1

Dog Beach

1.1

An additional dog beach is required south of Quinns dog beach to ensure all Wanneroo dog owners have a dog beach within reasonable travelling distance. The nearest dog beach south of Quinns, is Whitfords which approximately 20km away.

Administration acknowledges these concerns and the increased pressure placed on the two beaches, given that they are approximately 20km apart.

Administration recommends extending Quinns dog beach south 700 metres to the northern most access of the existing Fred Stubs Memorial Grove car park within the next 5 years.

1.2

Dog owners not picking up after their dogs is a real problem. Faeces often litters the pathways and the beaches themselves. This poses a sever health risk and makes the beaches unpleasant for all who use them. The Council needs to be more proactive in encouraging responsible use of the dog beach, for example have rangers patrol the beaches and issue infringements to those who do not pick up after their dogs, or install more signage encouraging dog owners to use the bags and bins provided.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

1.3

Rangers need to patrol non-dog beaches to ensure people are adhering to local laws and not taking their dog onto beaches that are not designated for dogs. This is a problem at Yanchep Lagoon in particular.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

1.4

There needs to be more dog waste bags available or have them restocked more frequently.

Bags are restocked three times a week and new boxes have been installed to deter people from taking more than one bag at a time.

None.

1.5

Bins need to be placed at the base of footpaths directly onto the beach and emptied regularly.

Bins are not placed on the beach as they cannot be collected. Bins are located in the car park and are emptied once a week as a minimum and more frequently in busier seasons.

None.

1.6

Responsible dog owners should be allowed on the majority of the City’s beaches during the low use periods, however they should not be allowed on areas that are existing or potential tourist areas. The onus should be on dog owners to pick up after their dogs.

This was not the most widely supported option by the community.

None.

1.7

Retain designated dog beaches for those people wishing to take their dogs down to the water during the day, but allow dogs on all beaches before 7am and after 6pm in the summer, and before 9am and after 4pm in the winter.

See response 1.6.

None.

1.8

The use of beaches for dog exercise should be encouraged for its health and social benefits however dog owners need to be responsible and pick up after their dogs. Council needs to encourage and enforce responsible use of dog beaches.

Noted.

None.

1.9

As the population increases, an extension to Yanchep dog beach is more pressing than additional dog beaches in new developments.

As the population increases due to new development in existing communities, such as Yanchep and Two Rocks, there will be the need for additional dog beaches within these locations. It is intended that Administration will reassess these communities within 5 to 10 years as part of the major review of the CMP Part 2; to ensure that adequate dog beaches are being provided in line with population growth.

None.

1.10

The recent upgrade to the Yanchep dog beach parking area has actually reduced the amount of parking. There needs to be more parking in this area.

The proposed redevelopment of Yanchep Lagoon may alleviate some of the pressure on parking.

None.

1.11

There needs to be an increase in dog beach provisions in the near future, as dog beaches are hugely popular. Quinns dog beach is getting very crowded.

Administration acknowledges this concern. See response 1.1.

See recommendation 1.1.

1.12

Quinns dog beach should not extend further north into Jindalee. The area south of the Jindalee steps before the dog beach is a wider area of beach, suitable for families to use.

Administration recommends that Quinns dog beach be extended south approximately 700m to address the large distance between Quinns dog beach and Whitfords dog beach in the City of Joondalup. 

None.

1.13

Quinns dog beach needs to be extended into Jindalee, if only to the stair case. This will allow people living in Jindalee to access the dog beach without having to drive to the access ways in Quinns. It will also allow dog owners to enjoy the future cafe facilities in Jindalee.

Dog owners living in Jindalee are able to park at Jindalee beach and walk along the dual use path to the northern most entrance to the dog beach.

None.

1.14

Access to dog beaches needs to be easier.

Noted. It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP.  

None.

1.15

Dog’s should be licensed in a way that allows certain breeds of dogs access to more beaches in the off season. For example Labradors and Golden Retrievers.

Administration does not agree with this comment, as this would discriminate against different breeds of dogs. 

None.

1.16

The off peak season (May – October) is still good for swimming.

Noted. See response 1.6.

None.

1.17

Yanchep dog beach should not be extended north into the Lagoon, as this beach allows safe access for families with children and elderly people.

There is currently no recommendation to extend Yanchep dog beach. 

None. 

1.18

Small dog beaches should be contained within the boundaries of each suburb. A few suburbs should not have to provide for the dogs of surrounding suburbs. This may also stop people taking their dogs to non-dog beaches.

Noted. Administration believes a dog beach in each suburb would not be feasible.

None.

1.19

The existing dog beach north of Quinns is very steep and virtually unusable in the winter months. Implementing a groin or artificial reef may alleviate the erosion at Quinns dog beach.

Noted. See response 1.1.

See recommendation 1.1.

1.20

There does not need to be any additional provisions for dogs along the coastline. There are ample footpaths and parks to walk dogs. Some dogs are antisocial and pose a threat to other beach goers, in particular families with small children. Dog owners should use the current beaches provided.

Noted. Administration believes that as the population increases there is a need for additional dog beaches.

None.

1.21

Weekday use of dog beaches should be promoted to alleviate some of the pressure during the weekend. Possible incentives could include discount vouchers for dog owners that use the beach during the week.

Noted. See response 1.6.

None. 

1.22

Dog owners should have to pay towards the provisions of dog beaches, including the bins and bags provided and the ranger services provided to ensure they use allocated beaches in an appropriate manner.

Noted.

None.

1.23

The Two Rocks dog beach is currently not utilised due to the large amount of seaweed that collects on the shore, this is very dangerous for dogs and owners. As a result of this people are taking their dogs onto undesignated areas to the south.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None. 

1.24

There needs to be signs placed at the entrances to all dog beaches particularly the Ocean Drive/Camira Way stating that it is a dog friendly entrance and that both dog and non-dog owners must be respectful of each other using the beach. There has been recent antisocial behaviour at the above entrance.

See response 1.1.

None.

1.25

The Quinns dog beach needs to be extended 500m south to allow dogs and their owners to swim safely to the south of the groyne without any confrontation by non-dog owners.

See response 1.1.

See recommendation 1.1

1.26

The survey requires you to select an option for number 6 even though question 5 is ticked no.

This has been monitored and all invalid answers for question 6 have been removed. 

None.

1.27

Additional dog beaches should be implemented in the new coastal development or North Alkimos.

Administration agrees that as the population increases, additional provisions need to be provided within new developments. 

Administration recommends the City liaise with the land developer PEET to finalise location and timing of a dog beach in North Alkimos.

1.28

Extension to existing beaches, given that proper amenities are provided is a common sense approach, were environmental impact is minimal.

See response 1.1.

