GEOLOG AND ASS MAPPING - LandCorp · Lege PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136 2014-149-f06.dgn N Revision: A ENVIRONMENTAL Job: 10129 66 438 000mN 438 000mN 66 439 000mN 439 000mN

6 438 000mN6 438 000mN

6 439 000mN6 439 000mN

6 440 000mN6 440 000mN

6 441 000mN6 441 000mN

386

000m

E38

6 00

0mE

387

000m

E38

7 00

0mE

RO

AD

RO

AD

RO

CIN

GA

MR

OC

ING

AM

MO

LAN

RO

AD

MO

LAN

RO

AD

ATTLEUP ROADATTLEUP ROAD

ee i ree i rRegi P rRegi P r

Lege

2014-149-f04.dgnPINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136

N

Revision: A

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Job: 10129

0 500m

SCALE 1 : 10 000 at A3 (MGA)

100 200 300 00

Drawn: B. Heath

LandcorpDEVELOPMENT AREA 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORTLATITUDE 32

Fig

ure

Rpt: 2014-149GEOLOG AND ASS MAPPING

A i Su e S i Ri

E ir e Ge g

S t o ndar

Cada tra o ndar

Propo d S d on

RCA and Ro Road

to Mod rat R

LIMESTONE t o ro nn to coar ra n d an ar to

ro nd d art trac o d par d r ar a t d r ac

an ar o o an or n

SILT ro n r ca car o npart o t om n and cont nt np ac o ac tr n or n

SAND pa and o o m d mto coar ra n d an ar to ro nd d art trac o d parmod rat ort d o r d a or n

ASS SOURCE: DEC, January 2010.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE: NearMap, flown January 2013.GEOLOGY SOURCE: Geological Survey of WA, 1:50 000 Environmental Geology.CADASTRE AND SUBDIVISION SOURCE: Urbis, Dwg No. LSP-02, Rev 5, 03-07-14.

DALISON AVENUEDALISON AVENUE

Date: 15 Jul 2014

33

3 23 2

33

33

3 23 2

11

22

22

33

44

55

Lege


N

Revision: A


Job: 10129

6 438 000mN6 438 000mN

6 439 000mN6 439 000mN

6 440 000mN6 440 000mN

6 441 000mN6 441 000mN

386

000m

E38

6 00

0mE

387

000m

E38

7 00

0mE

3 23 2

Ge r i e

0 500m

SCALE 1 : 10 000 at A3 (MGA)

100 200 300 00

RO

AD

RO

AD

RO

CIN

GA

MR

OC

ING

AM

MO

LAN

RO

AD

MO

LAN

RO

AD


Drawn: B. Heath


S t o ndar

Cada tra o ndar

Propo d S d on

RCA and Ro Road

tor ca Ma m mGro nd at r Conto r

EPP La

Con r at on Cat or

R o rc En anc m nt

t and U I

50m r to CC

200m r to CC


Fig

ure

Rpt: 2014-149GRO ND ATER FLO AND LEVELS AND ETLANDS

EPP LAKES SOURCE: EPA, 1992.WETLANDS SOURCE: DER, November 2013.GROUNDWATER CONTOUR SOURCE: DoW, August 2001.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE: NearMap, flown January 2013.CADASTRE AND SUBDIVISION SOURCE: Urbis, Dwg No. LSP-02, Rev 5, 03-07-14.


Date: 15 Jul 2014

Lege


N

Revision: A


Job: 10129

6 438 000mN6 438 000mN

6 439 000mN6 439 000mN

6 440 000mN6 440 000mN

6 441 000mN6 441 000mN

386

000m

E38

6 00

0mE

387

000m

E38

7 00

0mE

0 500m

SCALE 1 : 10 000 at A3 (MGA)

100 200 300 00

RO

AD

RO

AD

RO

CIN

GA

MR

OC

ING

AM

MO

LAN

RO

AD

MO

LAN

RO

AD


Drawn: B. Heath



Fig

ure

Rpt: 2014-149VEGETATION MAPPING AND CONDITION

MrMr

VG EVG E


CC

D CDD CDGG

CC

Tu rTu r

33

S t o ndar

Cada tra o ndar

Propo d S d on

RCA and Ro Road

or r S t

V tat on o ndar

V tat on T p

V tat on Cond t on

BUSH FOREVER SOURCE: DoP, 2007.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE: NearMap, flown January 2013.CADASTRE AND SUBDIVISION SOURCE: Urbis, Dwg No. LSP-02, Rev 5, 03-07-14.

Date: 15 Jul 2014

Lege


N

Revision: A


Job: 10129

6 438 500mN6 438 500mN

6 439 000mN6 439 000mN

6 439 500mN6 439 500mN

6 440 000mN6 440 000mN

387

000m

E38

7 00

0mE

Drawn: B. Heath


Fig

ure

Rpt: 2014-149AREAS AND SO RCES OF CONTAMINATION

MO

LAN

RO

AD

MO

LAN

RO

AD


RO

AD

RO

AD

RO

CIN

GA

MR

OC

ING

AM

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE: NearMap, flown January 2013.CADASTRE AND SUBDIVISION SOURCE: Urbis, Dwg No. LSP-02, Rev 5, 03-07-14.

0 50 200m100 150

SCALE 1 : 5 000 at A3 (MGA)


386

500m

E38

6 50

0mE

S t o ndar

Cada tra o ndar

Propo d S d on

RCA and Ro Road

Pot nt a Contam nat on So rc

DER L t d Contam nat d S t

Date: 15 Jul 2014

APPENDIX 1ACOUSTIC AND VIBRATION REPORT

Rochdale Holdings Pty Ltd A.B.N. 85 009 049 067 trading as:

HERRING STORER ACOUSTICSSuite 34, 11 Preston Street, Como, W.A. 6152P.O. Box 219, Como, W.A. 6952Telephone: (08) 9367 6200Facsimile: (08) 9474 2579Email: [email protected]

PGV ENVIRONMENTAL

LATITUDE 32 – DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 WATTLEUP

NOISE SCREENING ASSESSMENT

JUNE 2014

OUR REFERENCE: 17880-2-14087

Herring Storer Acoustics

DOCUMENT CONTROL PAGE

NOISE ASSESSMENT WATTLEUP

Job No: 14087

Document Reference : 17880-2-14087

FOR

PGV ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENT INFORMATION Author: Geoffrey Harris Checked By: Tim Reynolds Date of Issue : 5 June 2014

REVISION HISTORY Revision Description Date Author Checked 1 Changes as requested 18/06/14 GH PLD

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION Copy No. Version No. Destination Hard Copy Electronic Copy

1 1 PGV Environmental 2 2 PGV Environmental

Herring Storer Acoustics

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ACOUSTIC CRITERIA 2 2.1 AS 2107:2000 2 2.2 WAPC Planning Policy 2 2.3 Vibration Criteria 2 2.4 Appropriate Criteria 3

3. MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 4 3.1 Train Noise Emissions 4 3.2 Train Vibration 5

4. METHODOLOGY 6 4.1 Train Noise 6

5. PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS 6 5.1 Future Train Noise 6

6. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATIONS 7 6.1 Train Noise Levels 7 6.2 Train Vibration 7

7. CONCLUSION 8

APPENDICIES

A Site Plan B Vibration C Noise Contours

Herring Storer AcousticsOur ref: 17880-2-14087 ES1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PGV Environmental commissioned Herring Storer Acoustics to carry out a rail noise and vibration assessment for the proposed “Latitude 32” Development Area 2 (DA2) Industrial Area development in Wattleup. The purpose of this study was to assess ground vibration to determine buffer distances to achieve compliance with the appropriate criteria and assess noise received within the proposed development and if exceedance with the stated criteria were determined, establish the level of required noise control measures to keep noise intrusion to acceptable levels. An assessment for trains passing to the DA2 development in accordance with AS2107:2000 for noise and AS 2670.2:1990 for vibration has been undertaken. Based on our analysis, a noise contour plot has been developed to identify areas of concern, where amelioration may be required to meet the criterion.

The following table demonstrates the level of compliance with AS2107 at the various distances on noise contour plots (shown in Appendix C).

LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE WITH AS2107

Noise Level, dB(A) Office Spaces Workshops

> 80 Amelioration Required Marginal

75 < 80 Amelioration Required Satisfactory

70 < 75 Marginal Satisfactory

< 70 Satisfactory Satisfactory

Satisfactory – Standard construction will meet the ‘satisfactory’ noise level criteria in AS2107:2000.

