Agenda of Special Council

Special Council: Agenda

14 April 2015 Page 15

14/10/14	Council received plan and endorsed engagement strategy
15/10/14	Rang and spoke with representatives from CWA, Scouts, EDRA and RSL. All four groups came in to the administration office and picked up copies of the plan and informal discussions were held with respect to the implications for their individual groups. Will touch base with these groups again in a fortnight if they have not contacted us to organise a meeting.
15/10/14	Letters were posted to all landowners in the Town Centre Focus Area explaining the release of the plan and recommended it be reviewed. They were also advised that future engagement opportunities were impending. D14/21627
15/10/14	Posters promoting the release of the draft plan for public comment put up on Shire notice boards and at the Boulevard
16/10/14	Draft Master Plan is available for downloading on Shire of Esperance website.
16/10/14	Newsletters completed and made available at the Agricultural Show and in all Shire buildings
17-18/10/14	Posters of the elements of the draft master plan were on display at the show, both Councillors and staff were on hand to discuss with community members. Digital copies of the plan were handed out on request
21/10/14	Began hand delivering letters to all businesses in the town centre explaining the release of the plan and recommended they review the plan. They were also advised that future engagement opportunities were impending. D14/21680
21/10/14	Organised printing of Newsletters. Will be available 31/10/14 and UMS delivery to commence 03/11/14
22/10/14	Media Release to go out tomorrow once signed off by Shire President.
23/10/14	Emails sent to stakeholders listed to ensure their awareness of the plans release: D14/22199 Charter Hall D14/22200 Shire Staff D14/22202 Esperance Primary School D14/22204 Esperance Bay Yacht Club D14/22206 Esperance Police, Port Authority
23/10/14	Spoke with a CWA representative who left positively – advised we are keen to meet with the group as a whole when convenient Spoke with resident – questioned about Council policy 50 years ago to not use public land for private enterprise, not happy with Scout hall ideas, or reduction in lease for the Adventure land park committee.
23/10/14	Media Release sent out – Tim Slater obtained photo and answers to a few questions.
27/10/14	Kalgoorlie Miner print an article on the town centre
27/10/14	Promoted Release on Facebook
28/10/14	Radio Hope FM interviewed Matthew about the plan
29/10/14	Esperance Express print article on Town Centre
03/11/14	Newsletters delivered to the Post Office for delivery to letter boxes
05/11/14	Reflections from a Shipp in Kalgoorlie Miner
06/11/14	Invitations sent to local Real Estate Agents
06/11/14	Dates booked for consultation sessions – locations booked
09/11/14	Council Corner at the Blessing of the Fleet concentrated on the Town Centre. More than 60 people asked questions. Positive comments on the shared street idea for both Andrew and James St; the cultural precinct and better utilisation of the foreshore from boat ramp to the yacht club. Concerns raised were with respect to parking; loss of green space and the future of the museum village. Creating a more pedestrian friendly Andrew St transforming the street in to a great spot to shop and meet with friends over a coffee was a view expressed by a large group of under 30’s(Crs Hall, Horan, McIntyre and Heasman and Matthew Scott, Liv Gaunt and Priscilla Davies)
10/11/14	Presentation to Esperance Rotary Club; Main topics – from the visual there was concern that both James and Andrews St were closing, identified that funding for plan was from SuperTowns and that there was no commitment of funds to implement the plan outside of the Parking Strategy, support for conceptual vision was positive, concern over consultation in original round was not targeted enough, identified process we have been through to gather information and future engagement opportunities. Support for making James St more active particularly moving the visitor centre. Supermarket raised some concern with respect to the feeling that the Shire is advocating for this, concern raised over high density and what it means – explanation based on these things being demand led and there is currently no demand. Presented by Trevor Ayers; Peter Stanley attended
12/11/14	Brief discussion on Precinct 3 and offer to do full presentation with RSL. Comments were positive about the proposed improvement of amenity at the park and the idea of the RSL car park going all the way through to the back of Dome, happy with off street parking as long as some on street remains on Andrew St. Questions raised about turning Andrews St in to a mall were corrected and the concept of a shared street explained. Concern over the car park being proposed in behind the museum, removal of trees may reduce wind break for the Sound Shell. Offered to go back and present full plan if requested Attended Priscilla Davies
13/11/14	Presentation to Esperance Bay Rotary Club – concerns raised over parking and misconception that the Andrews St will become a mall. Positive comments about linking Andrews through to the foreshore and asked to make sure the Norfolk Pines are maintained and replacement managed. Presented by Matthew Scott; Peter Stanley attended
14/11/14	Article in Council Connections
17/11/14	Kalgoorlie Miner From the Coast
19/11/14	Presentation to Museum, Historical Society and Library Volunteers – 33 people attended. Alleviated concerns over closure of streets and removal of parking. Wind issues with Andrew and James St raised and discussion held over what could be done to reduce the impact. Very positive towards cultural precinct concept and the activities identified in the plan, would like to see some green space remain around the area and not have all ‘Development Potential’ block developed. Divided support over the Cultural Building Concept and the movement of the Visitor Centre – both ideas seemed to evoke strong advocates and strong dissention. Support for Community Health to move closer to hospital. Movement of Library and Senior Citz to the cultural hub was well supported. CWA raised and attendees assured no group will be moved without an acceptable relocation option and the timeframes are some distance away. Questions regarding height restrictions surrounding the Scout Hall area and whether it should be residential or commercial, would it reduce public access to the beach in front? Desire to retain museum village. All other precincts were discussed and no issues were raised. Presented by Matthew Scott; Priscilla Davies attended
19/11/14	Discussion with Senior Citizens group – discussion during Seniors Citizens lunch, approximately 50+ attendees. Concern over how we will slow traffic in to the town centre, why just the town centre, why not the whole town. Concern over potential relocation of some community groups and loss of parking. Matthew Scott attended
21/11/14	Article in Council Connections promoting consultation sessions
24/11/14	Presentation to Esperance Probus Group with focus on James St – 23 Attendees. Generally very supportive. Noted that any growth in town needed to be underpinned by jobs being available. Interested in strategies that were going to support this. Suggested Councillors needed to stay strong and not be overly swayed by small (vocal) minority detractors. Believed that history shows that good planning and strong decision making is generally viewed as a positive to the town, even when it may not be immediately popular. The building of the current Shire Admin building was used as an example. It was apparently quite negatively received initially but Councillors were being congratulated on their foresight within a year of its construction. The maintenance of a feeling of space being maintained within the town centre was still seen as being important. Maintaining the ‘feel’ of Esperance was strongly supported. Again, this didn’t mean not changing the town in any way, just making sure the town retains its character. Presented by Matthew Scott; Trevor Ayers attended
24/11/14	Presentation to Esperance Scout Hall Committee – 12 Attendees. Evening commenced with significant concerns around the scout building itself. Identified that in their mind the current location and building were the best possible location for the scouts. Noted that they have intentions of doing significant upgrades to the building in the near future but aren’t willing to spend any money on it until they are sure they have long-term tenure. The dance studio operating out of the building noted it was the only building available with a wooden floor. Not happy about the long-term plans for the area as it was felt it should always be used for the current purpose. Reasonably positive about everything else proposed, just not comfortable with what is proposed for Scout area. Presented by Matthew Scott; Trevor Ayers attended
27/11/14	Presentation to Esperance Community Arts – 14 people attended. Approved of the vision and the focus area in the plan. Questions about off street parking locations and the CWA/Sports house. Keen to retain green space around the James St to Museum village area, a few like the pond. What will happen with the Westrail Bus? It is currently central and safe for all users and must be close to the visitors centre and tourist activities. Very positive towards creating an arts space/gallery that shows local and visiting art works and a space to create art. The group felt being included in the James St precinct would improve accessibility to arts for the broader community. Pleased with idea of closing street for community events/festivals. Moving museum village displayed a divided opinion. Implementation and funding concerns were raised, particularly with local businesses already struggling to stay open. Like the idea of integrating temporary and pop up shops in the area. Activation and landscaping of the sound shell was supported. Wind tunnel issues raised and answered. Questions regarding vesting of crown land and how this can be changed. Presented by Matthew Scott ;Priscilla Davies attended
28/11/14	Article in Council Connections promoting consultation sessions
28/11/14	Post on Facebook promoting consultation sessions
30/11/14	Council Corner at Esperance Waterfront Opening
01/12/14	Presentation to local Real Estate Agents – 11 attendees. Locals will not be keen on losing parking on the street. Concern raised over access to long vehicle parking opportunities, none close to town centre. Shire should provide incentives to invest more to current owners along Andrew & Dempster St. Experiencing issues with too many rules and regulations and feel there is not enough proactive assistance. What will be parking requirements for future developments, especially two story? Impact on those already in commercial area. Questions raised over Museum Village planning, feel there is an unfair advantage to those businesses due to low Commercial rent, what is the purpose of the village, it no longer operates as an incubator or craft shops only. Positive towards increased parking on Windich St and precinct overall, large development area would be ideal for a third supermarket or department store. Planning for access for service delivery vehicles is essential for Dempster St businesses and in particular the lane way. What R codes are proposed? Presented by Matthew Scott; Grant Shipp, Tori Castledine and Priscilla Davies attended
01/12/14	Promoted times of consultation on Facebook
01/12/14	Hand delivered another round of consultation leaflets to Andrew and Dempster St businesses
01/12/14	Focus Session Andrew St – 15 attendees and 4 Councillors. Parking will not work as Esperance community do not walk, this could affect the businesses on this street. Recognised that a cultural shift would need to happen for more people to walk/stroll along the street. Don’t reduce the parking on Andrew St. Positive feedback on cycle access along foreshore and over Twilight Beach Road. Crosswalks need to be as per Australian Standard. Civic Precinct should stay the way it is now. Concerns over the future of the CWA Hall and the Scout Building and what will happen to those groups. Discussion held over building heights and limitations. Pointed out that there is no toilet in the town centre. Identified that there may be land behind shops on Andrew Street available for parking if Shire paid costs(Haslams, Hennessy’s through to Esperance Motel). Concern about planning for future growth when felt town is growing slowly and plans are too over the top. Presented by Grant Shipp, Trevor Ayers and Matthew Scott attended.
02/12/14	Focus Session Dempster and Windich St – 17 attendees and 5 Councillors. Questions raised with respect to expectations about a third supermarket, what is the trigger point that will bring one to town – told that this is to be market driven and outside scope of local government, large development areas are identified but can be for alternative uses. Concern raised over movement and parking of caravans and long vehicles through town, are there plans in place to improve this. Discussion held over plot ratios and number of floors allowable in the town centre. Elderly should not be expected to walk from James St to Andrew St, park and walk does not work for all groups. Parallel parking not supported, new parking would need to be in place prior to any existing parking being removed, aware some parking areas are underutilised. Decked parking discussed. Public transport should be supported. Timed or ‘gold ticket’ parking should be in place and enforced in some areas. Concern raised over current commercial climate and potential TCR impact. Some support for community Health services to be near hospital. Presented by Matthew Scott, Priscilla Davies attended