See recommendation 1.1.

1.29

Access to dog beaches should not be restricted by time.

There are no time restrictions on the City’s dog beaches. 

None. 

1.30

Dog owners utilise the quiet stretch of beach to the North of Two Rocks marina to evade rangers and these dogs have threatened many community members. Many small children are taken here for the shallow lagoon type amenity and the presence of large dogs in this area creates a very unsafe environment. When confronted, the offending dog owners often claim that ‘everyone does it’ or that they ‘will be sneaky’. There are signs stating that this is not a dog beach, if this is the case then there needs to be increased enforcement in this area to ensure that dog owners abide by council by-laws. On previous occasions when the Council was notified of dogs on this beach no action was taken. It is important that the community are heard when issues like this are raised with the Council.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

2

Horse Beach

2.1

A horse beach should not be implemented along the City’s coastline. The City’s beaches are pristine and do not need horses creating a negative environmental impact by walking through the dunes and defecating on the beaches. Horses should utilise the numerous underutilised grassed parks within the City.

Administration acknowledges this comment and believes a feasibility study needs to be undertaken to identify any potential environmental impacts. 

Administration recommends that a feasibility study be conducted to determine the suitability and the potential environmental impacts of a horse beach at Tamala Park.

2.2

A horse beach should not be implemented in Mindarie for the same reasons camels on the beach were out voted. There are health and safety risks associated with horse faeces and urine as well as an increased fly nuisance.

A horse beach could be located at Tamala Park, approximately 900 metres south of the Mindarie Marina, to minimise any potential impacts on the nearby residents.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.3

There is minimal access through bush forever sites as well as minimal parking for horse floats. There will likely be increased traffic in residential areas.

See response 2.2.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.4

The dunes and surrounding bushland is an asset to the City, there has been enough destruction of natural bushland in Mindarie and Clarkson.

See response 2.1.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.5

Any additional car parks are likely to create a noise issue for surrounding houses as well as attracting hoons.

See response 2.1.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.6

Horses are likely to disturb other beach users and local residents especially people partaking in long beach walks. Horses should be sent to non-residential areas where they will not impose on local residents.

A horse beach would not be for the exclusive use of horses and therefore, would not restrict community access of the beach for walking or swimming.

None.

2.7

There should be a horse beach implemented in Wanneroo. Wanneroo still has a strong rural identity with many residents owning horses. By providing a horse beach, the City would be bringing the rural and residential community together.

Administration acknowledges that due to the fact that the City of Joondalup is closing their horse beach at Whitfords, the need has arisen for the City to investigate the possibility of providing that amenity within the City of Wanneroo.   

See recommendation 2.1.

2.8

A horse beach would be a great attraction for the City. It would provide a point of difference from other Councils, and provide residents and beach goers the opportunity to watch horses on the beach.

See response 2.7.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.9

Horses would benefit greatly from exercising at the beach. Provided all litter is cleaned up there is no reason a horse beach shouldn’t be provided.

See response 2.7.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.10

The City needs a horse beach; however, horses need to be kept completely separate from dogs. Dogs can get excited and chase the horses, spooking them and causing them to either run or kick. This creates a very dangerous environment for everyone on the beach. In addition, dog poo is not the best thing for horses due to its meat content.

Administration acknowledges this comment, however, a split use dog and horse beach would have separate allocated times for dogs and horses.

Administration recommends the City investigate the option of a split use dog and horse beach with separate times for dogs and horses in Tamala Park.

2.11

A split use beach with separate times should only be implemented if dog owners abide by the rules, which does not always happen at Whitfords horse beach.

Noted. See response 2.10.

See recommendation 2.10.

2.12

A split use beach would be supported if horses had access during the mornings and on the weekends.

Noted. See response 2.10.

See recommendation 2.10.

2.13

Different times for dogs and horses would be confusing for residents to remember. Also people who work may not be able to access the beach in their allocated time.

Noted. See response 2.10.

See recommendation 2.10.

2.14

How well does a split use beach worked for the City of Joondalup?

The City of Joondalup patrol the horse beach to ensure that allocated times are adhered to. This patrolling has proved effective with the majority of the community utilising the beach at the appropriate time.

None.   

2.15

With 39km of coastline, there is enough to have one designated horse beach.

See response 2.1.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.16

A beach of more than 500m in length needs to be designated solely for horses, with 24/7 access.

See response 2.6.

None.

2.17

There is limited access between Flynn Drive and Gingin Brook, therefore Tamala Park and South Alkimos would be the best location.

Noted. See response 2.1.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.18

A horse beach should be established at Tamala Park before there is any residential pressure. Once housing expands in the Tamala Park region residents will not want a new use for their local beach.

See response 2.1.

See recommendation 2.1.

2.19

A horse beach should be implemented in the locality of Bullsbrook, as it is a great distance to travel to Whitfords Beach, which will be closing within the next 4 years.

Bullsbrook is not a coastal location. 

None.

2.20

If a horse beach is required then one of the dog beaches should be allocated for horses. This would minimise the impact on local residents and the environment as parking and access ways are already in place. If this is not possible then it should be located outside the tourism region on a quieter beach.

Many of the existing dog beaches would be unsuitable for horses as there are many rocks present on the sand and in the water.

None.

2.21

Perth's environment is not suitable to horses. Anyone living close enough to get to the beach in Wanneroo should not have a horse. They are very hard on the environment. Horses belong to green country where they have job to do, not gymkhanas and racing.

See response 2.1.

None. 

2.22

There are a number of areas within the City that can be utilised by horses. Dogs generally need to run off-leash and therefore need the most designated areas. Additionally, dog owners typically pick up after their dog, horse owners do not. Horses also inflict more damage on the environment than dogs.

Noted. See response 2.1.

None.

3

Tourism

3.1

Camel rides would be nice to see along the coast.

Administration acknowledges this suggestion, and will take it on board during future tourism discussions.

Administration recommends that Tourism ventures including, but not exclusive to, designated beach volley ball and/or beach soccer areas, open air amphitheatre, bars and cafes and open air markets  areas  be investigated in the CMP Part 2, in terms of feasibility, suitability and location.

3.2

Theme parks or water parks would be great to attract tourists to the City.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.3

Good priced beach stay villas or short stay accommodation would provide tourists with somewhere to stay while they are visiting the City. Accommodation would need to not be in isolation and would need to be planned for and announced before suburban fill. Buildings should be restricted to a maximum of 10 stories.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.4

Markets, shops and farmers markets would attract tourists.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.5

Artificial reefs have been laid in numerous places around Australia with great success. If artificial reefs were strategically placed, they could not only enhance existing surf breaks within the City, but they could create economic opportunities, protect the land from erosion, provide a habitat for marine life and increase popularity for fisherman. As time goes on, the reef would grow over with vegetation and bring marine life, creating snorkelling, diving and other tourist activities. To minimise any detrimental impacts to the natural sand flow a channel could be placed between the reefs and the shore to allow for long shore drift. Other options for creating waves include piers and/or groynes. There are many children in our growing suburbs that would benefit both socially and physically from aquatic recreation such as surfing. Future generations would benefit from enhanced surf breaks and it would place the City in contention as a great location to hold surfing competitions.

