Brigadoon: It’s Time to Honour the Promise

Brigadoon: It’s Time to Honour the Promise
The protections put in place when Brigadoon was allowed to be developed in 1984 were there for a reason. Forty-two years later, those reasons have not disappeared — we understand their importance more than ever.

Over recent weeks we have been digging deeper into the original planning history of Brigadoon.

What we are finding raises important questions for both the City of Swan and State Government about whether the original purpose and protections of this very special area are being properly recognised in planning decisions today.

It starts in 1984
We have now confirmed through the WA Parliament that the original Brigadoon Country Estate Structure Plan was approved on 10 April 1984 as part of Amendment No. 119 to the former Shire of Swan Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

Remarkably, when questions were asked in Parliament in 2010, the Government advised that despite a thorough search, the approved Structure Plan could not be located in the planning records.

That missing plan is important.

We are now working to reconstruct the complete original planning package through other surviving records — including Amendment 119, Shire of Swan records, subdivision approvals, Subdivision Guide Plan 8A, original title covenants, Government Gazettes and the environmental and cultural studies undertaken before development.

We want to establish a very simple thing:

What protections, conditions and commitments were part of the original agreement that allowed this environmentally and culturally sensitive landscape to be developed?

These protections were there for a reason
Brigadoon was not planned as ordinary residential land.

It was created as a Special Rural estate, with large lots and specific controls intended to protect the landscape in which development was being permitted.

The surviving planning provisions demonstrate continuing concern for:

• the Swan River/Derbarl Yerrigan, tributaries, floodplain and water resources
• native vegetation, wildlife and ecological linkages
• soils, landform, drainage and appropriate effluent disposal
• the Darling Scarp and visual landscape
• bushfire risk
• rural amenity and appropriate land use
• recreation and equestrian activity
• a constrained road network requiring alternative means of access.                                                                                       

Land was also required to be transferred into public ownership for recreation, open space, the river valley and what became the State Equestrian Centre as part of the subdivision and development framework.

These were not simply generous “gifts” from developers.

They formed part of the planning arrangements under which subdivision of Brigadoon was allowed to proceed.

What about the original covenants?
Many Brigadoon properties were also created subject to restrictive covenants and other title controls.

We are now tracing those original instruments and their relationship to the 1984 planning approvals.

We need to establish precisely what the covenants required, why they were imposed, who benefited from them and their legal status today.

But there is a bigger planning issue regardless of whether every individual private covenant remains independently enforceable.

Those covenants, subdivision conditions and Special Rural provisions form part of the historical evidence explaining what Brigadoon was intended to be — and what it was intended to be protected from becoming.

That history should matter when governments exercise planning discretion today.

Why this matters to current planning decisions
We are increasingly seeing pressure for activities on Special Rural properties that can be very different in scale and character from the rural-residential activities originally envisaged.

Calling something a “Home Business” does not answer the fundamental planning question:

Is the actual nature, scale and operation of the activity appropriate for this particular land and consistent with the purpose of the Special Rural zone?

That is especially important where land is within a sensitive river catchment, floodplain or drainage system.

Conditions, fences and screening cannot change the underlying characteristics of the land.

• Floodplain remains floodplain.
• A tributary still drains towards the Swan River.
• Bushfire evacuation remains difficult.
• Wildlife corridors remain important.
• And Special Rural land remains Special Rural.

The roads tell another part of the story
Historical planning also recognised Brigadoon's difficult access.

Later bushfire planning described the existing Brigadoon community as having very poor emergency access, with Campersic Road effectively providing the principal way in and out.

Alternative access towards O'Brien Road subsequently became an important component of bushfire planning, including concern about potential community entrapment during a major fire.

We are now trying to establish whether multiple access routes were contemplated as far back as the original 1984 Brigadoon plan.

That question matters enormously today.

Brigadoon now has more residents, more visitors, horses and livestock, horse floats and trailers, cyclists and walkers, tourism traffic, State Equestrian Centre events and increasing interaction with large commercial vehicles.

Some roads still operate at 70 km/h in an environment shared by residents, wildlife, horses and recreational users.

Even two exits may be grossly inadequate during a major bushfire.

The original road planning therefore needs to be understood — and its assumptions reassessed against the Brigadoon of 2026.

Brigadoon itself has changed
Brigadoon is no longer simply a quiet Special Rural subdivision.