03/12/14	Focus Session James St through to Forrest St including Museum Village – 10 attendees and 4 councillors. Vision does not identify businesses as a focus. Against residential on foreshore at Scout hall site, prefer to see open space and recreational opportunities. Moving Grace Darling Park over to foreshore will create parking issues in that area. Put the skate park in the sound shell area and create something different in the flat space it is in currently. Are too many ‘activities’ going to be put into the James St precinct, creating a bottleneck? Like the museum village as it is or turned into an actual museum facility where buildings are set up as they would have been historically, of most concern was the loss of green space in this area not the current activities. Opportunity for a heritage trail through the James St precinct. Soundshell area needs to be improved and attract more events. Car park area over lake should be located in a more appropriate location. General agreement with James St concept, elements preferred there include: museum; Visitors Centre; community/conference centre; Gallery; soundshell; market space; village green; RSL Park; Interpretive centre. Library was a 50/50 inclusion. Presented by Matthew Scott, Trevor Ayers and Tori Castledine attended
04/12/14	Presentation to Esperance Nyungar working group – 12 attendees. Fully endorse the concept of James St being a cultural community hub. See the potential of a cultural centre being developed within the precinct. Would like to be involved in elements such as street scaping to ensure indigenous interpretation such as story telling can be included through the town centre. Fully endorse the town centre being the prime meeting place. Like the sound shell being used for cultural events and look forward to landscaping improvements. Presented by Matthew Scott
04/12/14	Focus Session Tourism including accommodation – 1 attendee who has been to previous presentations Trevor Ayers answered detailed questions
05/12/14	Council Connections promoting general sessions
08/12/14	Meet with Museum Village Lessees – 6 lessees attended. Agreed with vision. Agree broadly with uses of James St although raised concerns about parking. Lifestyle/over 55s seen as quite appropriate for Museum Village site. Tenure of current buildings however is a key area that needs to be resolved and accommodated. Discussion around the condition of museum village buildings. In general the attendees felt that it was a good plan. Presented by Matthew Scott, Trevor Ayers attended.
09/12/14	Facebook reminder about General sessions being held on the 10^th December
09/12/14	Promote feedback in Council Connections
10/12/14	Presentation to Shire Staff – 19 attended. Queries over why a mall wasn’t put forward, explanation resolved queries. Questions about the incentives to encourage private land owners to spend money. Divided over the pond/car park, like the idea of car parks in the middle, maintaining a nice vista however also like the pond. Library move supported concern over Civic Centre being away from Cultural area. Cruise ship tenders at James St into a cultural precinct sounds positive for town. Need to make Windich St more inviting if hoping to increase usage by locals and encourage pedestrian traffic. Presented by Matthew Scott
10/12/14	1pm Broad Presentation Session – 5 attendees and 1 Councillor. Agreed with vision. Questions raised over the previous mall concept, are there some traffic calming ideas being put in place. Concerns raised over crossing the Esplanade when the linkage between Andrews St and Esplanade is identified as a priority. Not happy about losing angle parking to off street parking, too much loss of car space on main road and people don’t like to walk. Like the ideas of the ‘small/popup’ businesses on grassed areas near roundabout. Some discussion on zoning around the town centre and positive towards residential properties upstairs. Preference to keep Grace Darling where it is. Opportunities to combine commercial and private investment should be encouraged if possible. Roundabouts are good for traffic flow but not for pedestrian crossings, would like to see ‘real crossings’ further away. Presented by Matthew Scott, Priscilla Davies attended
10/12/14	7pm Broad Presentation Session – 5 community members and 1 councillor. One attendee does not think the vision statement is correct, has a problem with ‘celebrates the Esperance lifestyle’. Moving markets away from museum village takes them from a relatively protected are to an area that may be more at the mercy of the elements. Utilising the space around James St and the museum follows the requests from the original workshops. Examples from other towns were discussed with reference to what could be achieved in James St. Museum village site not appropriate for a supermarket. Passive recreation park on Esplanade could cause some parking congestion (especially around James St playground) Promoting pedestrian movement is important and captured in the plan. Support for Council land along Forrest St being considered for future significant development. Presented by Matthew Scott, Priscilla Davies attended
10/12/14	Presentation to EACS Staff – Generally like the concepts and felt they would assist in achieving activation of the Town Centre. Some concerns raised over the focus on walking when this is not the culture of Esperance. Discussions then diverged in to issues that were not related to the town centre plan. Matthew Scott presented
15/12/14	Presentation to Horizon Power staff – Overall positive to the plan, liked the concepts identified around for the different precincts. Most questions were based around additional detail and both the impact and requirements for future power needs. Matthew Scott presented
16/01/15	Feedback reminder on Facebook
16/01/15	Article in Council Connections
19/01/15	From the Coast – Reminder to read and provide feedback – importance of consultation
21/01/15	Facebook promotion of General session in Esperance and the Condingup and Grass Patch meetings
23/01/15	Article in Council Connections
28/01/15	Reminder to attend the meeting in Esperance on Facebook
28/01/15	1pm Broad Presentation Session – 15 attendees and 1 Councillor. Agreed the vision statement was appropriate for the town centre. Comments made on the poor landscaping in Andrew and Dempster St, no canopies or protection. Businesses would look better if a uniform awning was in place all along Andrew St. Like the idea of a slow street for Andrew however concerns raised over parking provisions and access, must have suitable parking for those businesses in the street to ensure no loss of trade. Has timed parking been considered or two story car park in the RSL car park – any shift to off street must be pedestrian friendly. Questions asked if time limits on development are able to be placed, the response was no. Any redevelopment would need to determine car parking provision. Discussion over whether the concepts for Andrew and Dempster could be switched or made the same, this would encourage restaurants to be spread out through town. Very positive towards interpretive centre and keen to see improvements around the museum. Grace Darling was mentioned with dividing opinions, was mentioned that cruise ship passengers ask about a park on the foreshore. Not supportive of moving the Museum markets, however some enthusiasm over a seniors development in the area. Pedestrian crossings for the Esplanade mentioned (overpass and crosswalks), all for Australian standard crosswalks in the town centre. Concern raised over too much development and loss of green field areas. Supportive of expansion of RSL car park. Presented by Matthew Scott, Richard Hindley and Priscilla Davies in attendance.
28/01/15	7pm Broad Presentation Session – 16 Attendees and 2 Councillors. Vision statement and town centre focus area agreed with. Concern over parking, particularly opposed to parallel parking in all areas however relatively positive to slow street concept. Do not think Andrew St is the best option for a cafe strip, concept should be changed to Dempster St. Rural population like to park directly in front of where they need to be. Concerns raised over the elderly and ability to walk around town centre. Some support for off street parking and previous plans that have tried to encourage this. Public Transport raised – outside the scope of this project. Directional and interpretive signage around town now and into the future would alleviate some issues for parking. Timed parking was suggested in some areas. Not keen on pond being taken away behind the museum, instead upgrade area and improve disabled access. Moving museum village activities may not activate town as it only gains about 300 mtrs and wind will create issues for markets in James St. Positive towards concept for James St as Cultural hub, concerned about overcrowding in the area. Would like to see significant green space retained. Asked to avoid selling community land. Some support for the traditional use of the scout hall being maintained. Discussion held on location of ‘third’ supermarket, split over the where. Split opinions on Grace Darling Park some are keen to leave it in-situ others keen to see it across the road with shade. A community function room is needed, could be where the scout hall is, a toilet block should be added to this area for the community. Seniors Centre would fit in with purpose for James St and be near library and museum. Very positive towards Taylor St Foreshore and the Australia Day activities that occur there. Presented by Matthew Scott, Priscilla Davies and Richard Hindley attended
30/01/15	Facebook reminder about the Condingup and Grass Patch Meetings
30/01/15	Article and poster in Council connections
03/02/15	Facebook reminder about the Condingup and Grass Patch Meetings
05/02/15	Presentation to Condingup Community – 20 attendees and 5 Councillors. Agreed with vision. Discussion over whether all parking needs to be directly out the front or whether people will walk, agreed that there must still be parking on Andrews St (not parallel) and possible priority parking for quick stops and the elderly. Generally liked the concept of Andrews St being a slow street. Previous plans have looked in to multi level parking and locations for off street parking and these ideas should be pursued. Asked about paid parking for on street and free off street, not raised in plan, parking strategy would determine the best way to encourage and utilise parking in the town centre. When looking in to parking take into consideration farmers with trailers and tourists with longer vehicle needs. Discussions held over museum village businesses and the general history of the area, incubator business concept and green space priority. Quite like the markets being there however also like it when they move around (Australia Day, foreshore open day etc) Not convinced James St activation would necessarily spill in the rest of town. Windich St concept agreed to. Agreed with Esplanade commercial and tourism concepts, very keen for new playground to be fenced, shaded and incorporate children of all abilities. Agreed with maximising RSL car park (needs to be completed first), important to create better linkages for pedestrians to encourage walking, improve and accentuate the value of private investment. Questions with respect to CWA lease, Matthew stated would be 5-10 years before any major changes would occur in this area. Positive to concept of Alfresco dining. Raised car parking around Supa IGA should be a significant option. Matthew Scott Presented Trevor Ayers and Priscilla Davies attended
06/02/15	Article in Council Connections
06/02/15	Presentation to CWA – 12 local members and representative from State CWA. While there was significant discussion around the whole of the plan the focus was largely on the existing CWA building and what the current TCR draft means for both the building and the local CWA branch. The major issue from the perspective of the CWA is the fact that the building provides more than simply a home for their club. It is also widely used by other community groups and the income earned through hiring it to these other users is the major source of funds that enables the Esperance CWA to continue to function. Their concern revolved largely about the potential for them to lose this income source in any redevelopment. This can easily be resolved in the short to medium term through the successful negotiation of a new lease over the existing building, however will need to be taken into consideration as the plan is further developed in the longer term. Presented by Trevor Ayers. Jen Parry in attendance
09/02/15	Presentation to Grass Patch/Salmon Gums Community – 15 Attendees and 3 Councillors. Concern over parking in general and with the reliance on BP corner for parking; Andrews St is windy and the concept for Andrew should be swapped with Dempster, or both should have very similar concepts; moving visitor centre to museum is a logical step to boost tourist visitation to museum. Grace Darling Park was discussed with respect to redevelopment on the Esplanade, overall thoughts were both positive and negative. Questions raised about pedestrian crossings for the Esplanade to encourage the connection to the foreshore, under and over passes discussed as well as cross walks. All support ‘proper’ crosswalks on Andrews and Dempster Streets. Support for larger community use of the foreshore area (Scout hall). Overall it was a positive response to the concepts of the different precincts with concerns on how parking issues will be resolved for locals and parking longer vehicles. Presented by Trevor Ayers. Priscilla Davies in attendance
11/02/15	Discussion with RSL – Follow up on some queries with respect to club wishing to move the monument and make the park more user friendly. A planning application for this can be forwarded to the Shire without needing to be a part of the Town Centre plan. Matthew Scott attended
13/02/15	Facebook reminder about submitting feedback – closing of consultation session
17/02/15	Discussion with Andrews St business owners – 12 attendees. 8 Councillors & ECCI representative. Meeting set up to answer queries with respect to the Andrews St submission and the petition on any potential changes to Andrews St. The major points taken from the meeting are: Slower street supported; Key land uses agreed with; removing the words “reducing the number of car parks” in point 13 of illustrative master plan; increased amenity (including shade/shelter) in off street parking; prioritising car parks for elderly/people with prams/people with difficulty walking; enable al-fresco more widely than just Andrew St. Presented by Matthew Scott. Trevor Ayers, Rod Hilton and Richard Hindley in attendance.

