Everyone in my shire has been super excited the last few months by the anouncement and showcasing of a proposed self sustainable hi-density eco village in Witchcliffe, Margaret River SHire, in South Western Australia, based loosely on Village Homes, Davis, California

 http://www.foxcliffefarmecovillage.com/ 

However, last night at a council meeting i attended, the 5 councilors voted 3/2 against offering the project their 'Support in Principle', which is exactly that, a token gesture that sais they support the idea in principle allowing then dialogue, fine tuning and ammendments to begin before final approval.

Below is the press release from the project manager Mike Hulme...

Media Statement – Foxcliffe Farm Ecovillage

We’re very disappointed! It’s hard to imagine a local Council knocking back what would have been Australia’s most sustainable residential development on such an appropriate site in these uncertain times, particularly when the project had Council Planning officers’ recommendation for support.

 It’s even more surprising in this current economic climate, as the project has the backing of a local $2 billion dollar private property group, and would have contributed $50M to our local economy. The immediate consequences are that my very capable assistant project manager no longer has a job, we will not be proceeding with leasing our office in town, our local planning, engineering, landscape architect and architects will miss out on hundreds of thousands in fees and involvement in a ground breaking project, and our local civil and residential construction industry will miss out on close to $50 million, and last but not least, our very supportive local Witchcliffe community and economy will miss out on being involved with, and benefiting from, a huge social & economic boost to their town.

 As for what we’ll do with the property, I’m not sure; we’re not in the business of land-banking without certainty. We will spend a short time talking to Council about whether they are prepared to initiate the townsite review that Shire President, Ray Colyer, said he wanted before supporting such a project, and if not, we’ll either fire up the organic vineyard and wait for a more progressive Council, or put the property on the market.

 I’d like to thank Councillors Serventy and Middleton for their support and the Council’s Planning officers – it’s nice to know that we had support at a professional level. 

    and here are the notes from the council meeting...

Summary of Councillor Comments

Provided below is a edited summary of comments made by Councillors for and against the Foxcliffe proposal at the Council meeting held on 28 April 2011.  Comments in italics were not made by the councilors and are added for context.  All efforts are made to ensure this record is complete and unbiased.

Cr Lyn Serventy

• Stated strong support for the project noting that the project was desperately needed and would result in many flow on benefits to the region
• Concurred with comments by the public regarding the need to “tie-in” developer commitments and on that basis supported the proposal to process the WVS, TPS and LPS amendments concurrently as a means to ensure that the concept as presented is what is delivered
• Noted the importance of developer “tie-in” for; Wind Turbines, Underground Water Tanks, Solar Access, Food Production and Water Recycling initiatives
• Highlighted concerns regarding the continued operation of the vineyard as outlined in the concept plan and stressed the importance of ensuring this did not conflict with areas developed for human settlement

Cr Brian Middleton

• Thanked members of the public that had spoken to the proposal
• Noted that concerns expressed are legitimate but also addressable
• Stated support for the project
• Explained that Witchcliffe town has always been different to Margaret River despite the close proximity and in keeping with that trend the Foxcliffe project would fit well in the Witchcliffe town
• Explained that despite the project not fitting in the WVS, the merits of the project were such that it should be supported – highlighted that this did not set a precedent for uncontrolled development as the support was merit based
• Noted that the use of a strata title on this scale was new to the Shire and that this would need to be explored further as the project progressed

Cr Ray Colyer

• Stated support for the project but opposition to the process
• Noted that the land proposed for the project was not identified in the WVS
• Noted the slow sales of lots currently on the market
• Indicated support for a review of the WVS every 5 years
• Explained that modification of the WVS should be based on a genuine need to expand the town site and that currently there was no genuine need, in particular that there are no pressing housing affordability issues that need to be addressed
• Outlined an objection to the combined approval process (WVS, TPS, LPS) on the basis that it was not fair to other developers who had worked with the full process
• Rejected the officer recommendation to treat the development as an Enclave under the LNRSPP
• Highlighted that in the past Cr Serventy had opposed any development that did not fit the approved strategies and that support for the Foxcliffe proposal was not in keeping with past positions

Cr Mike Smart

• Noted that the LNRSPP indicated a 2,000 limit to the Witchcliffe population that could not be exceeded (the submission to AMRS clearly states that the Foxcliffe proposal fits within this population threshold)
• Raised a concern that other developments would be adversely impacted if this project proceeded
• Stated that on past experience WAPC would reject proposals that do not meet the approved development strategies
• Stated that the soil conditions were not suitable for farming based on the large amount of ironstone removed and stockpiled on the site (the submission to AMRS includes detailed soil analysis information showing it is well suited for horticulture – this is backed by Land Capability Mapping by Department of Agriculture provided in the submission)
• Stated that it is not possible to grow food without chemicals
• Stated that the water source was not viable (this conflicts with over a decade of use of this water source for irrigation of 100 acres of vines; in addition, the proposal outlined the use of recycled water for vegetable gardens as a sustainability measure)
• Stated that trees take a long time to grow and would not provide adequate screening buffers (Blackbutt and Karri trees that are locally native grow to a height of greater than 6m in 4 years – local examples of this can be demonstrated on a number of sites)

Cr Lyn Serventy

• Rebutted Cr Smart’s view that it was not possible to farm without chemicals – noted the highly successful organic farming practices that are widely used in the area
• Highlighted that the significant merits of the project warrant support despite concerns about alignment to the WVS
• Explained that combining the WVS, TPS and LPS has precedent and would deliver a greater level of certainty to the local community

Cr Ian Earl

• No comments were made

 Vote For:             Cr Serventy, Cr Middleton

Vote Against:    Cr Colyer, Cr Smart, Cr Earl

Proposal Rejected 3-2

Everyone in the area is really disapointed by the decision and are writing letters to the shire council.

I urge any of you who feel motivated to also write in.

Western Australia needs ALL the help it can get in moving out of the stone age.

Please lend a hand.

Thank you

Byron Joel.