It has become an important recreational, equestrian, environmental and tourism destination.

Bells Rapids is the most obvious example of that growth in visitation, but this is about Brigadoon as a whole.

The area contains the State Equestrian Centre, horse and recreational trails, significant bushland and wildlife corridors, Swan River frontage and tributaries, floodplain, Bells Rapids and culturally significant landscapes.

Yet we appear to have remarkably little information about the cumulative pressure now being placed upon it.

• How many people actually visit Brigadoon and Bells Rapids each year?
• How many vehicles enter on peak weekends and during major events?
• What is the cumulative effect on roads, trails, wildlife, the river, residents and bushfire evacuation?
• Without systematic visitor monitoring or a permanent ranger presence, do we actually know?
• Does Brigadoon now need State-level protection and management?

This deserves serious consideration.

The adjoining John Forrest National Park is part of WA's State conservation estate, yet important parts of the interconnected Brigadoon–Bells Rapids–Swan River landscape remain under different and fragmented management arrangements.

Given what we now know about this landscape — and the enormous growth in recreational and tourism pressure — it is reasonable to ask:

Should Brigadoon have a much greater DBCA and State Government conservation presence?

That could include a ranger station or permanent/seasonal ranger presence, visitor monitoring, coordinated trail and reserve management, wildlife and habitat protection, cultural interpretation, bushfire planning and investigation of whether appropriate public conservation lands should ultimately be incorporated into, or managed in conjunction with, the State conservation estate.

This is not about preventing people from enjoying Brigadoon.

It is about protecting what people come here to enjoy.

And we know so much more today than we did in 1984
Perhaps this is the most important point.

Environmental and cultural-heritage recognition has advanced enormously in the 42 years since Brigadoon was approved.

Today, governments recognise far more clearly the importance of biodiversity, ecological corridors, waterways and catchments, floodplains, bushfire risk and cumulative environmental impacts.

Our understanding and recognition of Whadjuk Noongar cultural heritage and the significance of Derbarl Yerrigan and its interconnected cultural landscape has also advanced enormously.

Significantly, we have traced a 1983 ethnographic survey by Rory O'Connor of the first-stage subdivision of Brigadoon Country Estate at Millendon — undertaken before the 1984 approval.

We are now seeking that original report and the other environmental and cultural investigations associated with the development.

And since 1984, the State itself has introduced stronger planning frameworks for protecting the Swan Valley and its rural, environmental and cultural values.

In other words:

Government understanding has moved towards greater recognition of why places like Brigadoon require protection — not away from it.

So why would we weaken those protections now?
The pressures on Brigadoon have increased.

We have more development, more residents, more tourism, more traffic, greater bushfire complexity and increasing pressure for commercial and other uses of Special Rural land.

At precisely the same time, our understanding of the environmental and cultural significance of this landscape has become much greater.

That leads to an important question for the City of Swan, WAPC, State Government and SAT:

Why would we progressively weaken the practical effect of Brigadoon's original protections when the reasons those protections were imposed are even more relevant today?

A discretionary planning use is exactly that — discretionary.

Planning decisions should consider not only whether conditions can be written to accommodate an activity, but whether that activity is fundamentally appropriate for the location.

We are going back to the beginning
We are now working to reconstruct the original Brigadoon planning record:

1983 environmental and cultural investigations → Amendment 119 → 1984 Brigadoon Country Estate Structure Plan → subdivision approvals → original covenants → public land transfers → Subdivision Guide Plan 8A → road and emergency-access requirements → subsequent scheme amendments → today's planning protections.

Even if the missing 1984 Structure Plan cannot ultimately be recovered, its planning history does not simply disappear.

Other government records, gazetted provisions, subdivision files, title instruments, surveys and environmental and cultural reports can help reconstruct what was agreed, what was protected and why.

This isn't simply a search for old paperwork.

We are trying to establish the original planning promise under which development of this exceptionally sensitive landscape was allowed.

Brigadoon exists today because development was permitted subject to protections appropriate to the landscape.

Forty-two years later, the river still flows through it. The floodplain still floods. Wildlife still moves through it. Bushfire remains an ever-present risk. Horses, residents and visitors still depend upon a constrained road network.

And we now understand much more about the cultural significance of this Country than planning systems acknowledged in 1984.

The reasons for protecting Brigadoon have not disappeared.

They have become stronger.

It is time to honour the promise.