Marginal – Standard construction will meet the ‘maximum’ noise level criteria, but not the ‘satisfactory’ noise level criteria in AS2107:2000. Noise amelioration should be considered.

Amelioration Required – Special design and construction will be required for office spaces and workshops in this area. Consultation at the design stage on placement, orientation and construction materials will be required. Potential amelioration options include, but are not limited to:

Offices placement away from the East of the building Increased wall construction facing the railway line Window placement, size and glazing Implementation of noise barriers

It is noted that once constructed the first row of buildings adjacent to the railway may offer a potential noise barrier to properties to the west, reducing the received noise level at buildings behind them. Train vibration levels at both monitoring locations were not in excess of either the 4 times or 8 times base criteria required office spaces and industrial locations Thus it is suggested that a distance of 15m from the Railway Centre is a sufficient distance to allow for compliance.

Herring Storer Acoustics Page 1 Our ref: 17880-2-14087

1. INTRODUCTION PGV Environmental commissioned Herring Storer Acoustics to carry out a rail noise and vibration assessment for the proposed of the DA2 development, in Wattleup. The development is bounded by Dalison Avenue to the North, Rockingham Road to the West, the future Rowley Road to the South and a train line to the East. Appendix A shows a general layout of the land. The purpose of this study was to assess noise and ground vibration received within the lots from trains travelling along the railway line. If exceedances with the stated criteria were determined, advise on the required mitigation measures to control noise intrusion to acceptable levels and the required buffer distance to comply with the stated vibration criteria.

As part of the study, the following was carried out:

Review relevant plans and documentation. Monitor noise emissions from passing trains. Monitor ground vibration from passing trains at two distances from the railway line

Model noise emissions from the rail network. Analyse data from ground vibration monitoring to determine recommended buffer distance for various uses, based on the evaluation criteria outlined in AS 2670.2 – 2001 “Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration; Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz)”. Provide general advice regarding noise amelioration options if required.


2. ACOUSTIC CRITERIA

2.1 AS 2107:2000

AS2107:2000 “Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors” provides guidance on acceptable internal noise levels within occupied spaces in new and existing buildings.

For the DA2, the areas of concern are the office spaces and the general workshop

areas associated with the various industries. As of such, the criterion has been selected to be that of “Industrial Buildings – Foreman’s Offices” as well as “Industrial Buildings – Assembly Lines”. For reference, Table 1 below lists Recommended Design Sound Levels for Industrial Spaces

TABLE 1 – RECOMMENDED DESIGN LEVELS FOR INDUSTRIAL SPACES

Type of occupancy/activity Recommended Design Sound Level, LAeq, , dB(A)

Satisfactory Maximum

Assembly Lines -Light machinery 55 70

Assembly Lines -Packaging and Delivery 55 60

Control Rooms 50 60

Foreman’s Offices 45 50

Industrial processing or manufacturing 40 50

Laboratories or test areas 40 55

Lunch Rooms 40 50

Precision Assemblies 40 50

Sick Bays 40 50

2.2 WAPC PLANNING POLICY 5.4

Typically developments near major roads and train lines are subject to The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) released on 22 September 2009 State Planning Policy 5.4 “Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations In Land Use Planning”. Section 5.3 – Noise Criteria, which outlines the acoustic criteria. However as DA2 is to be used for Industrial purposes, this planning policy is not applicable.

2.3 VIBRATION CRITERIA From previous projects we understand that AS 2670.2:1990 “Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration; Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz)” has been used to assess compliance with ground vibration. In this case where the axis of the occupants varies or is not known Curve 4(a) has been used as the bases of assessment.


Table 2 in Appendix A of the standard lists the acceptable criteria. In this situation the passing trains would be considered as intermittent vibration. As such the recommended a multiplying factor of 4 times the base curve for offices and 8 times the base curve for general workshop areas.

2.4 APPROPRIATE CRITERIA

Based on the above, the following criteria are proposed for DA2:

Office Spaces Satisfactory 45 dB(A) LAeq Maximum 50 dB(A) LAeq

Vibration 4x base curve 4(a)

Workshop Areas Satisfactory 55 dB(A) LAeq Maximum 70 dB(A) LAeq Vibration 8x base curve 4(a)


3. MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS Noise and vibration monitoring was conducted for the period of 14th May 2014 to 20th May 2014, to determine the existing train levels received on site. The logger locations are shown in Figure 1. Two monitors were deployed at the site; the first located approximately 15 metres from the centre of the railway and the second monitor was located approximately 30 metres from the centre of the railway line. Monitoring was undertaken using two SVAN SV212 noise and vibration monitoring systems. These units are capable of recording both noise and vibration levels continuously. Vibration levels are measured via a tri-axial accelerometer, which records vibration levels in the X, Y and Z axes.

FIGURE 1 – MONITORING LOCATIONS

3.1 TRAIN NOISE EMISSIONS

Analysis of continuous 1 second noise data from the Svan 212 loggers was utilised to obtain a LAeqT of a typical train pass. This is done by taking the logarithmic average of the 90 to 120 seconds that the train noise is present. Table 2 details the octave band data of a typical train pass event and was used in the noise modelling.

Logger A (15m)

Logger B (30m)

Freight Line


TABLE 2 – MEASURED TRAIN NOISE LEVEL

Sound Pressure Level, dB

dB(A) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k

2 minute Train pass at

15m 79 83 87 75 73 69 71 65 57 77

3.2 TRAIN VIBRATION

The maximum RMS acceleration for each train pass has determined at each monitoring location. Appendix B details the measured vibration level at each location and compares the results to the appropriate criteria, i.e. 4 times and 8 times Base curve.


4. METHODOLOGY 4.1 TRAIN NOISE

A predictive noise model was constructed for the proposed development. Input for the train movements was calibrated against recorded noise levels listed Table 2. Noise modelling was undertaken using SoundPlan based upon the LAeqT of a single train pass to determine the exterior noise level at various distances during these passes.

5. PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS

5.1 FUTURE TRAIN NOISE

Due to the large development size, rather than specific noise levels for individual lots, noise contours have been developed to show the extent of the noise levels. Using these contours, it is possible to determine the required placement and orientation of sensitive buildings to achieve compliance with criterion levels. The modelled scenario for this assessment is shown in Appendix C. From the noise contour plot, noise levels received at various distances from the centre of the railway line are listed in Table 3.

TABLE 3 – TRAIN NOISE LEVELS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES

Noise Level, dB(A) Distance (m)

70 125

75 55

80 20

Note: the above distances are for locations with direct view of the railway line and exclude any noise reduction that may be obtained by barriers (including buildings)


6. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 TRAIN NOISE LEVELS

Based on the observed train movements, it is recommended that noise received at the office spaces within industrial properties of proposed development be designed such that train noise is below the maximum level of 50 dB(A) and preferably below the satisfactory level of 45 dB(A). Furthermore workshop/industrial areas shall be designed below the maximum level of 70 dB(A) and preferably below the satisfactory level of 55 dB(A). Table 4 below shows the level of compliance with criterion for offices and workshops within DA2.

TABLE 4 – LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE WITH AS2107






Satisfactory – Standard construction will meet the ‘satisfactory’ noise level criteria in AS2107:2000. Marginal – Standard construction will meet the ‘maximum’ noise level criteria, but not the ‘satisfactory’ noise level criteria in AS2107:2000. Noise amelioration should be considered. Amelioration Required – Special design and construction will be required for office spaces and workshops in this area. Consultation at the design stage on placement, orientation and construction materials will be required. It is noted that once constructed the first row of buildings adjacent to the railway may offer a potential noise barrier to properties to the west, reducing the received noise level at buildings behind them.

6.2 TRAIN VIBRATION

Train vibration levels were not in excess of the 4 times or 8 times base criteria required for various industrial locations at either monitoring location A or B. Thus it is suggested that a distance of 15m from the Railway Centre is a sufficient distance to allow for compliance.


7. CONCLUSION An assessment for trains adjacent to the DA2 development in accordance with AS2107:2000 for noise and AS 2670.2:1990 for vibration has been undertaken. In accordance with the listed standards, the following criteria are applicable to DA2:

Office Spaces Satisfactory 45 dB(A) LAeq Maximum 50 dB(A) LAeq

Vibration 4x base curve 4(a)

Workshop Areas Satisfactory 55 dB(A) LAeq Maximum 70 dB(A) LAeq Vibration 8x base curve 4(a)

Based on our analysis, a noise contour plot (Appendix C) has been developed to identify locations of concern, where amelioration may be required to meet the criterion. The following table demonstrates the level of compliance at the various locations on Appendix C.