Administration agrees with this comment and believes artificial reefs could support further tourism and economic development opportunities in planned coastal activities centres.

Administration recommends that a feasibility study be conducted to determine whether artificial reefs would be suitable along the City’s coastline, along with potential locations.

3.6

Tourists are drawn to and appreciate beautiful, unspoilt places. Keep the City’s coast natural, the City doesn’t need commercial business activities along the coast.

Administration believes that any tourism ventures where possible should be located near activity centres and in areas that promote the protection and conservation of the surrounding environment.

None. 

3.7

A coastal footpath between Burns Beach and Mindarie is would greatly benefit local residents and tourists alike. Eventually it should go all the way through to Two Rocks.

Council supports the provision of a shared use path between Burns Beach and Mindarie and has allocated 50,000 in the 2011/2012 Budget to contribute towards appropriate studies for the shared use path.

None.

3.8

Pubs and bars similar to Hillarys and Cottesloe would be great for attracting tourists.

However, these need to be monitored and managed diligently to avoid antisocial behaviour.

Perhaps a rule for bars and cafes along residential area could be to close at the latest, one hour after sunset.

See response 3.1. The suggestion to avoid antisocial behaviour is acknowledged.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.9

Create a jetty similar to Busselton with at least one swimming/diving platform.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.10

Reasonably priced restaurants and cafes would provide somewhere for people visiting the City to sit and enjoy the surrounding natural assets. Perhaps locating them at rear of the beach, rather than on the other side of the road, will bring families onto the beaches.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.11

Coastal areas similar to Margaret River would be great to attract tourists.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.12

Jet ski hire would allow opportunity for aquatic recreation.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.13

Shaded park areas, with more bins along the beaches, are needed.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.14

Designated 4wd areas similar to Lancelin would promote tourism.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.15

A Fitness-Parcours (simple, very solid structures for exercise, similar to what you see on school yards) would be a great way to encourage health and fitness while enjoying the natural surroundings.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.16

Nature-Educational Foot-Paths, explaining plants animals geology along the way would provide an interesting coastal activity for visitors.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.17

There is room for all tourist ventures along the coast; just do not over commercialise.

See response 3.6.

None.  

3.18

A floating restaurant would give the City an exciting edge that would attract tourists.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.19

An outdoor cinema or Amphitheatre as suggested in the questionnaire would provide a venue to host events and attract people to the City.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.20

Redevelop Yanchep Lagoon. Brazier Road should run behind the current kiosk area to join up with Two Rocks Road. Currently it is very difficult to drive along the existing road especially at peak times when there are a lot of pedestrians about. By redirecting the road, car parking could be kept to the back of the development, lawns, steps, picnic areas and possibly additional food outlets could be developed all the way down to the coastline and it would become a safe and enjoyable area for the increasing number of visitors to the Lagoon.

There are currently plans to redevelop Yanchep Lagoon and realign Brazier Road in the near future.

None.

3.21

A great tourist attraction could be a ferry that travels along the coast and stops at various points along the way allowing people to stop for refreshments at the cafe's or spend time on the beaches.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.22

Designated sandboarding areas in degraded (blowout) areas would be good.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.23

Better signage along the coast to show what is available in the City or information boards would help promote tourist activities.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.24

Clarify the use of harbour wall at Two Rocks for fishing.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.25

Establish seafront promenades at regular points along the foreshore, with good cafe's, restaurants, and beach shops.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.26

There are no simple boat launching facilities  along the coastline A simple ramp is needed for launching hand-rolled small boats like kayaks, windsurfers, small sail craft and hobbies like catamarans. At present, no vehicle has access near the beach to quickly launch small craft, unless they go to a dedicated boat ramp.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.27

Decent parking areas to beaches would encourage more people to visit. 

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.28

There needs to be better access to beaches in Two Rocks.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.29

Improved parking and access to the outer wall at Mindarie would encourage more visitors.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.30

Jindalee would benefit from a range of tourist ventures.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.31

The City would benefit from an Ecotourism Resort within bush forever sites along coast.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.32

Multi story residential/mixed apartments would draw people to the City.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.33

Fireworks on New Years Eve would be great to see.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.34

Attractive, practical change rooms/toilets would enhance a day trip to the beach.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.35

Wanneroo is a sprawling suburb lacking in character. Our beaches are lovely but so let down by our foreshore. Mindarie is the only beachside location attractive to tourists and even that is lack lustre. The marina needs to be upgraded and bought back to life so that it becomes a true tourist attraction, similar to Hillarys. It would also be beneficial to promote the marina more effectively.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.36

Develop car parking overlooking the ocean.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.37

Themed festivals and music festivals of all genres will attract large amounts of people to the City.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.38

The City could provide information and opportunities for different activities such as scuba diving, stand up paddle boards, fishing, kayaking, kite surfing and blow karts.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.39

Develop a designated paragliding and hang gliding launch area

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.40

Tourism is not a priority for the City. It is an 'engineered' proposal for private entrepreneurs to make money with little benefit to the residents and ratepayers.

Administration acknowledges this comment and will take it on board in conjunction with all other comments submitted in regards to tourism.

None. 

3.41

Develop the area above the Sea Rescue in Two Rocks as a recreational area.

Planning is currently taking place for the redevelopment of Two Rocks Town Centre.

None.

3.42

Kiosks could be available around dog beach locations as many people enjoy a cool drink or ice cream after walking their dogs.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.43

Two Rocks Marina car park needs upgrading. The fishermen use this heavily all year and it is not attractive to tourists. The old tourist attractions at Two Rocks need a complete face-lift as the sculptures and park around the shopping centre lack appeal. The most popular area in Two Rocks is Leemans Landing (which is poular with the campervan tourist over night). A caravan park in the north around St Andrews, Yanchep or Two Rocks could be of value.

See response 3.41.

None.

3.44

There should be better development of the coastal areas in Alkimos, as this is a new suburb, which has the potential to be very well organised.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.45

Mindarie has a good tourist attraction with bars, cafes and restaurants.

Noted.

None.

