Wandi TOD disallowance motion

Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 29 June 2011]
p5126b-5134a
Hon Lynn MacLaren; Hon Phil Edman; Deputy President; Hon Dr Sally Talbot; Hon Helen Morton

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1186/41 —
WANDI TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PRECINCT — DISALLOWANCE

Motion

Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [8.45 pm]: I wish to disallow the amendment for the Wandi
transit-oriented development precinct. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Greens (WA) might support
an amendment for a transit-oriented development. However, this amendment is not what it appears to be. The
development is neither high density, nor transit oriented. The purpose of this amendment is to rezone
6.8 hectares of lot 683 Lyon Road, Wandi, from rural water protection zone to urban zone in the metropolitan
region scheme. I have with me for the information of members a nice little picture of the area. It is located in this
tiny section on the Jandakot water mound. That is one of the issues that I have with the development. It is also
right on the freeway, which one would think could be a good opportunity for a transit-oriented design. I looked
into this issue in quite some detail and was assisted by departmental officers. I also had a briefing from the
Satterley Property Group, which has proposed the development. I have also met with other people who are
concerned about bushland in our region. I can tell members that this amendment has been thoroughly researched
by me and I would like the support of the house to disallow it.

One of the main reasons for disallowing this amendment is the development’s location on the Jandakot water
mound. Also, this habitat, which has not been cleared at the moment, is Carnaby’s cockatoo habitat. I have six
main reasons and I will quickly summarise those reasons, because, hopefully, members will be familiar with the
principles of planning. My first reason for wanting to disallow the amendment is the lack of a clear commitment
from the government about where it will put the railway station at Rowley Road, and I will go into that in detail
later. The second reason is that the proposed density of this development is not high enough to qualify as a highdensity
transit-oriented development. The third reason is that the close proximity of the proposed development to
Rowley Road is a concern because this is a major freight link to Latitude 32 and the southern ports. The fourth
reason is the location of the proposed development on the Jandakot water mound, and I will go into the concerns
I have about that in detail. The fifth reason is that there is insufficient detail in this proposal about the measures
that will be in place to ensure that our groundwater source is protected from the contamination that is likely to
occur from urban development. The final reason is the paucity of data relating to the conservation value of this
site. So, very succinctly, I will cover those in detail.

Firstly, the government has not made a commitment to develop a rail station. We have been asking for the
metropolitan master plan for public transport for some time. One of the reasons is to enable orderly urban
development so that we know where we can build around rail stations. A number of recent reports, including the
draft “outer metropolitan perth and peel sub-regional strategy”, have put the location of that station near this
development. However, early indications suggest that the government’s 20-year public transport plan does not
put the station near Rowley Road. Even in this metropolitan region scheme zonings and reservations map which
was provided to me by the department and which I am holding in my hand, the proposed rail station was located
north of Rowley Road, and now in the drawing it is conveniently located in close proximity to the land that we
are considering. However, as it turns out, neither of these places appears on the master plan.

Point of Order

Hon PHIL EDMAN: Can we ask that that be tabled?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Michael Mischin): Does Hon Lynn MacLaren propose to table the plan?

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Absolutely. Would Hon Phil Edman like to see it? I can pass it to him now. I have
pretty much memorised it. I seek leave to table the metropolitan region scheme zonings and reservations near
amendment 1186/41, Wandi transit-oriented development precinct map.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It has been pointed out to me that, upon the request of a member, the document is
required to be identified, which the member has now done, and at the conclusion of the member’s speech it will
be automatically tabled.

Debate Resumed

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. That, in a nutshell, is my concern about calling this
a transit-oriented development, because if the station is not there, it does not really qualify.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting Harvest Lakes, which is one of those areas that was originally planned to
be nicely developed to be a transit-oriented development. However, the station never eventuated. I believe that
this is an issue that our planning authorities need to sort out so that we can finally start locking in these transitoriented
developments where the stations are.

I have mentioned that the proposed density of the development is not sufficiently high to merit its transitoriented
development tag because the two go hand in hand. Anyone who has seen the development of Leighton
would know that we need high density at those rail station nodes. Therefore, this density is proposed to be for
R40 to R60. That maybe cuts it on the minimum side, but it does not really achieve what we need to achieve
with transit-oriented developments.

The developers argued that there would be no market for higher densities. However, there is, as we know, a
major shortage of affordable housing in Perth, as documented by recent reports by Bankwest and Shelter WA.
This is a case in which we could develop some affordable housing in a high-density development, and I would
like to see that occur. However, at this stage of the process we have not facilitated that or even stipulated that
that should occur. The Department of Planning argued that it was not really possible to dictate a higher density at
this stage of the process. However, I still make the point that at some stage we need to take that major step.
Because R40 and R60 are being talked about, R80 could at least be talked about. When do we actually start that
process? I am saying that we should be starting it now.

