Concerned the redevelopment will be an economic and environmental burden on the town and will change its nature for future generations.

1. See response to Submission No. 6 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. Noted.


99. Peter Delfs 16 Claret Ash Court, Gracetown

1. Have serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of waste water treatment plant due to the low number of permanent residents in the townsite.

2. Lack of water being available to keep the system operating effectively due to lack of permanent residents using their systems and thus supplying water for the system to operate.

3. Concerns regarding the need for the system to supplement water from limited groundwater reserves in the area to allow the system to operate effectively.

4. No clear costs have been presented to the community for hooking up to the system or ongoing costs to the householder.

5. No indication has been presented as to the ongoing cost to the shire to maintain and run

1. See response to submission No. 4. 2. As above. 3. As above. 4. See response to Submission No. 4. 5. The Shire will not have any role or

responsibility in running the WWTP. 6. The additional detail sought by the

submitter will be required in further stages of the planning and development process.



67

this Waste Water Treatment Plant. 6. Request development to be refused until such

time that this inadequacy in the planning of the waste water treatment be addressed and further information be presented to the local community.

100. Keren Huck 20 Thurloe Street, Bicton Affected Property


1. Support expansion of residential townsite. 2. Second access road should be built as part of

the development. 3. Endorse the expansion of the national park and

provision of vegetation protection within the development area.

4. Current residents should not be burdened financially by the costs of providing sustainable services to the Old Township and new development.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. Noted. 4. Agree – See response to Submission No.

4.


101 Sydney Arnold 10 Meruka Retreat, Hillarys Affected Property


1. Concerned of the ongoing cost and maintenance of the proposed waste water system.

2. Concerned with the lack of urgency implementing a second access road.

3. Inadequate beach and facilities for the increase in population.

4. Langley Crescent will have 3 new roads on to it from new development and large increase in traffic flow.

1. See response to Submission No. 4. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submissions 2 and 6. 4. See response to Submission No. 12.


102. Rob & Jenny Crawford 5 Parker Street, East Fremantle Affected Property

Lot 18 Bayview Road, Gracetown

1. Second access road should be built to address fire/road safety issues, regardless of the proposed development.

2. Infrastructure in the existing town requires upgrading to improve safety and amenity in and around the town.

3. Proposed waste water system should be provided at the same pricing as other small towns.



103. Michael Anderson PO Box 600, Cottesloe Affected Property


1. Second access road critical for safety of community whether development proceeds.

2. Water issues haven’t been thought through at all.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to submission No. 4.


104. Gracetown Bush Fire Brigade 1. Measures they have at present are as follows; One access road, one accessible water supply, incomplete mowed firebreak at a varied

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. As above.



68

distance from the town, three cleared fire tracks running south and southeast of the town, recently sealed road to lefthanders to the south of town and as yet promised but no implemented 10m slashed break on the outer side of the towns perimeter road. While the above are glad tiding for the future they don’t include the most important element, a second access road to the town. Second access road is essential for the safety of the community. Second access road would allow orderly evacuation if deemed appropriate.

2. Seem the developments proponent had a risk assessment done on the provision of such a road and got the answer it wanted. Others have questioned the independence of the risk assessment.

105. Sophie Berson 121 Rosalie Street, Shenton Park Affected Property


1. Concerned the proposal as it currently stands overlooks a number of significant safety issues.

2. Should any development be approved it should be on a smaller scale.

3. Without any empirical research into the effects of an increased population and subsequent infrastructure on marine life, ecosystems and present health and safety measures for the town. No way to undo the damage that may be caused to the fragile natural systems of the area by rapid, unmonitored development.

4. The town is already beginning to strain under the increasing tourism in the area and the recent expansion of the Cowaramup townsite.

5. Second access road should be constructed before any further development occurs.

1. Noted. 2. Noted. 3. It is not intended that the development be

rapid or unmonitored. The proposal will (by the time it is implemented) have been through a number of thorough assessment processes including that undertaken by the state’s environmental agencies.

4. Noted. 5. See response to Submission No. 1.


106. John James PO Box 127, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Landcorps planned residential expansion has sufficient merits to outweigh its negative impacts. However, there are presently shortcomings in the details of various elements of the structure plan that need to be rectified before it’s approved.

2. First element is the Waste Water System and the commitment to such a system by the Shire and, ipso facto, the Gracetown Community, we are still short on detail. Both the Shire and

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. See above. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. Noted.



69

community need is an absolute guarantee that they are not virtually signing a blank cheque in respect to committing to the system.

3. Rationale for converting the existing town from septic tanks and leach drains to a gravity sewerage system was said by the then Minister in 2003 to be due to signs of leaching from the septic systems into the underground water table. Since the success of the whole development project hinges on a goodly part of the present town being connected to the system prior to the sale of any new house lots, a more persuasive report on the groundwater situation is warranted to convince householders of the need to connect to the sewer.

4. Second planning element is the provision of a second access road to reduce the likelihood of the town being cut off by fire.

5. To sum up see that at best this development could set up Gracetown for the future in terms of infrastructure and facilities needed for the influx of extra townspeople. At worst if development is shelved then the towns present inadequate infrastructure and facilities will lead to our poorly equipped town remaining highly threatened by fire, traffic hazards and groundwater and ocean pollution.

107. Carolyn McKerracher 40A View Street, Peppermint Grove Affected Property


1. It’s of prime importance that the proposed development should not go ahead without the construction of a second major road to the township.

2. Concerned about the costs in relation to the new infrastructure and water treatment plants. Want to have access to more detail in relation to costing and the amounts that would be charged to existing property owners.

3. Concerned with the potential impact on an already stressed environment which will result from the increased numbers using the area.

4. Fully support the GPA’s submission made to the Shire.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. See response to Submission No. 5. 5. Noted.


108. Jennifer Martin 172 Waratah Place, Dalkeith

1. Main concern for Gracetown is the need for a second access road. Landcorps idea of




70

Affected Property

4 Galliers Street, Gracetown

evacuating people by helicopter is ridiculous. 2. Waste water scheme obviously has its merits in

a small isolated town but there is a lack of information on exact cost to each household and who will be responsible for it and how long?

3. Don’t tarmac the main beach car park, the town has a small seaside ambience that everyone loves and that would be ruined.

3. Noted No. 1 and 4. Other comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

109. Nicholas Martin 172 Waratah Place, Dalkeith

1. Concerned about the development spoiling the look and feel of Gracetown. The development will only make the place much busier and could completely ruin it.

2. It’s not safe to walk around the town at the moment as the roads are too busy and cars speed past the beach and through the town. There would need to be a lot of work done to slow the traffic and make the town easier and safer to get around.

3. There aren’t enough public toilets or facilities to cope with the number of visitors. Main beach needs maintenance work on shelters, benches and bbq’s.



110. Keith and Barbara Campbell 14 Forrest Street, Cottesloe Affected Property


1. Second access road must be constructed before any development. Area is a high fire risk and a second escape route is essential.

2. Improvement of the existing town traffic conditions and parking near the shop and main beach must be undertaken before development. At present crossing the road near the shop is extremely dangerous.

3. Georgette and Salter Street should be realigned to make the intersection safer.

4. Agree that a reticulated sewerage system must be part of the new extended town but would like more information on the continuing costs to residents and who will pay for maintenance in the future?

5. Orderly and proper expansion of Gracetown must include a plan for; underground power in existing town, a much needed upgrade to storm water drains in the streets and general rubbish removal and green waste removal of a few times per year.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. See response to Submission No. 4. 5. The submission raises matters which are

beyond the scope of this amendment.



71

111. Phoebe Dunn 60 Kitcheners Street, Trigg

1. The development isn’t wanted, make the land national park.

2. Second access road is mandatory due to the fire risk, emergency risks, community overwhelming wants a second road, development proceeds there will be a massive amount of construction traffic during the ground preparation process and then during house construction and if development proceeds the amount of traffic in town will increase significantly by doubling the town size.

3. No development approval until commitment to all traffic management requirements.

4. Fire management – no increased costs to existing property owners.

5. New waste water system need to get it properly risk assured and costs and 100% cost subsidy to existing property owners for connection.

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 4.


112. John Sofield 38A Georgette Street, Gracetown

1. Development will detract from the overall feel of the area.

2. Second road access is definitely required and Council have a duty of care.

3. Waste water system should only be instigated if power lines can be put in same trench.



113. Jay Rogers 23 Temple Street, Victoria Park Affected Property


1. Believe the only motivation for Landcorp to develop is purely for profit.

2. Been put to existing landowners that a reticulated sewage system will benefit us, but larger volumes of water are needed to flush downhill. If new lots end up being weekenders then the necessary volume of water will not be there to flush the system.

3. Will the existing townsite’s power go underground.

4. Believe the best and financially stable option is to not change the existing zoning.

5. Should protect the qualities of the quiet quaint hamlet.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. Power to existing townsite will not be

placed underground by the developer. 4. Noted 5. Noted.


114. Jason Wallis 22 Bayview Drive, Gracetown

Generally supportive of proposal subject to the following comments: 1. Limiting development to approximately 140 lots. 2. Fire management – any additional development



72

must not have further negative impact upon the town. Strategens report says one reason for not requiring a second access road is cost. It seems inappropriate that cost of the infrastructure outweighs safety of existing and new residents.

3. Second Road access – additional traffic being generated by increasing population growth will have a greater impact upon town traffic than that modelled. Traffic management measures suggested to mitigate impact on the existing road network are severely inadequate. The inclusion of the second road access is recommended as it decreases traffic volumes and ameliorates the need for traffic management measures.

4. Structure Plan doesn’t adequately address the requirement for a second road access. Proponent should be required to investigate the second road proposal under the servicing and design initiatives section of the Structure Plan report.

5. Development will require large amounts of heavy machinery to access the site for a considerable period of time. Current road network is not able to cope with such traffic flows. Impact on amenity of existing residents will be severe and the damage to existing roads is likely to be considerable.