3.46

An upgrade to the Two Rocks marina is required. Perhaps create a safe and protected family beach and playground with facilities for food and speciality shops as well as wash down facilities, and a fish cleaning station. It would be great if it had the infrastructure to support concerts, fireworks and family events. The current infrastructure at the Two Rocks marina and shops are dilapidated and unwelcoming for the local population and tourists alike. It is a large parcel of land in a beautiful location that has great potential.

See response 3.41.

None.

3.47

The sea is often very rough with lots of big waves and is unsuitable for small children. A sand bottomed tidal pool would allow laps for swimmers and safe calm water for toddlers and small children. A fenced outdoor play area nearby would also be invaluable together with a coffee shop.

Administration believes that a tidal pool could support further tourism and economic development opportunities in planned coastal activities centres.

Administration recommends that the feasibility and suitability of a tidal pool be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP.

3.48

Allocation of space for units is not warranted along the coast. There are only narrow beach areas and minimal dunes.

See response 3.6.

None.

3.49

An indoor ski/ ice skating dome would be a great attraction.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.50

Less is more, there doesn’t need to be more housing close to the beaches, there needs to be places for all to enjoy such as parks and small cafes.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.51

Beach volley ball and cricket areas as suggested in the questionnaire would help promote the healthy lifestyle which should be associated with the coast.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.52

Develop a pool for swimming and hydrotherapy needs.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.53

There needs to be toilets and basic facilities including showers and cafes at Claytons.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.54

Need to align pricing to make tourism in the City more affordable.

See response 3.40.

None.

3.55

Sand boarding and four wheel driving should not happen at all in the metro area. These activities should only at Lancelin.

See response 3.40.

None.

3.56

All paths need to be anti graffiti coated

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.57

Remove all parking charges. This is the single most important thing Wanneroo can do to encourage tourism.

The City of Wanneroo does not charge for parking.

None.

3.58

Quinns Rocks Caravan Park needs to provide recreational activities such as a small water park or play park for residents not visitors. 

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.59

There is not much available to make a day out along the coast. There needs to be more activities available for visitors and residents.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.60

The beaches can definitely be improved to make them more "user friendly". The Northern coast is a beautiful area but lacks the natural benefits like those down south. i.e.: Yallingup, Margaret River. However, with some effort the City’s coastline could be a viable place to enjoy the beaches, without having to travel outside of the community to do so.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.61

There needs to be more bins present at the rock wall in Mindarie as it is becoming very messy. Signs could be erected displaying the penalties for littering. A camera could also be installed to discourage littering.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.62

The Mary Lindsay Homestead provides an opportunity for community based tourism activities.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.63

By developing an aquatic centre, the pressure would be taken off beaches and dog owners as people would have an alternative to the beach.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.64

Big ideas are always worth entertaining, but keeping beaches pristine will be unique in the future. Long beach walks in a clean open environment will be highly sought after.

See response 3.6.

None.

3.65

Keep bars to a minimum to avoid creating trouble-spots and keep cafes, hotels and amphitheatres to designated areas around the marinas. This will keep the rest of the foreshore as natural and unspoiled as possible, allowing tourists and local residents who do not like commercialism to enjoy the beach.

See response 3.6.

None.

3.66

The beaches need to be accessible for all. A safe pool or beach area for children and elderly, where swells were blocked, would be extremely beneficial to the community.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.67

Please no fireworks.

See response 3.40.

None.

3.68

Quinns Rocks foreshore needs more shelters and playgrounds at the Caravan Park end, as well as more open space. On weekends, the car park is full and overflowing and there is no shade. People shelter under eves of Surf Club. In addition, a small kiosk with access to the beachfront would be preferable to the enclosed restaurant at Portofinos.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.69

Without adequate transport networks, tourism may not work. At present, it is difficult to access the beaches without a car. Most bus routes only go along Marmion Avenue and then a long walk is required to get to the beach.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.70

The dune system along the coastal edge is already fragile with considerable erosion issues associated with it. There should be greater protection and dune management programs to protect this fragile but important barrier. There should be no designated 4WD areas in the metro region. This activity should be restricted to Lancelin and other designated location outside of the metro area.

See response 3.6.

None.

3.71

The Seagrass build up just south of the Two Rocks Marina is off-putting for local residents and any tourists that come through. The beach is unable to be used due to the sheer volume of build-up and is visually appalling. The smell of rotting seagrass is revolting and can be smelt throughout the suburb. The seagrass is built up both below and above the high tide mark therefore will need cooperative action from the local council and crown land department. It is a man made problem due the construction of the marina and as such something should be done to clear it regularly.

Noted.

None.

3.72

Areas where people can take their dogs is growing in importance; more dog beaches or areas where dogs are allowed would encourage dog owners to visit the City.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.73

There is demand for a marina (as proposed) in the Alkimos area.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.74

Why not dream big and aim to build a tourism destination on the northern beaches? It is clear that all surf-based areas have become significant tourist destinations, with knock on benefits appreciated by all the community. This is a great opportunity for a council with vision and drive to make the City of Wanneroo a major player in tourism in WA.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.75

There needs to be more patrols by rangers and private security companies to deter littering, especially from recreational fishers who discard dangerous tackle.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.76

Slipways should be stationed along the coast for quick access to and from the water for light watercraft.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

3.77

Large beer garden style hotel/pub on the corner block near Clayton's beach would be a great attraction.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

4

Segregation of Beach Activities

4.1

Jet skis need to be segregated from all other beach activities. They are fast and powerful and create a lot of noise. It is important that they have designated areas and not be allowed within 200m of the shore. This will insure that they are not placed in direct conflict with other aquatic activities. It is also important there are designated launch and retrieval areas. It should also be noted that jet skis have been known to harm dolphins.

Administration acknowledges that segregating beach activities can increase the safety of all beach goers and supports the segregation of this activity.

Administration recommends that segregation of jet skiing from other beach activities be investigated.

4.2

Kite surfing can be intrusive near swimmers and families.

See response 4.1. 

Administration recommends that segregation of kite surfing from other beach activities be investigated.

4.3

At The Spot, there is a mutual respect between kite surfers and surfers when there are good onshore surfing conditions. A plaque (such as the one at surfers point in Margret River) showing the locally recognised code of conduct should be erected in the car park to prevent any future accidents.

Administration supports this suggestion. 

See recommendation 3.1.

4.4

Swimming, fishing and jet skiing require segregated areas to occur. Surfing and kite surfing can co-exist. Dangerous activities should be separated.

See response 4.1.

See recommendation 4.1 and 4.2.

4.5

Please promote and develop surf and water based activities.

Noted.

See recommendation 3.1.

4.6

By segregating activities, it creates a safer environment for all beach users. However perhaps it could be made flexible with time limits for different activities.

See response 4.1.

See recommendation 4.1.

4.7

The present arrangements are adequate. Coastal activities are generally self regulating i.e. surfers will only surf where there is surf.