The third reason was the concern about the close proximity of the proposed development to Rowley Road,
which, as members for the South Metropolitan Region would well know, is a major freight link to ports and
Latitude 32. My concerns relate to that issue of Roe Highway stage 8 and the Beeliar wetlands because, if
members are familiar with that plan, they will know that quite a bit of land is required for the on-ramps and offramps,
so it is more than just a ribbon of road. Sometimes these major intersections need quite a large triangle of
land in which to get cars on and off the freeway. From my assessment of the maps, it appeared that that was not
accounted for. We do not want to create a problem by allowing development too close to a major freight road.
The planning authorities have since spoken to me and advised that Main Roads Western Australia does not have
an issue with this. When I met with the Mayor of Kwinana and the planning authorities in Kwinana, they were
concerned that perhaps there had not been sufficient leeway. Therefore, part of the reason for this disallowance is
to be absolutely certain that enough land is reserved for the purpose of that major freight route. If we are going to
put a lot of residents in that area, noise amelioration will be needed at some point, so we need to ensure that we
have an adequate buffer for that. I do not want to create problems that we are already trying to deal with in builtup
areas. The port authority was the only authority that objected in the 22 submissions on the metropolitan
region scheme amendment. The port authority also was concerned about the integrity of the link and the transit
lanes. Therefore, I think it is worthy for us to pay attention to its concerns.

Development is proposed on the Jandakot water mound, as I have said. This area is classified P2. P2 areas have
been identified to ensure that there is no increased risk of pollution to the water source. Typically there is lowintensity
development with lots that are quite spread out in these areas. The proposed development is high
density. I know that developments occur in these areas that are fragile or vulnerable to groundwater pollution,
but the way to do that is to be very clear about the drainage requirements and to have systems in place under
which the drainage is very strictly controlled. This MRS amendment does not have those stipulations and I
would like for us to be a bit more prescriptive in that. The policy for the protection of our groundwater supply is
that further intensification of land use may result in the contamination of our public drinking water source;
therefore, typically, urban development is not considered appropriate. That is the reason the original Jandakot
structure plan, which I also have with me, did not include the little pocket of land next to the freeway. Satterley
has already developed all the land to the south, but it did not include that pocket of land, which I am indicating
on the map I am holding, because it is part of the Jandakot water mound. It could not be passed on the MRS
amendment that went through first, so it has been held off and is subject to this special amendment just for this
tiny pocket of land. That is an opportunity for us to ensure that the planning rules are strictly adhered to for the
Jandakot water mound. I am not convinced that this amendment does that.

I am concerned about the potential contamination of bores. There are at least 10 production bores on Lyon Road.
Production bore J210 near the corner of Rowley and Lyon Roads is under threat of contamination. At the point
that this MRS amendment was tabled in this house, there was no consideration of how those bores would be
protected. We need to ensure that that happens. That is why we have the special rules for the Jandakot water
mound. The lobes of the water mound are protected drawdown cones with a 500-metre buffer around each
wellhead, but this MRS amendment does not allow for those buffers. The Department of Water considered this
amendment and its submission to the metropolitan region scheme amendment process is worthy of note. I would
like to quote from it, if I may. The Department of Water’s submission states —

"The Department of Water has no objection to the amendment if it is determined that the unique
location of the site adjacent to the Rowley Road (south) train station and its associated high density
TOD would provide a greater community outcome. In this regard, the DoW have advised that should
the site be zoned urban, then they would reclassify the area from priority 2 to priority 3 to facilitate
urban development."

The DoW has advised that:

"While the proposed amendment is considered to be contrary to the water resource protection objectives of
the DoW and SPP 2.3, the strategic location of this land and the commitment by government to the
provision of sustainable TOD — A sustainable transit-oriented development — is recognised. The latter is
considered by the DoW to provide sufficient justification to depart from the objectives of the SPP 2.3
in this locality."

However, as members will have figured out by now, I have a very real concern that this proposed development
will be neither high density nor transit oriented. Therefore, the rationale that the Department of Water gave in its
submission under good faith that this would be a transit-oriented development is now undermined. I suggest that
the department may not give permission or see it as strategically important to permit urban development on this
fragile piece of land if it knew that the pay-off was just further low-intensity development and not the transitoriented
development.

The fifth reason that I have listed today for this disallowance is that there was insufficient detail in this proposal
about what measures would be in place to ensure that the contamination of water does not take place. The
government argued that provisions would be included in the structure planning and subdivision process to
restrict any contaminating activities. That is a worthy goal; we need to be absolutely sure, and I would like this
chamber to express that absolute commitment that groundwater drainage requirements will be adhered to,
because, frankly, the amendment we have before us does not guarantee that the groundwater will not be
contaminated. I repeatedly asked for the drainage protection plan, and I was assured that the intention of the
developers and the government was that this was to be a well-engineered development. However, there is
nothing in writing, and I think that most of us would recognise that things like that are really needed in writing
to ensure that something as important as our drinking water is kept free from contaminants.

The Department of Planning advised me that the provisions are likely to include the requirement for reticulated
sewerage, a restriction on potentially contaminating activities, reduced irrigation and the use of fertilisers on
public land and open space, and the application of water-sensitive design and subdivision design. I would like to
see that on the record.