6. Proposal to increase parking at main beach is supported, however should be noted that very few residents would walk to the beach due to the severe topography of the site.

7. Proposal to provide a Waste Water System is supported subject to the following – Full design, costing and business case to be provided prior to adoption of the structure plan. Viability of system should be independently reviewed by Shire. Cost to be based upon geotechnical information given the considerable rock formation and likelihood of hard digging for retro fitting the townsite. Shire to be provided full financial guarantee on performance on the WWS from the State. Existing residents to be



73

provided full financial guarantee on performance of the WWS from the state and existing residents be provided with cost estimates relating to any ongoing fees associated with operation of the WWS.

115. David Martin 172 Waratah Place, Dalkeith Affected Property


1. Second road and fire mitigation measures must be committed to and built before any development proceeds.

2. Not against proposal provided that it doesn’t adversely impact on existing residents, in fact is beneficial to the local community; Is limited in scale; Is sustainable in its design principles; and has the appropriate infrastructure in place before development commences.

3. Community will be impacted by the increase in traffic resulting from the development. Population increase in the surrounding area has not been taken into account by Transcore in its Traffic Management Report.

4. For pedestrian safety a number of pedestrian and shared paths need to be built and crosswalks installed.

5. Basic toilets (enviro) need to be built at the North Point boat ramp and Melaleucas beach.

6. Proposal contains two new sets of rates for Gracetown residents/owners.

7. Scale of development as it currently stands is acceptable but it is at the maximum. Doubling the size of town will already put a significant strain on the bay and threaten the amenity of the area. Important that no further development be allowed. The transfer of the remaining public land into National Park is fundamental.

8. Proposed Design guidelines are good and meet the sustainability criteria.

9. Infrastructure required for development to proceed includes second road, traffic management, pedestrian safety. Waste Water Treatment system that has been proposed is a good initiative and happy for Gracetown to be used as a testing ground for a WWS that could have significant benefits to the community but don’t think the local community should bear the



74

financial risk of the experiment. 10. A lot more work needs to be done on the

proposal before it’s approved and the community should be given further opportunity to review and participate in this analysis.

116. Matthew Dender 16 Parkhurst Rise, Padbury

1. Second access road appears to be a requirement of the fire management plan and think that this road should encompass the township and act as a firebreak to the surrounding areas.

2. Second access road will minimise the environmental impact, namely traffic, noise and visual on the current township.

3. Also with the increase population residential/tourist, pedestrian traffic will increase and expect the footpaths and pedestrian access ways to be upgraded for the safety of the township.

4. Agree that a sewerage system and renewable energy power station is a step forward for the township of Gracetown but can’t state whether I approve without further details, Currently there are too many unknowns that potentially impact the township of Gracetown.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. As above. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. Noted.


117. Robert Scott PO Box 6 Carnarvon Affected Property


1. Town needs a second access road. Traffic needs slowing along bay view and salter streets and better pathways for pedestrians is needed throughout the whole of Gracetown.

2. The proposal to connect existing homes in Gracetown to sewer is costly and Landcorp should pay the connection fee.

3. Proposal is to double the population of Gracetown but can’t understand how it could logistically work as in summer the bay is overflowing. The beaches won’t cope.

4. Don’t think the full time residents should wear the costs incurred with the new development.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Agree. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. See response to Submission No.2 4. Agree.


118. Simon James PO Box 343, Cowaramup

1. All coastal development should end. 2. Expansion of Cowaramup and surrounds is

already putting pressure on the infrastructure of Gracetown.

3. Road access is very poor – one way in, one way out.

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submission No. 11. 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. Noted. 5. Noted. 6. See response to Submission No. 1.

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1, 4 and 11. Other comments do not warrant modification to the


75

4. Bushfire risk increases relative to human activity.

5. Landcorp don’t want financial burden of a second road.

6. Precedent will be set if this second road is not an essential component of the proposal.

7. Proposal shouldn’t be considered without a second road, but many believe the second road should not be built through the National Park.

8. Landcorps proposal to charge existing residents for connection to an experimental water treatment system wouldn’t be acceptable if attempted by a private developer.

9. Lots are small and if new development is to rely on water tanks where are these to go?

10. Landcorp suggested helicopter evacuation as a safety measure. Silly scenario.

11. Small lots will contribute to social disharmony. 12. POS used as a buffer for fire etc is not going to

be well suited for recreation.

7. As above. 8. See response to Submission No. 4. 9. Lots are sufficient in size to accommodate

dwellings and water tanks. 10. Noted. 11. Noted. 12. Noted.

proposal.

119. Jan Macaulay PO Box 354, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Don’t consider it viable to have expansion of Gracetown if we don’t have a second road.

2. Safety around the shop and restaurant needs to be addressed.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Noted.


120. Curran Clark PO Box 603, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Landcorp needs to pay the full amount of the connection fee.

2. Second access road is required and the traffic from Bayview needs to divert around the back of the Hall. There is a substantial amount of traffic through Gracetown nowadays.

3. Residential development proposed is to double in size, can’t understand how this could logistically work with the Bay overflowing in summer.

4. Beaches, roads, car parks and shop won’t cope.

1. Agree. See response to Submission No. 4. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. Noted 4. See response to Submissions 2, 11 and

12.


121. Tennille Scott PO Box 603, Cowaramup Affected Property

Lot 148 Georgette Street,

1. Landcorp needs to pay the full amount of the connection fee.

2. Second access road is required and the traffic needs slowing along bay view and salter streets and better pathways for pedestrian are needed

1. Agree – See response to Submission No. 4.

2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. As above. 4. Noted

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 12. Other comments do not


76

Gracetown throughout the whole of Gracetown. 3. Traffic from Bayview needs to divert around the

back of the Hall onto the existing fire break. There is a substantial amount of traffic coming through Gracetown nowadays.

4. Residential development proposed is to double in size and can’t understand how this could logistically work with the bay overflowing in summer as it is.

5. Feel it will be permanent residents who will wear the costs incurred with the new development.

5. There is no proposal for existing residents to contribute financially towards any aspect of the proposed development.

warrant modification to the proposal.

122. Antony & Emelia Terry 1 Weldon Way, City Beach Affected Property


1. Concerned with the proposal and there being only one access road in and out of Gracetown.

2. During construction of the proposed development there will be incredible congestion on the existing access and town roads.

3. Concerned also about costs incurred with the recycled water system.



123. Harry Malet RMB 184 Boyup Brook Affected Property


1. Increased fire risk by the addition of 140 lots which makes 2 access roads essential and must be constructed before development starts.

2. Upgrading existing roads and pedestrian infrastructure is a necessity for safety and usability of the existing township

3. There will not be enough parking and not enough room on the beach which is already overcrowded.

4. Happy with current water scheme and won’t join new scheme and current septic system is adequate.



124. Claudia Berson 121 Rosalie Street, Shenton Park Affected Property


1. Don’t want the development to go ahead and there has to be a second road access out the back of town.

2. Main issue with the development is the increased population, in particularly the summer.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Noted.


125. Justine Mann 12 Haynes Street, Wembley Downs Affected Property

13B Georgette Road,

1. It’s critical that a second road into Gracetown be built before the development is allowed to proceed. This road will be required to cope with the extra traffic and will address the requirement for a safe escape route.

2. Unsafe traffic flows around existing car parks

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. See response to Submission No. 12. 5. See response to Submission No. 4 6. See response to Submission No. 4

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 2. Other comments do not warrant modification to the


77

Gracetown and commercial area in Gracetown and the lack of pedestrian infrastructure around these needs to be addressed and upgraded if development proceeds.

3. Increase in traffic numbers as a result of initial development and extra residents/holiday makers post development will make these areas dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians.

4. Car parks at beaches will come under further pressure with the increase in population.

5. Proposed waste water system needs to have a comprehensive assessment to ensure it can operate in Gracetown. Also needs to be a guarantee that its cost to home owners in Gracetown will be no more than other small towns.

6. It’s essential that any waste water system can cope with these massive population surges.

7. Storm water runoff as a result of the development needs to have a detailed assessment and provision made to ensure bush and existing homes in Gracetown are not adversely impacted. Existing stormwater drainage system to the existing townsite must be upgraded if the development proceeds.

8. Question whether there is the demand for such a development?

9. Developers must ensure that the blocks have a clause on titles insisting development must occur within 12 months of the release so unsold or undeveloped land doesn’t turn into a ‘dust bowl’ or ‘sand storm nightmare’ or a fire risk from dry grass.

7. Agree 8. Noted 9. Noted

proposal.

126. Darryl Bentley 12 Percy Street, Gracetown

1. Second access road must be built prior to development.

2. Ensure all excess road is returned to National Park including balance of Lot 300.

3. Traffic developments to be completed. 4. Fire plan to be implemented. 5. Waste water system to be at no cost to

residents.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 5 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 4.


127. Caroline But 4 Cavendish Street, Highgate

1. For safety of residents and visitors urge that the second access road be developed. Gracetown

1. See response to Submission No. 1. See recommendation in response to Submission


78

is in extreme bush fire risk and it’s unreasonable that there is only one access road.

No. 1.

128. Ben Devenish PO Box 789, West Perth Affected Property


1. Lack of sufficient investigation into the need for improved traffic management strategies.

2. Need of a second access road to ensure safety of the proposed larger population and to alleviate likely increased congestion.

3. Waste Water Treatment Plant, is inappropriate to propose with so little cost or viability analysis. It’s unreasonable to expect a tiny regional population to carry the cost of a development from which they are expected to gain nothing.

4. Fire Management Plan appears to enforce significant requirements on setbacks and clear areas however there doesn’t appear to be any support or suggestion as to when, how and who will be required to perform this maintenance.