Noted.

None.

4.8

Fishing should be segregated from swimming due to the dangers that can be caused by hooks and fishing line. This is especially crucial at the Yanchep Lagoon as there are always families with children utilising this sheltered beach for swimming. There needs to be well marked designated fishing areas so as to not interfere with swimmers.

Administration acknowledges this suggestion, however has recommended that the City focus on the segregation of kite surfing and jet skiing at this time.

None.

4.9

Yanchep lagoon should be a swimming only beach.

See response 4.8.

None.

4.10

The only two activities which would create a problem are kite surfing and jet skiing.

See response 4.1.

See recommendation 4.1 and 4.2.

4.11

Beach activities need to be better managed and monitored.

See response 4.1.

See recommendation 4.1 and 4.2.

4.12

Animal exercise beaches need to segregated not only from other aquatic recreational activities but also from other animals. For example, horses and dogs should be segregated.

Animal exercise is currently segregated from other beach activities within the City of Wanneroo.

See response 2.10.

None. See recommendation 2.10.

4.13

The City could designate activities on a rostered basis, for example, snorkelling schools or courses of limited duration (eg 6 weeks) could be available followed by another activity of limited duration.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

4.14

Paddle sports are a popular recreational activity which is non polluting and noiseless. There needs to be an access created for paddle craft.

See response 3.1.

See recommendation 3.1.

4.15

The City has a vast amount of coastline by apportioning  it, it can really be utilised.

Noted.

None.

4.16

Good and safe swimming areas within the City of Wanneroo should be reserved for that purpose only; other activities not compatible with swimming should be located elsewhere.

See response 4.8.

None.

4.17

Fishing needs to be discouraged as there are simply not enough fish left to let people keep beach fishing anywhere on a metropolitan beach.

See response 4.8.

None.

4.18

Rather than segregation of beaches perhaps time slots could be a better alternative. For example, fishing pre 9am and after 5pm in summer.

See response 4.8.

None.

4.19

Four Wheel Driving was not listed and is a big issue in the Coastal Management Plan. This definitely needs to be looked into.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

4.20

We need more safe surfing areas, as this a great sport, particularly for the youth within the City.

See response 3.5.

See recommendation 3.5.

4.21

Beaches that are safe for swimming should be identified as a priority. These areas should be allocated for swimming and other more traditional beach uses enjoyed by families. Dogs, horses and other activities such as fishing should not be permitted in these locations since they can be undertaken and enjoyed in the areas less safe for swimming.

See response 4.8.

See recommendation 4.8.

5

Beach Names

5.1

It would be more beneficial to focus on the use of the beach rather than the title, or more important things such as protecting the bushland and natural heritage and developing sports centres and swimming pools in the northern corridor.

The Coastal Management Plan Part 1 focuses on a variety of issues along the City’s coast, not solely on the naming of beaches. 

None.

5.2

Use the traditional names that have been given to various beach areas over the years.

Administration acknowledges this suggestion.

Final consideration of beach names, including specific locations and total length of proposed areas are intended to be presented to Council through a separate cover.

None. 

5.3

Quinns beach should be 'the Pearl of the North', as driving along the main road alongside Quinns beach is so beautiful.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.4

More interesting names would be good along with splitting the coast into smaller portions. Currently it is difficult to pinpoint specific locations.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.5

The beach opposite the Mary Lindsay Homestead should be named Lindsay Beach.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.6

Call Claytons beach Mindarie.

Claytons beach is the gazetted name for the northern section of Mindarie Beach.

None.

5.7

Beach names should be shortened for example Quinns could be The Rock

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.8

The surf break in north Two Rocks should be officially called Durrs.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.9

Signage displaying the name and describing how beach names came about would be a great addition to the beach.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.10

Consult with the Aboriginal community to discover any Aboriginal names for different beaches.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.11

The surf break in south Mindarie should be named Claytons Beach.

Claytons is the gazetted name for the portion of beach directly south of the marina encompassing the surf break.

None.

5.12

The beach opposite the Jindalee foreshore should be named Jindalee Beach.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.13

An area of the coast could be named Morgan's Bay as morgan means ‘comes from the sea’.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.14

The area contained within the reef at the southern part of Yanchep Lagoon is locally known as "Grannys Pool" as it is a sheltered and safe area used by families and elderly people

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.15

The beach opposite Club Capricorn should be named Capricorn Beach.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.16

Given the Yanchep coastline is so vast, the nomenclature of beaches should reflect a more localised approach. Hence instead of “Yanchep Beach”, the local beaches should be renamed ‘The lagoon; Lindsay Beach and Capricorn Beach.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.17

Please don’t rename Claytons Beach.

Claytons Beach is a gazetted name and will not be changing.

None.

5.18

The beach directly south of the Yanchep lagoon should be named Fisherman's Hollow.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.19

If a horse beach is implemented it should be named after Cr Maureen Grierson as she was the leading activist for a horse beach within the City.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.20

Please do not use suburb names to name the beaches. Perhaps use shipwrecks or people who have a nautical connection.

Noted. See response 5.2.

None. 

5.21

The stretch of coastline along Alkimos and Eglinton should be named either Sunset Beach or Sandy Bay.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.22

Please stop calling beaches by estate or development names. For example Brighton is the name of the development not the suburb - the suburb is Butler. This creates a sense of ownership which developers and the purchasers of the land use to exclude the public. For example, Brighton Beach and the restrictions placed on the use of the stairs leading to and from the beach.

See response 5.2.

None. 

5.23

Leemans Landing is a sign posted well know park area south of Two Rocks Marina and as such the beach adjacent to the park land should be named the same.  

See response 5.2.

None. 

6

Locations for Surf Life Saving Clubs

6.1

As the population grows at Alkimos, young families with children will utilise the beach thus creating a great need for a Surf Life Saving Club and patrolled beaches.

Administration acknowledges this suggestion for the location of additional SLSC.

Although the City does not have control in regards to the location and implementation of SLSC’s. Administration will liaise with Surf Life Saving Australia and the presidents of Yanchep and Quinns SLSC’s to workshop the responses received throughout the consultation and identify the most appropriate locations for future SLSC’s.

None. 

6.2

Surf Life Saving Clubs will be needed in the new residential areas such as Alkimos and Eglinton. As the population grows, the need for patrolled beaches will become greater with young families and children frequenting the beach.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.3

With development continuing at Jindalee the population is ever expanding thus creating a need for a Surf Life Saving Club at Jindalee beach. The sea is also quite rough in this area, further emphasising the need for a SLSC.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.4

There are strong rips with undertows and hidden rocks present at Claytons beach. This is a very popular surf beach as well as a swimming beach in summer and having lifesavers on the beach would increase the safety of the area greatly. One idea could be to turn the car park into a clubhouse with lower beach access for vehicles and boards.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.5

As the population increases along the coast there should be more Surf Life Saving Clubs present.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.6

Yanchep SLSC requires improved facilities similar to that of Quinns Rocks. This would help to increase memberships.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.7

The City should utilise existing clubs.

