❓ Question regarding a gravel pit application in Bridgetown-Greenbushes, focusing on community concerns and differences from a previous Shire proposal. The Minister provides details on the application process and scale.
AnsweredQoN 783Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SHIRE OF BRIDGETOWN-GREENBUSHES - GRAVEL PIT
(1) Has an application be made to the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes for a licence to operate a gravel pit in Polina Road; and, if so, when? (2) Did the shire own land in a nearby location that it considered for use as a gravel pit; and, if so, when and what was the location of the shire land? (3) If so, was there ever any adverse reaction from landholders and the public who could have been affected by the use of the land as a gravel pit and by the subsequent noise and heavy traffic that would have resulted; and, if so, what was the substance of the adverse comment? (4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD
(1) Has an application be made to the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes for a licence to operate a gravel pit in Polina Road; and, if so, when? (2) Did the shire own land in a nearby location that it considered for use as a gravel pit; and, if so, when and what was the location of the shire land? (3) If so, was there ever any adverse reaction from landholders and the public who could have been affected by the use of the land as a gravel pit and by the subsequent noise and heavy traffic that would have resulted; and, if so, what was the substance of the adverse comment? (4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(2) Did the shire own land in a nearby location that it considered for use as a gravel pit; and, if so, when and what was the location of the shire land? (3) If so, was there ever any adverse reaction from landholders and the public who could have been affected by the use of the land as a gravel pit and by the subsequent noise and heavy traffic that would have resulted; and, if so, what was the substance of the adverse comment? (4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(3) If so, was there ever any adverse reaction from landholders and the public who could have been affected by the use of the land as a gravel pit and by the subsequent noise and heavy traffic that would have resulted; and, if so, what was the substance of the adverse comment? (4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(2) Did the shire own land in a nearby location that it considered for use as a gravel pit; and, if so, when and what was the location of the shire land? (3) If so, was there ever any adverse reaction from landholders and the public who could have been affected by the use of the land as a gravel pit and by the subsequent noise and heavy traffic that would have resulted; and, if so, what was the substance of the adverse comment? (4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(3) If so, was there ever any adverse reaction from landholders and the public who could have been affected by the use of the land as a gravel pit and by the subsequent noise and heavy traffic that would have resulted; and, if so, what was the substance of the adverse comment? (4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(4) If questions (1) to (3) are answered in the affirmative, what circumstances have changed to avoid any adverse reaction from landowners and the public? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I have no role in a local government’s assessment of extractive industry licence applications within a district. However, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has made inquiries with the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes regarding the member’s questions, and the shire’s response is as follows - (1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(1) Yes. An application was received on 21 July 2006. The application was advertised for public comment on 31 August 2006 for a period of three weeks. (2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(2) Yes, the shire considered the development of a large gravel pit on land it owned situated some 500 metres from the proposed gravel pit in Polina Road. However, the shire did not proceed with the development because of concerns raised by the community. (3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(3) As indicated in the response to (2), there was an adverse reaction from local landowners, who raised concerns about traffic noise and possible dust problems that would result from the operation of the gravel pit. (4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
(4) The present application is for a much smaller scale proposal than the shire’s proposal. The application is from a private landowner and the shire is obliged to consider the application. As previously indicated, the application is undergoing a public advertising process, following which the council will consider the matter and any submissions received.
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.