❓ Question regarding the protection of Skipper's Row and Carter's Block wetlands and the appropriateness of development approvals, with the Minister defending the existing planning framework and past decisions.
AnsweredQoN 749Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION —
SKIPPERS ROW ANDCARTER'S BLOCK WETLANDS — APPROVALS
749. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the Minister for
Planning:
(1) Given the
significance of the privately owned wetlands known as Skipper's Row and
Carter's Block located at lots 6–10 and 14 Leake Street, and
120 and 130 King William Street, will the minister declare either of these
sites a planning control area; and, if not, why not?
(2) Is the
clearing of Skipper's Row and subsequent harming of sensitive wildlife
and flora, which occurred in July, considered acceptable under existing Western
Australian Planning Commission approvals?
(3) Given the
City of Bayswater's 23 February 2016 council meeting resolution to
recommend refusal to the WAPC, why did the WAPC not alert the Department of
Environment Regulation about the potential development of this land?
SKIPPERS ROW ANDCARTER'S BLOCK WETLANDS — APPROVALS
749. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the Minister for
Planning:
(1) Given the
significance of the privately owned wetlands known as Skipper's Row and
Carter's Block located at lots 6–10 and 14 Leake Street, and
120 and 130 King William Street, will the minister declare either of these
sites a planning control area; and, if not, why not?
(2) Is the
clearing of Skipper's Row and subsequent harming of sensitive wildlife
and flora, which occurred in July, considered acceptable under existing Western
Australian Planning Commission approvals?
(3) Given the
City of Bayswater's 23 February 2016 council meeting resolution to
recommend refusal to the WAPC, why did the WAPC not alert the Department of
Environment Regulation about the potential development of this land?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice
of the question.
(1) No. The
existing planning framework and processes that apply to the sites provide for
the consideration of environmental matters. I understand that the City of
Bayswater is exploring options to potentially purchase the land, which would
also involve considering the possible reservation of the site under its local
planning scheme.
Even though it is not in this
response, I will add that I understand that, in previous years, the City of Bayswater
had the opportunity to purchase this land and it chose not to. I understand
that it now seeks to do so, which is its decision. It also had the opportunity
to seek to change the zoning, which it also did not do.
It should be noted that the site has
been zoned urban under the metropolitan region scheme since at least 1963 and
for residential purposes under the City of Bayswater town planning scheme 24
since at least 2004. Further, I am advised that although the site is identified
as a multiple use wetland, this is the lowest classification level and it does
not prohibit subdivision or development.
(2)–(3) The
premise of question (2) is not correct. The application was referred to the
Departments of Environment Regulation, Parks and Wildlife, and Water for
comment. No objections were received and conditions recommended by these
agencies were applied to the approval. I also understand that the proposal was
referred by a third party to the EPA that determined it was not a significant
proposal.
of the question.
(1) No. The
existing planning framework and processes that apply to the sites provide for
the consideration of environmental matters. I understand that the City of
Bayswater is exploring options to potentially purchase the land, which would
also involve considering the possible reservation of the site under its local
planning scheme.
Even though it is not in this
response, I will add that I understand that, in previous years, the City of Bayswater
had the opportunity to purchase this land and it chose not to. I understand
that it now seeks to do so, which is its decision. It also had the opportunity
to seek to change the zoning, which it also did not do.
It should be noted that the site has
been zoned urban under the metropolitan region scheme since at least 1963 and
for residential purposes under the City of Bayswater town planning scheme 24
since at least 2004. Further, I am advised that although the site is identified
as a multiple use wetland, this is the lowest classification level and it does
not prohibit subdivision or development.
(2)–(3) The
premise of question (2) is not correct. The application was referred to the
Departments of Environment Regulation, Parks and Wildlife, and Water for
comment. No objections were received and conditions recommended by these
agencies were applied to the approval. I also understand that the proposal was
referred by a third party to the EPA that determined it was not a significant
proposal.
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.