TABLE 5 – LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE WITH AS2107






Satisfactory – Standard construction will meet the ‘satisfactory’ noise level criteria in AS2107:2000.

Marginal – Standard construction will meet the ‘maximum’ noise level criteria, but not the ‘satisfactory’ noise level criteria in AS2107:2000. Noise amelioration should be considered.

Amelioration Required – Special design and construction will be required for office spaces and workshops in this area. Consultation at the design stage on placement, orientation and construction materials will be required.

Potential amelioration options include, but are not limited to:

Offices placement away from the East of the building Increased wall construction facing the railway line Window placement, size and glazing Implementation of noise barriers


Once again, it is noted that once constructed the first row of buildings adjacent to the railway may offer a potential noise barrier to properties to the east, reducing the received noise level at buildings behind them.

Train vibration levels at both monitoring locations were not in excess of either the 4x or 8x base criteria required office spaces and industrial locations Thus it is suggested that a distance of 15m from the Railway Centre is a sufficient distance to allow for compliance.

Herring Storer Acoustics Appendix A Our ref: 17880-2-14087

APPENDIX A Site Plan

LAND USE

ROADS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS

UTILITIES

0[m] 5025 125

Herring Storer Acoustics Appendix B Our ref: 17880-2-14087

APPENDIX B Vibration

Herr

ing

Stor

er A

cous

tics

Appe

ndix

B

Our

ref:

1788

0-2-

1408

7

Herr

ing

Stor

er A

cous

tics

Appe

ndix

B

Our

ref:

1788

0-2-

1408

7

Herring Storer Acoustics Appendix C Our ref: 17880-2-14087

APPENDIX C Noise Contours

Herring Storer Acoustics Appendix C Our ref: 17880-2-14087

LATITUDE 32

Appendix E:Fire Management Plan

Proposed Subdivision:

Prepared for:

RUIC | PERTH || MARGARET RIVER || BUSSELTON

T: 1300 797 607 E: [email protected]

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 2

Bushfire Management Plan

RUIC is a trading name of

Rural Fire Risk Consultancy Pty Ltd

ABN: 48 151 451 713

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 3

Disclaimer and Limitation

This report is prepared solely for LandCorp (the ‘client’) and is not for the benefit of any other person and may not be relied upon by any other person.

The mitigation strategies contained in this Bushfire Management Plan are considered to be prudent minimum standards only, based on the writer’s experience as well as standards prescribed by relevant authorities. It is expressly stated that RUIC and the writer do not guarantee that if such standards are complied with or if a property owner exercises prudence, that a building or property will not be damaged or that lives will not be lost in a bush fire.

Fire is an extremely unpredictable force of nature. Changing climatic factors (whether predictable or otherwise) either before or at the time of a fire can also significantly affect the nature of a fire and in a bushfire prone area it is not possible to completely guard against bushfire.

Further, the growth, planting or removal of vegetation; poor maintenance of any fire prevention measures; addition of structures not included in this report; or other activity can and will change the bushfire threat to all properties detailed in the report. Further, the achievement of the level of implementation of fire precautions will depend on the actions of the landowner or occupiers of the land, over which RUIC has no control. If the client becomes concerned about changing factors then a new Fire Risk Management Plan should be requested.

To the maximum extent permitted by the law, RUIC, its employees, officers, agents and the writer (“RUIC”) excludes all liability whatsoever for:

1. claim, damage, loss or injury to any property and any person caused by fire or as aresult of fire or indeed howsoever caused;

2. errors or omissions in this report except where grossly negligent; and

the client expressly acknowledges that they have been made aware of this exclusion and that such exclusion of liability is reasonable in all the circumstances.

If despite the provisions of the above disclaimer RUIC is found liable then RUIC limits its liability to the lesser of the maximum extent permitted by the law and the proceeds paid out by RUIC’s professional or public liability insurance following the making of a successful claim against such insurer.

RUIC accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party.

This report is valid for a period of three years only from the date of its issue.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 4

Document Details

ITEM DETAIL

Job Number M4002

Project Name Latitude 32

Approved by

Greg Penney GIFireE. MRMIA. Grad Dip Bushfire Protection. BSc

Director | RUIC Fire

Version 1.0

Date of Issue 2nd August 2014

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 5

Executive Summary Rural Fire Risk Consultancy Pty Ltd trading as RUIC Fire specialises in bushfire engineering and performance based design and construction solutions. RUIC Fire was engaged by the client to prepare this Bushfire Management Plan to support the development of Development Area 2 of the Latitude 32 Industrial Subdivision in Hope Valley, Western Australia.

Strategic assessment of the site and surrounding area was completed in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines 2nd Edition (FESA, 2010) and SPP3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management, Guidelines and Appendices (WAPC, 2014, 2014b, 2014c). The site itself is assessed as Low hazard, however a Moderate hazard rating applies to land within 100m of Beeliar Regional Park. Potential bushfire threat posed by Beeliar Regional Park is mitigated through compliance of the development with It is concluded the bushfire hazard level of the site is not prohibitive to development.

The potential bushfire impact on the proposed development area is low and would be restricted to low to moderate levels of ember attack in the event of bushfire within the Beeliar Park Reserve. This level of potential bushfire impact and resultant radiant heat impact is within the level deemed acceptable by WAPC (2014c).

Risk assessment was completed in accordance with ISO31000:2009 and COAG’s National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2004). The predevelopment and residual bushfire related risk levels are Low. It is concluded post implementation of the treatments detailed in this Bushfire Management Plan the bushfire related risk is not prohibitive of development.

The proposed development is designed using the performance criteria of Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines 2nd Edition (FESA, 2010) and draft Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines (May, 2014). In addition to Acceptable Solutions, Performance Based Solutions are used to meet all performance criteria identified in these documents for the industrial context of the project.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 6

Contents Page

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Document Review ............................................................................................................ 8

1.4 Planning Context .............................................................................................................. 8

1.4.1 Existing Bushfire Management Plans ............................................................................. 8

1.4.2 Bushfire Prone Designation ............................................................................................. 8

2.0 Site Details ................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Description ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Location ............................................................................................................................ 10

2.1.2 Proposed Land Use ......................................................................................................... 11

2.1.3 Bushfire Fuels .................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.4 Conservation Value........................................................................................................ 11

2.1.5 Site Topography .............................................................................................................. 11

3.0 Bushfire Assessment ................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Bushfire Impact Analysis ................................................................................................ 14

3.2 Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 15

4.0 Bush Fire Risk Mitigation ............................................................................................. 16

4.1 Element 1 - Location of Development ....................................................................... 16

4.2 Element 2 – Siting of Development ............................................................................. 16

4.3 Element 3 - Vehicular Access ....................................................................................... 18

4.4 Element 4 – Water Supply ............................................................................................. 21

4.5 Works and Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 22

5.0 Compliance Checklist for Performance Criteria .................................................... 23

5.1 Bushfire hazard levels and performance criteria ..................................................... 23

5.2 Performance Criteria and Compliance ..................................................................... 23

5.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 23

6.0 References .................................................................................................................. 24

7.0 Appendix 1 - Bushfire Weather ................................................................................. 25

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 7

8.0 Appendix 2 – Site Topography ................................................................................. 28

9.0 Appendix 3 – Design Bushfire Analysis .................................................................... 29

9.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 29

9.2 Design Bushfire Parameters ........................................................................................... 29

9.2.1 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 29

9.2.2 Separation Distance....................................................................................................... 29

9.2.3 Topography ..................................................................................................................... 29

9.3 Design Bushfire Modelling ............................................................................................. 31

9.3.1 Radiant Heat Flux & BAL Rating vs Separation ......................................................... 31

9.4 BAL Summary ................................................................................................................... 32

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 8

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Scope LandCorp (the client) engaged Rural Urban Interface Consultancy Pty Ltd (RUIC) to prepare a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) to support the proposed Development Area 2 of the Latitude 32 Industrial Estate within the Hope Valley Wattelup Redevelopment Area.

1.2 Objectives The objectives of the BMP are to:

Achieve consistency with objectives and policy measures of the current Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines 2nd Edition (FESA, 2010); draft SPP 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management (WAPC, 2014a) and the Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines (WAPC, 2014b), and any local planning scheme provisions relating to bushfire; Understand and document the extent of bushfire risk for the BMP area; Prepare bushfire risk management measures for bushfire management of all land subject of the Plan, with due regard for people, property, infrastructure and the environment; Nominate individuals and organisations responsible for fire management and associated works within the plan area (eg. local government for land vested in it and private property owners for freehold land); and Define an assessment procedure which will evaluate the effectiveness and impact of proposed, as well as existing, bushfire risk management measures and strategies.