Notes:

Approximately 7 community members attended a number of sessions

Over 200 hard copies and 50 flash drives were handed out

There were a large number of queries in the administration office, in person and over the phone.

Special Council: Agenda

14 April 2015 Page 23

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – Town Centre Revitalisation Master Plan

No.

Address

Submission Comments

Themes

Mark Bateup

1. Master Plan is a positive move.

1. Overall Plan - Supported

Colette Annice

1. Does not agree with relocating the heritage village should stay as is (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1)

2. Does not believe long or short stay accommodation is suitable for foreshore, suggests small hospitality booths more appropriate (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12)

3. All other visions/development are interesting and have potential.

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against long or short stay accommodation.

3. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Supports small hospitality booths.

4. Overall Plan – Supportive of all other aspects.

Gerry Maguire

1. Supports the overall plan.

2. Suggests making Andrew Street one way and increased parking.

3. Change timing for Andrew Street to short term from medium term.

1. Overall Plan - Supported

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Support upgrade but suggest one way would reduce congestion and reduce traffic

3. Andrew Street – Implementation – Modification – timing for Andrew Street to short term from medium term.

Dorothy Andre

1. Plan does not cover the entire town and suggests it should.

2. Cannery could be developed as a tourism precinct.

3. Land between Esperance town and Castletown could be development area in 10-20 years.

4. Concerned over the reduction of parking on Dempster and ‘Jane’ streets.

5. Does not agree with relocating the heritage village should stay as is (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1 and 2).

6. Does not agree with parking between the museum and amphitheatre (Illustrative Master Plan Point 3).

7. Suggests parking for foreshore (Illustrative Master Plan Point 4).

8. Traffic is bad enough already leave the museum to stand alone (Illustrative Master Plan Point 5).

9. Map appears to show RSL car park cut off by building. Open area works well with the museum grounds (Illustrative Master Plan Point 6).

10. Grace Darling Park Development supported if stakeholders agree and new park on foreshore (Illustrative Master Plan Points 7 & 8).

11. Supports ocean play (Illustrative Master Plan Point 9).

12. Supports development opportunities (Illustrative Master Plan Point 10).

13. Supports landscaping and youth activities (Illustrative Master Plan Point 11).

14. Leave foreshore as is (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

15. Does not support closing Andrew Street (Illustrative Master Plan Point 13)

16. Supports Post Office Square upgrade (Illustrative Master Plan Point 14).

17. Supports the upgrade of Dempster Street (Illustrative Master Plan Point 15).

18. Need to consult with RSL over upgrade (Illustrative Master Plan Point 16).

19. Does not understand mid-block pedestrian linkage (Illustrative Master Plan Point 17).

20. Needs more information on upgrade of Windich Street (Illustrative Master Plan Point 18).

21. Retain for civic purposes (Illustrative Master Plan Point 19).

22. No consideration of retired population.

23. Support using this area for parking including caravans (Illustrative Master Plan Point 20).

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. Various sites that are outside of the study area are discussed.

3. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

4. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

5. James Street Precinct – Site ID 3D – supports use of northern portion for parking for foreshore.

6. James Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Against Proposal

7. Upgraded RSL Car Park – Illustrative Master Plan Point 6 – Against Proposal

8. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Supported

9. Foreshore Playground – Illustrative Master Plan Point 8 – Supported

10. Ocean Play – Illustrative Master Plan Point 9 – Supported

11. Andrew Street – Sites 1A – 1D – Supported

12. Youth Activities and Landscaping – Illustrative Master Plan Point 11 – Supported

13. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

14. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal – note that Andrew Street is not proposed to be a mall.

15. Post Office Square – Illustrative Master Plan Point 14 – Supported

16. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – Supported

17. RSL – Illustrative Master Plan Point 16 – Supports but there must be communication with the RSL

18. Mid Block Pedestrian Linkage – Illustrative Master Plan Point 17 – Does not understand rationale for this.

19. Windich Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 18 – Needs more information.

20. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4B, 4C and 4L – Against Proposal

21. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4A – Modification – use area for parking

Rhiannon Wallace

1. Suggest that the redevelopment opportunity (Illustrative Master Plan Point 19) should consider improved parking and accessibility before redevelopment places additional pressure on existing infrastructure.

1. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4B, 4C and 4L – Modification – use area for parking

Heather Webb

1. Requesting copy of Plan as issues accessing it on the webpage.

2. Access to town from Ravensthorpe is ugly with Industrial development.

1. Administrative Comment – Access to plan resolved

2. Site outside of the study area.

Alan Thompson

1. Suggests pedestrian only zone on Andrew Street between Dempster Street and The Esplanade.

1. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Andrew Street is proposed to be reformatted to a shared street

Chris Buckley

1. Money spent on the foreshore for what is a doomed Jetty may have been better invested to the south.

2. James Street Groyne is not suitable for boats given prevailing weather.

3. Taylor Street should be further developed and a jetty/pontoon available for public and private use.

4. Suggest the money for Action 5 Precinct 7 in Table 6. Implementation Schedule – Design and construct landscape upgrades of the foreshore, including youth activity spaces, between Andrew Street and Taylor Street would be not appropriate and is better spent to provide upgrades at Taylor Street and cruise ship berthing facilities.

5. Concerned over the volume of Al Fresco dining proposed.

6. Concerned over continuity in the report.

1. James Street Groyne – Illustrative Master Plan Points 9 – Against Proposal

2. Taylor Street – site is outside of the study area.

3. Andrew Street and Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Points 13 and 15 – the opportunity is for Al Fresco it does not mandate its development.

4. Administrative Comment –The report is broken into precincts which are easy to understand with other sections looking at the overall development.

Jim Andre

1. Move the sewerage dump point.

2. Town centre will not cope with increase traffic flows especially with Andrew Street blocked off.

3. Too much located in the town centre especially with more than half the population of town east of the Cannery.

4. Parking bays need to be bigger to accommodate the large volume of large vehicles in Esperance.

1. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – The Wastewater Treatment Pump is a constraint to development.

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Andrew Street is proposed to be reformatted to a shared street – Against Proposal

3. Comments on area outside of the study area.

4. General Comment – Parking – bays need to be bigger

Dorothy Gratwick

1. Andrew Street is very user friendly with present parking and very few accidents or speeding.

2. Does not agree with relocating the heritage village should stay as is (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1).

3. Leave as open space for display and children’s functions (Illustrative Master Plan Point 4).

4. Kemp street end of Museum Village would be ideal for new seniors centre (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1).

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. James Street Precinct – Site ID 3D – Against Proposal.

3. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Modification – Location of new seniors centre at northern end of Museum Village

Vanna Dellaca

1. There is not enough parking in the town currently.

2. Leave angle parking alone.

1. Parking – General – Against Proposal

Andrew Street Business Owners

1. Object to the proposed parking changes to Andrew Street.

2. Would like to have a meeting to discuss concerns.

1. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal

Helen Johnston

1. Although advised nothing is set in concrete is concerned that something will happen irrespective of consultation due to money that has been spent on the plan.

2. Unsure of outcomes given current empty premises.

3. Lack of lighting on foreshore at night.

4. Parking issues on foreshore need to be addressed.

5. Good lighting needed at the fish cleaning station on the Tanker Jetty.

6. Leave the Museum and environs (Village) as a community space.

7. Remember that Daw Park and Library are on donated land.

8. Concern over Smith Street/Fly Over intersection.

9. Agricultural Grounds are the obvious place to put RV parking.

1. Implementation – Against Proposal.

2. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

3. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4B – Against Proposal

4. Comments on area outside of the study area.

Alan Hughes

1. Parallel Parking is great – maximise the space for pedestrians.

2. If you can’t parallel park you should park further out and walk.

1. Parking – General – Supported

Liz Plecas

1. Shire should priorities locals over tourists who are only here a short time.

2. Car parks not used much by locals can be promoted during tourist season.

3. Leave place as is.

4. Crosswalk to be clearly labelled as crosswalk.

5. Lights and security needed in laneways.

6. If Shire funded ratepayers need more info.

1. Parking – General – Supported – request underutilised areas be advertised for tourists.

2. Lighting – Laneways – Modification Requested.

3. Overall Plan – Against Proposal

Peter and Wendy Harkness

1. Consider Esperance lucky to have such wide open spaces.

2. Disagree that there is not a central gathering place.

3. The town centre is already walkable.

4. Parking should be improved but never be reduced.

5. Precinct 1

a) Mother nature is an issue;

b) don’t reduce the parking cars already back up;

c) supports wider footpaths and narrower road to accommodate;

d) Post Office Square upgrade a good idea

6. Precinct 2

a) Shrinking the retail area on Dempster Street will make more difficult to access.

b) Improved access to Andrews Street from RSL car park but will take foot traffic from in front of businesses.

7. Precinct 3

a) Relocating museum village would reduce their exposure;

b) Retain museum village do not put it in this precinct;

c) Car park over the lake is not supported as very scenic place that is highly used;

d) Concentrating uses in a cultural hub will lead to over crowding and traffic hazard;

e) Support upgrades to the Sound Shell;

8. Precinct 4

a) Lack of access between Windich and Dempster.

b) 90 degree parking may be possible but may not encourage tourists to use;

c) Old Fire Station site should be used for long vehicle parking.

9. Precinct 5

a) Relocating the park is good on some levels but space is a concern

b) Potential conflict with views from motel and conflict with Pier Hotel;

c) Potential to share facilities at existing location with CWA or Sports House

10. Precinct 6

a) Museum Village should not be moved under any circumstance.

b) Slowing vehicles is supported.

c) Plan is build, build build, green spaces should be retained.

1. Precinct 1 – Weather Conditions are an issue.

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Parking – Against Proposal

3. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – supportive of wider footpaths.

4. Post Office Square – Illustrative Master Plan Point 14 – Supported

5. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

6. James Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Against Proposal

7. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Supported

8. Mid Block Pedestrian Linkage – Illustrative Master Plan Point 17 – Supported

9. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4A – Modification – use area for parking.

10. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Supported

11. Foreshore Playground – Illustrative Master Plan Point 8 – Supported but concerns over land use conflict

12. Traffic – General – Supports reduction of speed limit throughout town centre.

Heather Gee

1. Would prefer slow street to be by design not speed humps.

2. Excellent document and hope to see it implemented.

1. Traffic – Slow Street – Supported but would prefer by design not speed humps.

2. Overall Plan - Supported

Jackie Smith

1. Plan might be right for a city but not a small town;

2. Al Fresco dining cannot occur the climate doesn’t support.

3. Do something on the old BP site;

4. Trees do not grow well here;

5. Do not make Andrew Street a mall.

1. Alfresco Dining – Not Dismissed – Against Proposal

2. Andrew Street – Site ID 1A - Supported.

3. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal – note that Andrew Street is not proposed to be a mall.

Kaye La Bianca

1. Leave Andrew Street as is.

2. No parallel parking anywhere.

3. Leave Grace Darling Park where it is, does not support park on the foreshore.

4. Retain Museum Village.

5. Retain ponds at the museum

6. Possible Function Centre where the Scout Hall is.

1. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal

2. Parking – Parallel Parking – Against Proposal

3. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Against Proposal

4. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

5. Parking including for RV – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal.

6. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Modification – possible are for Function Centre.