5. Lack of insistence on developer to improve broader facilities in Gracetown.

6. Is there real demand for the lots that are being released?

1. See response to Submission No. 12. 2. See response to Submission No. 1 3. See response to Submission No. 4. 4. See response to Submission No. 6. 5. Noted.


129. Megan Garnett & Kristoff Ecker PO Box 572, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Second access road is required due to fire risk and other emergency situations.

2. Waste Water System will have a huge impact and the environmental concerns with the fragile ecosystem and limestone ridge. System will need to be functional during off and on peak seasons.

3. Size of properties is not feasible. 4. What’s the insurance the development has, if a

house collapses, not only for owners but environmentally?

5. Cowaramup Bay Road – registered Flora Road and is an attraction to tourists. Shouldn’t be upgraded with passing lanes, turning points, vegetation clearance as it should be preserved as a significant tourist attraction.

6. A ban on domestic cats should be considered. 7. Block size – creates zoning issues of the rest of

the townsite. Potential rezoning of existing properties and future subdivision which will create additional pressure on existing

1. See response to Submission No.1. 2. See response to submission No. 4 3. The size of lots is such that they can

accommodate a dwelling inclusive of necessary water tanks.

4. This is not a planning issue. 5. See response to Submission No. 5. 6. Noted, however these types of

requirements are difficult to administer. 7. The proposed zoning amendment does not

impact upon existing properties. 8. Noted. 9. Noted 10. Noted 11. Noted.



79

infrastructure. 8. Current management of townsite rubbish and

cleanliness is from the people who live there as they make a significant effort to pick up rubbish, weed and general maintenance to public area, concerned with how this will be managed with the increase in population.

9. Main beach access shouldn’t be bitumised. 10. Planting around housing envelope needs to be

restricted to trees and bushes within the district. 11. Wonder how the project will be economically

viable for developer.

130. Chris Freedman 28 Catesby Street, City Beach Affected Property


1. Haven’t been presented with enough detail on economics and logistics of the proposed development.

2. Development is necessary but in the 21st

century it needs to be environmentally and economically responsible.

3. Any development should add amenity to the area not take it away, especially when current facilities (parking) are only just acceptable.

4. Talk of existing landowners having to fund, in part, integration into the new development, funding for delivery of the development should be supplied by the developer.

5. What provisions have been made in order to handle a doubling of population and the effect this will have in access and exit in an emergency?

6. Concept brings too many questions and provides too few answers, so at this point I can’t support the proposal.

1. Noted. 2. Noted and agree. 3. Noted. 4. Noted and agree. 5. See response to Submission No.1. 6. Noted.


131. Aaron McFarlane PO Box 493, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Salter Street shouldn’t become a though road to the new development. Currently many traffic users use Salter Street and it’s not good enough because there is no traffic management on this road.

2. Believe the risk and traffic management issues have not been properly assessed. Should be noted the traffic counter was placed south of Langley Street so it didn’t give a reading on anyone travelling within town.

3. Another negative about using Salter Street as a

1. See response to Submission No.12. 2. See response to Submission No.12 3. See response to Submission No.12. 4. See response to Submission No.12. 5. See response to Submission No.12. 6. See response to Submission No.6. 7. See response to Submission No.1.



80

through road is that it divides the town from recreational areas. Suggest making a new access road around the oval at the back of the hall. New road could solve a large number of traffic management issues currently faced in Gracetown which will only become worse as time goes on.

4. No footpaths on Salter Street and with the new development there will be more pedestrian traffic walking Salter Street.

5. Footpaths need to be implemented irrespective of whether the development proceeds. Town is 40 years old and hasn’t had any improvements to infrastructure despite rates being paid.

6. New infrastructure (blue metal footpath) is not up to the standard that we see in other local developments. Perhaps pathways should travel within the bush areas and this would provide safe travel away from roads.

7. Bike path to Caves Road would assist in traffic management in peak times. Beneficial to remove pedestrians from the road to reduce the risk of injury.

8. Concerned about the smell and sound pollution coming from the waste water treatment plant.

9. Concerned about the volume of water from permanent residents may not be sufficient to run the plant. If it has to be topped up with bore water, what is that doing to the local environment.

10. Question which we haven’t been briefed on is whether the large water source that may lie below gracetown, from which the bore draws may refill with salt water from the ocean if the level is to lower considerably due to the waste treatment plan running on bore water to make up for the limited volume from permanent residents.

11. Environmental report that Landcorp is basing their reasoning for the treatment plan being implemented has not been released and therefore we remain uninformed.

12. How much per year will the servicing costs be


81

for rates, servicing, electrical cost of running pumps? These costs shouldn’t be borne by ratepayers. Believe yearly rate should be kept in line with other developments.

13. Concerned that the project is experimental and don’t want to see the environment impacted upon, nor amenity ruined.

14. Fire hydrants proposed throughout town fed by 2 x 300,000l tanks this may not be enough depending on nature of the fire. More logical to run fire hydrants from a main water supply that isn’t going to run out.

15. Submit current town stays on existing septics and that mains water is run into the town from Cowaramup.

16. Second access road is necessary as long as it doesn’t add to the traffic management issues that already exist in Gracetown. Second access road is a good fire escape for residents and a good fire break.

17. Mobile signal must be provided in the Bay immediately to assist in emergency service efficiency.

18. During peak periods the main beach carpark is overflowing, boat ramp is overflowing, South Point carpark and Town Store carpark are also overflowing.

19. The new development is adding more pressure on already inadequate infrastructure. What will be done to cater for these issues? Upgrades to current and new townsite are required and overdue.

132. David Burges PO Box 379, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Developer argues there isn’t a need for a second access road but believe they haven’t taken the following into consideration:

Second road should be constructed so heavy equipment required for development can use this road. In the event of a fire or emergency the townspeople have an alternative escape route. Second road will lead to a decrease in traffic flow through the town.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. As above. 4. See response to Submission No. 4. 5. ‘Noted. This is the reason that a small scale

system is being investigated. 6. Disagree. 7. See response to Submission No. 4. 8. The land will be rated similar to any staged

development. 9. The Shire will not be involved in the



82

2. Waste Water treatment plans for the town haven’t been properly explained to the residents.

3. Seems the system can’t work without all existing houses being hooked up. Appears the development can’t stand on its own merit without forcing others to make it viable.

4. Houses on the low side of the road will have to pump their waste up which will add to the construction costs and ongoing costs of the pump.

5. Water corporation aren’t interested in being involved, ring alarms bells that it is not financially viable to run deep sewerage with so few houses.

6. No other systems of this type exist in WA. 7. Who is going to pay for the running of the

plant. 8. How will the proposed development be

rated assuming not all lots are pulled from the main title (staged development).

9. Why would the Shire want to become involved in WWT.

running of the WWTP.

133. Jeremy McKerracher 13 Dalkeith Road, Nedlands Affected Property

Lot 166 Earl Placed, Gracetown

1. Gracetown is a popular surfing/fishing location especially in the summer months.

2. Cowaramup Bay Rad wouldn’t be suitable to evacuate the town if a fire was approaching from north or east.

3. A second access road is already necessary. 4. Suggestion of widening the current access road

into Gracetown is untenable and the more extraordinary suggestion of helicopter/sea rescue is even more untenable.

5. It’s impossible to justify any further development without imposing a strict requirement of a second road.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. As above. 4. Noted. 5. See response to Submission No. 1.


134. Andreas Papageorge PO Box 1852, Margaret River Affected Property

Lot 203 Judd Road, Gracetown

1. No reason for this development except for the second access road.

2. Benefits to the existing community will be limited compared to the significant downside of doubling the size of a small town in a small bay.

3. Maximum 70 additional houses and the rest into

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Noted 3. Noted

See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1. Other comments do not warrant modification to the


83

National Park. proposal.

135. Gordon Duzevich 4 Ord Street, Nedlands Affected Property

Unit 3 Lot 42 Osborne Street, Gracetown

1. Waste Water Treatment Plant is the first in WA and no risk assessment has been undertaken.

2. Connection issues for the collection system haven’t been addressed either system wide or at property level. Report should have been redone to address exclusion of the tourist development and inclusion of public toilets.

3. Fact sheet on operating costs is misleading. 4. The second access road is necessary for the –

bush fire risk, impact on amenity and traffic management and improved access in case of events other than fire.

1. See response to Submission No. 4. 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. Noted 4. See response to Submission No.1.


136. Moya Weston PO Box 2036, Claremont Affected Property


1. Concerned about the danger of bushfires if town is expanded without appropriate planning put in place.

2. Infrastructure at present doesn’t support future subdivision.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 11


137. Sarah Blomkamp Unit 11/356 West Coast Highway, Scarborough

1. During peak season there isn’t enough parking. 2. No toilets at the main beach or shelter if it rains. 3. Town has a good feel with the architecture, new

infrastructure could deteriorate the look. 4. Roads are very windy more cars on the road are

a hazard to pedestrians. 5. Gracetown is already a high fire risk area,

another access road is crucial even without the development.

1. See response to Submission No. 2 2. Noted. 3. Design Guidelines are proposed to

influence the look of new development so that it is in keeping with the existing character of Gracetown.



138. Christopher Paull 4 Gallin Court, Leeming

1. Second access road to be built before development is allowed to proceed.

2. Water and Waste Water to existing town is to have a detailed design and risk assessment before development is allowed.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. Noted and agree.


139. Leith Weston 11 Brown Street, Claremont Affected Property


1. Would be irresponsible for development to proceed with a second access road being built.

2. Improvements are required to current roads in the bay and parking. Lack of paths/track for walkers/cyclists is a hazard.

3. It’s vital that the power poles/lines are updated prior to the development going ahead.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12. 3. Noted. 4. A mobile phone tower has been approved

for Gracetown via a separate application.