1.3 Document Review In accordance with WAPC (2014b) this Bushfire Management Plan is valid for a period of 3 years only from the date of issue. The relevant Jurisdiction Having Authority is responsible for the evaluation and effectiveness of all mitigation strategies detailed in this Bushfire Management Plan.

1.4 Planning Context 1.4.1 Existing Bushfire Management Plans

No Bushfire Management Plans or strategic Bushfire Risk Management Plans have been developed for Development Area 2 or the greater Latitude 32 site.

1.4.2 Bushfire Prone Designation

Formal designation of an area as “Bushfire Prone” provides the legislative trigger to enforce all Class 1,2, 3 and associated Class 10a buildings to be constructed in accordance with AS3959:2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas.

1.4.2.1 HVWRP Master Plan

The Hope Valley Wattleup Master Plan does not identify any areas within the Master Plan area as bushfire prone, however it does require the Western Australian Planning Commission to consider bushfire related risk (HVWMP, 2005, s11.2(m), p60) in determining the suitability of

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 9

development within the Master Plan Area. As detailed in section 3 of this BMP the bushfire related risk to Latitude 32 Development Area 2 is low and is not prohibitive of development.

1.4.2.2 Draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management

Draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines (WAPC, 2014b, s2, p4) identifies three ways a site may be designated as bushfire prone:

1. if the land is identified as bushfire-prone on a local government bushfire map approved by a resolution of Council and designated by the Fire and Emergency Services (FES) Commissioner; or

2. if the land is not covered by a map in (1), but is identified as bushfire-prone on the State Bushfire-Prone Area Map prepared and designated by the FES Commissioner; or

3. if the land is not covered by either a local government map in (1) or the State Bushfire- Prone Area Map in (2), but is within 100 metres of an area of bushfire-prone vegetation equal to or greater than one hectare (default position).

Bushfire-prone vegetation includes types of vegetation classified in Australian Standard 3959: Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas (AS3959), which forms part of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Sections of Latitude 32 Development Area 2 are located within 100m of the Beeliar Regional Park and will therefore be identified as Bushfire Prone in accordance with the default position of draft State Planning Policy 3.7.

In considering the implications of Bushfire Prone Designation on Development Area 2, draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Guidelines (WAPC, 2014b, s4, p23) states:

“The bushfire construction requirements of the Building Code of Australia only apply to Class 1, 2 or 3 buildings or associated Class 10a buildings or decks associated with Class 1, 2 or 3 buildings in designated bushfire-prone areas. It is acknowledged that some industrial or commercial building types utilise construction methods and materials that would likely meet elements of the BAL-12.5 ember protection requirements. As such, the planning process focuses on the location and siting of vulnerable and high-risk land uses rather than the application of bushfire construction requirements.”

Further, draft State Planning Policy 3.7 (WAPC, 2014a, p4) defines high-risk land use as: “Land uses which may lead to the potential ignition, duration and/or intensity of a bushfire. Such uses may also expose the community, fire fighters and the surrounding environment to dangerous, uncontrolled substances during a bushfire event. Typically such uses would involve the bulk manufacture or storage of flammable or otherwise hazardous materials.”

Latitude 32 Development Area 2 is not identified as containing areas of high risk land use or areas of Class 1, 2 or 3 buildings. In accordance with the current Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines 2nd Edition (FESA, 2010) and the draft Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines (WAPC, 2014b) this Bushfire Management Plan addresses the planning specific bushfire related risk mitigation strategies as opposed to the application of enhanced bushfire related construction requirements.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 10

2.0 Site Details

2.1 Description 2.1.1 Location

The site is located in the Municipalities of the City of Kwinana and City of Cockburn, approximately 25km south of the Perth CBD, in the suburb of Hope Valley. Development Area 2 of Latitude 32 is bordered by Rockingham Road to the west; Dalison Avenue to the north; the existing railway line to the east; and approximately 150m south of Lussky Road (Figure 2A).

Figure 2A: Latitude 32 Development Area

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 11

2.1.2 Proposed Land Use

The Latitude 32 development will incorporate closely linked precincts that include a variety of complementary uses and functions including general industry and pockets of related commercial activity.

Latitude 32 will integrate with the Kwinana Industrial Area, the Australian Marine Complex at Henderson, East Rockingham Industrial Park and the planned new Outer Harbour at Cockburn Sound to make up the greater Western Trade Coast.

2.1.3 Bushfire Fuels

Strategic Bushfire Hazard Assessment completed in accordance with FESA (2010) is conducted on the predominant vegetation type for the greater site area pre and post development. Strategic assessment was completed in a 600m radius around the development site. Vegetation is classified in accordance with potential fire development and propagation through the vegetation structure in accordance with AS3959:2009 s2.2.3.

In accordance with FESA (2010), Development Area 2 is identified as consisting entirely of vegetation with a low hazard classification (Figure 2A). Vegetation constituting a bushfire threat is restricted to Beeliar Regional Park between 60 to100m west of the site; all vegetation east of the site is identified as degraded to completely degraded (Figure 2C) and does not constitute an elevated bushfire hazard level. Development will not impact the vegetation structure or hazard level within Beeliar Regional Park.

Vegetation within the road reserve west of the site is maintained by Main Roads in accordance with Operational Guideline 94. This vegetation will be reduced further as the road reserve is developed in accordance with Latitude 32 Development Area 2 Structure Plan Transport Assessment and road network upgrades.

In accordance with draft Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines Appendices (WAPC, 2014c, p4), the site shall adopt a moderate bushfire hazard classification due to the proximity of the Beeliar Park Reserve and its associated extreme hazard classification. The increased level of bushfire hazard applicable to the western border of the site is considered in the design of the Latitude 32 development to ensure all bushfire planning requirements are incorporated into the project.

2.1.4 Conservation Value

An independent environmental Biodiversity Strategy report was completed by RPS Environmental Management Consultants for the greater Latitude 32 development area. No environmental assets requiring environmental protection, conservation or revegetation were identified within Development Area 2 (RPS, 2017).

2.1.5 Site Topography

The site gently undulates between 5m and 20m above sea level. Effective slope through vegetation constituting a bushfire threat is flat/upslope for 200m west of Rockingham Road, (Appendix 2). Topography will not have a significant impact on fire behaviour within 200m of the project site.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 12

Figure 2B: Strategic Vegetation Assessment

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 13

Figure 2C: HVWRP Biodiversity Strategy Report (RPS, 2007, p144)

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 14

3.0 Bushfire Assessment

3.1 Bushfire Impact Analysis Potential bushfire impact analysis was undertaken to determine the radiant heat impact on the site in the event of bushfire within vegetation identified as a bushfire threat. Vegetation constituting a bushfire threat is restricted to Beeliar Regional Park separated from Development Area 2 by 60 to 100m. Design bushfire modelling was completed in accordance with AS3959:2009 Method 1 assessment. Where there is more than one vegetation type, each type was classified separately with the worst case scenario (predominant vegetation is not necessarily the worst case scenario) applied. Detailed modelling of potential bushfire impact on the development is provided in Appendix 3.

It is concluded that areas of development within the site east of Rockingham Road may be subject moderate levels of ember attack in the event of bushfire within the Beeliar Park Reserve. Radiant heat flux less than 12.5kW/m2 (BAL-12.5) may be received by dwellings within 100m of the fire front, however in excess of 98% of Development Area 2 is identified as being subject to zero radiant heat flux impact and BAL-LOW rating. As detailed in WAPC (2014b, s4, p23) “industrial or commercial building types utilise construction methods and materials that would likely meet elements of the BAL-12.5 ember protection requirements;” therefore no additional enhancement of construction standards is required. The BAL-LOW rating is “based on insufficient risk to warrant specific bushfire construction requirements.” (AS3959:2009, Section 4, pg43).

In summary, the potential bushfire impact on the proposed development area is low and would be restricted to low to moderate levels of ember attack. This level of potential bushfire impact and resultant radiant heat impact is within the level deemed acceptable for development by WAPC (2014c).

3.2 Risk Assessment Risk is not an event (SAHB 436:2013 s2.1). It is not an explosion, bushfire, flood or other emergency. Risk cannot be expressed as either positive or negative, but rather as the likelihood of a consequence, positive or negative, occurring. In the context of planning for bushfire protection, bushfire is considered a risk source that can impact upon the objectives of preventing damage or loss to life, property and the environmental assets (prioritised in that order).

