Public Comment Open

Bulk submissions may be grouped together and treated as one submission, so try and adapt to fit what you want to say.

PAGE 1

• Loss of safe water for disabled sailors, novice water users and swimmers. Organisations and clubs have said there is amenity use that will be lost as a direct result of the location of this terminal that the water safety reference group will not be able to resolve. ACTION: Require quantitative feedback on impact of amenity, including number of organisations and clubs who have indicated they will close, number of previous water users who will not use the area, number of objections from stakeholders, clubs and sporting associations. Require the release of the stakeholder survey results to the WAPC. WAPC to ask PTA to provide a stakeholder satisfaction survey post-engagement. Utilise best practice guidelines for detailed consultation with people with disability and their advocates. Utlilise best practice guidelines for consultation to inform infrastructure that work with rather than against community.

• It adversely impacts the range of recreational opportunities, including sightseeing. picnicking, windsurfing, swimming, and unpowered boating. The Matilda Bay Management Plan explains its the “natural features, such as the parkland setting and safe swimming areas, along with city and river views, attract people to Matilda Bay.” Introducing a large terminal that cuts the bay in half and frequent ferry operations that are likely to increase in the future and ferries that will to need to run on time will displace the popular recreational values of Matilda Bay that the project reports have not provided any confirmation will be addressed other than a reference group being established. 
• As described in the Matilda Bay Management Plan, the Reserve is a valuable tourist asset for the State and the facilities provided need to be of a corresponding standard. The development application detracts from this asset. If dolphins don’t come to shore, if the water is rippled rather than flat and calm, if the tree canopy is reduced, if black swans that congregate at the development site are displaced, if ferry horns blast every 15 to 30 minutes (maybe more frequent in future), if ferries drive past frequently across the recreation area it spoils the natural beauty, prestine shoreline and relaxation that makes Matilda Bay an asset. ACTION: Review alternative sites.

• On water safety controls that have been proposed by DTMI would further adversly impact the amenity. Controls that have been mentioned include, three horn blast each depature to clear on water traffic, routes that turn south past the cafe and then turning towards Applecross close to RPYC, the Environmental Review Document submitted by PTA to the EPA references the Operational Management Plan would consider recommending separate distances and / or exclusion zones to protect marine fauna. This goes against the tourism value for visitors interacting with marine fauna including dolphins close to the shoreline. Dolphins are frequently spotted close to the shoreline, with multiple videos of close encounter sightings available on the Friends of Matilda Bay Facebook page or can be made available at request. This will impact weddings and the amenity and appeal for visitors from Mid Matilda Bay and right along the foreshore upto RPYC. This information has not been provided and has real economic and on-land amenity impacts. The residual impact of amenity, after water way safety controls are in place, has not been mapped. ACTION: Given sensitivity of the amenity, noise and visual impact of the yet to be developed waterway safety controls, recommend WAPC provide feedback only and request PTA resubmission with contract design and waterway management plan.
• The footprint of the charging sub station is likely to be larger than stated in the development application, to have the charging capacity required for the ferries, initial briefings indicated a size oequivalent in size to 2 x 40 foot shipping containers. ACTION: Request PTA to provide the charging capacity and specs of the battery which will show the size of the infrastructure required. 

• The Development Report says ” The project will support the established recreation functions of the Matilda Bay foreshore, offering enhanced public transport access for foreshore and river users.” Tourist operator SUP Central used by over 1500 people each year will close. The clubs programs that offer community learn to sail, paddle and rowing that rely on flat, calm waters protected in Matilda Bay. The kids and those inexperienced on the water use of the water will be displaced. No evidence has been provided to verify the reports claim. The class A reserve purpose is recreation, a development application positioned that impacts this class A reserve should ensure it fits in with rather than displaces current recreation. ACTION: Given the class A reserve’s purpose and the development report has not addressed how it will ensure current recreation is not adversley impacted, other than creation of a reference group, recommend WAPC provide feedback only and request PTA resubmission with contract design and waterway management plan agreed to by all stakeholders in the refrence group. Require PTA to provide an independent amenity impact report completed by a professional who attends the reference group meetings.

• There is only one already crowded cafe on the reserve with no further opportunity for development or additional establishments. All other recreation functions of the Matilda Bay foreshore will be adversley impacted and recreation use displaced. ACTION: Review alternative sites

• Loss of mature tree canopy not aligned with City of Perth tree protection policy. Where possible the City will prioritise relocation of proposed infrastructure away from existing trees. The development report has not provided information on how this was assessed as part of the site selection. ACTION: Require PTA to provide comparison of tree canopy at the JoJo’s location. Follow City of Perth’s tree protection policy, which prioritises the relocation of proposed infrastructure away from existing trees. Replace any trees removed with an equivalent tree of the same breed. Monitor and require an independent report of tree planting post construction to ensure adherance. Adhere to the City of Perth’s tree protection policy which applies a monetary value to each tree derived from a combination of the amenity and ecological benefits it provides.