84

4. Lack of mobile phone coverage is an issue that needs to be addressed prior to the development.

140. Betty Vin Richardson 1. Object to the expansion of the town until there is another road out.


141. Angus Nominees Pty Ltd PO Box 298, Claremont Affected Property

Lots 945 & 342 Caves Road, Gracetown

1. Support the construction of a second access road due to the bushfire risk of residents.

1. See response to submission No. 1. See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1.

142. Dan Brice 36A Karrinyup Road, Trigg Affected Property

No 3 Galliers Street, Gracetown

1. Second access road is required for the safety of the residents.

2. Safe dual cycle/pedestrian access between Gracetown and Cowaramup would encourage people to access the beach and leave car at home and decrease congestion.



143. Gerald Brown 13 Wilmore Street, Daglish Affected Property

Lot 1 Galliers Street, Gracetown

1. Present development is self-sufficient as to water, sewerage and provides road access to large lots, beach facilities, shops, carpark and boat ramp are adequate for present development.

2. There should be no cost put onto existing land holders as a direct result of the subdivision.

3. If the development proceeds all beach facilities will be inadequate for additional users.

1. Noted 2. Noted and agree. 3. See response to Submission No. 11


144. Shane Kennedy 32 Swan View Terrace, Maylands

1. Drastic need for a second road if population is to increase.

2. Request more information on the new development in regards to waste management/grey water systems – costs? Research & development?



145. Rick Short PO Box 419, Margaret River Affected Property


1. Already have a perfect water system on property.

2. Need another entry and exit road.

1. See response to submission No. 4. 2. See response to Submission No. 1.


146. David McLarty 132 Culeenup Road, North Yunderup

1. Second access road to be built before development proceeds due to fire risk and increase in traffic.


See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1 and 4


85

Affected Property


2. Waste Water system cost the topography can make this very costly and must be provided at same price as other small towns.

147. Alan Barry 8 Harvey Terrace, Scarborough Affected Property


1. Provision of second access road is essential to reduce fire risk, ease congestion of main thoroughfare through town which passes main leisure locations.

1. See response to Submission No.1 See recommendation in response to Submission No. 1.

148. John & Jo Stokes 20 Deane Street, Cottesloe Affected Property


1. Concerned about the proposal for Gracetown. 2. The impact of great numbers on the beach,

parking, boat ramp, clogging of roads, traffic is of great pressure to the town.

3. Not sustainable to go ahead with such a big development, pressures would be immense.

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submissions 2 and 12.


149. Brian & Jan Weston 20 Stockdale Crescent, Wembley Downs Affected Property


1. Critical that the second access road is built before development is allowed to proceed.

2. Improve the current road into the Bay. 3. Update power poles/lines which are a fire

hazard. 4. No coverage for mobile phones in case of an

emergency.

1. See response to Submission No.1. 2. See response to Submission No. 12 3. Noted 4. A mobile phone tower is proposed for

Gracetown.


150. RPS on behalf of Agnus Nominees Affected Property

Locations 945 & 342 Van Tripp Road, Cowaramup

1. Two locations lie 1.5km to east of proposed development. Locations are predominantly cleared land.

2. Agnus Nominees in the past during formulation of the proposal have offered it properties to be considered as a means to provide a second access road into Gracetown. An alignment through the locations provides for a rapid route in and out of Gracetown with much of the alignment traversing fully cleared pastured land.

3. The Strategen Consultants only appear to consider one alignment option which it describes as the “Van Tripp Road” alignment. Alignment shown on Figure 11 in fact bears little resemblance to the Van Tripp Road reserve alignment.

4. The report concludes a second access road from Gracetown expansion is unwarranted due to the fact that it traverses bush land for its entire length. The report hasn’t considered an alignment through Locations 945 & 342 which offers a fast and safer route to and from Caves

The submitters comments and willingness to have the second access road on their land are noted. See response to Submission No.1.



86

Road. 5. Report hasn’t considered alternative options for

the second access. Need for a second access road to several coastal villages has been raised by many emergency practitioners, elected officials and other fire management consultants.

6. While obvious risks for a second access are well documented in the Report, such an access clearly improves options available to emergency services and must surely assist in reducing the very obvious risk that a single access only solution creates.

7. Option of a shorter and predominantly cleared alignment for a road through location 945 & 342 should have been fully considered in the Report and Agnus Nominees is still open for discussion.

151. Robert Alder PO Box 454, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Agree with points raised in the GPA submissions.

2. Property is a duplex and any issues regarding sewerage, trenching, cap rock etc. will be multiplied by 2. House was built in 70/80’s on concrete slab so returning recycled water/altering drainage will be either extremely difficult or costly.

3. Other issues regarding the development is access, roads, over population already shows in peak seasons, original model was to showcase eco/green sustainable township.

4. What are the benefits for existing residents. There will only be massive disruption in every street.

5. All costs should be borne by the developer and new lots not existing residents.

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 4. 3. Noted. 4. See response to Submission No. 11. 5. Agree.


152. Rhys Jones PO Box 1353, Margaret River Affected Property


1. Doesn’t need to be done as there is only approximately 18 owner occupiers so why built an empty holiday area.

2. Existing residents won’t fight fires to save the new development.

3. Boardriders club are going to go the papers, tv and radio to stop this development.

1. The extent to which dwellings may be owner by owner occupiers or for holiday users is a matter for future owners to consider as it is in all areas of the Shire.

2. Noted. 3. Noted.

The submitters comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

153. Catherine Horan-Anderson PO Box 1353, Margaret River

1. No need for further development. 2. Area is located in a fragile coastal ecology that’s

1. Noted 2. Noted.

The submitters comments do not warrant modification


87

Affected Property


already impact by foot and vehicle traffic. 3. Most houses are absentee landowners. 4. No need for second road as it will destroy

coastal environment and may also be at risk to closure due to fire.

5. Water and Waste Plan is an unfair cost to existing residents and may not be feasible.

3. Noted. 4. Agree. 5. Agree.

to the proposal.

154. John & Betty Beatty PO Box 339, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Over 80% of affected people object to an increase in population – no development.

2. Local beach is already overcrowded. 3. We haven’t been told exactly what we would

have to pay for connection to Grey water/Sewerage.

4. If sustainability claim is so effective why isn’t landcorp/Shire implementing this in all communities.

5. No financial provision for a second road prior to development.

6. Has been a certain amount of bullying in respect to this development.

7. There is a huge shortage of low income housing in this state, money should be redirected from wasteful Gracetown to a more public housing development.

1. Noted, however the area has been identified for future development investigation since 1998.

2. See response to Submission No. 2. 3. See response to Submission No. 4. 4. Connection to conventional reticulated

services is mandatory where they are readily available.

5. See response to Submission No. 1. 6. Noted 7. The submitter raises an issue which is

outside the scope of this Amendment.


155. Janice James PO Box 127, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Main concerns are risk of fire damage to my home, bushland and pollution of water seeping into the Bay.

2. Feel we are committed to a second access road to the south of town and have adequate fire breaks around the whole area.

3. Water Treatment Plant which includes toilets at back beaches but at a reasonable cost to us.

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 4.


156. Michelle Gabelich PO Box 271, Cowaramup

1. Opposed to the expansion which increases the population of the townsite without firstly implementing a second access road.

2. Fire risk is a major concern and coastal hamlets with only one road in and out are of major concern.

3. Gracetown in peak season already has significant traffic management issues. All traffic uses this one road (pedestrians, tourists, construction etc) and safety becomes an issue.

4. Fire Management Plan discussed is inadequate

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 12. 4. See response to Submission No. 1. 5. See response to Submission No. 4.



88

for the area. Costings for proposed risk treatment and mitigation measures are clearly inadequate.

5. Waste Water issues haven’t been considered fairly should the development proceed. There are unknown costs and many uncertainties. Connection to wastewater and reclaimed water should be 100% funded by Landcorp and no costs should flow onto old Gracetown residents.

157. David Kelly PO Box 575, Margaret River

1. Development doesn’t require the developer to include mains scheme water from an outside source for the new or existing development. New lots are too small for residents to harvest adequate rain water. Proposed water treatment and supply of recycled water falls well short of alleviating the water shortage.

2. Proposal doesn’t require the developer to build a second access road when the existing town is at extreme risk of a fire catastrophe. Doubling numbers increases the risk of a fire initiating in Gracetown. Second access road is critical in allowing the fastest possible response to minimise a fire’s damage.

3. Proposed development has wide tracts of vegetation design between proposed residents. These are an extreme fire risk. Proposed hydrant system at Gracetown using recycled water is totally inadequate to the requirements of the proposed town. Gracetown is a long way from supporting brigades.

4. Storage and supply of recycled water which is full of nutrients and stored in a warm environment without complete sterilisation is extremely difficult to manage. Shire will be undertaking a very difficult task in guaranteeing the recycled water is not high in bioactivity. Only proper solution is for the developer to pipe sewerage out of Gracetown for proper treatment.

5. Operational costs of the water treatment plan has not been adequately investigated and no guarantee has been given that new and existing residents will not have to for sewerage rates

1. See response to Submission No. 1. 2. See response to Submission No. 1. 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. See response to Submission No. 4. 5. See response to Submission No. 4. 6. Noted.



89

above those of other rural towns. Town is highly populated in summer and very few residents in winter, the proposed sewerage treatment cannot function without adequate inflows of sewerage year round.

6. Objective of the development was to give WA people the opportunity to purchase land on the ocean. Benefits to the WA community are minimal as only a few people can afford to but these lots at today’s prices. Benefits of not developing land and ceding the whole remaining land to National park is far greater value to WA people.

158. Hon Barry House 157 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

1. Believe Landcorp have a responsibility to the infrastructure requirements their development creates, or adds to, in the community they operate. Shouldn’t be allowed to ‘cherry pick’ valuable land assets without the responsibility of providing services and infrastructure needed to make the community economically, socially and environmentally viable, or sustainable. They shouldn’t be allowed to leave an infrastructure ‘debt’ to the local community, local government or some other source of taxpayers fund to pick up later. When Landcorps profit is realised a good deal of this ‘profit’ must be used to provide the infrastructure needed by the development.