Management of bushfire related risk is a shared responsibility (Keelty, 2011). Risk criteria are sourced from Emergency Management Australia (2010); FESA (2010); and stakeholder consultation. Residual bushfire related risk to identified assets within the proposed development following implementation of the risk mitigation strategies is summarised in Table 3A in accordance with:

ISO31000:2009 Risk management – principles and guidelines; SAHB 436:2013 Risk management guidelines – Companion to AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009; National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2010).

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 15

3.3 Conclusion The proposed development site does not exhibit physical features, weather conditions or historical incidence of bushfire that suggests the site is at an increased threat from potential bushfire activity. Site vegetation is minimal and vegetation constituting a potential bushfire threat is located more than 60m from the development site. Design bushfire modelling demonstrates radiant heat impact on the site is less than 12.5kW/m2, complying with FESA (2010) (A1.1) and WAPC (2014c).

All residual bushfire related risk levels affecting the site are identified as low. In accordance with FESA (2010) and WAPC (2014c)the bushfire risk to the proposed development is not considered unreasonable and should not prohibit development of the site subject to the measures detailed in this Bushfire Management Plan being complied with.

Risk Number

Risk Statement Impact Category

Risk Level

Prevention Controls (Planning Specific) Residual Risk Level

1. There is the potential that a bushfire will impact the proposed development which in turn will cause death or injury to persons.

People Low The development provides multiple access and egress routes. The site is located within an urban area; and is part of a gazetted Fire District which includes career Fire & Rescue Service response in addition to Local Government Bushfire Brigades. Industrial or commercial building types utilise construction methods and materials that would likely meet elements of the BAL-12.5 ember protection requirements. This will afford protection for occupants against the radiant heat flux identified as being received by the area in the event of bushfire.

Low

2. There is the potential that a bushfire will impact the proposed development, which in turn will cause destruction of or damage to the proposed buildings.

Infrastructure Low Development located approximately a minimum of 60m from vegetation constituting a potential bushfire threat. Appropriate placement of development ensures a maximum radiant heat flux impact of less than 12.5kW/m2. Development will provide reticulated hydrants for firefighting purposes. The upgrade of Rockingham Road will enhance the already significant separation between the site and vegetation potentially constituting a bushfire threat. The site is located within an urban area; and is part of a gazetted Fire District which includes career Fire & Rescue Service response in addition to Local Government Bushfire Brigades. Industrial or commercial building types utilise construction methods and materials that would likely meet elements of the BAL-12.5 ember protection requirements. This will provide a level of bushfire resilience of buildings suitable to the radiant heat flux identified as being received by the area in the event of bushfire.

Low

3. There is the potential that a bushfire will impact the proposed development which in turn will cause damage to the environment.

Environment Low No priority or threatened flora or fauna was found on site

Low

Table 3A: Risk assessment of development

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 16

4.0 Bush Fire Risk Mitigation

The bush fire risk mitigation strategies detailed in this report are designed to comply with the Performance Criteria detailed in FESA(2010); WAPC Planning Bulletin 111/2013; and WAPC (2014b & 2014c) as applicable to the industrial context of the site. The format of mitigation strategies is aligned with WAPC (2014c) in accordance with direction provided by WAPC (2014d).

The notation (P3) refers to Performance Criteria 3 of WAPC (2014c). Where a Performance Based Solution is offered detailed justification is provided.

The notation (A3.1) refers to Acceptable Solution 3.1 of WAPC (2014c).

The notation (E3.1) refers to Explanatory Note 3.1 of the WAPC (2014c).

Where discrepancy occurs between State and Local bushfire planning provisions the higher standard of mitigation has been selected.

Where performance based design solutions are proposed, detailed justification is provided in the relevant section.

4.1 Element 1 - Location of Development Intent: To ensure that the subdivision, development or land use is located in areas with the least possible risk of bushfire, to help minimise risk to people, property and infrastructure.

Performance Criteria (P1): The subdivision, development or land use is located in an area where the bushfire hazard assessment classification is or will be moderate or low, and the risk can be managed.

Acceptable Solution 1 General Site Location The subdivision, development or land use is located in an area that is not subject to either an extreme bushfire hazard level classification, or a Bushfire Attack Level of BAL-40 or BAL-FZ. The site will be subject to radiant heat flux less than 12.5kW/m2 (BAL-12.5) with in excess of 98% of Development Area 2 identified as being subject to a BAL-LOW rating.

4.2 Element 2 – Siting of Development Intent: To ensure that the siting of development minimises the level of bushfire impact.

Performance Criteria (P2): The siting and design of the subdivision, development or land use (including paths and landscaping) is appropriate to the level of bushfire risk that applies to the site and minimises the bushfire risk to people, property and infrastructure.

Performance Based Solution 1 Separation from Moderate & Extreme Hazards

Justification:

A Performance Based Solution is required as the industrial development is located within 100m of an area of extreme bushfire hazard classification and AS3959 is not applicable to industrial and commercial buildings. Utilisation of Acceptable Solution A2.1 is therefore not suitable.

Performance Based Solution:

a) Design Standard

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 17

In excess of 98% of the Development Area 2 site is classified as BAL-LOW. The remaining area is identified as being subject to a BAL-12.5 rating (refer to Appendix 3). WAPC (2014b, s4, p23) states “industrial or commercial building types utilise construction methods and materials that would likely meet elements of the BAL-12.5 ember protection requirements.” No additional enhancement of construction standards is required for the industrial and commercial buildings and the development does not contain Class 1, 2 or 3 buildings.

b) Implementation

The design standard will be met during the construction of each individual building.

c) Development

It is the responsibility of the individual building owner to ensure the building is constructed in accordance with the National Construction Code.

d) Maintenance

Not applicable.

Performance Based Solution 2 Building Protection Zone & Hazard Separation Zone

Justification:

The design and intended usage of the industrial Development Area 2 does not provide for traditional building protection zones applied to residential developments as detailed in A2.2.


a) Design Standard

The building protection zone is a low fuel area immediately surrounding a building and is designed to minimise the likelihood of flame contact with buildings. Features such as driveways, roads, vegetable patches, lawn or landscaped garden (including deciduous trees and fire resistant plant species) may form part of building protection zones. Areas of vegetation deemed Low Threat Vegetation and managed in a reduced fuel state inclusive of Public Open Space, public reserves and nature strips may form part of a buildings defendable space. Isolated shrubs and trees may be retained within building protection zones.

As the entire development site will be clear of vegetation constituting a bushfire threat it will create a single extensive building protection zone throughout the Latitude 32 Development Area 2. The existing Rockingham Road reserved shall be upgraded to extend the building protection zone for an additional 60m between the identified vegetation threat in the Beeliar Park Reserve. Due to the extensive building protection zone no additional hazard separation zone is required.

b) Implementation

The entire Development Area 2 site currently meets the design standard. It is required to continue to meet the standard throughout the development.

c) Development

It is the responsibility of LandCorp to ensure the design standard is achieved at all stages of the development.

a) Maintenance

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 18

It is the responsibility of the individual property owners and the Local Government (as appropriate) to ensure the design standard continues to be achieved post completion of the development.

4.3 Element 3 - Vehicular Access Intent: To ensure that the vehicular access serving a subdivision/development is available during a bushfire event.

Performance Criteria (P3): The internal layout, design and construction of public and private vehicular access in the subdivision/development allows emergency and other vehicles to move through it easily and safely at all times.

Performance Based Solution 3 Vehicle Access and Egress

Justification:

The greater Latitude 32 development incorporates significant upgrades to the existing public road network accessing the site which is expected to occur up to and possibly beyond 2021. Three main factors are identified as justifying the performance based solution:

i. The complexity of the upgrades;

ii. The duration of the required works to facilitate the upgrades; and

iii. The requirement of the road network to service an extensive industrial development as opposed to a residential estate as identified in FESA (2010) and WAPC (2014c).


a) Design Standard

The Latitude 32 Development Area 2 Structure Plan Transport Assessment (excerpt detailed in Appendix 4) details the proposed upgrades to access and egress over the short, medium and long term duration of the project. Throughout each stage of the road network upgrade, multiple and suitable access and egress will be achieved throughout the Development Area 2 site aAs detailed in this excerpt:

“In the short term, it is proposed to retain the existing access to Rockingham Road via Wattleup Road, Dalison Avenue and Musson Road. Both Wattleup Road and Rockingham Road currently allow up to and including RAV4 vehicles (up to 27.5m) to use these roads… It is noted that Wattleup Road will, in the short term, provide an east-west connection between Rockingham Road and the Kwinana Freeway.” (s4.2.1, p19)