P Smallwood

1. Keep Heritage Village (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1).

2. Agree with improvements to Sound Shell (Illustrative Master Plan Point 2).

3. RV Parking, keep the lakes (Illustrative Master Plan Point 3).

4. No short stay accommodation (Illustrative Master Plan Point 4).

5. James Street Cultural Hub supported (Illustrative Master Plan Point 5).

6. RSL Parking Good – remove tank. (Illustrative Master Plan Point 6).

7. No closing Grace Darling Park (Illustrative Master Plan Points 7 and 8).

8. Ocean Play supported (Illustrative Master Plan Point 9).

9. No to food shops that will/may stay closed (Illustrative Master Plan Point 10).

10. No, keep for boat users (Illustrative Master Plan Point 11).

11. No to short stay apartments (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

12. No to parallel parking and bring back laneway to rear (Illustrative Master Plan Point 13).

13. Yes, possible public toilet being wall (Illustrative Master Plan Point 14).

14. Dempster Street – Move Police Station to Civic Precinct, will create land for accommodation, supermarket and lifestyle village (Illustrative Master Plan Point 15).

15. RSL Park upgrade supported (Illustrative Master Plan Point 16).

16. Supported but good luck (Illustrative Master Plan Point 17).

17. No – do on roof parking like KD Bishops (Illustrative Master Plan Point 18).

18. Locate new police station here (Illustrative Master Plan Point 19/20).

19. Lifestyle village – Not in town Centre

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Supported

3. Parking including for RV – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal.

4. James Street Precinct – Site ID 3D – Against Proposal.

5. James Street Precinct – – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Supported

6. Upgraded RSL Car Park – Illustrative Master Plan Point 6 – Supported

7. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Against Proposal

8. Ocean Play – Illustrative Master Plan Point 9 – Supported

9. Andrew Street – Site ID 1C and 1D – Against Proposal

10. Youth Activities and Landscaping – Illustrative Master Plan Point 11 – Supported

11. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

12. Parking – Parallel Parking – Against Proposal

13. Post Office Square – Illustrative Master Plan Point 14 – Supported suggested possible public toilet

14. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – Supported – suggested relocation of Police Station to Civic Precinct.

15. RSL – Illustrative Master Plan Point 16 – Supports

16. Dempster Street – Site ID 2B – Supported

17. Windich Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 18 – Against Proposal

18. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4A and 4B – Modification – use area for Police Station.

19. Comments outside of the study area.

Sheryl Waideman

1. Concerned over leaving out of Tanker Jetty.

2. Retain the Museum Village.

3. Does not agree with the changes to parking on Andrew Street.

4. Concern over James Street (Grace Darling) park loss.

5. Does not agree with another supermarket of department store coming to town.

6. Too many plants on the foreshore

7. Does not support a green wall at Post Office square.

8. Need to make Esperance a place for the community rather than tourist town.

9. Concern over the redevelopment of the Indoor Sports Stadium.

1. Tanker Jetty – Site outside of the Study Area.

4. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

5. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Parking – Against Proposal

6. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Against Proposal

7. Investment Attraction – Supermarket – Against Proposal

8. Foreshore – Plantings – Outside of the study area

9. Post Office Square – Illustrative Master Plan Point 14 – Against Proposal

10. Indoor Sports Stadium – Outside of the Study Area

Nicole Chalmer

1. Does not support the removal of the Museum Village.

2. Retain heritage buildings within the study area.

3. Locate additional uses in the space e.g. botanic garden and relocate the Cannery.

4. Encourage use of the Sound Shell.

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Modification – Include Botanical Garden and Cannery Arts Centre

3. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Supported

Marilyn Guest

1. Supports the Cultural Hub.

2. Would like to retain the lake near the museum.

3. Make more car and RV parking near the Boulevard

4. Retain parkland around James Street.

1. James Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Supported

2. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

3. Parking – Boulevard – requests more parking

Unknown

1. Anonymous comments excluded

1. No Comment

John Guest

1. Supports the Cultural Hub.

2. Would like to retain the lake near the museum.

3. Make more car parking near shopping area.

4. Retain parkland around James Street.

1. James Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Supported

2. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

1. Parking – Boulevard – requests more parking.

Malcolm Leske

1. Do not reduce the number of car parking bays in town centre.

2. Do not relocate the Museum Village.

3. Viability and profitability of small business is key to vitality of Esperance.

4. Jetty needs to be retained.

5. Develop the Wireless Hill OTC Building as a tourist development.

1. Parking – General – Against Proposal do not reduce number of bays

2. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

3. Tanker Jetty – Outside of Study Area

4. OTC Building – Outside of Study Area

Dennis Madgen

1. Supports the Plan

1. Overall Plan - Supported

Gaynor Mitchell – General Secretary of CWA of WA

1. CWA Building is leased from the Shire with the current lease ending in September 2015 and this clearly has influenced the discussion.

2. CWA building is used/hire at affordable rates and this income is the primary income for the branch.

3. Using land will result in loss of income for the branch affecting the viability of the branch.

4. As the revitalisation is a long term project request a new lease.

5. Concerned that if a new premise is developed it will be a significantly more cost than the current premise.

6. CWA Building is more than just a space it has significant cultural aspects.

1. CWA Building – Site ID 3A – Against Proposal.

Beverley Simon

1. Objects to the removal of the scout/guide hall.

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

F & A Belton Tent of Meeting Ministries

1. Requests that the current use of the CWA hall by the Ministry be considered in the redevelopment proposal.

1. CWA Building – Site ID 3A – Against Proposal.

Rebecca Zand-Valkily

1. Heritage Village should be retained.

2. Using a prime piece of land with bay outlook for RV parking is a shame; it should be located around Windich Street.

3. Like Post Office Square as is money could be better spent on Andrew Street.

4. Support Andrew Street as a mall with parking elsewhere. Use deciduous trees for summer shade and winter sun.

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

3. Post Office Square – Illustrative Master Plan Point 14 – Against Proposal

4. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal – note that Andrew Street is not proposed to be a mall.

David Smallwood

1. Keep Heritage Village (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1).

2. Amphitheatre. Supports This. (Illustrative Master Plan Point 2).

3. Parking problem created by removing angle parking from the foreshore. Does not support taking up green space and park land and water feature to park cars?? Does not agree with proposal (Illustrative Master Plan Point 3).

4. Development opportunity for short stay/tourist accommodation not supported (Illustrative Master Plan Point 4).

5. The James St Cultural Precinct will create a whole new parking problem by bringing all the activity into one place closing off all those car parks and the road when you decide to have a fair/market day. Does not agree with proposal. (Illustrative Master Plan Point 5).

6. Remove the CWA and other building up to Community Area 19-20 and consider turning that area into parking adjoining the RSL parking area utilising the walking access through to Andrew St. Let the Museum become the main attraction. Agree with car park up grade (Illustrative Master Plan Point 6).

7. Removal of Grace Darling park not supported. Suggests a toilet should be installed so that they do not have to take their children across the road. More shelters also installed and maybe plant a shade tree or two (Illustrative Master Plan Point 7).

8. New playground not supported (Illustrative Master Plan Point 8).

9. Potential conflict between ocean play are for children and visitors being landed from cruise ships. Does not agree with the proposal (Illustrative Master Plan Point 9).

10. Already a hotel and four food and beverage outlets in close proximity. Not smart in looking after established businesses. Do not agree with your proposal (Illustrative Master Plan Point 10).

11. Cannot see any reason to close this parking area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 11).

12. Does not support green space on the foreshore being set aside for rateable Development. Does not support two stories. Does not support this proposal (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

13. Typical Esperance sea breeze not conducive to Al Fresco. (Illustrative Master Plan Point 13).

14. Does not support the parking changes. Does not support this proposal (Illustrative Master Plan Point 13).

15. No proposal really put forward for this area. Does not support a coffee/cake van in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 14).

16. Does not support the removing the angle parking for a parallel parking format. (Illustrative Master Plan Point 15).

17. Agree that RSL Park be upgraded (Illustrative Master Plan Point 16).

18. Cannot see any great reason for this happening except to allow Shire quicker access to Post Office Square (Illustrative Master Plan Point 17).

19. There seems to be no reason why there should be alterations to Windich St until more office buildings and activity move in. Does not support this proposal as short term (Illustrative Master Plan Point 18).

20. Does not agree with this proposal to develop the area for commercial/ retail. This area should be utilised more as public facilities (Illustrative Master Plan Point 19).