Noted.

None.

6.8

Burns Beach and Mullaloo Beach need a SLSC.

Burns Beach and Mullaloo Beach are not within the City of Wanneroo. There is already a SLSC at Mullaloo.

None.

6.9

All beaches along the City’s coastline require a SLSC or outpost as it creates a safer environment for the community.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.10

There needs to be a SLSC closer to Wanneroo so local Wanneroo children can attend.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.11

SLSCs are required at swimming beaches that have the highest concentration of swimmers.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.12

A SLSC is needed north of Ocean Reef Marina.

Ocean Reef is not within the City of Wanneroo.

None.

6.13

There needs to be a SLSC at Hillarys.

Hillarys is not within the City of Wanneroo.

None.

6.14

Areas that have the greatest population require a SLSC.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.15

Areas that don't already have a SLSC should have one.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.16

Quinns beach should have a SLSC as a lot of local people swim there.

There is currently a SLSC at Quinns Beach.

None.

6.17

Unsure about which areas require a SLSC, but I fully support additional SLSC activities as the population increases.

Noted.

None. 

6.18

An emergency call facility/telephone located a Claytons beach directed to Quinns SLSC would ensure additional safety at Claytons beach. There is currently no way of contacting the SLSC if an incident occurs on Claytons.

See response 6.1.

None. 

6.19

Two Rocks Beach requires a SLSC.

See response 6.1.

None. 

7

Facilities required for SLSCs

7.1

Clubhouse.

Administration acknowledges this suggestion for facilities required for a SLSC.

Although the City does not have control in regards to the location and implementation of SLSC’s. Administration will liaise with Surf Life Saving Australia and the presidents of Yanchep and Quinns SLSC’s to workshop the responses received throughout the consultation and identify the most appropriate locations for future SLSC’s.

None. 

7.2

Nippers Club.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.3

Showers/toilets.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.4

Cafes/restaurants.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.5

Basic Facilities.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.6

BBQ area.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.7

Playgrounds.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.8

Pub.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.9

Shark nets.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.10

Bins (rubbish/dog poo).

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.11

Two story building so the view is the beach not a car park.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.12

Solar panel driven alarm post for emergencies.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.13

A multipurpose building so that that it not only houses the SLSC but also provides a hire space, eateries and shops.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.14

Lifeguards.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.15

Competitions against other clubs.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.16

Educational programs.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.17

Shade.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.18

Drink machine.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.19

Sufficient parking.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.20

First aid training.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.21

Gym facilities.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.22

Kayak, surf/paddleboard rental.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.23

Special events to help raise money for charities. 

See response 7.1.

None.  .

7.24

Social events to bring the local community together.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.25

Swimming lessons.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.26

Social club facilities.

See response 7.1.

None. 

7.27

Community activities such as aerobics, self defence classes and dance lessons.

See response 7.1.

None. 

8

Surf Life Saving Clubs

8.1

SLSCs need to undertake more shark monitoring.

Administration acknowledges the comments made in regards to SLSCs.

Although the City does not have control in regards to the location and implementation of SLSC’s. Administration will liaise with Surf Life Saving Australia and the presidents of Yanchep and Quinns SLSC’s to workshop the responses received throughout the consultation and identify the most appropriate locations for future SLSC’s.

None. 

8.2

There needs to be more SLSCs available within the City with more education each Sunday.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.3

SLSCs do a fantastic job, it is very important that they have a presence within the City.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.4

Quinns SLSC integration with Portofinos is excellent.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.5

There needs to be better acknowledgement and help for the Yanchep SLSC.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.6

No more SLSCs are needed in Quinns Rocks or Mindarie.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.7

If SLSCs are combined with entertainment facilities such as bbqs and amphitheatres then they as well used.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.8

The volunteer aspect of the SLSCs is really great.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.9

Beaches don’t need to be patrolled 24/7, however it would be great during the summer holidays if all popular swimming beaches were patrolled.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.10

Surf schools and SLSCs are good for the community and create a safer environment for the community.

See response 8.1.

None. 

8.11

It is important to get children involved in physical activities and exercise.

See response 8.1.

None. 

9

Additional Comments of the Coastal Management Plan.

9.1

The traditional access point that residents and tourists have used for well over 30 years, at the southern end of Yanchep Beach, should be formally recognised as an access point and upgraded to protect the dune environment.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

9.2

The City must prevent four wheel driving on beaches and dunes.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None. .

9.3

Please do not allow foreshore developers and residents living close to the foreshore dictate its use. The beaches are public beaches and should provide facilities for those people who are prepared to travel to enjoy them.

Beach usage is not determined by land developers.

None.

9.4

Dune and vegetation rehabilitation is urgently needed along the foreshore. The City could set up a volunteer programme involving local schools and businesses as well as local community members to help with the rehabilitation. The City needs to stop sand boarding and people cutting through the dunes to get to the beach in order to preserve the dunes and natural vegetation.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

9.5

The CMP does not show Satterly’s proposed Catalina Urban development in Tamala Park, nor does it show or comment on the proposed dual use path between Mindarie and Burns beach. There may be a possible conflict between users of the DUP and any prospective horse related activity. Has Satterly been advised of the possible adverse sales to the Catalina Development should a horse beach be approved.

See response 3.7. The City has informed major landowners of the CMP Part 1 and will continue to liaise with major landowners and community groups throughout the development of the CMP Part 2.

None.

9.6

Thank you for the opportunity to express our needs and good luck with finding a sustainable long term best solution which is "easy" to enforce.

Noted.

None.

9.7

It would be nice to have some more accessible pathways to the lovely local beaches. The community is currently using sand tracks that become overgrown/hazardous and a little hard to use. The Stairs leading down to the beach are dangerous, the City needs to obtain a better design.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

9.8

There needs to be more sailing facilities.

See recommendation 3.1. 

See recommendation 3.1.

9.9

The survey is too long and questions can be set out a little better.

Noted.

None.

9.10

The Leemans landing picnic area is always tidy and clean and is a much-populated area for locals and some tourists. However the toilets need updating and there needs to be more rubbish bins nearer to the bbq area. The bbq itself is very temperamental and sometimes it is completely non functioning. The pathway to beach is eroded and needs attention. We don't need a lot at Two Rocks, we just need what is here to be maintained in an efficient way.

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

9.11

It is important to keep the community involved, well done.