2. Believe the development has some appeal but should it proceed the following should be provided alongside the development:

3. Second access road. 4. Other transport issues on existing roads. 5. Dual use path to Caves Road and Cowaramup. 6. Certainty for the sewerage/wastewater plans.

Concern regarding the (lack of) capacity of the proposed system due to many absentee owners and subsequent low flow. Cost of connection for existing landowners is also of concern. Wouldn’t a ‘gravity fed’ system be more economical and efficient on the relatively steep hillside.

7. Major upgrade to beach facilities to service extra lots.

8. Plan for POS between homes might have

1. Noted. A summary of infrastructure items to be provided by the developer is listed in the response to Submission No. 2.

2. See response to Submission No. 1 3. See response to Submission No. 12 4. See response to Submission No. 12 5. See response to Submission No. 4 6. See response to Submission No. 2 7. Noted 8. Noted 9. Noted.



90

amenity appeal but may also have the potential for neighbourhood disputes and financial burden on the local authority charged with maintenance. Private management of property is always better than public where there are likely to be differing points of view about how the POS can and should be managed.

9. Currently can’t see the proposal meeting these objectives without significant modification.

10. Only way to see this happening is to have enough capital to put towards these infrastructure requirements is for an expansion of the development proposal footprint. This would involve reducing significantly the size of the existing ‘development envelope’ ceded to the National Park, or retaining the lot for future development?

159. Heather Kelly PO Box 575, Margaret River Affected Property


1. Concerned we are being asked to comment on an incomplete report.

2. Key problems with the Waste Water Treatment Plant, sewer network and recycling scheme are that there doesn’t seem to be concrete figures to comment upon.

3. Who will pay if the system’s running costs are blown out?

4. What happens during frequent power outages? 5. What happens if the system doesn’t work? 6. It’s been said that this system has been used

before, but where? 7. Existing residents have been told they will have

to connect to provide water flow to enable the new system to work. However, with only 30% full time residential capacity, water must have to be brought into enable this. Therefore why bother with it.

8. To provide infrastructure for this system throughout old and new town excessive amount of blasting will be required. There is cap rock underlying much of the area and blasting will only serve to danger the coastline, its already dangerously fractured. Blasting will only heighten the fragility of the area.

9. Need of easements through other people’s

1. See response to Submission No. 11 2. See response to Submission No. 4 3. See response to Submission No. 4 4. See response to Submission No. 4 5. See response to Submission No. 4 6. See response to Submission No. 4 7. See response to Submission No. 4 8. See response to Submission No. 4 9. See response to Submission No. 4 10. See response to Submission No. 4 11. See response to Submission No. 1 12. See response to Submission No. 1 13. See response to Submission No. 1 14. See response to Submission No. 5 15. See response to Submission No. 12. 16. Approval from DIA has been granted thus

resolving any Aboriginal Heritage issues. 17. Noted 18. See response to Submission No. 4 19. See response to Submission No. 1 20. See response to Submission No. 12 21. See response to Submission No. 11



91

properties is going to be a nightmare. 10. Having pumps on some systems, with it

concomitant noise loads will be awful. What happens during frequent power outages?

11. If plan goes ahead with fire hydrants for the town, there won’t be enough water to supply this system and adequately fight fires.

12. Key need for a second access route is to get the key people there to fight it.

13. Report has several key errors and surprised it’s actually been used. Buffers mentioned as necessary are not used elsewhere, so why here.

14. GPA safeguarded a small wetland near the current boat ramp, as this area has been recognised as one of 15 national biodiversity hotspots so why build in an area that is so unique?

15. Community has been trying to deal with traffic management for many years and to have 150 more lots will increase the need to address the traffic safety issues of the town.

16. Haven’t heard any mention whether the Native Title Claim issue has been resolved.

17. Times are economically hard right now so why not look at other options or not proceed at all.

18. If development is to go ahead then scrap the waste water system unless the state is willing to back the on-going costs. Allow and monitor the use of rain water tanks, or bring in water and pipe out sewerage.

19. Create a second access road. 20. Budget money for traffic management. 21. Try to fulfil at least a few of the initiatives that

were offered to the community, like a walkway from caravan park to bay.

160. Lesley Bremner PO Box 318, Cowaramup

1. Uphold the GPA seeking the remaining area of land be zoned at the same time but would also like to see a buffer zone around the whole townsite created where dogs could be walked appropriately, the buffer would decrease conflict between National Park and Shire Lands.

2. Huge majority of people that live in Gracetown

1. Noted 2. See response to Submission No. 1 3. See response to Submission No. 12 4. Approval from DIA has been granted thus

resolving any Aboriginal Heritage issues. 5. Noted 6. See response to Submission No. 1



92

are very much for a second road. 3. The impact on Amenity and Traffic Management

is an extremely serious and ongoing management issue that no Shire or Government could overlook without overlooking Duty of Care.

4. Area has significant Indigenous heritage and since European settlement has been used and appreciated.

5. The number of people coming into the area is increasing and these numbers need to be planned for carefully and it must be remembered by the Shire itself that in the future it will fall solely on the Shire to upkeep and improve the amenities that will accommodate these extra owners and the extra visitors that do and will arrive in the Bay.

6. Historically Cowaramup Bay has fall under the radar for improvements and it won’t be able to continue if the development goes ahead in its present form.

7. Living areas of the town are dissected by one road from the areas of recreation.

8. Cowaramup’s population is increasing and their nearest beach is Cowaramup Bay.

9. Urge all parties to take the GPA concerns of traffic aspects seriously. There has always been planning for a second road.

10. Disagree that the main beach carpark should be sealed.

11. Wasn’t that long ago that the ocean came up over the road at the main beach which cut the town off.

12. Land ownership arguments regarding North Point need to be solved and toilet facilities provided. Issues won’t go away and are increasing with the number of increasing visitors.

13. If development goes ahead the Shire will have to fight for funds and put pressure on DEC to provide facilities.

14. Other initiatives such as a walk path to the caravan park along a very busy road needs to

7. See response to Submission No. 1 8. See response to Submission No. 1 9. See response to Submission No. 1 10. See response to Submission No. 1 11. Noted 12. Noted 13. See response to Submission No. 6 14. See response to Submission No. 6 15. See response to Submission No. 1 16. See response to Submission No. 4 17. See response to Submission No. 4 18. See response to Submission No. 4 19. See response to Submission No. 4 20. See response to Submission No. 4 21. See response to Submission No. 1


93

be addressed, especially if second access road is denied and significant works undertaken to improve the crossovers to allow access to the coastline.

15. Fire management will be dealt with according to regulations and here again a second access road should be high in priority. Key point that is overlooked is smoke inhalation.

16. Have serious concerns about the sustainability of the proposed sustainable WWS.

17. Concern is the costs and it will only work if Old Gracetown is hooked up and there is evidence that this will be a large cost to owners and mandatory.

18. Which authority will maintain the system in years to come. Will need significant maintenance once it passes its initial life and that cost needs to be borne by someone.

19. Supporter of linking to the current sewerage and water systems in the area and personally feel this is the best and cheapest option for a community with a population of the type that Gracetown holds. Don’t feel that Gracetown is the right community to try it with. Which authority is going to offer funds from their share to cover this?

20. Sustainability to lighten the load on the environment and utilities can be implemented and encouraged from an individual’s aspect with encouragement from the powers to be. It need not be a major WWS project.

21. Support the GPA submissions which are in support for a risk assessment and wish to add a concern that the necessary blasting and earthworks will have structural impact on existing house given it has previously occurred during site works. Capstone throughout the Bay will necessitate careful explosive work and hammering in some instances to place the piping at regulatory depth through existing house lots.

22. Project Risks at Section 11.4 No

comprehensive risk assessment has been


94

completed for the development of recycled water system. However, during the development of the preliminary design the following issues have become apparent as project or system risks: contamination, irrigation demand management, public open space, insufficient water available and existing connection. Given the WRP is a first for WA a comprehensive risk assessment must be completed to justify use before Landcorp commit to the WRP.

161. Steven McKinney 18 Walba Way, Swanbourne Affected Property


1. While sustainable development of Gracetown may contribute in the long term to the maintenance of the beauty and values of the Bay, unsustainable development may trash these values and lead to the loss of the Bay as people currently enjoy it.

2. Around a decade ago 90% of people surveyed were against the development of Gracetown. Now, despite a preference for the Bay to remain the same for ever, there is widespread support for a sustainable form of development, and extremely low support for unsustainable development and so concerns about some of the finer detail associated with the proposal.

3. As a result of the collaborative approach undertaken to date supports the initiatives outlined in the TPS Amendments, Structure Plan and attachments A to E of the design initiatives report.

4. To manage the risk of impacts associated with future development there needs to be mandatory requirements made by the Shire that the developer is required to address through implementation of the initiatives set out in the supporting information. These should be funded and implemented at the outset with the first stage of development.

5. While houses shouldn’t be put in areas of extreme fire risk the initiatives in the Fire Management Plans will be a good step forward and the specified area rate will be a good approach to coordinating management.

1. See response to Submission No. 5 2. Noted 3. Noted 4. See response to Submission No. 6 5. See response to Submission No. 1 6. See response to Submission No. 1 7. See response to Submission No. 1 8. Noted 9. Approval from DIA has been granted thus

resolving any Aboriginal Heritage issues. 10. See response to Submission No. 12 11. See response to Submission No. 4 12. See response to Submission No. 4 13. See response to Submission No. 4 14. Noted 15. Noted 16. Noted 17. Noted 18. Noted 19. Noted 20. Noted 21. Noted 22. Approval from DIA has been granted thus

resolving any Aboriginal Heritage issues. 23. See response to Submission No. 6 24. See response to Submission No. 6 25. See response to Submission No. 6 26. See response to Submission No. 6 27. See response to Submission No. 5 28. See response to Submission No. 5



95

6. Don’t agree with the fire risk justification for the second access road. Suggest that: a. Landcorp be encouraged to include

membership to the fire brigade and info booklet provided in short stay accommodation;

b. Building code requirements for extreme fire risk areas should be attached to titles;

c. The Fire Management Plan should address the whole of the Bay;

d. There should be a compliance process for fuel loads around houses.

e. There should be gas or electric BBQs at the beaches to discourage people lighting fires at the main carparks.

f. Implementation of the recycled water storage and hydrant system is ensured.

g. If a second access road is put in place there needs to be a strategy to deal with panicked drivers getting stuck on the road in the vent of a major fire.

h. A ring road should be put around the town that provides access for fire trucks.