21. Site which could be used for a number of Public style buildings. (Illustrative Master Plan Point 20).

22. Numerous comments regarding the ‘worst. Planning proposal ever seen.

23. Concern over the cost to ratepayers for the development of this document.

24. Concerned that 3.2 Precinct Master Plan pages 24-25 Items numbered 1 to 20 yet under 3.3 Precinct Plans 3.3.1 Precinct Summary pages 26 to 27 you don't apply the same numbering system? Designed Confusion?

25. Concern over foreshore planting, only incidentally related to this study area.

26. This document has been written from the aspect of and investment Company coming to town. Not designed to keep profits in the town.

27. 3.4 Public Space, Streets and Parking page 56. Crash history. Not enough detail or consideration of speed, driver behaviour and ageing drivers

28. 4.1 Planning and Policy Framework page 62. - Coastal Hazard Assessment and Environmental factors. This should have been assessed before the planning?

29. Several comments on the Shires focus on residential development and failure to supply such to support business.

30. 4.4 Services and Infrastructure. page 68 - Existing Fuel pipe and Foreshore. There should be no new building developments along the foreshore. Building over or close to gas and associated fuel pipelines serving the town they would be open to legal liability if the pipes leaked or exploded.

31. 7.0 Conclusion. Page 80 - To plan a town which is looking to base its future on tourism, you have to look at HISTORY which this document has not done.

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Supported

3. Parking including for RV – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal.

4. James Street Precinct – Site ID 3D – Against Proposal

5. James Street Precinct – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Against Proposal

6. CWA Building – Site ID 3A – Supported relocate CWA to Site ID 4A, 4B, 4C or 4L.

7. Upgraded RSL Car Park – Illustrative Master Plan Point 6 – Supported

8. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Against Proposal

9. Ocean Play – Illustrative Master Plan Point 9 – Against Proposal

10. Andrew Street – Site ID 1C and 1D – Against Proposal

11. Youth Activities and Landscaping – Illustrative Master Plan Point 11 – Against Proposal

12. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

13. Andrew Street Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal

14. Post Office Square – Illustrative Master Plan Point 14 – Against Proposal

15. Dempster Street Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – Against Proposal

16. RSL – Illustrative Master Plan Point – Supported

17. Dempster Street – Site ID 2B – Illustrative Master Plan Point 17 – Against Proposal

18. Windich Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 18 – Against Proposal

19. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4B, 4C and 4L – Against Proposal but would support civic use and aged facilities.

20. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4A – Modification – use area for Police Station.

21. General Comments over readability and structure of Plan.

Sylvia Boast (2^nd page to Submission 35 registered separately)

1. Plan has been presented very well.

2. Many things in the plan will not happen because of climate and wind.

3. Against the decrease in parking on Andrew Street.

4. Supports the development of Central Parking.

5. Does not support parallel parking.

6. In favour of the cultural precinct even the relocation of the heritage buildings to allow the library to be rebuilt in the Museum Village.

1. Overall Plan – Well Presented

2. Overall Plan – Climate and Wind are issue

3. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal

4. Upgraded RSL Car Park – Illustrative Master Plan Point 6 – Supported

5. James Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Supported

Greg Synnot

1. Leave the town as it is.

2. Parallel parking is not supported.

1. Overall Plan – Against Proposal

Sylvia Boast

1. Museum houses could be relocated to right hand side of James Street.

2. Land behind could be used as a car park.

3. Visitors centre at the museum but not in the museum is supported.

4. Would like to see floating platforms for people to embark.

5. Improve access and beautify the area around the museum.

6. Apartment could be constructed on Norseman Road from the Cannery.

1. James Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Supported

2. Upgraded RSL Car Park – Illustrative Master Plan Point 6 – Supported

3. Ocean Play – Illustrative Master Plan Point 9 – Supports Cruise Ship Tender docking capabilities.

4. Site outside of the study area.

Brian Pearce

1. Does not like anything about the plan.

1. Overall Plan – Against Proposal

Charlotte Davidson

1. Commend the Shire for undertaking a long term vision for the future.

2. Precinct 1

a) Do not believe Andrew Street needs a lot of money spent, just a good tidy up.

b) Don’t changed angled bays or widen footpath.

c) Negotiate with landowners to provide a continuous/standard canopy over both sides.

d) Need to maintain a good mix of shops and food outlets.

3. Precinct 2

a) Suggest removal of parking bays on exit of round-a-bouts to assist traffic flows and reduce conflict.

b) Remove all Norfolk Island Pines as time progresses – damage to paths and buildings

c) Development Block – DPAW and Department of Housing and adjoin blocks to allow for redevelopment that will support the expanded parking area

4. Precinct 3

a) Agrees area surrounding the RSL needs tidying up.

b) Does not believe this area needs a community information centre although could be visitors centre.

c) Maintain the Museum Park

5. Precinct 4

a) No need to demolish relatively new buildings.

b) Relocating Community Health to the hospital makes sense.

c) Put other community uses into Community Health e.g. EDRA, SCA, Scouts.

d) Library should remain.

6. Cannot understand the need for a parking strategy.

1. Overall Plan – Supports Preparation

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal – just needs a good tidy up.

3. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – Modification – Removal all Norfolk Island Pines

4. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – Modification – Suggest removal of parking bays on exits to round-a-bouts

5. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – Modification – Use DPAW, Department of Housing and adjoining land to create a development block.

6. James Street – Site ID 3C and 3D – Against Proposal

7. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

8. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4B – Against Proposal

9. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4C – Supported

10. Parking – General – Against Proposal

State Heritage Office

1. The draft Master Plan recognises and addresses the importance of character and heritage within the Town Centre.

2. The proposed activity around the Bonded Store and Goods Shed (P830) has the potential to increase the appreciation and enjoyment of Esperance’s heritage.

3. The role and status of the ‘heritage village’ should be clarified. This matter can be addressed in more detail as plans for the interpretation of the precinct are developed.

4. The Plan is supported in its approach to historic heritage.

1. Heritage – General - Supported

Barry Halls

1. Strongly objects to any proposal to remove the scout hall and have development in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

Sam Stevens

1. Strongly objects to any proposal to remove the scout hall and have development in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

2. Objects to the changes to parking in Andrew Street but support making part of Dempster Street pedestrian friendly.

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal

3. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – supported but make more pedestrian friendly

Carmel Halls

1. Strongly objects to any proposal to remove the scout hall and have apartments, short stay or multi storey development in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

Faye Sanderson

1. Refreshing to see a plan for the future formulated.

2. Likes the idea of linking the RSL parking area with the one behind the Post Office. Post office entrance should be one way.

3. Opposed to parallel parking on Andrew Street but considers one way with angled parking a good compromise.

4. Any improvement to the Post Office facade would be an improvement.

5. No objection to the removal of Grace Darling Park as long as new park is developed on the foreshore.

6. Supports the improvements to the Sound Shell.

7. Land on Council Place needs to be defined as overflow parking of Civic Centre or other as unsightly mess.

8. Overall the plan seems to be an excellent idea.

1. Overall Plan – Supported

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Support upgrade but suggests one way as a good compromise.

3. Post Office Square – Illustrative Master Plan Point 14 – Supported

4. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Supported

5. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Supported

6. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4L – Against Proposal but would support it being used for overflow parking for Civic Centre.

Eleanor Shannon and Mike West

1. Strongly objects to any proposal to remove the scout hall and have development in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

2. Objects to the changes to parking in Andrew Street but support making part of Dempster Street pedestrian friendly.

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal

3. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – supported but make more pedestrian friendly

Small Business Centre

1. Request the Shire to include a Pop-Up-Shop/Business Incubator precinct in the Plan. Need approximately 1200m².

2. Support increase pedestrian activity.

3. Some concerns over the proposed parking changes and urge further consultation.

1. Key Land Uses – “Pop-Up-Shop/Business Incubator” – Modification – include use in a spread of precincts.

2. Parking – General – Urges further consultation

Harold Moir

1. Strongly objects to any proposal to remove the scout hall and have commercial multi storey development in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

Ann Lewis

1. Retain the Heritage Village

2. Fully supports the development of James Street as a cultural hub.

3. Museum Area should be left as is and retain the lake area.

4. Object to any proposal to remove and develop the Scout Hall.

5. The Plan seems to look at just commercial development, accommodation and parking.

1. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

2. James Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 – Supported

3. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

4. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

Caterina Moir

1. Strongly objects to any proposal to remove the scout hall and have commercial multi storey development in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

Esperance Bay Historical Society

1. To their knowledge the land that the Museum occupies and the surrounding green areas was gifted over to the Shire of Esperance by the Government Railways to be specifically used for the purposes of public use in the form of public open space not to be sold or developed by the Shire.

