|
Fremantle Port Authority has publicly resisted the prospect of any non-port activities being developed in the vicinity of the port. They have claimed that the "port's buffer policy" would be compromised and the public placed in jeopardy, particularly if residential development was to occur.
Kerry Sanderson, the Authority's then CEO, said in 2006 "the port is a rapidly expanding, modern deepwater facility handling general cargo, including containers, break bulk, livestock and imported vehicles. Particular issues in Fremantle are the proximity of a busy working port to business and residential areas, the threat of urban encroachment and increased tourism to the area impacting on port operations, and the relative narrowness of the channel entry to the port".
The Fremantle Planning Strategy and Fremantle City Plan 2000 - 2005 recognises the desire to maintain "a viable working Port" as an "instrument to maintaining the economic wellbeing of the area, including the attraction of a range of industries that generate income and employment to the region". Nevertheless, in the future it will be important to ensure that the Port and its surrounding area are well integrated, particularly in terms of the management of potential impacts. Potential impacts and risks include, but are not necessarily limited to, public risk, noise and odour. To this end, clause 5.1.4.2 {10.(ii)} of the Fremantle Planning Strategy recommended that the City develop, in conjunction with Fremantle Ports, a policy that provided for appropriate development controls for the area surrounding the Port.
The objectives of the Fremantle Planning Strategy are also consistent with the State Industrial Buffer Policy prepared by the State Government in 1997. The policy calls for the introduction of planning controls in town planning schemes to manage potential land use conflicts between industrial facilities and adjoining areas.
Buffer areas around the Fremantle Ports were developed in the Fremantle Inner Harbour Buffer Definition Study. The study identified the need for an offsite buffer around the Port. The buffer was determined on the basis of a range of potential amenity impacts and risks including noise, odour and public risk.
Map of buffer zone.
Three buffer areas around the Port have been identified: Area 1, Area 2 and Area 3.
The buffer zone boundaries were never drawn out into the ocean. At the time they were developed there was no consideration of any further land reclamation beyond the proposed FPA expansion of the container storage area to the north of Rous Head.
A simple extrapolation of the zone boundaries reveals that the residential and tourist developments envisaged at NPQ are outside Area 1. The proposed marina would act as a buffer and as a result residential, retail and tourist facilities would be in an area similar in characteristics to the current Area 2. In both Area 1 and 2 further residential development is contemplated, the only difference being that the built form requirements are less restricted in Area 2.
If NPQ was to become a designated activity centre it would be adjacent to probably the most developed, exploited and disturbed section of coastline in the study. The use of this section of coastline for residential, retail, tourism, commercial development and a marina would ensure that encroachment into remnant bushland areas adjacent to other parts of the coast for similar purposes would be diminished.
Likewise, using Precinct 33 as suggested would reduce the demand and pressure on the remaining natural coastline and assist in its ongoing conservation.
† BACK TO QUESTIONS
|