Noted.

None.

9.12

Please consider approving more practical and welcoming design then the one used at the Quinns Rocks Beach within the coffee shop complex: It is difficult to negotiate doors to the female change room, especially with children and beach gear as after entering you are in complete darkness and have to negotiate another door. There is no natural ventilation; this creates a stuffy unwelcoming atmosphere, especially on hot days. The floor-waste for the showers is placed about halfway in front of the toilets which results in almost the entire floor being wet in front of the toilet doors, this is inconvenient for patrons of the coffee shop who have to use these facilities. Users of the wheelchair toilets have to negotiate the same entrance. This is a good example of how not to design beachfront facilities. There are many attractive and practical designs for beach change rooms which blend in with the foreshore: Kalbarri (on the beach top walk) Floreat beach, Coogee beach and many more

It is Administration’s intention that this will be investigated in Part 2 of the CMP. 

None.

9.13

Please provide further details such as locations and layouts of facilities and car parking to encourage public feedback. Where lack of info is available, people get concerned when they most likely don't need to be. Keep the good ideas coming, but environmental considerations/info should be stated with early briefs. Keep the good work up, thanks.

Noted. This detail was not included within Part 1, as it will be investigated in Part 2 if endorsed by Council.

None.

9.14

Part 1 of the CMP omits some relevant facts that should be included as important issues to be dealt with and not just glossed over in favour of dogs and horses.

The CMP refers to the “Adopted Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan 2007” It is important to note that after 6 years this plan has still not been endorsed by WAPC and therefore no certainty can be attached to it. This should be noted as an issue.

Table 1 Map 2 should refer to the Dewars 4wd access track as being on CVJV land and subject to formal access agreement

Table 2 Map 3 should refer to the severe erosion taking place immediately north of the Two Rocks Marina as an issue to be addressed.

Table 3 Map 4 should refer to the seasonal seaweed collection south of the Marina with the associated odour problem in the summer months as an issue to be addressed.

Map 7 should be up to date and show two new boardwalk beach access facilities north and south of Mary Lindsay Homestead.

Noted. The CMP Part 2 will include updated maps.

None.

9.15

The emphasis for Part 1 is on dog and horse beaches, naming beach areas and tourism. Is tourism a big deal when we live so close to Perth now and are part of suburban sprawl? Users of the beach are growing each year yet there are kilometres of beach which is inaccessible due to lack of paths, parking etc. The Council  needs to open up more beach south of Mindarie to Burns Beach in readiness for developments such as Catalina (8000 residents).

Beach access cannot be implemented between Mindarie and Burns Beach as there is currently no development in this area, making the coast inaccessible.

None.

9.16

There is no proper entry to the beach from the marina side of the Sovereign Drive, which had been accessible prior to the taking down of the south steps due to erosion and the shelving of the aquatic fishery. Access and parking for 10/12 vehicles was promised as part of an agreement made between the Council, Department of Fisheries and the Marina spokesperson. 

The area has since been barricaded with enormous boulders and unused rusty pipes from the shelved project, the informal walkway to the beach has also been piled with debris. The area is very unsightly. The opportunity for the local residents, tourists and visitors to stroll or jog from that part towards the steps has been lost. There has been a goat track created, however, this may be taken away in the CMP.

Residents have been picking up debris left by boats and others, but the terrain is now too difficult to do this with no bins provided.

People living right at the beachfront and close behind on the marina side need to drive to the steps if children or the elderly with umbrellas food and other paraphernalia are to be taken for an outing. Some even have to go up to 3 kms to get to their beach.

The pathway has no parking and the closed off area is very underutilised.

Noted. See response 3.41.

None.

10

Major Landowner’s/Government Agencies Comments

10.1

During the City of Joondalup’s consultation for their Beach Management Plan many responses were received from Wanneroo residents using Joondalup beaches, requesting greater regional facilities, therefore the City of Joondalup supports any proposals to extend dog beaches within the City of Wanneroo.

Noted.

None.

10.2

The City of Joondalup continues to offer support in assisting the City of Wanneroo to establish a new horse beach within Wanneroo.

Noted.

None.

10.3

The City of Joondalup supports any regional approaches to tourism development across the northern corridor.

Noted.

None.

10.4

The City of Joondalup supports a reasonable approach to segregating beach activities. Having recently segregated kite surfing and freestyle jet skiing, the City of Joondalup understands that significant resources are required to successfully inform and educate the public as to their application as well as effectively regulating the activities to the expectations set by the community. As such the City offers its support in sharing its experiences and lessons learned in implementing activity restrictions.

Noted.

None.

10.5

Firstly and most importantly, we wish to state our vehement objection to any proposal to extend the Quinns Beach dog exercise area north, into Jindalee Beach. We previously made submissions on this suggestion in June 2009 and February 2010 outlining our reasons for objection and secured Council’s support for our view. Our key arguments are summarised as follows:

1.       The planning of Lot 12 has been undertaken in partnership with the City of Wanneroo over many years, and encompasses plans for the beach and an interface area based on an agreed vision and principles which did not include use of the beach by dogs.

2.       Jindalee beach has been identified in the Foreshore Management Plan for the site adopted by Council to provide a district beach function for both Jindalee residents and those in the surrounding suburbs, particularly to the east.

3.       Upgrading works being undertaken by the developer as part of the approved planning for the beach exceed $4.5million in value and are aimed at providing greater public amenity and access to a family oriented swimming and leisure beach.  The City has approved construction of a car-park, beach access stairs and a foreshore kiosk with provisions for Surf Life Saving storage, first aid and an office with many of these facilities installed in 2010.  Development of the planned mixed use node abutting the beach will further enhance its attractions.

4.       Whilst we understand the needs and desires of dog owners and dogs alike to exercise on the beach, we note that they are already very well provided for in the locality by a 1km exercise area immediately to the south of Jindalee.  The need for and benefits of the extension are therefore questionable.  If it is considered justified, we suggest the area to the south is more appropriated.

5.       By contrast, as the residential population of the area increases, there is growing demand from local families for access to beaches where they and their children can walk, swim and play without the inconveniences and occasional dangers posed by dogs (which, as we’ve noted, are already well provided for nearby).

