|Posted by Ian Thurston on June 14, 2018 at 5:10 AM||comments (0)|
Notice of Major Development Plan
A notice of public consultation about a proposed second runway for Perth Airport was delivered to post boxes in Banjup in the week of 11 June 2018; you can download a copy here. Public comment on the proposal closes on 24 August 2018.
The second runway will run 2 km east of and parallel to the existing main runway, as shown in the project summary booklet:
Perth Airport expects the new runway will become operational some time between 2023 and 2025, depending on regulatory approval. The project summary booklet implies that Airservices Australia will begin design work on new flight paths for the runways in 2020.
For Banjup, Jandakot, and Treeby, the main consideration arising from the second runway will be its impacts on flight paths and the associated noise nuisance. Until Airservices publishes its proposals, say in 2021 or 2022, we can only guess at what the impacts might be. With that clearly in mind, what follows is possible:
When winds are blowing from the west, aircraft approach the main Perth airport runway from the north north east but when winds blow from the east aircraft approach from the south south west, which is why we see more aircraft over our area in the summer, when easterlies prevail.
Aircraft must approach Perth airport runways along fixed ‘glide paths’ that are 3° to the ground and in a direct line to the landing runway. Aircraft enter the glide path at an altitude of 1,000 metres, which implies they must be 19 km from touch down. In the south, this is at Hebe Road.
To line up to begin the glide path at Hebe Road, jets arriving from the east track along Gibbs Road and those from the west track along Russell Road before turning north over Banjup.
Perth airport’s second runway will be 2 km to the east of the existing main runway. If the glide path is similar to the current glide path, then it will be 2 km east of Hebe Road and begin about 2 km north of the intersection of Armadale and Nicholson Roads. Aircraft will likely approach over Rowley Road and turn north over Nicholson Road. The map below illustrates the possible flight paths over our area:
All this likely means that the noise nuisance from aircraft using the second runway will have little impact on our area.
However, the second runway could be of some benefit to our area. In 2017, there were 131,000 movements at Perth airport. By 2025, there will be 172,000 movements. If those movements are split evenly between the 2 main runways and their glide paths, then each would carry 86,000 movements. Hence, Banjup, Jandakot, and Treeby would have about a third less aircraft flying over us.
Your Committee welcomes your thoughts as to the implications for our area.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on April 7, 2018 at 1:10 AM||comments (0)|
The BRG has requested Cockburn east ward councillors to allocate funds in 2018/19 to implement the further traffic calming measures on Liddelow Road envisaged nearly 3 years ago when Council reclassified Liddelow as a “local distributor road”.
Main Roads WA is currently upgrading Armadale Road and constructing a roundabout at the intersection with Liddelow Road. Banjup residents are very concerned that the roundabout will facilitate a substantial increase Liddelow Road’s use as a rat run for through traffic to and from southern localities, especially heavy vehicles.
To deter rat runners, the BRG has asked Council to re-affirm Liddelow Road’s classification as a local distributor. To reinforce its local use, further traffic calming measures along its length should be installed, as envisaged in plans proposed by Cockburn’s traffic engineers in 2015.
It has taken Cockburn 3 years to begin construction of just one roundabout at Gibbs and Liddelow. The further traffic calming should be constructed before the roundabout at Armadale Road is completed.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on April 7, 2018 at 12:55 AM||comments (0)|
On 29 March, the BRG wrote to Cockburn Councillors and officer to express residents' concerns that ad hoc planning could prejudice Banjup’s rural amenity and that the locality could become like the rural lands of Jandakot and Treeby, squeezed on all sides by urban and commercial developments and sliced through by a 4 lane highway.
The BRG has requested Council adopt and implement specific planning and operational policies to protect and preserve the rural amenity of Banjup over the coming decade.
We propose developing policies that will prevent:
• encroachment from outside areas, including those from other local government areas
• through traffic on Banjup’s roads
• sub-division to urban use without a 100 metre buffer with Banjup’s rural lands
|Posted by Ian Thurston on April 7, 2018 at 12:45 AM||comments (0)|
The release on 23 March of the [email protected] plans is good news for the landowners of rural Jandakot and Treeby. The map included in the “South Metropolitan Peel sub-regional planning framework” (download https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/South_Metro_Peel_Sub_Region_March2018_1.pdf" target="_blank">here ) indicates that Jandakot and Treeby will be subject to “Planning Investigation”. This looks like the first step in the WA Planning Commission shifting its intentions for the area. We will need to continue lobbying state’s planners to get them to recognise the reality of Jandakot and Treeby’s lost rural amenity and the need to reconsider the area’s land use. The City of Cockburn is obliged to recognise the WAPC’s intentions.
Note that Banjup is unchanged as rural.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on October 6, 2017 at 4:00 AM||comments (0)|
Cockburn officers have recommended to Council not to seek rezoning of rural Jandakot and Treeby.
They recommend that Council:
(1) emphasise a vision to retain the rural areas of Jandakot and Treeby (outside the Treeby District Structure Plan area) through actions to restore rural amenity levels;
(2) communicate its decision to affected rural resource landowners, and explain key reasons for this decision including needing to balance the significant strategic and environmental considerations that exist in respect of the Jandakot and Treeby rural resource areas;
This is a great disappointment to our members. You can download the officers' report here.
Your Committee will determine what action to take next and shall be in contact very soon. In the meantime, please let us know your thoughts.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on September 27, 2017 at 11:55 PM||comments (0)|
At the general meeting of 10 September, members reflected on the loss of rural amenity in Jandakot and Treeby and what the implications might be for Banjup south of Armadale Road. We noted that urbanization is pressing on Banjup on all sides and we could be white anted by developers until not much of our rural amenity is left.
