TM 20141204 164127 Bush recovered in time for Christmas - Banjup.jpg

Clarifications on Zoning

This page is to clarify any misapprehensions about:

Defending Rural Banjup Is What Residents Instructed the Committee to Do
Preserving Banjup’s Rural Amenity
Residents Who Might Consider Rezoning Their Properties
Doubling Housing Density
What Would Happen If the WAPC Were to Re-Zone All Banjup as Urban?

BRG general meetings are open to all members to have their say and to vote on motions to instruct the Committee on courses of action. Members’ emails are welcome at any time.

Defending Rural Banjup Is What Residents Instructed the Committee to Do

All 400 residences in Banjup were invited in March 2024 to attend the BRG AGM at the Banjup Hall. The flyer placed in every letter box included in bold:

What do we want for Banjup in the future?

No rezoning on horizon

Rural peace and tranquillity?

What do you want your Committee to do?

Tell us your Vision

On 2 February 2024 all BRG members were emailed a draft “Banjup Vision” for discussion at the AGM on 10 March. Members were encouraged to reply with their views and to attend the AGM. A similar, reminder email was sent to all members on 24 February 2024.

The Vision discussed at the AGM on 10 March 2024 included these words:

Banjup –

A safe, green haven of peace and tranquillity

for residents, wildlife, and vegetation, for now and future generations

What do we want the Committee to do?

Advocate to
- Protect our rural zoning
- Reduce through traffic
- Enhance reserves
- Reduce fuel loads
- Remove feral animals

As minuted, the meeting endorsed the Vision unanimously

No emails were received dissenting from the Vision.

The Banjup Vision was uploaded to the Banjup web page a few days later. It can be seen in full at Banjup Vision | Banjup Residents

At the AGM on 16 March 2025, the Banjup Vision was again discussed by members who approved this Mission statement:

BRG strives to preserve and improve our rural areas as safe, green havens of peace and tranquillity for our local community

All presentation materials and minutes can be seen at Meetings and Minutes | Banjup Residents Group

2. Preserving Banjup’s Rural Amenity

The threat of encroachment on Banjup was first discussed at a general meeting of BRG members on 10 September 2017. As minuted:

Banjup’s rural amenity could be lost by planning ‘white anting’, with parcels of land being urbanised over the coming years until Banjup becomes a very different place. He asked members to consider over the coming months whether they wanted Banjup’s rural amenity to be preserved or whether members should actively seek rezoning.

The encroachment threat and how to respond to it has been with us ever since.

At the AGM of 11 March 2018 the threat was again discussed. As minuted:

Members agreed that Banjup needs explicit protection from encroachment if it is to avoid the fate of rural Jandakot and Treeby whose rural amenity was eroded over several years owing to the neglect of planners.

At the AGM of 26 June 2022, members unanimously:

re-endorsed the position held explicitly since 2017 by the Banjup Residents Group that the rural character and amenity of Banjup should be protected and not severely damaged by encroaching urban and commercial developments as rural Jandakot and Treeby had been.

The WAPC’s proposed Amendment 1437 to urbanise Lot 709 could mark the beginning of a series of piecemeal initiatives that erode Banjup’s amenity and rural character. The construction of 900 houses would generate an estimated 9,000 additional vehicle movements per day on Banjup’s roads—without even accounting for traffic from the Lake Treeby development. What impact will this have on residents of Hebble Loop and streets south, who may soon find themselves living next to 900 new neighbours?

We’ve seen this pattern before. Between 2010 and 2020, rural landowners in Jandakot and Treeby experienced a near-total loss of amenity due to escalating traffic on Jandakot Road and rapid development in Piara Waters, Calleya, and the Airport commercial precincts. In a 2017 survey conducted by the City of Cockburn, 80% of BRG members in those areas supported rezoning—not because they welcomed urbanisation, but because their properties had become undesirable and difficult to sell.

It wasn’t until 2023 that the WAPC’s Planning Investigation recommended rezoning the entire area as “Urban.” While many residents welcomed the decision, some long-term landowners vowed to stay. Unfortunately, the District Structure Plan currently out for public consultation suggests they may be surrounded by hundreds of new homes, effectively built out over the 40 year horizon of the Plan.

If Amendment 1437 sets a precedent, land developers will likely push for further rezonings across Banjup. They will lobby the WAPC to review the suburb’s zoning, and our green haven could be gradually eroded—despite residents’ consistent efforts to preserve its rural character. This would be in direct contrast to WA Planning Minister John Carey’s statement on 10 August 2023:

“… the finalisation of these last two PIAs … complete an extensive planning exercise to ensure our city has sufficient land to accommodate for future urban growth”

Indeed, the WAPC’s recent population forecasts show that there is plenty of land in the south metro region until 2052.

Considering these concerns and the resolutions of members to preserve and protect Banjup’s rural amenity, the BRG is opposing Amendment 1437.

3. Residents Who Might Consider Rezoning Their Properties

In 2021, several dozen Banjup residents near Tapper Road explored the possibility of rezoning their land and selling to developers. They engaged a property consultant for advice, and over 60 residents met—separately from the Banjup Residents Group (BRG)—to hear the consultant’s recommendations.

The basic idea was that a developer would seek to secure sale option contracts from around 20 adjacent property owners, covering approximately 40 hectares. These contracts might include one-time or recurring option fees paid to the owners.

