❓ Mr. Abetz questions the Minister for Environment regarding the Point Grey marina approval and its environmental conditions. The Minister details the rigorous assessment process, conditions imposed, and monitoring plans to minimise environmental impact.
AnsweredQoN 364Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MANDURAH — POINT GREY MARINA
364. Mr P. ABETZ to the Minister for Environment:
I understand the minister recently approved the Point Grey
marina near Mandurah, which is a project that has garnered a lot of attention
from constituents in the southern metropolitan area. Can the minister please
update the house on the strict conditions placed on this project to protect the
estuary?
364. Mr P. ABETZ to the Minister for Environment:
I understand the minister recently approved the Point Grey
marina near Mandurah, which is a project that has garnered a lot of attention
from constituents in the southern metropolitan area. Can the minister please
update the house on the strict conditions placed on this project to protect the
estuary?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Southern River for his question. I
know he is a person who is always concerned about developments and who wants to
ensure that they take account of the environment; and, if they do proceed, that
any environmental damage is minimised.
Yes, last week I announced that the Point Grey marina
development had environmental approval to proceed. It is an issue that I did
not take lightly. The marina development, for those people who do not know it,
includes a 300-berth marina and a channel that goes across towards the
Dawesville Cut. In considering the decision, I took due regard of the fact that
the Environmental Protection Authority had a rigorous environmental assessment
process, that it had extensive consultation and that it acknowledged in its
report that there could be potential short-term local and temporary impacts on
the estuary fauna but that these could all be managed. As well as the
development going through the EPA process, there were appeals. The Appeals
Convenor assessed all the appeals. I understand the member for Mandurah put in
an appeal. However, they were all assessed by the Appeals Convenor and then, of
course, by me.
Consistent with the EPA's recommendations I approved
the development, but I wanted to ensure that I strengthened some of them. There
were key issues of concern for the community. I have a bit of knowledge of the
area because I grew up around that area and my parents live on the estuary. The
main concerns were the dredging and water quality. As set out in my statement,
strict conditions were put on compliance reporting and the availability of
data. In fact, I added a condition regarding the data that must be made
available to the EPA, which means that the data must also be available to the
public once it has been validated. There are strict conditions on the estuarine
water and sediment quality, and there is also an offset requirement that three
areas within the development will be rehabilitated. I am very confident that
the conditions laid out in statement 906, which I am happy to table, will
ensure that the marina and channel development, which will include a marina and
channel monitoring plan that will be monitored by the EPA, will have no impact,
or very minimal impact, on the Peel and Harvey inlets.
In relation to the key area of dredging, before dredging can
take place, the operator must have a licence under the Waterways Conservation
Act and it must have an approved dredge spoil management plan. Before it can do
any dredging, it is important that the chief executive officer of the
Department of Environment and Conservation ticks off on that. Also, dredging
cannot take place outside the winter and spring months because of the key
breeding areas in the marina. I am very comfortable that this approved
development will be an important asset to the community but, more importantly,
there will be minimal, if any, impacts on the environment.
know he is a person who is always concerned about developments and who wants to
ensure that they take account of the environment; and, if they do proceed, that
any environmental damage is minimised.
Yes, last week I announced that the Point Grey marina
development had environmental approval to proceed. It is an issue that I did
not take lightly. The marina development, for those people who do not know it,
includes a 300-berth marina and a channel that goes across towards the
Dawesville Cut. In considering the decision, I took due regard of the fact that
the Environmental Protection Authority had a rigorous environmental assessment
process, that it had extensive consultation and that it acknowledged in its
report that there could be potential short-term local and temporary impacts on
the estuary fauna but that these could all be managed. As well as the
development going through the EPA process, there were appeals. The Appeals
Convenor assessed all the appeals. I understand the member for Mandurah put in
an appeal. However, they were all assessed by the Appeals Convenor and then, of
course, by me.
Consistent with the EPA's recommendations I approved
the development, but I wanted to ensure that I strengthened some of them. There
were key issues of concern for the community. I have a bit of knowledge of the
area because I grew up around that area and my parents live on the estuary. The
main concerns were the dredging and water quality. As set out in my statement,
strict conditions were put on compliance reporting and the availability of
data. In fact, I added a condition regarding the data that must be made
available to the EPA, which means that the data must also be available to the
public once it has been validated. There are strict conditions on the estuarine
water and sediment quality, and there is also an offset requirement that three
areas within the development will be rehabilitated. I am very confident that
the conditions laid out in statement 906, which I am happy to table, will
ensure that the marina and channel development, which will include a marina and
channel monitoring plan that will be monitored by the EPA, will have no impact,
or very minimal impact, on the Peel and Harvey inlets.
In relation to the key area of dredging, before dredging can
take place, the operator must have a licence under the Waterways Conservation
Act and it must have an approved dredge spoil management plan. Before it can do
any dredging, it is important that the chief executive officer of the
Department of Environment and Conservation ticks off on that. Also, dredging
cannot take place outside the winter and spring months because of the key
breeding areas in the marina. I am very comfortable that this approved
development will be an important asset to the community but, more importantly,
there will be minimal, if any, impacts on the environment.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.