• The loss of mature tree canopy, including a high number of native species will change the visual appeal of the area and impact the experience of visitors and tourists to the area. Loss of trees reduces liveability, landscape character, biodiversity, and climate resilience of the city. According to the City of Perth tree protection policy, the presence of a healthy urban forest improves health outcomes in increasingly urbanised environments, mitigates the effects of climate change, and provides enjoyable and engaging public spaces. The policy recognises that the true significance of a tree is defined by its age and potential longevity, therefore, all public trees unless hazardous, will be protected from any activity that threatens their health and/or longevity. This development application does not sufficiently protect the mature tree canopy that is distinct and important to the vista of Matilda Bay. It is the only, really accessible east facing beaching that has this mature canopy. ACTION: Follow City of Perth’s tree protection policy, which prioritises the relocation of proposed infrastructure away from existing trees. Replace any trees removed with an equivalent tree of the same breed. Monitor and require an independent report of tree planting post construction to ensure adherance.

• The planning application says “limited piling…to accommodate inbound and outbound ferry movements”. This development application requires all new infrastructure into the riverbed as there are no existing pylons, which mean 45 pylons will be required for 140 metres of terminal, no report has been provided of how much sand will be removed from the riverbed that is assessed as high-moderate risk of ASS. This assessment was carried out in July and is already known yet not disclosed. Over 100 cubic metres requires ASS management. Matilda Bay is an actively used water recreation area, any risk to the water quality would have a severe impact on the health and safety of the thousands of visitors and members of the clubs who use the water each week, along with the wildflife and fauna of the area. ACTION: Require PTA to provide an independent report on the depth required for each pylon. Require PTA to provide its ASS management plan.  Ensure PTA compliance in following best practise guidelines for ASS management over 100m3

• Planning application says “no requirement for dredging to accommodate inbound and outbound ferry movements”. It is unclear how this conclusion was made when the PTA and DTMI have confirmed ferry routes are not finalised and will be worked through with the Waterway Safety Reference Group as a key mechanism to ensure water safety. ACTION: Require PTA to provide detail of areas of the swan river that would require dredging to accommodate ferry movements. Defer approval and require resubmission from the PTA after operational routes have been confirmed and been reviewed as part of DTMI’s Aquatic Use Review process for waterway management changes.

• Impact of removal of mature trees that have historic value. The Matilda Bay Management Plan recognises the “historic value of existing exotic tree species” at Matilda Bay. The management plan says to “encourage the use of local species in rejuvenation of existing garden beds, and in any new plantings.” The landscape plan is inconsistent with the Matilda Bay Management Plan.  ACTION: Require the landscape plan to align with the Matilda Bay management plan. Require PTA to provide number of trees that will be removed. Place restrictions on the number of trees that will be removed and ensure compliance and monitoring.

• The Environmental Review Report submitted with the EPA mentions a loss of 29 mature trees suitable for black cockatoo nesting. This information conflicts with the number of trees indicated in the development report. ACTION: Require PTA to provide number and type of trees that will be removed. Place restrictions on the number of trees that will be removed as equal to the number and type in the development report as that is what the public and WAPC are providing feedback on, and ensure compliance and monitoring. Review construction area to avoid removal of trees. Require replanting of mature trees and only of the same breeds that were removed in line with the Matilda Bay Management Plan.

• Likelihood of light spill but no lighting plan has been provided. Unclear how the lighting that would be required for the terminal would minimise this spill and not adversly impact fauna. ACTION: Request PTA provide lighting plan and independent report to assess the impact of the lighting on the fauna, including how this impact will be managed.

• Risk of water quality changes during construction. ACTION: Conduct a full environmental assessment by DBCA and EPA prior to engaging a contractor.

• Risk of water quality changes during operations due to cross-contamination of ferry movements across the Swan River, particularly from EQ with known water quality issues. ACTION: Conduct a full environmental assessment by DBCA and EPA prior to engaging a contractor. Provide to WAPC to inform decision.

• Impact on dolphins that feed along the foreshore. Construction management plan only stops work when dolphin within 200 metres. Environmental report says permanent hearing damage when within 700 metres and behavioural impacts at 1500 metres. ACTION: Update management plan to stop work if any dolphin within 700 metres of piling site and require monitorin of 1500 metres. Update management plan to stop work if any dolphin within 1500 metres for more than 1 hour.

• Wake impact report not provided. Environmental report indicates each ferry will produce two waves per passing. ACTION: Request wake report from PTA. Request wake report be made available to clubs who hold the duty of care responsibility to protect their members.