“In the medium term, once the existing Wattleup Road / Rockingham Road priority intersection is no longer able to cope with the demand in traffic from DA2 it is proposed that a signalised intersection be constructed at Wattleup Road... It is assumed that the Latitude 32 North South Distributor Road will not connect to Wattleup Road in the medium term. Wattleup Road will therefore primarily remain as a connection between DA2 and the Kwinana Freeway.” (s4.2.2, p21)

“After the construction of the FRCAH, access to DA2 will primarily be to the east via Wattleup Road (assuming no future intermodal facility) which will connect to the Latitude 32 North-South Distributor Road, from which connection to regional roads such as Rowley Road, Russell Road and Anketell Road will be possible. It is noted that the construction of the FRCAH will sever all direct connections from Rockingham Road to DA2, including Wattleup Road. As a result, the primary access into DA2 will be via a future grade separated rail crossing at Wattleup Road. For the long term

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 19

scenario, it is assumed that the North South Distributor Road will be fully constructed between Anketell Road and Russell Road. The intersection of the Wattleup Road and the North South Distributor Road would be constructed as a 3-way signalised intersection.” (s4.2.3, p23)

All public roads shall be required to meet the following minimum standards:

i. trafficable surface: 6 metres; ii. horizontal clearance: 6 metres; iii. vertical clearance: 6 metres; iv. maximum grade not exceeding: 10°; v. minimum weight capacity: 15 tonnes; vi. maximum crossfall: 1 in 33; and vii. curves minimum inner radius: 12 metres.

b. Implementation

As detailed in the Latitude 32 Development Area 2 Structure Plan Transport Assessment.

c. Development


d. Maintenance


Figure 4A: Short term access and egress

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 20

Figure 4B: Medium term access and egress

Figure 4C: Long term access and egress

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 21

4.4 Element 4 – Water Supply Intent: To ensure that water is available to the subdivision, development or land use to enable people, property and infrastructure to be defended from bushfire.

Performance Criteria (P4): The subdivision, development or land use is provided with a permanent and secure water supply that is sufficient for firefighting purposes.

Acceptable Solution 2 Firefighting Water

The subdivision, development or land use is provided with a reticulated water supply, together with fire hydrants, in accordance with the specifications of the relevant water supply authority and DFES. (A4.1).

a) Design Standard

All hydrants are to comply with Water Corporation Design Standard DS63:

i. so that the maximum distance between a hydrant and the rear of a building envelope, (or in the absence of a building envelope the rear of the lot) shall be 120m;

ii. a maximum of 100m spacing in Industrial and Commercial areas; iii. centrally along the frontage of a lot to avoid being under driveways; iv. where appropriate at the truncation of road junctions or intersections so

that they can v. serve more than one street and can be readily located; vi. on both sides of the major roads at staggered intervals where there are

mains on both sides of the road; vii. at major intersections on dual multi-lane roads, where two hydrants are

to be sited on diagonally opposite corners; viii. hydrants should be located at least 20m from traffic calming devices i.e.

median slow points or chokers, chicanes, mini traffic circles, and intersection ‘pop-outs’ to ensure traffic is not impeded;

ix. in a position not less than 10m from any high voltage main electrical distribution equipment such as transformers and distribution boards. AS 2419.1-2005; and

x. hydrants with washout bends shall be used only in cul-de-sac situations.

b) Implementation

Water supply and hydrants for firefighting purposes are to be operational prior to the occupancy of any lots.

c) Development

It is the responsibility of LandCorp to ensure the design standard is achieved at all stages of the development.

d) Maintenance

It is the responsibility of the relevant water authority to ensure the design standard continues to be achieved post completion of the development.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 22

4.5 Works and Responsibilities Table 4A summarises the responsible party for each mitigation strategy and the time frame in which it must be completed.

Strategy Implementation Maintenance

Responsible Time Frame Responsible Time Frame

Amendments to BMP

Any amendments to this FMP shall be approved by the relevant Jurisdiction Having Authority.

Building Protection Zones

LandCorp Throughout development

Individual Land Owners and Local Government

Ongoing

Ember Protection of stored chemicals, fuels and ignitable materials.

Individual Businesses

Ongoing Individual Businesses

Ongoing

Firefighting Water LandCorp Prior to occupancy of lots

Water Authority Ongoing

Firefighting Services & Response

DFES and Local Government

Ongoing DFES and Local Government

Ongoing

Fuel Load Reduction and Fire Break Notice

Local Government

Annually Local Government

Annually

Inspection and Issue of Works Orders or Fines.

Local Government

Ongoing Local Government

Ongoing

Maintenance of Road Reserve vegetation

Main Roads WA Ongoing Main Roads WA Ongoing

Notification of the requirements of this Bushfire Management Plan

LandCorp On sale or lease of individual lots

Individual Businesses

Ongoing

Vehicle Access (Public Roads)

Local Government

Ongoing Local Government

Ongoing

Table 4A: Schedule of Works

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 23

5.0 Compliance Checklist for Performance Criteria

5.1 Bushfire hazard levels and performance criteria Level of bushfire hazard Bushfire protection performance criteria Low hazard Development does not require special bushfire planning

controls. Despite this FESA strongly recommends that ember protection features be incorporated in design where practicable.

Moderate hazard Performance criteria for: • location (P1) • siting of development (P2) • vehicular access (P3) • water (P4)

Extreme hazard Development is to be avoided in areas with these hazards

Table 5A: Bushfire hazard levels and performance criteria (FESA, 2010)

5.2 Performance Criteria and Compliance The site has been assessed as having a moderate hazard level and is therefore subject to meeting the performance criteria as detailed. A combination of Acceptable and Performance Solutions are utilised to ensure the development meets the required Performance Criteria and that the level of bushfire related risk is not unacceptable. Acceptable solutions have been directly applied as practicable within the Industrial Setting. In other instances, performance based solutions have been engineered.

Element Compliance Acceptable Solution (AS) or Performance Based Solution (PBS)

1. Location Acceptable Solution A1.1

2. Siting of Development Performance Based Solution 1

Performance Based Solution 2

3. Vehicular Access Performance Based Solution 3

4. Water Acceptable Solution A4.1

Table 5B: Performance Criteria Compliance

5.3 Conclusion This Bushfire Management Plan demonstrates compliance of the proposed Structure Plan with all relevant criteria detailed in FESA (2010) and WAPC (2014c). Bushfire engineering incorporating design bushfire parameters ensures the development is not exposed to an unreasonable level of bushfire related risk or threat. In undertaking the risk mitigation procedures identified in this Bushfire Management Plan the client is demonstrating they have exercised all reasonable care and exercised a high level of due diligence in reducing bushfire related risk to as low as reasonably practicable in accordance with the requirements of the City of Cockburn and City of Kwinana in regards to bushfire related risk.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 24

6.0 References BOM (2014). Climate Data Online, www.bom.gov.au Bureau of Meteorology

Ellis, S., Kanowski, P., & Whelan, R. (2004). National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management. Council of Australian Governments

FESA. (2010). Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines 2nd Edition Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia

LandCorp. (2013). Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project Master Plan. Gazetted 4 March 2005, As Amended 31 May 2013. Western Australian Land Authority

MRWA (current) Operational Guideline 94 – Roadside Vegetation Management & Fire Hazard Control for Metropolitan Region. Main Roads Western Australia

RUIC Fire (2013) Bushfire Attack Level Calculator v5.0

Standards Australia. (2009). AS 3959:2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas: SAI Global.

Standards Australia. (2009). ISO AS 31000:2009 Risk management principles and guidelines: SAI Global.

Standards Australia. (2013). HB89:2013 Risk management - Guidelines on risk assessment techniques (Vol. HB 89:2013). Sydney: SAI Global.

Standards Australia. (2013). HB 436:2013 Risk management guidelines - Companion to AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 (Vol. HB436:2013). Sydney: SAI Global.WAPC. (2006). State Planning Policy 3.4 Natural Hazards and Disasters. State Law Publisher.

WAPC. (2013). Planning Bulletin 111/2013 Planning for Bushfire. Western Australian Planning Commission.

