FOMRE - Proposed Development
24th November 2011: THIS SECTION WILL BE UPDATED AS SOON AS THE ODP IS FORMALLY RELEASED FOR COMMENT
RELEASE OF A REVISED OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY GINGIN SHIRE. FOMRE UNDERSTANDS THERE MAY BE UNRESOLVED LEGAL ISSUES.
On June 9th 2009, the Minister for Planning , the Hon John Day MLA, announced to Parliament that Cabinet had decided to retain the "Urban Development” zoning for the land on the south side of the Estuary.
The Minister said that the development would be scaled back by 60% from the originally proposed 5,000 homes to 2,000, accommodating some 6,000 inhabitants.
His accompanying press release (click here to view) concluded with the statement:
“The community will have a chance to comment on the revised plans for the land south of the
This is an aerial photograph of the Moore River Estuary. Guilderton township is on the North bank, near the river mouth. Click on the arrow in the picture to see what the developer originally planned.
BUSTING THE MYTHS
This will not grow Guilderton but start an unsustainable separate township, mainly of intermittently resident retirees, without community infrastructure or employment opportunities, analogous to Alan Bond's Two Rocks development in 1969, which has had great problems over the years.
Myth 2. “Over time this will allow the
Developments only bring schools if they attract children, which this one is unlikely to do. Shopping will only improve when there is an increased locally permanently resident population. The Shire Council is already working on a future service hub site, far more centrally located than the Moore River Company's location.
Myth 3. “Scaling back the size of the development will address environmental concerns...” (Ministerial Press Release)
This piece of land is a unique piece of
Myth 4. (This is) “treating the landowners fairly, because their land has been zoned for urban development since 1995,” (Ministerial Press Release)
The rezoning of 1995 was a bad decision, made in the face of overwhelming opposition from the Guilderton Community, which the government of today should have the courage to overturn. We have planning laws because no landowner anywhere has the unfettered right to do what he wishes with his land to the detriment of the wider community.
SEVEN REASONS WHY IT'S BAD PLANNING
1.
2. The Minister's decision flies in the face of State planning Policy 1 which stresses the importance of "facilitating the efficient use of existing urban infrastructure and human services and preventing development in areas which are not well serviced,"
3. No economic hinterland exists, or is planned, which would support a township of 6000 residents. This makes the whole proposal artificial, repeating the mistake of Two Rocks 40 years ago, which proved costly to support in terms of services and vulnerable to the social problems.
4. Since the 60s this Estuary has been a summer retreat for many wheatbelt farming families, who still come in large numbers for their summer holiday. The estuary is also visited by thousands of day-trippers due to its natural beauty and proximity to
5. The Gingin Coast Structure Plan (adopted by the West Australian Planning Commission after an exhaustive process of community consultation in 2006) designated the land as a “Recreation and tourist node investigation area” and required the land to be re-zoned back to “Rural”. The Minister's announcement of June 09 turns this part of the Plan on its head without any further consultation whatever.
6. The creation of another township south of the river will do nothing to enhance the amenity of Guilderton. It will merely dilute the local authority’s resources further. (Guilderton has about 400 residential lots and a permanent population of about 100.)
7. From the planning studies which have been done there is no evidence of a present or future demand for residential land in the Shire of Gingin as would justify the approval of a plan to create a 2000 lot sub-division south of the Moore River.
MOORE
1. In late 1993 The Moore River Company (MRC), a Plunkett family concern, applied to rezone from 'Rural' to 'Urban Development' 557 hA of the approx. 2000 hA property it had acquired many years earlier. Despite overwhelming opposition from the local community and questionable procedures (refer 'Dossier') the Shire recommended approval of the rezoning to the minister.
2. In March 1995 Planning Minister Lewis approved the rezoning as Amendment 22 to TPS 8 under 15 fairly rigorous conditions, which included the holding of a consultation process to set the guidelines for the Outline Development Plan (ODP) the developer was required to produce.
3. Although well attended and excellently conducted workshops were held in August 1995, neither the Shire nor the WAPC ever reduced the substantial output to a set of guidelines required by the Minister. The Developer simply selected the output from the one working groups favourable to himself, out of the 15which reported, as the basis for his ODP. (refer 'Dossier')
4. Nevertheless the ODP submitted was found not to satisfy Minister Lewis' 15 conditions. As a result, in January 1999, without the community being made aware of it, the developer negotiated a new Amendment 62, rezoning the same land without any of the more stringent conditions imposed by Amendment 22.
5. This allowed the MRC to submit its ODP during 1999. Despite further strong opposition from the community, in January 2000, a WAPC officer, acting under delegated authority, approved the ODP without significant elements of the original Lewis conditions having been met.
6. However, the newly elected Labor government made it clear that it did not favour the development and the whole project went quiet for about 3 years, during which the Shire of Gingin submitted its new TPS 9 to the WAPC for approval.
7. In October 2003 the MRC lodged its sub-division application in respect of the rezoned 557 hA. The Shire recommended rejection of the application for a number of weighty reasons, but particularly because the sub-division plan appeared to bear little or no relation to the approved ODP. The WAPC accepted this recommendation, adding further reasons of its own for the rejection. During 2005 the MRC appealed this rejection to SAT, which eventually rejected the appeal in the second half of 2006. The MRC then took the matter to the Supreme Court, where it lay until the recent intervention by Minister Day.
8. In the mean time, after a long and tortuous process, in February 2006, the WAPC released the Gingin Coast Structure Plan (GCSP), which stated that the MRC land was not suited to urban development and designated it as a "recreation and tourist node study area". The impact on the proposed TPS 9 was that the WAPC made the Shire's rezoning of the Moore River Company's land back to 'Rural' one of its conditions for TPS 9's approval. The Shire obtained legal advice on this matter and was advised under no circumstances to re-zone without a government indemnity against consequential legal proceedings. This request was denied and an impasse resulted, which remained unresolved when Labor lost the 2008 election.
9. This is the Impasse to which Minister John Day has referred and which he felt it necessary to resolve by his Statement in Parliament and his Press Release of 6 June 2009.
10. The Minister's Press Release, especially in his final statement, has closed off discussion on the most vital issue of whether an Urban development south of the Estuary should be allowed at all and limited the community's input to tinkering at the edges with a pre-approved development of 2,000 homes.