2. They agree with the-general idea of a Cultural Centre between the Museum and the Esplanade only where a state of the art Visitors Centre can be built but in doing so to retain as much open grassed area as possible.

3. The present open area where the markets are held should be retained for local market use and green open space as windy weather as is most times of the year along the foreshore would make it untenable for locating the markets along the Esplanade and the Museum.

4. Support the enhancement of the Sound Shell (Illustrative Master Plan Point 2).

5. Request that existing trees throughout the area are assessed as they add to the heritage character of the area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 2).

6. Does not support the new off street public parking area included dedicated parking for RV. There has been an increase in traffic along the esplanade since the construction of the overpass bridge and this would create congestion, as well as slowing vehicle movement on the esplanade at the entrance and exits point into the proposed car park area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 3).

7. Does not think where the proposed public car park is located on the concept plan is appropriate. It would ruin the historic core of the Museum site (Illustrative Master Plan Point 3).

8. Would like to see the green open space area in front of the Municipal Museum facing the Esplanade retained as the Museum Buffer zone, preserving the Esplanade frontage. The south eastern Corner of James and the, Esplanade should remain the Esperance Municipal Museum's frontage remaining unobscured and preserved.

9. Wishes to retain the Museum Park precinct and increased usage (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1).

10. The lack of detail in the James street cultural hub proposal makes it difficult to fully understanding of the concept. Concerned about the lack of specific detail pertaining to each proposed precinct where the proposed new and old building replacements may be situated is of serious concern.

11. The markets should be retained within the current Heritage Village setting.

12. The museum village serves as an important retail precinct.

13. Re-locating the weekend markets to James Street may severely affect the markets viability and popularity unless the street was wind proofed. The current protected location in the precinct is essential to the market day success.

1. James Street – Key Initiatives – Community Centre Supported but need to retain significant open space.

2. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

3. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Supported

4. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Request that trees be assessed

5. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

7. James Street Precinct – Site ID 3D – Against Proposal.

8. James Street Precinct – General – Concerned about lack of detail.

Leon Bowman

1. Congratulations to Esperance Shire in the development of the town centre revitalisation plan. This is a positive move and with positive debate should motivate all stakeholders to achieve a far better outcome for our town in the long term.

2. Supports the idea of a central car park linking the rear of Dome with the RSL car park.

3. Supports the idea of Andrew Street becoming more pedestrian friendly but not in favour of parallel parking. Suggests road would be better serviced if it was one way only entering from Dempster Street with angle parking along one side of the street, whilst still maintaining wider verges on both sides.

4. The traffic slowers currently used as pedestrian crossings need to be changed to make the traffic give way as in traditional pedestrian crossings. The current situation creates havoc and confusion during peak tourist times.

5. Would like to see a pedestrian crossing from the James Street footpath across to the Whale tail.

6. Support the idea of a central hub around the Museum area. A good fit would be to relocate the tourist bureau and other uses to the museum complex/area.

7. Relocating the Arts Centre and Youth Hostel will free up the Cannery site for high rise residential and the Blue Waters hostel for expansion of the tourist site.

8. The foreshore area adjacent to the yacht club needs to be bought into line with the rest of the foreshore development. Would like to see un interrupted views of the bay from the Esplanade.

9. The scout hall is dated and a real eyesore.

10. The wind break wall and barbecue area next to the boat ramp also restricts views.

11. I would like to see the cycleway and footpath follow the beach all the way along to the Taylor Street jetty.

12. The lawned area immediately south of the boat ramp would be a good fit for a skate park. This would create a close link to the proposed new playground near James Street and compliment greater utilisation of the beach area next to Andrew Street.

1. Overall Plan – positive move

2. RSL Car Park – Illustrative Master Plan Point 6 - Supportive

3. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Support upgrade to more pedestrian friendly but suggest one way better service

4. Andrew Street and Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Points 13 and 15 – Modification traffic crossings need to give pedestrians right of way

5. James Street Precinct – Key Pedestrian Connection – Supportive of link to foreshore

6. James Street Precinct – Illustrative Master Plan Point 5 - Supportive

7. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Modification – possibility of locating arts centre and youth hostel

8. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Supportive of relocation of Scout Hall

9. Comments outside of the study area.

10. Precinct 7 – Foreshore – Supportive

11. Precinct 7 – Foreshore – Supportive of Youth Precinct south of Boat Ramp.

12. Precinct 7 – Foreshore – Modification – cycleway and footpath along the foreshore.

Veronica Mickel

1. Parking issues around town.

2. Make Andrew Street a mall with access only for service vehicles.

3. Landscaping and streetscape treatments that screen the wind, al fresco areas and the sun.

4. Provision of Public Toilets

5. Extra seating in the mall

6. Concerned over the future of the CWA building but understands it will not be required to move until another building has been provided.

1. Parking – General – Recognises issue.

2. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Supportive – note that Andrew Street is not proposed to be a mall.

3. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Consideration given to Public Toilet

4. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Extra Seating required

5. CWA Building – Site ID 3A – Against Proposal.

Louise Stewart-Brown

1. Disagrees with any proposal to remove the scout hall and have commercial multi storey development in this area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

Jennifer Morcombe

1. Concerned over the lack of environmental considerations in the plan.

2. Requests that the foreshore parkland and fragile dune area near the Scout Hall and Yacht Club are retained.

3. Retain the Scout Hall.

4. Foreshore, Grace Darling Park and the Museum Village are for the general community to enjoy and not seen as developable land.

5. Objects to the demolition of public building before their use by date.

6. Museum is not suited to the library being located within it.

7. Lack of parking near the Boulevard and the plan will exacerbate this by condensing town into a smaller area. More bays need to be provided.

1. Overall Plan – Concerned about lack of environment considerations

2. Precinct 7 – Foreshore – Requests that the dune in front of the Scout Hall and Yacht Club be retained

3. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

4. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Against Proposal

5. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

6. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4B, 4C and 4L – Against Proposal

7. CWA Building – Site ID 3A – Against Proposal.

8. Parking – Boulevard – requests more parking

Julie Withers

1. Plan is interesting, ambitious and well presented but emphasis on commercial development is not in the best long term interests of the community.

2. Precinct 1

a) Support the proposed development.

3. Precinct 3

a) Duck pond near the museum should be retained.

b) Existing trees should be retained.

c) If parking is required it should be on Site 6A off the Esplanade.

4. Precinct 4

a) Would not support another big mall in this area.

b) Why should the library (4B) move and where to?

5. Precinct 6

a) Do not agree with relocating the Museum Village (6B).

b) Why are so many residential areas proposed there enough other areas ready for redevelopment.

c) Does not support 6E, land should be retained for community use.

6. Precinct 7

a) Ocean Play is a great idea. Mobile businesses not fixed allow for greater flexibility.

1. Overall Plan – is interesting, ambitious and well presented

2. Overall Plan – Emphasis of commercial development is not in the best interest of the community.

3. Andrew Street – Precinct 1 – Supported.

4. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

5. Development Opportunity – Site ID 6A – Modification use this area as parking

6. Precinct 4 – Key Land Use – Large Format Retail – Against Proposal

7. Precinct 4 – Site ID 4B – Against Proposal to relocate Library.

8. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

9. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

10. Ocean Play – Illustrative Master Plan Point 9 – Supported

Bev Drabik

1. Support the enhancement of the Sound Shell (Illustrative Master Plan Point 2).

2. Request that existing trees throughout the area are assessed as they add to the heritage character of the area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 2).

3. Does not support the new off street public parking area included dedicated parking for RV. There has been an increase in traffic along the esplanade since the construction of the overpass bridge and this would create congestion, as well as slowing vehicle movement on the esplanade at the entrance and exits point into the proposed car park area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 3).

4. Would like to see the green open space area in front of the Municipal Museum facing the Esplanade retained as the Museum Buffer zone, preserving the Esplanade frontage. The south eastern Corner of James and the, Esplanade should remain the Esperance Municipal Museum's frontage remaining unobscured and preserved.

5. Wish to increased usage of Museum Village (Illustrative Master Plan Point 1).

6. The lack of detail in the James street cultural hub proposal makes it difficult to fully understanding of the concept. Concerned about the lack of specific detail pertaining to each proposed precinct where the proposed new and old building replacements may be situated is of serious concern.