WAPC. (2014a) Draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management. West Australian Planning Commission,

WAPC. (2014b) Draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines. West Australian Planning Commission,

WAPC. (2014c) Draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines Appendixes. West Australian Planning Commission, Department of Fire and Emergency Services

Water Corporation (2012). Design Standard DS 63. Version 3, Revision 9

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 25

7.0 Appendix 1 - Bushfire Weather

Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Max Temp (°C) 30.6 31.5 29.4 25.6 22.1 19.3 18.3 18.8 20.3 22.6 25.9 28.1 24.4

Min Temp (°C) 17.0 17.6 15.9 13.3 10.5 9.1 8.2 8.0 9.1 10.3 13.3 15.1 12.3

Mean Rainfall (mm)

12.1 19.6 19.5 39.9 98.7 145.2 147.5 114.7 78.6 40.1 31.8 11.8 763.9

Mean 9am Humidity 53 56 61 67 77 82 83 79 73 65 60 55 68

Table 7A: Historical Climate Data (Bureau of Meteorology, 2014, Station 9194)

Figure 7A: Maximum temperature (since 1983) vs minimum rainfall (since 1983)

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 26

Month 0900hrs 1500hrs O

ctob

er

Nov

emb

er

Dec

emb

er

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 27

Guide

Table 7B: Windrose profiles (Bureau of Meteorology, 2014, Station 9194)

Janu

ary

Feb

rua

ry

Ma

rch

© R

UIC

201

4

Pa

ge

| 2

8

8.0

App

endi

x 2

– Si

te To

pogr

aphy

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 29

9.0 Appendix 3 – Design Bushfire Analysis

9.1 Introduction Quantified modelling of bushfire behaviour utilising predetermined “worst case” parameters, otherwise known as “design bushfire,” remains the corner stone of conducting evaluation of performance base design (Kashef, Viegas, Mos & Harvey, 2012). The design fire remains a hypothetical model specifically intended to represent the worst case bushfire event possible within the assessment area. Parameters of design bushfire for the assessment area are identified as being:

Bushfire Weather (inclusive of FDI); Site Topography; Bushfire fuel structure and fuel load; and Physical constraints (including fire run and flame width)

In turn the design bushfire is expressed as components of potential fire behaviour which are used to calculate the radiant heat flux and Bushfire Attack Levels applicable to the development.

9.2 Design Bushfire Parameters 9.2.1 Vegetation

In conjunction with AS3959:2009 s2.3 classification of vegetation on the basis of bushfire behaviour and associated design bushfire modelling utilised in AS3959:2009 was undertaken. Where there is more than one vegetation type, each type was classified separately with the worst case scenario (predominant vegetation is not necessarily the worst case scenario) applied.

Vegetation threats are identified in Figure 9A.

9.2.2 Separation Distance

Separation distance is determined in accordance with AS3959:2009 s2.2.4. The separation distance incorporates low fuel areas immediately surrounding the buildings and incorporates driveways, footpaths, roads, vegetable patches, lawn or landscaped garden (including deciduous trees and fire resistant plant species) as part of the building protection zones. Building protection zones must also meet the requirements of Low Threat Vegetation as defined in AS3959:2009 s2.2.3.2(f) to ensure they will not contribute to radiant heat flux received by any structures.

Whilst separation distance from identified vegetation threats will vary with depending on the individual lot and lot setbacks, a minimum 60m separation is provided between Beeliar Park Reserve and the development site by the Freemantle Rockingham Access Highway. Radiant heat flux as a function of separation distance is detailed in Figure 8B.

9.2.3 Topography

Topographical information sourced from Landgate in accordance with AS3959:2009 s2.2.5 (ref Appendix 2). Effective slope is assessed for all vegetation threats not identified as Low Threat Vegetation.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 30

Figure 9A: AS3959 Classifications

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 31

Plot 2 Class B Woodlands

Plot 2 Class B Woodlands

Plot 3 Class B Woodlands and Class D Scrub

Plot 4 Single line of vegetation in maintained public road reserve.

9.3 Design Bushfire Modelling Bushfire Attack Level is modelled for each identified vegetation threat in accordance with AS3959:2009 Methodology 1. Buildings with more than 100m separation from the Beeliar Regional Park are identified as having a BAL-Low rating.

Plot AS3959 Classification Effective Slope Separation Distance BAL Rating 2 Class B Woodland Flat/upslope 60m BAL-12.5 3 Class D Scrub Flat/upslope 60m BAL-12.5

Table 9A: BAL Ratings.

9.3.1 Radiant Heat Flux & BAL Rating vs Separation

Radiant heat flux received by the proposed dwellings as a function of separation distance is illustrated in Figure 8B. Modelling of radiant heat flux is completed in accordance with AS3959:2009 Appendix B Methodology 2 using the RUIC BALc Version 5 Heat Flux Calculator (accuracy certified to AS3959:2009 Appendix B). Radiant heat flux modelling as a function of separation distance is provided in Figure 8B. Standard inputs are identified in Table 8B, specific threat scenario inputs are identified in Table 8C.

© RUIC 2014 P a g e | 32

Design Bushfire Inputs Reference FDI: 80 AS3959:2009 Table 2.1 Heat of combustion 18600kj/kg AS3959:2009 Table 2.4.1 Flame temperature 1090K AS3959:2009 Table 2.4.1 Ambient temperature 308K AS3959:2009 Table 2.4.1 Mean humidity 25% AS3959:2009 Table 2.4.1

Table 9B: Standard inputs

Design Bushfire Input Plot 2 Plot 3 Reference Vegetation Classification: Class B Woodland Class D Scrub AS3959:2009 Table 2.3 Understory Fuel Load (t/ha) 15 25 AS3959:2009 Table B2 Total Fuel Load (t/ha) 25 25 AS3959:2009 Table B2 Effective Slope (°) 0 0 Report Appendix 2 Site Slope (°) 0 0 Report Appendix 2 Vegetation height (m) n/a 3m AS3959:2009 Table B2 Windspeed n/a 45kph AS3959:2009 Table 2.4.1

Table 9C: Threat specific inputs

Figure 9B: Radiant heat flux received as a function of separation distance

9.4 BAL Summary The highest BAL rating for any proposed lot within the development is BAL-12.5 as illustrated in Table 9A and Figure 9C. In excess of 98% of Development Area 2 will be separated from the identified vegetation threats by more than 100m and will therefore be subject to a BAL-LOW rating. The BAL-LOW rating is “based on insufficient risk to warrant specific bushfire construction requirements.” (AS3959:2009, Section 4, pg43).

LATITUDE 32Appendices: Part

LATITUDE 32

Appendices:

Appendix Document Title Nature of Document Referral / Approval

Agency

Summary of Modifications

A Structure Plan - Part One

Plan

Structure Plan

B Structure Plan Consultation

Table

Supporting Documentation

C Landscape Master Plan Supporting Documentation

D Environmental Assessment

Report


E Fire Management Plan Supporting Documentation

F Heritage Interpretation

Strategy


G Aboriginal / Archaeological

Survey


H Traffic Report Supporting Documentation

I Local Water Management

Strategy

Technical Documentation

for formal approval

Department of Water

J Engineering Report Supporting Documentation

K DCP Infrastructure Items Supporting Documentation

LATITUDE 32

Appendix F:Heritage Interpretation Strategy

Interpretation StrategyMay 2014

LATITUDE

Prepared by TPG Town Planning, Urban Design & Heritage

Level 7, 182 St Georges Tce,Perth WA 6000

Telephone +61 8 9289 8300www.tpgwa.com.au

LATITUDE

32

Interpretation Strategy

May 2014

Contents

SECTION 1. Introduction 1

SECTION 2. The Strategy 22.1 Principles 2

2.2 Approach 3

SECTION 3. Place 53.1 Regional Context 5

3.2 Local Context 6

3.3 Key Elements within the Place 8

3.4 Access 10

3.5 Existing Interpretation 10

SECTION 4. People 114.1 Current Audience 11

4.2 Potential Audience 11

4.3 Other Considerations 12

SECTION 5. Purpose 135.1 Themes & Stories 13

5.2 SWOT Analysis 19

5.3 Vision 20

SECTION 6. Projects 216.1 Access and Circulation 21

6.2 Interpretive odes & Way nding 21

6.3 Other - Supporting Initiatives 30

SECTION 7. Implementation 32

SECTION 8. Conclusion 34

APPENDIX A 37Sources for 5.1.1 Aboriginal History and Culture 37

APPENDIX B 39Additional Sources for 5.1.2 Landscape and Environment 39

WattleupRoad Swamp

BrownmanSwamp

CockburnSound

ThomsonsLake

Mt BrownLake

BanganupLake

LakeCoogee

LongSwamp

Conway RoadSwamp

Hendy RoadSwamp

RUSSEL ROAD

HOPE VALLEY

ROAD

ROWLEY ROAD

FREI

GH

T R

AIL

LIN

E

ANKETELLROAD

RO

CK

ING

HA

M R

OA

D

CO

CK

BU

RN

RO

AD

Study Area

01

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage (TPG) have been engaged by LandCorp to prepare this Interpretation Strategy, as an important step in the development of Latitude 32.