Banjup residents could embrace urbanization and actively seek rezoning or we could actively protect our rural amenity. Your Committee is seeking all members’ views on this matter over the coming months so that we can determine a consensus with which the BRG can move forward. A thread on the BRG Facebook facilitates that discussion.
Alternatively, please add your thoughts to this page. Thanks.
You can download the presentation materials from the 10 September meeting here. Go to page 38 to see the slides on Banjup amenity. The alternative motions on pages 48 and 49 were not put to the meeting. They were shown only to focus residents’ minds on the crux of the questions before us.
Note that your Committee has adopted no position on this matter. We seek only to facilitate debate.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on August 19, 2017 at 2:10 AM||comments (0)|
The BRG Committee thanks the many of you who responded so constructively to our first draft of the Vision for rural Jandakot and Treeby. None of the 84 rural residents north of Armadale we consulted say that they do not want the land rezoned.
We have used all of your comments in our final draft, (download here), that we hope that you will be able to support. Please let us know if you believe that your views have not been fully represented and we shall endeavour to make appropriate changes.
Despite repeated questioning by Councillors Chamonix Terblanche and Steve Portelli on your behalf, Cockburn officers have still not clarified what are their next steps in determining a Vision on behalf of rural residents. We are not confident that anything meaningful will be delivered by Cockburn officers by 6 September, which is the date set by a Council resolution of 8 June. We must not miss this opportunity to get a clear Vision in front of the WA Planning Commission and so we have had to prepare the Vision ourselves. We shall then have to press all Councillors to ensure that it is properly championed to the WA state government.
Please complete Cockburn's survey by 31 August using the guidance that has been emailed separately to all members.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on August 5, 2017 at 7:35 AM||comments (0)|
What Is Cockburn Up To?
Cockburn’s Vision survey is heavily loaded towards preserving the rural zoning of Jandakot and Treeby. It focuses on environmental considerations only and makes no mention of the needs of the people living in the rural areas.
If members answer the loaded survey questions in the way that Cockburn wants, then Cockburn would very likely say that residents accept that the zoning should not be changed – because that seems to be what Cockburn wants to achieve.
We believe that it is critical that residents put forward a common Vision. Otherwise Cockburn could claim that residents are divided and that no common position can be achieved – divide and rule.
To counter Cockburn’s strategy and in the absence of a meaningful lead from the City, the Committee has prepared a draft paper that members might wish to use as the basis for a Vision. You can download the paper here.
The Committee has no intention of being prescriptive. The paper is just a starting point upon which we can build. If you do not agree with the areas, the rationale, or the timing suggested, do not be backward at coming forward – we want to get to a Vision that most of us can support.
Be aware, though, that our Vision must be realistic and achievable. Look at the issues as if you were a ‘Man from Mars’ – would he think that our eventual Vision is fair and reasonable? We do not want to give Cockburn or the WA Planning Commission an opportunity to claim that we are being unrealistic.
Hold Off on the Survey
Your Committee still advises you not to complete Cockburn’s survey yet. After we have heard back from you by the end of next week 13 August 2017, we shall write again to suggest a consistent way in which we can all submit the common Vision.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on August 5, 2017 at 7:30 AM||comments (0)|
About 140 people attended Cockburn’s Information Forum on Monday evening, 31 July. There were few under 40 years of age, the demographic for the new residents of urban Treeby, so about 90% (say 125) would have been rural property owners. The BRG Committee applauds your commitment to making your voices heard.
The overwhelming mood of the meeting was that land north of Armadale Road should be rezoned to ‘Urban’ because its rural amenity is being irretrievably eroded by adjacent dense housing, extensive commercial parks, and heavy truck and car traffic. Residents wish it were not so, because they moved to the area for its tranquillity and rural amenity but now they have to face up to the new reality of a big and growing city on their doorsteps.
Residents called for Cockburn to create a Vision for the rural areas that it could promote to the WA Planning Commission. They wanted the Vision to show how their areas could be developed without leaving them stranded and blighted by planners.
Cockburn proposed to facilitate the visioning with an on-line survey of residents. This sounded promising but a quick look at the survey questions ( http/comment.cockburn.wa.gov.au/jandakot-a-vision-and-com… ) shows that it is heavily loaded to the current zoning. None of the questions are about encroaching industry and commerce, none about the pressures of adjacent dense housing, none about security, and none about heavy and ever-increasing traffic.
Instead, Cockburn has asked residents their opinions on the effectiveness of:
• airport planning
• state rural planning policies
• bush fire prevention policies
• groundwater protection policies
• buffer zones
• native vegetation protection
Answering any of these questions draws residents into Cockburn’s game of denying the need for rezoning.
Stockland and Schaffer employed fancy consultants to show how all of these policies’ restrictions could be overcome or accommodated. They played the game and won. Residents just don’t have the stake money to get a seat at the table, let alone play the game.
We are reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Minister who might have asked these survey questions:
Sir Humphrey Do you value our countryside?
Resident Yes, of course
Sir Humphrey Do you think our trees and native animals and birds should be protected?
Sir Humphrey Do you think our native animals should have safe havens near to the City?
Sir Humphrey Do you think our wetlands are important?
Sir Humphrey Do you think drinking water should be clean and secure?
Sir Humphrey Then why the hell do you want to rezone Jandakot and Treeby?
The BRG Committee is urgently considering what recommendations to make to residents on completing Cockburn’s survey. For the time being, the Committee suggests that you hold off on completing the survey.
|Posted by Ian Thurston on August 5, 2017 at 7:20 AM||comments (0)|
Building on members' comments' the BRG has finalised its submission on the Treeby District Structure Plan (the urban bit!) and has uploaded it to the Cockburn Comment web site. You can see the final submission here.