7. Strongly oppose the second access road for the following reasons: a. Fire risk isn’t an appropriate reason. b. Can’t see how social impacts of additional

traffic in a suburban environment will be addressed.

c. It would cause significant environmental impact including the loss of hectare of National Park, fragmentation of the Park, road kills, extra traffic, and noise pollution.

d. There is a real and significant risk that money would be diverted from the important initiatives that are proposed to come with the proposal and spending money on the road could increase impacts by increasing completion for money available to reduce other impacts.

e. There would be short term benefits from diverting traffic from in the construction phase of the development but in the longer


96

term these are outweighed by the negative impacts. Constrain on the duration of the construction phase is essential. A temporary road could be built for the construction phase, and serve as a firebreak in the future. A timeline for sale of lots and building on new lots could be attached to the Scheme, minimising the duration of impacts and supporting establishment of the WWTP.

8. Reference is made to a dog fence around the east of the development, would rather see a ban on cats combined with baiting and fencing confined to rehab areas or the oval.

9. Previous studies have identified Aboriginal sites along the Bay-Ellensbrook area. Any second access road needs to be subject to detailed Aboriginal Heritage assessments. There are several Aboriginal heritage sites around the Bay that haven’t been recorded in the studies.

10. Important that a local level traffic management plan is prepared that maximises the future use of pedestrian, bike and skateboard use.

11. The wastewater recycling scheme is contentious partly due to a lack of willing ness to commit on costing. It needs to be a development approval condition that these details are finalised and communicated effectively. This leads to distrust and addressing these information gaps should be quite simple. Providing and alternative water supply and removing septics will be a great outcome. Reliance on individual ATU’s is impractical and won’t deliver the same result.

12. It would be useful to provide further water quality data demonstrating the potential improvements from the proposed system.

13. There needs to be an assurance of equitable costing like the Gracetown/Landcorp equivalent of the CSO costing which would make the wastewater system more satisfactory.

14. A cap or averaging of shared costs would be appropriate as geotechnical issues vary.


97

15. Ensure that people understand the link between recycling water, drought protection and fire mitigation through storage tanks and hydrants.

16. The Bay’s public toilets should also be connected to the system.

17. Subsurface reticulation of the oval will extend the Bay’s capacity to cope with visitors.

18. The remaining 30ha of land (westerly most portion of the Scheme zone) should also be transferred to the National Park.

19. Red/brown concrete should be used rather than black asphalt.

20. No bituminisation or even gravel at the main beach carpark as there is significant sand movement though this area that will lead to long term maintenance issues.

21. There should be no street lights and only low lighting as seeing the stars is a key part of the Bay.

22. There should be a process of protection and community education about Aboriginal Heritage.

23. There should be a process of community education before major site works begin.

24. Bulk purchasing of septic removal, sewer and third pipe installation would reduce costs.

25. It may be possible to increase the number of wind turbines at the old tip.

26. The proposed phone tower could be relocated to the Van Tripp fire tower.

27. Overall environmental impact is likely to be significant and constraints on water use in gardens, minimising clearing, recycling of cleared bush to fix blow outs, and pest, dieback and weed control are all important.

28. Any clearing or installation of a Dual Use Path adjacent to Cowaramup Bay Road should minimise the clearance of Dieback and Armillaria sp., and impacts on DRF.

162. Landcorp C/- TME, PO Box 733, Bunbury Developer and Proponent of the

1. At time of initiation Council introduced associated provision (b) into the Schedule 15 table for Structure Plan 23. “Provision of the centralised wastewater treatment plant and

The proponents submission regarding the wording of provisions related to the WWTP are noted. Further discussions with Landcorp following the consultation process have

It is recommended that Council approve the proposal subject to modifications to the


98

Amendment reticulated sewer network with 50% of the cost of connection of existing properties to the network to be at the cost of the developer”. Whilst Landcorp is supportive of a contribution arrangement to encourage existing property owners to connect to the proposed sewerage system, it objects to the wording of the current provision.

2. Key part of the expansion is the introduction of a package sewerage treatment plant that will be available to new and existing lots. As part of this project, Landcorp have already committed to - Provide land to accommodate the proposed treatment plant - fund the full design and construction of the plant – Construct sewerage mains into existing settlement at its cost – Establish the management framework for the continued operation of the Treatment Plant in conjunction with the Shire. This is a substantial commitment to the townsite. Have also provided a contribution to the connection of existing residences, however any such contribution must be established in a way that provides a genuine benefit for the overall townsite. Don’t believe the wording of the current provision provides this.

3. Believe the establishment by a developer of a package treatment plan to provide a sewerage system for an existing townsite is unique in WA and presents some technical challenges that wouldn’t normally be experienced by a utility provider. One of the challenges is encouraging existing residents to connect to the system.

4. Agencies have a statutory ability to enforce connection of properties to an infill system within 5 years of system becoming available. Developers don’t have this ability and can’t require mandatory connection to the sewerage system by existing properties.

5. Treatment plan will need to be designed to accommodate the projected future flows of the ultimate development of the town. However, due to the traditionally low rate of lot sales in a small community and lead times for the construction

confirmed that there is a commitment towards funding 50% of the cost to existing landowners to connect to the WWTP.

Scheme provisions relating to the WWTP to ensure that charges don’t exceed the maximum service charge for a similar service provided by the Water Corporation and to reinforce the developers commitment to pay 50% of the connection fee.


99

of dwellings, there will need to be an upfront sewerage load to enable the system to function adequately.

6. An existing potential load for the treatment plant is available from existing residences.

7. In order for the incentive contribution to be effective the following would be required: - Contributions need to be focused on connection within an operational timeframe requirement – Process for receiving a contribution should be simple, streamlined for residents and subject to minimal administration – Contribution payments should be paid only after connection – Contributions need to be of sufficient magnitude to encourage connection.

8. Wording of the current provision will not result in an effective contribution package being developed due to the following issues: - There is no fixed timeframe for the contribution. This doesn’t provide any incentive for landowners to connect in a timely manner to the system which may result in flow problems for the Treatment Plant – Lack of a fixed timeframe will cause an administration burden long after the original developer has completed the development. This will undoubtedly result in the Shire receiving requests for connection contributions for many years in the future – lack of fixed connection fee will result in a burden to residents as there would need to be 2-3 quotations obtained to establish the individual connection cost for a dwelling – Lack of a fixed connection fee is open to abuse as inflated quotations may be provided in order to cover more than the 50% contribution – lack of fixed connection fee may result in inequities between individual landowners – it may be determined that 50% is an insufficient contribution and a higher amount may be warranted, however this can’t be determined at this point.

9. Suggested Contributions Package –

Landcorp suggest that an incentive package be developed in accordance with the following:-


100

Council support a mechanism to require all development lots to be connected within 2 years of the treatment plant commencing operation.

Contribution scheme being set up by Landcorp to encourage early connection of existing houses to the sewerage scheme.

A fund of an amount agreed with Council being established to support the contribution scheme.

An initial contribution of $5,000 per developed lot connection is proposed (50% average connection cost).

Payment of contribution to lot owners is conditional upon – Completed connection to the sewerage scheme; Connection being completed within 2 years of plant commencing; Connection being for a dwelling in existence prior to January 2014 and Contribution payment being paid to lot owners.

Fund would be administered by Landcorp for a period of 2 years from the date of the treatment commencing operation.

Option to adjust the contribution amount is retained by Landcorp for the purpose of accelerating sewer connections.

Contribution scheme will terminate 2 years after plant commencing operation or upon the incentive fund being depleted.

10. While the above will form the basis of the contribution scheme, believe it is too early in the process to finalise these details. Landcorp is happy to work with the Council once cost implications of connection to system are known to establish a successful contribution package.

11. Proposed Alternative Wording – Associated Provision (b) request existing provision (b) is

reworded as follows: (b) Provision of the centralised wastewater

treatment plant and reticulated sewer network with a contribution scheme being established to encourage the connection of existing properties


101

to the network to be agreed with the Local Government and funded and administered by the developer.

163. Andrew Barclay PO Box 542, Cottesloe Affected Property


1. In favour of the amendment. 2. Amendment has been fully discussed by all

stakeholders. 3. Would be beneficial to Gracetown for it to occur.

1. Noted 2. Noted 3. Noted.


164. Gracetown Progress Association PO Box 356, Cowaramup

1. It is clear that most in the community do not want the proposal to proceed. If it does proceed the community has said that they want it as a sustainable development initiative.

2. It was discussed from the outset that land not required for the proposal would be transferred to the National Park and this principle has been relied on by the community in all dealings on the matter. There is a further 30ha of land around the Town that should also be transferred to the National Park. Are seeking a Council resolution that the Shire will expedite transfer of the balance of the land.

3. Believe that a second access road should be constructed. In a 2011 survey, over 70% of Gracetown residents and owners supported the second road. The second road is required due to: Bush Fire Risk

a. Gracetown is an area of extreme bushfire risk;

b. Four fire escapes have threatened the town since 2005;

c. The PFBP guidelines state that development in an extreme bush fire hazard area should be avoided and would not normally be approved. The PFBP guidelines also require that two vehicular access routes are available;

d. A second road is critical to the safety of the town in a fire situation;

e. The FMP prepared by FirePlan WA for Landcorp recommends that a second access road is provided.