• Alters the ambiance of quiet river stretches. ACTION: Review JoJo’s location.

• Mature trees removed that will change the vista. ACTION: Relocate charging substation and reduce number of bus bays.

• The application does not sufficiently address the known increased erosion risk that would result from ferry operations. The coastal erosion report states “operational procedures, including controls on vessel approach angles, transit paths, and speeds, are required to mitigate increases in shoreline wave energy and the consequent potential for enhancement of erosion across the bay.” This risk has not been addressed with any sufficient detail to confirm compliance with the State’s Coastal Policy Guidelines SPP 2.6. ACTION: Require the PTA to provide verification of site selection that has considered coastal processes. Require erosion management plan and understanding if a sea wall will be required.

• The development report says the application is compliant with the State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines, but the PTA has not provided a CHRMAP to support their application. The management action plan has the potential to adversley impact access. Carrying kayaks and SUPs and launching from the beach. Business SUP Central cannot operate with a seawall. A sea wall changes the accessibility and connection between the grassed reserve used when picnicking and the sand and water. ACTION: Request PTA to provide a CHRMAP that assesses land side preventions  that includes ferry operations so WAPC can decide based on the full erosion impact of which WAPC should consider in the 50-year life of the infrastructure.

• The Landscape Concept Plan says “DBCA would support opportunities to enhance the benthic habitat as part of the design of the ferry terminal and/or foreshore stabilisation structures.” No information about the foreshore stablisation structures required to support ferry operations. ACTION: Require PTA to provide CHRMAP to support their application.

Heritage and cultural significance

Land use and integration

• A major ferry terminal size and infrastructure footprint will be a focal point of the Bay, rather than integration. The charging sub station places a large physical barrier between the between UWA campus and the river foreshore decreasing connection and permeability due to the proposal build an out of proportation jetty. ACTION: Consult with independent transport experts and urban planners to review the location.

• Locating the main charging substation in this location is not a good use of land. ACTION: Modify the Elizabeth Quay ferry terminal to increase its capacity to charge ferries, thereby reducing the need to have several ferries constantly on charge in Matilda Bay. If it is determined that the charging sub station would not fit at Elizabeth Quay, request PTA to provide the footprint of the substation and assess the best location for this infrastructure.

• Terminal, paths and charging infrastructure will cut the reserve in half, segregating the use of the reserve. ACTION: Review JoJos location which would have less negative impact

• Located in a very thin area of the reserve that confines rather than opens up the reserve. ACTION: Reduce the overall dimensions of the ferry terminal (jetty, waiting areas, charging stations and associated new bus terminal and other road modifications) to be in accord with the fragile nature of the reserve and Matilda Bay as a whole. Provide designs of the entire proposed changes including the jetty, ferry terminal and future onshore footprint of buildings and associated changes for road users prior to construction commencing. Allow for additional public comment on final footprint.

• Does not activate the foreshore, cafe is already crowded and no future development potential. Therefore poor use of land that compromises the current amenity. ACTION: Review JoJo’s location which would integrate with the existing jetty and proposed marina in this location plus activate Broadway Ave and foreshore area where there is already genuine development interest and tourism potential that would be supported by a ferry terminal.

• Four ferries will be berthed at night. Two parked during the day with three on rotation. ACTION: Review the size of the ferries being proposed (currently 25m long). Relocate charging substation to another location. Relocate parked ferries to another location more suitable for mass transit so to not impose on the natural iconic vista of Matilda Bay.

• Inconsistent with Matilda Bay Management Plan which is to “protect Matilda Bay Reserve’s values by its gazetted purpose and its security of tenure.” A large four berth ferry terminal in the middle of the Bay that adversly impacts the current gazetted use of “recreation” is inconsistent with the land use purpose. This infrastructure would change the character of Matilda Bay and creates a significant transit hub. WAPC is making a decision on Stage 1, but the infrastructure includes the charging sub station for the ferry network which means future stages will likely lead to additional routes into Matilda Bay and possible additional infrasturcutre to continue to support the expanding ferry network. Impacting even further the recreation purpose of Matilda Bay. ACTION: Require PTA to apply for repurpose of class A reserve. Request no part of the reserve is excised. 

• It is inconsistent with the essential values of the reserve detailed in the Matilda Bay Management Plan that “being close to the city, Matilda Bay Reserve is accessible to residents of Perth and tourists. These features, together with its visual qualities and its harmony with the grounds of the adjacent University of Western Australia and the adjoining Swan River, are the Reserve’s essential values.” This area is already accessible and well serviced by public transport. The ferry does not make the area more accessible but detracts from the reserves visual qualities. ACTION: Review location. Require smaller terminal, only one ferry, move charging sub station to another location.

Please provide any further feedback on the proposed development