SVPA Submission – Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 Million

26 March 2016

Draft Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 Million
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Locked Bag 3001
West Perth WA 6872

Dear Sir/Madam

Submission: Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 Million 

This submission is made by the Swan Valley Progress Association Committee and represents the views of a large number of Swan Valley residents.

We will limit our submission to the Northern Services Corridor section that is through the Swan Valley. The reference is Figure 23: Proposed water and wastewater infrastructure-North-East Metropolitan.

Submission:

We have no objection to the methodology used for the Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan and accept the need to infrastructure corridors.

We met with Water Corporation staff in 2015 when there were three possible corridor routes all passing through the Swan Valley with the principle aim of obtaining information on where the three routes were as this could not be determined from the maps provided.  The next step was to provide advice on the route options that minimised disruption to the Swan Valley agriculture, tourism and residents.  We never did get the GIS maps and the proposal was withdrawn. We met with Water Corporation staff again on the 24 March 2016 to ascertain the route of the new single corridor through the Swan Valley as part of the Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan. We were not supplied with suitable scale maps but were informed that the 40 metre wide route of the corridor through the Swan Valley was adjoining to and north of Gnangara Road and then east of and adjoining West Swan Road to Reid Highway and then south of Reid Highway to cross the Swan River using an undecided route that would require many turns to accommodate the difficulties in this area. It is therefore difficult to comment on the route south of Reid Highway, however our comments below may be of value in minimising the impact in this area.

We will not support a corridor that:

  1. Reduces agricultural land. The route along West Swan Road will remove from use today or in the future 32 Hectares of land that is mostly class 1, 2 and 3 all of which are suitable for horticulture. (See map of Land Capability Study for Horticulture in the Swan Valley by Department of Agriculture December 1990). There are large areas of the Swan Valley and adjoining areas that are class 4 and 5 and not suitable for horticulture.
  2. Reduces the rural amenity of the region. The corridor will leave bare a 40 metre strip of land and this will reduce the visual amenity of the region.
  3. Reduced tourism appeal. The Swan Valley is now a major tourist destination and is considered a state asset. It is subject to the Swan Valley Planning Act which is now in review (Swan Valley Development Plan 2015 by Department of Planning) with the new Act being written now. The new Act will strengthen the tourism and agriculture values of the valley. This is a state government initiative and has wide support in the general population. West Swan Road is the major tourist route of the valley and a corridor would greatly reduce its appeal.
  4. Causes substantial local disruption. The corridor as planned will cause the removal of horticulture mostly vineyards, houses and sheds and relocation of infrastructure such as farm roads, irrigation bores and pipes, electricity and water supply. This disruption will be substantial.
  5. Subdivision is not acceptable to us below two hectares (Swan Valley Planning Act four hectares) within the high value agricultural areas of the valley. The corridor is a form of subdivision that will cause many lots to be of reduced size and this will adversely affect the viability of the lot. It is also unjust to allow government to subdivide yet deny the land owners the same opportunity.

We cannot support the Northern Services Corridor in its present location and therefore strongly object.

We do, however, see the need for the corridor and can see several options that must be investigated for this infrastructure. The possible alternative routes which may use some of the valley but with a lower impact are:

  1. Use the rural land to the west of and adjoining Henley Brook Avenue to Gnangara Road. Many areas to the east of this road are within the Swan Valley but are class five soils and could be considered for use.
  2. Follow the rural land boundary with the Darling Range National Park. This route would use the rear of rural lots but has no road adjoining and would therefore need to be wider. Rock is also present in this area and the pipes would need to be above ground in some areas.
  3. Use the (now not needed) Perth Darwin Highway alignment adjoining Lord Street. The land is about 100 metres wide.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We are available to meet to discuss our submission and alternative corridor routes at any time.

Steve Leppard
Chairman

This entry was posted in North-East sub-regional planning framework, Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 million, SVPA Submissions. Bookmark the permalink.