Impact on Amenity and Traffic Management

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submission No. 5 3. See response to Submission No. 1. 4. See response to Submission No. 12. 5. See response to Submission No. 11. 6. See response to Submission No. 1. 7. See response to Submission No. 4. 8. See response to Submission No. 4 9. See response to Submission No. 4 10. See response to Submission No. 4 11. See response to Submission No. 1 12. See response to Submission No. 1 13. See response to Submission No. 1



102

f. Gracetown already has significant traffic management issue impacting on the safety and amenity of the Town as a result of through traffic to surf beaches south of town.

g. The Town depends exclusively on Cowaramup Bay Road for access. The projected traffic increases in the Transcore traffic management report are not supported and increases will be greater than described. In particular the report does not take into account natural growth in traffic arising from development in the region.

h. All pedestrian traffic must cross Cowaramup Bay Road.

i. Construction traffic will be substantial and ongoing for many years.

j. The recent Caves/Cowaramup Bay intersection improvements do not take into account increases in traffic volumes.

k. A second road will alleviate many of these issues by dividing the traffic flow between Cowaramup Bay Road and the second road.

l. An appropriate investment in road safety needs to be made.

Improved Access in Case of Events Other than Fire

m. If Cowaramup Bay Road is effectively damaged or blocked for any reason the town will be cut off.

n. A second road would reduce the travel time between Gracetown and Margaret River for emergency vehicles.

o. When Gracetown was first surveyed in the 1960s, and in further planning 13 years ago, plans for the Town included a second road.

4. Gracetown already has significant traffic management issues that will be exacerbated by the proposal. It is important that the following traffic management improvements are undertaken at an early stage of the development process: a. Second access from Slater Street to Caves

Road.


103

b. Upgrade Salter Street from Langley Cres to Lefthanders Road.

c. Upgrade Salter St/Bayview Drive intersection – roundabout proposed is not favoured due to pedestrian access issues.

d. Improve alignment of intersections at Slater Street/Georgette Road and Salter Street/Langley Cres;

e. Formalise access points to beach carparks. Formalising carpark not favoured;

f. Prohibit parking along Bayview Drive at Main Beach;

g. Extend 60km/h speed zone north of Townsite to bend in Cowaramup Bay Road;

h. Introduce traffic calming measures to reduce speed on Bayview Drive from north of Bridge to Salter Street intersection;

i. New footpath along western side of Bayview Drive from Percy Street to Melaleuca Beach access;

j. Improve on-street parking at Bayview Drive shops;

k. Increase parking capacity at southpoint carpark;

l. New footpath along Salter Street from Bayview drive to south point carpark;

m. New footpaths along Langley Cres, Salter Street, Nicholson St and Galliers St, plus upgrading and possibility of lighting of link from Galliers to Nicholson.

5. There have been a number of meetings regarding community initiatives. These initiatives are not committed to except for those relating to traffic management. The following were identified as the top 10 priorities: a. Multi-use path from Southpoint carpark to

Caves Road; b. Gas or electric BBQs at Main Beach; c. Define Main Beach carpark entry/exit points

and paths; d. Build enviro toilet at North Point carpark; e. Enlarge and upgrade North Point carpark; f. Cross walks north of bridge and store;


104

g. Melaleuca Beach picnic area – replace wood BBQs with gas or electric;

h. Cross walks at Percy/Bayview and Bayview/Salter;

i. Footpaths Salter/Langley to southpoint carpark;

j. Upgrade and maintain Main Beach shelters. 6. There is some concern with the costs

associated with the specified area rate to maintain the FMP initiatives. This should be costed.

7. Key issue with WW scheme is one of fairness. If implemented, the residents should: a. Receive services at the prices that others in

small town in the region pay; and b. Have a guarantee from the Shire or the

Government that this relative pricing will always be maintained.

8. There are a number of financial uncertainties around operation and ongoing funding of the treatment plant.

9. There are also a number of issues with the engineering of the wastewater plant. GHD’s preference is for part pumping and part gravity feed from each lot which will require a series of easements through neighbouring properties and the installation of pipes and pumps for some lots. There is no indication of who will pay for the pipes, pumps and establishment of the easements.

10. The proposed wastewater scheme does not include the collection of sewerage from the toilet blocks at the main beach and south point and any other toilets to be installed, or say who will pay the charges associated with these connections.

11. The independent risk based assessment of the secondary access road cannot be considered as independent as the consultant has undertaken signify cant previous work for Landcorp.

12. It is important that all agencies referred to in the Strategen report are requested by the Shire to


105

comment specifically on the content of the report and advise the Shire: a. The extent of the consultation undertaken by

Strategen with each agency; b. Whether they had the opportunity to review

the report prior to its completion; c. Whether they support the analysis and

conclusions of the report. 13. With regard to the Strategen report it is noted

that: a. The report doesn’t consider whether

alternative alignments would have led to different conclusions;

b. The report uses weather data for Witchcliffe which is misleading;

c. The report downplays the significance of the four recent fires (in the past 8 years) that have occurred at Gracetown.

d. Dwellings are required to install 55kl rainwater tanks, not 92kl;

e. The report concludes that the potential for loss of life from entrapment is unlikely. This is incorrect. The beach is not a safe fire refuge and the inherent risk level is therefore Extreme (Likelihood: Possible or likely; Consequence: Catastrophic);

f. The risk to life from inadequate emergency access is identified as unlikely and is based, in the case of fire, on the potential for air or sea support. The experience from Prevelly was that sea rescue response is slow and unreliable;

g. There is no evidence to support the assertion that there would be an increased risk of ignition arising from implementation of a second road. Given the clearing requirements the risk would be low and no greater than with the numerous access tracks that currently traverse this area;

h. There is no logic or evidence to the assertion that the likelihood of traffic accidents on a new road may be higher;

i. The environmental risks to the National Park


106

(120m low fuel zone) seem unrealistic. The Caves Road reserve is 25m, upgraded Bussell Highway north of Cowaramup 45m, and Forrest Highway 100m;

j. The report highlights the significant additional financial risk to Landcorp of approval delays and cost if a second road is required, which highlights the true purpose of the report;

k. The risk treatment and mitigation measures proposed are neither realistic nor adequately costed. The hall is too small and not secure as a safe refuge, the beach is not a safe refuge, Cowaramup Bay Road can’t be widened, further upgrades to Cowaramup Bay/Caves Road would be difficult to justify and expensive, and sea and air rescue cannot be relied upon;

l. The specifications for the second road (120m low fuel zone) seem difficult to justify in any practical sense as being necessary;

m. The report concludes that the risk to town is increased by a second road which is questionable logic.

165. Brooke Anderson PO Bo x 171, Cowaramup Affected Property


1. Oppose the amendment and believe a second access road is imperative if any development was to go ahead due to construction activities and emergency access to the town.

2. Also believe there is a danger of affecting the groundwater with the water plant (set up phase).

3. Believe there is cultural significance to the aboriginal people in the proposed area.

1. See response to submission No. 1. 2. The installation of the WWTP will need to

be done in accordance with environmental approvals.

3. Noted. The proponent has obtained a clearance from DIA to proceed with development.


166. Michelle and Tony Farrell PO Box 4065, Mosman Park

1. The development would be a disaster on many fronts: ecologically, access and safety, fire hazard.

2. The small beaches are already packed to capacity with local residents, Cowaramup residents and passers-by. The coastline is not suitable for such a large influx of people.

3. If the beach is to be used in an emergency it is not large enough for everyone to stand on.

1. Noted. 2. See response to Submission No. 2. 3. Noted



107

Government Agencies

State Heritage Office 1. The proposal has been considered for its potential impact on heritage places within the Scheme area and there is no objection to the proposal.

Noted. The submitter’s comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

DFES 1. Proposal is located in a bush fire risk area which warrants the preparation of a comprehensive Fire Management Plan to determine specific level of bush fire risk and to demonstrate the risk can be appropriate mitigated.

2. Cross referencing all documents regarding fire management has presented a number of conflicts/inconsistencies in the text detail. Further to this the FMP is out-dated and requirements review/amendment.

3. As such DFES support cannot be given to the proposal at this time and it’s recommended that the proposal not progress until DFES advises all conflicts have been satisfactorily remedied, submitted and endorsed, including FMP.

Subsequent submission dated:28 July 2014

Support FMP in principle inclusive of single access only

Conditional upon FMP including risk based analysis justification and all alternative solutions and mitigation strategies.

DFES support to single access is noted Updates to FMP as requested have been made, however the document requires some further changes which will result in a document satisfactory to DFES.

It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to additional changes being made to the FMP to the satisfaction of DFES.

Department of Water 1. DoW endorsed the Gracetown Residential Development Local Water Management Plan August 2010 on the 25 August 2010. Although the amendment and structure plan have taken some time to be finalised. There’s a possibility the structure plan contained within the endorsed LWMS of 2010 may have been modified. However, if this is the case, it appears that any modifications have been minor and there is no need to revisit the Strategy.

2. Department has no objection to the Amendment and Structure Plan on the condition that development is consistent with the endorsed Gracetown Residential Development Local

1. Noted. The LWMP will updated to reflect final Structure Plan

2. Noted and agree.

That the proposal be approved inclusive of a requirement to implement the finalised LWMS.


108

Water Management Plan (August 2010).

Wester Power No objections Noted. The submitter’s comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

Water Corporation No objections Noted. The submitter’s comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

Telstra No objections Noted. The submitter’s comments do not warrant modification to the proposal.

Main Roads No objections subject to the following comments and requirements: 1. Noted the report suggests that a second access

road is not warranted for the development. If a second access road is ultimately required for fire and emergency purposes then any access/intersection with Caves Road will need to be located, designed and constructed to the specification and satisfaction of Main Roads.