During the contract period—typically four to five years—the developer would hold the exclusive right, but not the obligation, to purchase the properties. A caveat (encumbrance) would be placed on each property’s title, preventing the owner from selling to anyone else. If an owner dies during this period, then their estate would inherit the encumbrance, similar to how a mortgage must be settled. While a buyer could potentially be found to purchase the property and assume the encumbrance, the sale price would likely be reduced.

Once all required contracts were secured, the developer would apply to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to rezone the area as “Urban Deferred,” as Mirvac has done with Lot 709 Armadale Road.

If successful, the developer would then invest millions of dollars in environmental, water, traffic, and other studies to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision meets all regulatory requirements. As seen in areas like Jandakot and Treeby, this process can take up to two years.

Following that, a District Structure Plan must be prepared and undergo public consultation. This lengthy approval process explains why developers typically offer option contracts with four- to five-year terms.

Importantly, the option contract would be based on the current market value of Rural Residential-zoned land (possibly indexed), not the higher value of Urban-zoned land. The developer earns the uplift in value because they bear the financial risk and cost of the rezoning process.

To reiterate: current landowners receive only the Rural Residential price unless they collectively fund the consultants’ studies and rezoning themselves. You cannot benefit from a developer’s efforts unless your land is included in the rezoning—otherwise, it remains Rural and is valued accordingly.

As recorded in the BRG Annual General Meeting minutes of 26 June 2022, those interested in rezoning concluded that it was not worthwhile and abandoned the idea. They determined they could achieve equal or better outcomes through private sales.

Many residents who moved to Banjup in the past 15 to 20 years did so for the amenity and lifestyle, often building new and expensive homes. These residents are unlikely to welcome urban encroachment. Meanwhile, those who settled in Banjup 30 to 40 years ago may wish to realise their investment. They can do so at any time via private sale, without waiting years for a developer’s offer.

Local real estate agents report strong demand for acreage in the area. Banjup is preferred over Wandi and Oakford due to its proximity to transport links and the Gateway precinct.

4. Doubling Housing Density

The idea of subdividing Banjup’s 2-hectare lots into two separately titled 1-hectare lots was widely discussed in 2013, particularly at the general meeting on 16 June, where it received strong community support.

However, the proposal remains fraught with challenges. The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) continues to take a cautious approach to protecting Perth’s drinking water supply. All private properties in Banjup are unsewered, with waste typically managed via septic tanks and leach drains. DWER considers one unsewered dwelling on a 2-hectare lot an acceptable risk to groundwater—but views one dwelling on a 1-hectare lot as an unacceptable risk.

Sewerage is not the only concern. Doubling the number of residents per hectare would also double the human impact on the water mound. Increased vehicle traffic could raise contamination risks from oil drips, tyre residue, and fuel spills. The likelihood of bushfires caused by accidents would also rise.

While some may challenge DWER’s cautious stance, reducing the minimum lot size to 1 hectare would require amending State Planning Policy 2.3 – Jandakot Groundwater Protection, which is embedded in state legislation. Any such change would need to undergo formal investigation and public consultation.

If Banjup residents were to pursue a review of SPP 2.3, we would not be the only stakeholders involved. Land developers would likely push for a broader planning review of the entire suburb, potentially seeking to reclassify all private land from Land Use P2 (Rural – Water Protection) to P3 (Urban and Industry). This could open the door to further development proposals, similar to those already advanced by Mirvac.

Doubling housing density may appeal to some, but it carries risks and unintended consequences that could affect the entire community

5. What Would Happen If the WAPC Were to Re-Zone All Banjup as Urban?

The potential implications of rezoning Banjup as Urban were discussed with residents in October 2022, during the development of the BRG submission to the City of Cockburn’s Local Planning Strategy. All members were invited to share their views via email on 1 November 2022.

If Urban zoning were to apply to all private properties in Banjup, then up to 25,000 houses could be built. However, as the Jandakot Treeby District Structure Plan shows, that number could take up to 40 years to achieve (see page 55 at Jandakot Treeby District Structure Plan report (Parts 1 and 2) 20250616.pdf ).

Note that many in Jandakot and Treeby sought rezoning because their rural amenity had been lost and their houses became almost unsaleable because of escalating traffic on Jandakot Road and rapid development in Piara Waters, Calleya, and the Airport commercial precincts. However, those further away from traffic and noise want to stay.

Some private landowners in Banjup may be open to selling their properties for urban development. Option contracts might be offered by developers but there would be no certainty of timescale – developers do not typically buy land until they need to. Depending on the Structure Plan, decades might elapse before a sale is settled.

Buyers of a rural residential properties in Banjup could be scarce if they knew that the lands around them would be developed into housing within the next few years. As time advances, difficulties in selling would become more acute. Some rural residential owners could become stranded.

Other Banjup landowners may strongly oppose selling, prioritising their rural lifestyle. This divergence between sellers and stayers could result in a mosaic of urban and rural land uses across Banjup in the future.

If such a mosaic were to emerge, the amenity and character enjoyed by remaining rural landowners would likely be compromised. A similar pattern is already visible in the map on page 14 of the Jandakot Treeby District Structure Plan.

As urban residential development expands, it becomes increasingly important to preserve and protect the amenity of rural residents. However, the practicalities of achieving this are difficult to predict. It’s possible that developers will continue building around rural residential lots until the remaining owners find the conditions intolerable and eventually sell.