Latitude 32 is a signi cant industrial land development pro ect, which seeks to provide a stock of industrial land for the needs of the region and the Perth Metropolitan Area for the next twenty to twenty ve years.

Latitude 32 is being developed over two former townsites, Hope Valley and Wattleup. Hope Valley was established circa 1880 when a small settlement of mixed farms were established around the wetlands of Long and Hendy Road Swamp. Land development began in Wattleup in 1931 and was further progressed in 1961 when it was subdivided for market gardens. Prior to colonial settlement, the area was part of an extensive communication network that linked Aboriginal groups across the Perth plain and with groups further to the north, south and east.

There are also speci c reamtime stories and other Aboriginal heritage values associated with the general area.

This unique history and heritage of Latitude 32 is not readily apparent to visitors. As the area evolves into a strategic industrial location interpretation will o er opportunities to

• reveal and enhance the cultural heritage value of the natural, Aboriginal and historic heritage found within the study area

• promote public understanding and elicit curiosity about the change to the landscape which has occurred

• promote stewardship and a sense of responsibility towards the care of the environment by communicating its value

02

SECTION 2. THE STRATEGY

This Strategy seeks to provide relevant and targeted interpretation strategies in order to communicate the history and value of the natural, Aboriginal and historic heritage associated with the study area.

The preparation of this Strategy involved careful planning thinking about the site; potential visitors and management arrangements; and workshopping creative ways to communicate the key stories and values of the area. It is structured as follows

• PLACE – this section includes a context analysis and an inventory of places that tell the stories associated with the area

• PEOPLE – this section includes an audience pro le to establish who the visitors are, and what they will want.

• PURPOSE – this section provides a SWOT analysis for interpretation; sets a vision for the interpretation and includes the most signi cant themes and stories associated with the place.

• PROJECTS – this section presents strategies for appropriate interpretation for the site.

2.1 PrinciplesHeritage interpretation is ‘a means of communicating ideas and feelings which help people understand more about themselves and their environment’ (Interpretation Australia). To ensure our communication methodologies align with best practice our Strategy has been informed by the following documents

• Interpretation fact sheets – prepared by the State Heritage O ce

• Sharing our Stories Guidelines for Interpretation - prepared by The National Trust of Australia (WA) & Museums Australia (WA)

• Interpreting Our Heritage – written by Freeman Tilden and printed by the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

• The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites – prepared by ICOMOS International Scienti c Committee on Interpretation and Presentation

Based on the above documents we have developed the following principle statement to guide this Strategy and the future interpretation for Latitude 32

PEOPLE

PURPOSE

PLACE

PROJECTS STRATEGY

Interpretation is part of an overall process of cultural heritage conservation and management.

It has an important role to foster public awareness and engagement in our heritage. However, the principal aim for interpretation is not simply the presentation of information, but rather provocation.

The visitor experience should be one of exploration and reflection and invite the audience to think about the past, present, future and change.

It should cater for a range of audiences and should be organised in a thematic framework to ensure the place’s value is presented in a holistic way.

A range of opportunities to interpret the place, both incidental and direct, should be explored. These options should cater for onsite engagement and for those further afield to gain an insight into the history of the place.

03

2.2 ApproachOur approach recognises that natural heritage values and the stories of human occupation and settlement are interrelated. The interpretation of the connections and the di erences between these stories enhances our understanding of the place and requires a collaborative approach.

The following specialists have informed this Interpretation Strategy

• Historic heritage – TPG Heritage

• Aboriginal heritage – Amergin Consulting and Ethnosciences

• Landscape and esign– Blackwell and Associates

• Planning - Urbis

“...The visitor experience should be one of exploration and reflection and invite the audience to think about the past,

present, future and change. “

HeritageMeaning

Stories

Setting

Ab

orig

inal

Ed

uca

tion

Safe

gu

ard

Acce

ss

Histo

ric

UnderstandPromote

Change

ConservationInclusiveness

Natural

04

INDIAN OCEAN

KWINANA POWER STATION

MOUNT BROWN

LONG SWAMP

ALCOA

ABERCROMBIE RD

HOPE VALLEY ROAD

05

SECTION 3. PLACE

3.1 Regional Context Latitude 32 is destined to become Western Australia’s largest industrial development, supplying more than 1,400ha of strategically-located commercial and industrial land, within the Western Trade Coast.

Located approximately 25km south-west of the Perth CB , Latitude 32 is bound by Anketell Road to the south, Cockburn Cement’s quarrying and batching operations to the north, Rockingham Road to the west, and the rural areas of Mandogalup and Wattleup to the east.

Latitude 32 is surrounded by the following land uses

• Rural communities to the immediate north and east, with existing and proposed urban areas further north and east

• The Australian Marine Complex to the west

• The Kwinana Industrial Area and Naval Base industrial area to the south-west

• The Kwinana Motorplex to the south

• Agriculture epartment land to the south-east

• Alcoa tailing ponds to the south-east

WOODMAN POINT

06

3.2 Local Context The local context is undergoing immense change as part of Latitude 32. It contains two former townsites, Hope Valley and Wattleup, which were established along the southern and western edges of the study area c. 1880 and c.1903/60, respectively. Today only a few buildings remain as testament to these town sites.

uring the twentieth century quarry operations began in the area, largely concentrated between Hope Valley and Wattleup Roads. These still continue today. Either side of these areas, is currently characterised by a rural landscape with numerous hills, localised depressions, market gardens and native vegetation.

There are natural wetlands, Long Swamp and Hendy Road Swamp, in the low-lying areas in the southern part of the study area. West of Hendy Road, works are well underway to deliver the rst evelopment Area of Latitude 32.

The following land uses currently operate within Latitude 32

• Sand and limestone quarries

• Cockburn Cement’s batching operations north of Russell Road

• The Henderson land ll and resource recovery precinct on Rockingham Road

• Nurseries and turf farms

• Rural lifestyle lots and hobby farms

• Some remaining residential properties and local shops in the Wattleup town site

• Temporary storage yards and depots

07

08

3.3 Key Elements within the Place

3.3.1 Aboriginal Heritage The Aboriginal heritage values of the study area are currently the sub ect of a process of understanding and identi cation. Aboriginal heritage in and surrounding the study area includes both archaeological sites and material, and ethnographic values. Places of known or potential signi cance to Aboriginal people within the study area include

• Long Swamp – remnant wetland with potential ethnographic signi cance. Its margins also have archaeological potential

• Hendy Road Swamp – remnant wetland with potential ethnographic signi cance

• HVW 01 (Modi ed Tree) – Tuart with two scars, one of which may be Aboriginal in origin

• Wattleup Road Swamp ( AA Site I 4357) – artefact scatter on the eastern boundary of the study area, probably destroyed

One of the original tracks in the area ran from Lake Coogee to Banganup Lake (Berson 1978). The alignment of Russell Road, which runs through the northern portion of the study area, may therefore follow an original Nyungar bidi or track.

3.3.2 Historic HeritageHistoric heritage in the study area is both tangible and intangible. This heritage dates from the settlement of the area in the late colonial period and is associated with a number of the district’s pioneering families. Places in the study area, which have been identi ed as having heritage value are

• Postans Cottage (1882)

• de San Miguel Home (1886)

• Hope Valley School Site (site of; c1894)

• Hope Valley Townsite (site of; c.1880)

• Long Swamp

Other historic places, which have not been identi ed as having heritage value, but contribute to the story and evolution of the area include

• Wattleup Townsite (fmr)

• Ten Mile Well (site of)

3.3.3 Environmental ValuesThe natural environment of the study area is diverse and includes wetland areas, and remnant bushland. Given the likelihood that the ma ority of the area to be developed will be sand mined, much remaining vegetation within road reserves and private lots will be lost. As a result, e orts to retain and rehabilitate vegetation will be focused in conservation areas where native vegetation remains. The two main conservation areas, which will be linked by a natural habitat corridor include

• Long Swamp

• Hendy Road Swamp

• Postans Reserve

These conservation areas and associated corridors support a range of ora including Summer-scented Wattle, Orange Wattle, Chenille Honeymyrtle, Tuart, Jarrah, Swamp Paperbark, Bare Twigrush and Coast Saw-sedge. Whilst Long Swamp is considered to be in a good condition, Hendy Road Swamp is considered degraded.

Documents

GEOLOG AND ASS MAPPING - LandCorp · Lege PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136 2014-149-f06.dgn N Revision: A ENVIRONMENTAL Job: 10129 66 438 000mN 438 000mN 66 439 000mN 439 000mN