7. Grace Darling Park should be retained and cannot be replaced.

8. Supports the upgrade to the RSL Park.

9. Vacant site is an opportunity to stimulate economic and social activity (Illustrative Master Plan Point 20).

10. Potential for more economic and social activity (Illustrative Master Plan Point 4).

11. Support the upgrade to RSL car park and linking to Andrew Street (Illustrative Master Plan Point 6).

12. Does not support the relocation of Grace Darling Park (Illustrative Master Plan Point 7).

13. Potential conflict between ocean play are for children and visitors being landed from cruise ships. Does not agree with the proposal (Illustrative Master Plan Point 9).

14. Potential for more economic and social activity. Lively social atmosphere downtown (Illustrative Master Plan Point 10).

15. Area is subject to flooding (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

16. Development would give exclusive beach frontage (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

17. Amenity would be ruined by high rise development (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

18. Alternative is large covered outdoor pavilion for community use (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

1. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Supported

2. Sound Shell – Illustrative Master Plan Point 2 – Request that trees be assessed

3. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

4. James Street Precinct – Site ID 3D – Against Proposal.

5. James Street Precinct – General – Concerned about lack of detail.

6. Grace Darling Park – Site ID 5A – Against Proposal

7. RSL – Illustrative Master Plan Point 16 – Supported

8. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4A – Supported

9. James Street Precinct – Site ID 3D – Supported

10. Upgraded RSL Car Park – Illustrative Master Plan Point 6 – Supported

11. Ocean Play – Illustrative Master Plan Point 9 – Against Proposal

12. Andrew Street – Sites 1C and 1D – Supported

13. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

14. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Modification – Pavilion for Community use

Simone Hawke

1. Retain the Scout Hall and surrounding open space (Illustrative Master Plan Point 12).

2. Supports small cafes or food vans along the foreshore area (Illustrative Master Plan Point 10).

3. Likes the idea of a pedestrian mall on Dempster Street not Andrew Street.

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

2. Andrew Street – Sites 1C and 1D – Supported

3. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Against Proposal – note that Andrew Street is not proposed to be a mall.

4. Dempster Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 15 – Modification to make part of Dempster Street a mall – note there are no proposals for a mall.

John Bailey

LandCorp

1. Attractive document with a range of good proposals however it appears to have been more design led rather than an economic development led exercise which undermines the credibility of the plan.

2. Additional economic, social and transport analysis is required to inform robust master plan design and revitalisation implementation

3. A clearer link demonstrating how the revitalisation plan has been informed by / tailored to Esperance’s key current/future economic drivers is required

4. Formulation of market savvy property opportunities and strategies is required

5. A strategic approach to implementation is required, particularly as it will require strategies that go well beyond the boundaries of the master plan area.

6. Timeframes need definition – short, medium and long term? Given the master plan covers 20 years it is safe to assume the following; short – 2-5 years, medium – 6-12 years and long – 13-20 years. It would be more appropriate if the timeframes in this document reflected the Growth Plan timeframes for consistency.

7. Commends the Shire on taking this initiative to build a stronger, relevant town centre.

1. Overall Plan – Supported however as design led rather than economic development led its credibility is undermined.

2. Implementation Schedule – Modification – include Additional economic, social and transport analysis is required to inform robust master plan design and revitalisation implementation

3. Implementation Schedule – Modification – include A clearer link demonstrating how the revitalisation plan has been informed by / tailored to Esperance’s key current/future economic drivers is required

4. Implementation Schedule – Modification – include Formulation of market savvy property opportunities and strategies is required

5. Overall Plan – A strategic approach to implementation is required, particularly as it will require strategies that go well beyond the boundaries of the master plan area

6. Implementation Actions – Timeframes – modification – suggested that timeframes should be consistent with the Growth Plan short – 2-5 years, medium – 6-12 years and long - 13-20 years

Anna Morcombe

1. Look at potential solutions to the Andrew Street wind tunnel effect by including vegetation in a winding slow street and create a true wind break by layering plantings with upper, lower, and middle story vegetation.

2. Plan for a public transport system similar to the Cat bus in Perth CBD and Northbridge. Make it free for use for the elderly and provide a service that runs regularly, or non-stop for two or three days a week to begin with.

3. Encourage residents to reduce vehicle emissions in town centre by turning off your engine and actively encourage residents to not idle their cars in public places. Make the streets friendlier for pedestrians by giving pedestrians the right of way at all times.

4. Innovate public parking, look at forgotten spaces and use signs to direct traffic to areas where there is availability to park, in the under-utilised zones.

5. For the parking proposed at the Soundshell & Museum, retain the man made lake system, as this is a public asset and enjoyed by the community. Retain the lakes, look at optimising on what is already present. This could be a healthy wetland system for education opportunities and complimentary to the tourism and cultural hopes for the precinct.

6. Retain public open space for public convenience, temperature control and appearance.

7. Within a cultural precinct look at establishing an outdoor cinema screen which is permanently in place to enhance evenings outdoors in the town centre.

8. Buildings and land currently used by the public should be retained and accessible for use by the public NOT privatised. Future alternate uses may be forecast, but not sold for accommodation or hotels.

9. Look at combining community facilities in the main hub/activity precincts, for example a seniors/community centre could be a part of a larger cultural precinct.

10. Look at including an Indigenous cultural centre as a part of the larger cultural centre to celebrate and endorse our region’s indigenous knowledge, creativity and traditions.

11. Look at including an environment centre where people can go to learn about our awesome environment in an interactive and hands-on place, where information is freely and readily available.

12. Protect remnant dunes and beach at the foreshore in front of the scout hall.

13. Include skate paths within the town centre area, probably near the scout hall

14. In regard to Residential accommodation in the town’s centre - an innovative model is shared living.

1. Andrew Street – Illustrative Master Plan Point 13 – Treatments to address the ‘wind tunnel’ effect will not be determined until detailed design is undertaken.

2. Places, Streets and Parking – The Plan identifies that the road network can accommodate buses and taxis. Esperance does not have the population or resources to implement a free public transport system.

3. General Comment – Encourage residents to turn off your their engines and not idle cars in public places. It should noted that advertising has previously been used to address this issue.

4. General Comment – Parking – Direct people to use underutilised parking areas, , the Esperance Chamber of Commerce and Industry did some adverting the past tourist season to this effect

5. Dismissed – The lake is a drainage basin. Engineering considerations over its function take precedence.

6. Parking including for RV – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal.

7. General Comment – Open Space – Retain open space of public convenience, temperature control and appearance.

8. James Street Precinct – Key Initiatives – Modification – include outdoor cinema.

9. Community Facilities – Precincts 3,4 5 and 6 – Modification – keep all community buildings and places.

10. General Comment – James Street Precinct - Include an Indigenous cultural centre as a part of the larger cultural centre

11. General Comment – James Street Precinct – Include an environment centre

12. Precinct 7 – Dunes and Beach – protect remnant areas

13. Precinct 6/7 – Foreshore – Supportive of Youth Precinct near Scout Hall.

13. Precinct 6/7 – Foreshore – include skate paths near Scout Hall.

14. General Comment – Residential Development – Consider innovative models.

Erica Nielson

1. Does not support the removal of the scout hall which is crown land vested to the Scouts and Guides.

2. No additional commercial areas are required.

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

2. General Comment – Retail – No further development required

Karli Florisson

1. Objects to the demolition of the Scout Hall.

2. Objects to the demolition of the CWA building.

3. Objects to the removal of the Museum Village and want the pond retained.

4. The Tanker Jetty should be restored and preserved even if it means the need to spend extra funds on it.

1. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

2. CWA Building – Site ID 3A – Against Proposal.

3. Museum Village – Site ID 6B – Against Proposal

4. Parking Area – Illustrative Master Plan Point 3 – Against Proposal

5. Comments not related to Study Area.

Margie Thomas-Close

1. Allow for activities that create conflict within each precinct – storytelling

2. Do not impede access to the sand and sea.

3. Concerned that culture has been somewhat overlooked in a place centres approach rather than a people centred approach,

1. General Comment – Allow for activities that create conflict

2. General Comment – Do not impede access from the town centre to the coast

3. General Comment – Concerned that culture has been somewhat overlooked in a place centres approach.

Michelle Crisp

1. Norfolk Island Pines and other significant trees should be retained.

2. Support measures to encourage cyclists within the town centre.

3. Precinct 4 – keep community facilities here. If do move they need to keep a central location.

4. Precinct 6 – opposed to the site of the Scout Hall being developed. Potential loss of views if developed.

1. Overall Plan – Retain Norfolk Island Pines and other significant trees.

2. General Comment – Support measures to encourage cyclist

3. Civic Precinct – Site ID 4B, 4C and 4L – Against Proposal

4. Southern Foreshore Catalyst Development – Site ID 6E – Against Proposal

Lindy Shipard