2. Structure Plan outlines some changes to traffic speeds on existing local roads to facilitate the development. Report also notes that any changes to speed zones will need to be endorsed by Main Roads.

3. Traffic Assessment Report for the development doesn’t mention possible requirements for the intersection of Cowaramup Bay Road and Caves Road. Report suggests that traffic on Cowaramup Bay Road will increase by approximately 200 vehicles per day and up to 500 vehicles per day and peak days.

4. Proposed increase in traffic demands at the intersection of Cowaramup B ay Road and Caves Road will increase potential for traffic conflicts and detract from the function of the main road.

5. Noted the Shire has recently completed interim upgrading of the Cowaramup Bay and Caves Road Intersection to a staggered T intersection. In the longer term it is anticipated that a roundabout will be required to address traffic safety issues at the intersection.

6. Main Roads may require a contribution from the

Main roads comments regarding the need for upgrading of the Caves/Cowaramup Bay Road intersection are noted. This item is covered by the Traffic Management plan prepared by the proponent.

That the proposal be approved inclusive of a requirement to implement an agreed Traffic Management Plan.


109

subdivider at the subdivision stage towards the future upgrading of the intersection of Caves Road and Cowaramup Bay Road to a roundabout.

Department of Health 1. All developments must comply with the provisions of the draft Country Sewerage Policy. Lots as proposed in the Subdivision Concept Plan must connect to scheme water and to reticulated sewerage provided by a licensed sewerage provider. Wastewater recycling scheme requires the approval of the DoH.

2. Public Health Impacts – DoH provided a scoping tool that should be incorporated into the Gracetown townsite expansion.

3. May wish to consider incorporating Health Impact Assessment and/or Public Health Assessment principles in your decision making process.

The Department of Health’s requirement that the future WWTP requires DoH approval is noted and supported.


Department of Parks and Wildlife

Scheme Amendment

1. DPaW recommends the following modifications to the proposed entry in Schedule 15 of LPS1: a. In relation to point ‘C’ (wind generation to

support alternative power supply) ‘this can be supplied offsite, but otherwise the power generator needs to comply with SPP6.1 in terms of landscape impact’.

b. Point ‘g’ should be modified to state that all plans should be submitted at the first stage of subdivision and produced to standards acceptable to the relevant agencies.

2. For the scheme amendment map it is suggested that there should be reference to a ‘Bushfire Hazard Management Zone’ for the area shown as Parks and Recreation.

3. In the Amendment Overview the dot point scheme objectives should include: a. To ensure provision is made for bushfire

protection including bushfire fuel management within and around the periphery of the Future Development Zone in accordance with an approve Fire Management Plan.

b. In section 3.0 ‘opportunity for Innovation’ it

DPaW’s support for a single access road is noted. Minor modifications and suggestions as requested by DPaW have been made to the Environmental Management Plan and the Structure Plan. It is recommended that a requirement for an UWMP be added to the Scheme provisions.

That the proposal be approved inclusive of a requirement for preparation of an UWMP.


110

should be clear that this applies to the first stage of subdivision.

4. Sustainability objectives for Gracetown should also refer tom ‘landscape character’. Second Access Road Risk Management

5. With regard to the Second Access Road Risk Management Assessment undertaken by Strategen: a. DPaW agrees that there are limited benefits

in some areas of bushfire risk reduction while new risks are introduced. These benefits come at the cost of significant environmental impacts.

b. The observations of the Second Access Road Working Group convened by the Minister for Transport and Emergency Services found that the second access road require connection to Ellenbrook Road to be of most benefit in reducing the threat of fire, and that significant issues were associated with construction of such a road that would require detailed technical assessment.

c. The important emphasis for Gracetown is that bushfire protection measures are incorporated into planning and design for the Town regardless of whether a second access road is provided.

d. The EPA decision not to assess Amendment 2 was made on the basis that the second access road wasn’t included, if this remains the case the current environmental assessment applies.

Structure Plan

6. Landuse Item 5 should be amended to refer to the ‘Structure Plan – Concept (October 2010).

7. The Concept (October 2010) should be amended to: a. Items 1 and 2 should also refer to a potential

emergency refuge location to be developed in the vicinity of the Community Sports Facility.

b. Items 8 and 11 need to reflect that some


111

vegetation modification in accordance with the Fire Management Plan is necessary to reduce fuel load. DPaW agrees with the FMP that is essential that there are no heavy fuels that will carry a fire.

c. The reference to wind power generation needs to be quantified to say it will conform to SPP6.1 policies and guidelines, including not breaching the ridge.

d. An additional item needs to be added that states that building heights for the entire eastern row of nested battle-axe blocks are subject to assessment and height controls to ensure that buildings do not breach the skyline when viewed from tourist and recreation sites in the National Park. This includes all buildings identified in red and orange colours in the Landscape Masterplan Report and not just those within the ellipse in the report.

Design Initiatives Report and Supporting Documents

8. The fauna surveys identify species within and around the Site that are identified as threatened under the State Wildlife Conservation Act and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

9. DPaW considers the findings and recommendations of the fauna survey reiterate the need to: a. Consult with DPaW about threatened fauna

management plans; b. Ensure a qualified fauna handler to be onsite

when clearing of vegetation is undertaken; and

c. Consult with DPaW about operational guidelines for the clearing of vegetation.

10. DPaW considers the survey, results and information in the reassessment of botanical values to be satisfactory. Fire Management Plan

11. The FMP, though providing a number of key


112

measures, contains a number of errors and lacks a sufficiently rigorous analysis of fire risk, hazard and threat given the significance of the proposed development.

12. The FMP lacks evaluation of the effectiveness of a second access road.

13. A proposal that may include a road of such magnitude warrants a very thorough consideration of the need for and implications of the road. The Strategen Risk assessment appears to address this deficiency in the FMP.

14. A significant error in the FMP is that in relation to ‘current agency policy’ the statements are incorrect. The FMP observes that under the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines the second access road is required. This is in fact an ‘acceptable solution’ and the PFBP guidelines also provide that DFES may consider an alternative approach to be an acceptable level of bushfire threat mitigation.

15. The Urban Development Design Report supporting the proposal refers to a limestone surface road for the second access road if required. DPaW’s view is that such a road standard would be highly inadequate and would prevent a significant risk to life by using a road of this standard through the forest types along the preferred alignment. If a road is to be established, DPaW’s view is that the road would need to be of a suitably safe standard to carry public traffic with reasonable safety in the event of a bushfire emergency. This is likely to relate to a 6-7m sealed carriageway with associated infrastructure and clearing either side of the road. National Park

16. There would be substantial impact upon the National Park if a second access road was installed as per the advertised FMP. If a road is deemed necessary, DPaW considers it essential that the environmental impact of this road is assessed by the EPA.


113

17. The Strategen risk assessment states that a second access road would need to be built to a suitable safety standard to reduce the risk of entrapment and DPaW agrees there would need to be clearing either side of the road to achieve this intent.

18. Environmental issues arising from constructing a second access road that would need to be investigated include: a. A very substantial severance of the National

Park with consequential disruption to fauna movement.

b. Loss of native vegetation. c. The absence of any flora/fauna surveys

along this alignment. d. Threatened flora may, and threatened fauna

is, highly likely to occur. e. Detailed hydrogeological investigations of

the proposed alignment would need to be undertaken.

f. A new road will facilitate the introduction of weeds, feral animals and litter, and increase the likelihood of bushfire ignition.

g. A new road would expose the National Park to further clearing for illegal access and camping, and landscape impacts would need to be fully evaluated.

h. State and Federal environmental referrals would be required.

19. An additional impact of the proposed development is on visual outlook from the National Park. The key objective should be to avoid breaches of naturally vegetated ridge lines when viewed from key travel routes and tourist facilities within the National Park. Landscape

20. The landscape masterplan report provides a good assessment and recommendations for managing landscape impacts.

21. The landscape assessment should identify the special building height limits that ought to apply for all buildings in the identified red and orange zones in the assessment to achieve the


114

objective avoiding skylining of buildings, particularly for the viewing points located in the National Park and where skylining is minimal or doesn’t occur from current buildings in the Townsite.

22. A number of simulated views in the assessment show a wind tower exceeding the skyline from key viewing points. This is considered contrary to the guidelines and objectives of the LNRSPP.

23. The geotechnical report states that engineered building pads may be required where caprock is close to the surface. Landscape modelling should account for this possibility.

24. The wastewater facility should be subject to the same degree of assessment to determine an applicable height limit and design requirements.

25. DPaW disagrees with the stated height of up to 18 metres as being acceptable for the proposed wind towers. It would be better to relocate the wind towers and reduce height to meet visual management guidelines, or consider alternative energy supplies. Karst Subterranean Fauna and Soils

26. The analysis undertaken uses a risk based approach relying on limited records from surveys elsewhere on the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

27. On-site surveys for karst, troglofauna and stygofauna would help build up the State database of occurrences of these fauna species and would be a useful test of the accuracy of the risk assessment. Environmental Management Plan

28. DoW advice should be sought in relation to water nutrient and drainage management.

29. A number of minor amendments need to be made to the EMP.

30. The old tip site should be assessed for possible contaminant leakage and if necessary the site remediated. DER contaminated sites branch should be contacted regarding rehabilitation requirements.


115

Undergrounding Power

31. To reduce the risk of power being cut during a bushfire, reduce the risk of ignition in bushland areas and avoid the risk of powerlines falling across the road and blocking access, it would be desirable to have the power distribution line placed underground where it traverses bushland and Cowaramup Bay Road.

Subsequent Submission dated: 12 June 2014 (relates to FMP only)

Suggests rewording of numerous minor points

Notes Stratagen report re: second access road.

Will continue to work cooperatively with Main Roads regarding access options for SW coastal communities.


116

‘a

ATTACHMENT 3


117


118

t09.209.vb.r02b.2.doc 23

ATTACHMENT 4

119


120

ATTACHMENT 5


121