6.       We understand that some proponents of the extension question the appropriateness of the beach for conventional use, suggesting that it is not suitable for swimming because of the existence of rocks.  The rockiness of portion of the beach is only a real issue in one small section, after the late winter storms, when sand is stripped from the beach at that point, but when demand for swimming is relatively low.  The beach still, even then, provides good opportunities for walking, beachcombing and play, which are enhanced as the sand builds up over the summer.  Winter swimmers are still catered for by the sand beaches north and south of that particular point.  Sand accretion is rapid after the storms at that location, as shown in the attached photos. In this regard, it is no different to many of Perth’s other popular swimming beaches include north Trigg, North Beach and Waterman’s Bay.  These attributes are also identified in the Foreshore Management Plan for this adopted by the Council which states, amongst other things, that:

“The large catchment inland from Lot 12 and the desire of a large number of people to experience the beach environment in one form or another will mean that the coastline in front of Lot 12 and in the area in general will be expected to cater for high demand. Such demands have been changing from the traditional swimming, surfing and sunbaking to one that includes meeting for informal and formal eating and drinking experiences in locations close to the beach. The revised Structure Plan for the western portion of Lot 12 and this Foreshore Management Plan have combined the characteristics of the coast and the desire for coastal recreation experiences into a plan that integrates uses in the foreshore reserve with the adjacent residential area.”  It identifies the southern portion of the beach as offering the best swimming opportunities.

7.       Usage of the beach has been relatively low until the recent construction of beach parking and stairs by the developer, which have improved access enormously (it was previously only really accessibly from the south).  However, these and other planned facilities will see demand and usage increase, as will the growing catchment population around and east of the beach, and increased public awareness of the site.

Having outlined why we do not support extension of the dog exercise area into Jindalee, we would like to comment more generally on the motivation behind this suggestion. We understand that demand exists and may increase for dog exercise areas in the City Generally, and that some owners may be very keen for this to occur in the locations most convenient to themselves. However, we question the rationale of maintaining a per kilometre ration of dogs to coast, as the same rationale might equally be applied to number of non-dog owning residents which would result in a recommendation to reduce the dog exercise areas!  In our view, a balanced and rational approach needs to be applied, which maintains several substantial and accessible dog beaches (such as the 1km stretch that already exists at Quinns) up the coast, and equally provides for beach users who do not wish to share the space with dogs.  It needs to be recognised that development of the City will see increased catchments of both dog and non-dog owners for all beaches, and that this will be particularly so as inland areas are developed.  It is likely that whatever recommendations the City adopts, some residents will be dissatisfied.  However, a balance acceptable to most should be achievable.

From a procedural perspective, we would also like to indicate some concern at the consultation methodology which has seen the draft Strategy summarised and advertised with no recommendation (or even option) to extend the dog beach into Jindalee, but with this option being canvassed in the project questionnaire. We are concerned that firstly, many people who are either happy with the status quo, or not aware of the strategy, or not motivated to commend may not investigate its recommendations.  Secondly, those who do review the Plan document, FAQ and Information Sheet would have no reason to believe that extension of the dog beach into Jindalee is being contemplated, and may therefore chose not to comment at all, or not comment on this option.  As such, the outcomes of the questionnaire survey have little hope at being truly representative.  We understand that inclusion of this option in the survey was a late suggestion made in response to the public interest in the matter in 2010 (about which we made our previous submission), however because of its late and limited inclusion, it needs to be recognised that many people will be unaware of it, particularly those satisfied with the status quo, and hence will not make their views known.

Administration recommends extending Quinns dog beach south 700 metres to the northern most access of the existing Fred Stubs Memorial Grove car park within the next 5 years.

None.

10.6

We would like to suggest several modifications/corrections to the document, namely:

·        To include Jindalee as a recognised beach name;

·        To recognise the proposal contained within the approved Lot 12 FMP that a second ‘swale park’ be developed over the cleared are of dunes in the northern foreshore abutting the estate;

·        To recognise the plans approved in the Lot 12 FMP and through detailed working drawings and tenders to construct a kiosk and lifesaving facility at the end of Jindalee Boulevard, abutting the car park.  There is no proposal that we are aware of to construct such a facility at the northern end of the study area, as Table 11 currently indicates.

It is Administration’s intention to liaise with major landowners during the development of Part 2 of the CMP, to ensure the appropriate information is included for each area. 

None.

10.7

Lend Lease is in support of a dog beach in North Alkimos as it is anticipated this will service the future residential development in South Alkimos.

Noted.

See recommendation 1.27.

10.8

Lend Lease does not support a horse beach in the identified South Alkimos location due to its proximity to the proposed regional public boat harbour and the possibility of compromising remediation and environmental measures proposed for the dunal system at South Alkimos. It is considered a horse beach in North Alkimos may also compromise these initiatives and as such Lend Lease’s preferred location for a horse beach is Tamala Park.

See response 2.1.

See recommendation 2.1.

10.9

Lend Lease requests the wording ‘possible marina’ in South Alkimos be changed to ‘proposed marina’, based on the support received from the Department of Transport and the investment into the future planning of this locality.

See response 10.6.

None. 

10.10

The provision of a future SLSC has been included in the design for South Alkimos, with the proposed location being in the northern section of South Alkimos. This facility has been supported in the City of Wanneroo Draft Community Facilities Plan and Draft Developers Contribution Plan.

Noted.

None.

10.11

Lend Lease would like to propose ‘Alkimos Beach’ as the future name of the coastline at South Alkimos.  Lend Lease and LandCorp have chosen ‘Alkimos Beach’ as the name delivers on the history of the area by keeping the actual historical name, adds value by including the main driver for living in the area, and defines the location and features by including the most significant natural feature of the site.

See response 5.2.

See recommendation 5.2.

10.12

The City of Wanneroo’s Coastal Management Plan Part 2 needs to reflect Jindee’s role as a regional destination for the corridor by accommodating land uses and level of infrastructure capable of meeting anticipated community needs and expectations. 

See response 10.6.

None. 

10.13

Westminster Estates would welcome the opportunity to consider jointly with the city the naming of Jindee beach.

See response 10.6.

None.

10.14

Westminster Estates welcomes the opportunity to workshop the detailed design of the Jindee coastline with the City of Wanneroo as part of the CMP Part 2.

See response 10.6.

None. 

10.15

Existing development approvals and approved Foreshore Management Plans should be incorporated into the Wanneroo CMP to ensure that it accurately reflects future foreshore development.

See response 10.6.

None.

10.16

The location of the proposed dog and horse exercise beaches should re-evaluate as the proposed locations at Alkimos are not appropriate.

See response 1.27. 

See recommendation 1.27.

10.17

Further discussions with the landowners who will incur the financial burden associated with the provision of facilities to accommodate dogs, horses and their owners is required prior to the finalisation of the CMP.

See response 10.6.

See recommendation 10.6.

10.18

Proposed animal exercise beaches at South Alkimos conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives within the Bush Forever site 397.

See response 2.1.

See recommendation 2.1.

10.19

The needs and desires of the future Shorehaven and broader Alkimos-Eglinton communities have not been considered and should be borne in mind during the preparation of the final CMP.

See response 10.6.

None.