Some residents called it ‘the way backward’ rather than ‘the way forward,’ as its title claims.
Most community associations, which made the submissions on which the recommendations were based in the 30 page final document, were supportive of the report.
However, many others were disappointed.
Swan Valley Regional Network co-ordinator Sue Hurt was pleased that the paper highlighted ‘there is a State Government commitment to a way forward’.
‘There is a further requirement for community, business and industry to have a full understanding in context of the business reality of the recommendations, otherwise the recommendations could be viewed as just ribbons and wrapping paper,’ she said.
Swan Valley Progress Association chairman Rod Henderson said he also supported the recommendations in the report to amend the Swan Valley Planning Act.
‘The key is the departments of Water, Agriculture, Planning and Tourism are brought together to work in unison rather than in isolation,’ he said.
Swan Valley Residents and Ratepayers Association president Jeff Williams said he was pleased the report had identified the Swan Valley as an area of special significance, however, he had concerns with a number of other areas.
‘Recommendation 3 says to remove the Swan Valley Planning Committee, which is the only formal group that protects and stands up for the Swan Valley’s rural and viticulture heritage,’ he said.
‘I am concerned more power will be handed to the City of Swan and they could view the area as a ‘cash cow’ for subdivision, to generate additional rates.
‘We don’t want to become another Malaga ” this document should be called the way backwards.’