1
Bushfire risk
I’m totally opposed to the amended plan for North Stoneville. Reference number DR 189/2020
The proposed North Stoneville development must not be approved due to the extreme bushfire risk it poses. With 3,000 people crammed into an area designated as an Extreme Bushfire Zone, the safety of residents cannot be guaranteed.
The potential loss of life and property damage is simply too great a risk to take.
​
I'll use this one, open the online consultation
​
2
Bushfire risk
I’m totally opposed to the amended plan for North Stoneville. Reference number DR 189/2020
Satterley's proposed 'Evacuation Solution' of a nonexistent highway is simply not good enough. In the event of a bushfire emergency, residents would be stranded with no clear means of escape.
This lack of a viable evacuation route is a major safety concern and cannot be ignored.
​
3
Environmental impact
Dear Sir/Madam,
I’m totally opposed to the amended plan for North Stoneville. Reference number DR 189/2020
The proposed North Stoneville development would result in significant environmental loss, with 160 hectares of land, 50,000 trees, and Black Cocky habitat at risk. This loss of habitat would have a significant impact on local biodiversity and would also result in the displacement of wildlife.
This is an unacceptable cost to pay for urban development.
​
1
Environmental impact
Dear Sir/Madam,
​
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed North Stoneville development - Reference number DR 189/2020. The project poses a significant threat to the environment and wildlife in the Perth Hills region. The development will result in the destruction of 50,000 trees and 160 hectares of land, including the habitat of the endangered black cockatoos. This loss of habitat will have a significant impact on the local ecosystem and wildlife.
Moreover, the proposed development does not appear to have taken into account the ecological significance of the area. The Perth Hills are an important region for biodiversity and conservation, and any development should be undertaken with the utmost care to protect these natural resources.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed development and instead explore alternative options that prioritize the protection of the environment and wildlife.
​
2
Bushfire risk
Dear Sir/Madam, I’m totally opposed to the amended plan for North Stoneville. Reference number DR 189/2020.
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed North Stoneville development and the significant risk it poses to the safety of the local community. The development i s located in an extreme bushfire zone, and the proposed density of 3,000 people in the area is a cause for great concern.
In the event of a bushfire, the proposed development would place an enormous strain on emergency services and could potentially resul t in loss of life. The safety of residents should be the highest priority for any development, and the risks associated with this proposal are simply too great.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed development and explore alternative options tha not place the safety of the community at risk.
​
3
Traffic and infrastructure
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed North Stoneville development ( Reference number DR 189/2020 ) and the impact it will have on local infrastructure and traffic. The proposed development would result in an additional 8,000 local traffic movements every day, which would have a significant impact on local roads and infrastructure.
Moreover, the proposed development does not appear to have a viable evacuation plan in the event of an emergency. The so-called 'evacuation solution' put forward by Satterley is a non-existent highway, which is simply not feasible or safe.
Furthermore, the proposed development would place an enormous financial burden on the Mundaring Shire ratepayers, who would be left to deal with the consequences of a stranded townsite. This is simply unacceptable.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed development and explore alternative options that do not place such a significant strain on local infrastructure and services. The Perth Hills need protection from urbanisation, and any development should prioritize the long term sustainability and wellbeing of the local community.
​
1
Environmental loss and Aboriginal heritage at risk
I’m totally opposed to the amended plan for North Stoneville. Reference number DR 189/2020.
The proposed North Stoneville development threatens to devastate the local environment and put Aboriginal heritage sites at risk. The development would require the removal of 60,000 trees and the destruction of 160 hectares of land, which is home to numerous species of flora and fauna. This loss of habitat would have a profound impact on local ecosystems of some endangered species and could even lead to the extinction.
Furthermore, there are registered Aboriginal heritage sites in the area that would be at risk of damage or destruction as a result of the development. It is essential that these sites be protected and preserved for future generations, and the proposed development would put them in grave danger.
In light of these concerns, I urge the government to reject the proposal and prioritise the protection of the local environment and Aboriginal heritage.
​
I'll use this one, open the online consultation
​
2
Bushfire risk
I’m totally opposed to the amended plan for North Stoneville. Reference number DR 189/2020
The proposed North Stoneville development is located in an extreme bushfire zone, and would place approximately 3,000 people at risk in the event of a bushfire.
Given the recent devastating bushfires in Australia, it is essential that we take this risk seriously and do everything in our power to mitigate it.
However, the proposed development's evacuation solution is inadequate and unrealistic.
Satterley, the company behind the proposal, has suggested that a new highway would be constructed to facilitate evacuation in the event of a bushfire. However, there is no concrete plan for the construction of this highway, and it is not clear how long it would take to complete. In the meantime, residents of the proposed development would be left stranded in a high-risk area with no adequate evacuation route.
Given the seriousness of the bushfire risk, it is imperative that the government reject the proposed development.
​
3
Traffic and infrastructure
I’m totally opposed to the amended plan for North Stoneville. Reference number DR 189/2020
The proposed North Stoneville development would result in approximately 8,000 additional local traffic movements every day, which would have a significant impact on the local road network and lead to increased traffic congestion. This would not only inconvenience local residents, but could also pose a significant safety risk.
Furthermore, the development would have a negative impact on the amenity of the Perth Hills, which are a natural treasure that should be protected and preserved. Suburbia is not a suitable addition to this area, which is known for its natural beauty and appeal as a tourist destination. The proposed development would fundamentally alter the character of the area, and would be detrimental to its long-term appeal.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the government to reject the proposed development and prioritize the preservation of the Perth Hills' natural beauty and amenity.
​