I am not necessarily opposed to all development on the Jandakot water mound, but it needs to be carefully
controlled. A groundwater investigation to establish whether the run-off will infiltrate the groundwater and
aquatards, as they are called, in the soil is needed. That has not been done at this stage. There should not be any
commercial activities that would heighten the risk of groundwater contamination, and members can imagine
what they are—petrol stations, dry cleaners and grey and black water recycling.

My final reason for this disallowance is the paucity of data relating to the conservation value of this site. This
site is known to be the habitat of Carnaby’s black cockatoos. Neither the government nor the developers were
able to supply me with wildlife surveys taken at the site to assess its conservation value. In fact, a site visit
determined that that area had already been traversed by cleared roads, which, as far as I know, are not allowed
before this amendment goes through except for the purposes of survey work. In my consultation I learned that
the Urban Bushland Council was opposed to the clearing of any more bush in the Perth metropolitan area. Its
concern was that this area might be grand spider orchid country. We already know it is the habitat of the
Carnaby’s cockatoo. The Department of Environment and Conservation was unable to tell us whether the area
had been surveyed and its wildlife value assessed. These are planning rules this state has put in place to ensure
the protection of our environment. They are not in this metropolitan region scheme amendment, and we should
disallow it. Offsets have been planned for this state; however, we have been unable to establish exactly where
they will be.

In wrapping up, I want to make a few points about process issues. It appears that the proposed development is
pretty much a done deal. We can see the constraints are many and we can see the developer is already quite
advanced in his plans. I will show members these plans, which I will also seek leave to table. It is the “Wandi
North Local Structure Plan”.

Leave granted. [See papers 3463 and 3464.]

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: It shows the plan is already quite advanced for urbanisation along this side of the
freeway. It would be quite nice and tidy to go all the way up to Rowley Road and complete that block of land.
Members may recall that not long ago we considered an amendment for the other side of this freeway. That was
the Mandogalup MRS amendment. This, too, has already been zoned urban and a structure plan is in place.
Members can see why the pressure would be on this little area to go ahead and make it urban; however, that area,
as members know, is that tiny section of the Jandakot water mound. That is why I believe it should not be
developed.

As I said, I want to sum up. It looked like it was a done deal. The developers obviously did not think there would
be any problem getting this development approved. I note, through my research, that they are significant donors
to political parties in this house. I would hate to think that proper processes in this house will in any way be
bypassed because of that. I would not expect that. However, it is notable, in my research, and that is what I had
to share with members.

The Department of Planning stated that the Department of Water is also currently reviewing the Jandakot
groundwater protection policy due to pressure from developers. According to the amendment report, a number of
circumstances have changed so that the Western Australian Planning Commission supports a general review of
the statement of planning policy. These circumstances include the construction of the Kwinana desalination plant
and the increasing pressure from landowners within the Jandakot water protection area who are requesting
greater urbanisation and a review of that policy. The development of the Jandakot water mound would risk
contaminating our drinking water and would make us more reliant on expensive and energy-intensive
desalinated water. I ask members to consider whether it is acceptable to commit our long-term future to that.
As I have already mentioned, the Greens (WA) are not necessarily opposed to any development on the Jandakot
water mound. If the proposed development was a genuine transit-oriented, high-density development with a
confirmed train station, we would probably support it, provided appropriate water management measures were
implemented to minimise the risk of groundwater contamination and that the appropriate offsets were made to
replace the Carnaby’s cockatoo habitat. However, that is not what seems to be proposed for this area at all. What
we have instead is a medium-density development on the Jandakot water mound, with no public transport
provision. That will result in further clearing of the Carnaby’s cockatoo habitat. I therefore move to disallow this
amendment.

Followed by speeches from Hon Dr Sally Talbot and Hon Helen Morton.

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [9.41 pm] — in reply: I want to very quickly express my
appreciation to the minister representing the Minister for Planning for going into such detail about the
environmental conditions that will be imposed on this development. That goes some way to addressing the
concerns that I have raised, and I appreciate that. I would like to remind members that the conditions of the
Department of Water have not been met. The department stipulated that it was on the condition that it would be a
transit-oriented facility. We still are not convinced that the station will exist south of Rowley Road. I hope that
within two weeks we see the master plan for public transport for the state and that we know whether there will be
a station in that area. We will know soon enough whether that is true.

I appreciate the fact that the noise amelioration and groundwater protection controls will be measured and
audited. I must note that the public open space and greenways in the concept plans that I saw for the
development are impressive. I think that, should the developer deliver on the vision that he has set out to deliver,
it will be a very stunning and nice development to live in. I hope that that comes to fruition. It is a major freight
route; it is not a restaurant zone. Noise amelioration will be a key factor for the amenity in that area. I appreciate
that the minister has made some comments about that.

Finally, I note that, at the recent ministerial lunch put on by the planning sector that I attended, the Minister for
Planning was glowing in his assessment of the transit-oriented development that he visited in the United States. I
know that he knows. I know that he gets it. I know that he understands the importance and the joy that a transitoriented
development can deliver for citizens. I think he would agree with me that we want to see more of that in
Perth. I just want him to be sure that that kind of development can be delivered. I am still not convinced that the
Wandi transit-oriented development will deliver that. Therefore, I ask for support for the disallowance motion.

Question put and negatived.