❓ This parliamentary question scrutinises the environmental assessment and heritage considerations for the Allawuna Farm landfill site near York, focusing on agricultural land quality, hydrological impacts, and Aboriginal and Convict heritage sites. The answers reveal that a formal assessment of High Quality Agricultural Land was not undertaken, but hydrological impacts were considered, and heritage consultations occurred, though Convict heritage impacts were deemed a non-environmental matter.
AnsweredQoN 2064Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Allawuna Farm landfill site near York and I ask:(a) has the Department undertaken a formal assessment of the subject land against the criteria for High Quality Agricultural Land (HQAL) as defined by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD):(i) if yes, on what date was the assessment completed and what was the outcome; and(ii) if no, why has such an assessment not been undertaken;(b) has the Department assessed the hydrological characteristics of the waterways on the subject land, including confirmation of whether it feeds into the Avon Catchment rather than the Mundaring Catchment:(i) if such an assessment has been undertaken, what were the findings; and(ii) given the identified catchment, what consideration has been given to the environmental significant of the waterway and why has this not been treated as a material environmental factor in decision making;(c) has the Department of Plannings, Lands and Heritage and/or Heritage Council of Western Australia been consulted in relation to all registered and lodged Aboriginal heritage sites on or adjacent to the subject land:(i) if yes, please detail the dates, nature and outcomes of that consultation; and(ii) if no, why has consultation not occurred; and(d) what assessment has been undertaken regarding the potential impact of the proposal on the registered Convict heritage location "Convict Road and Culvert Remnants" (off Wambyn Rd, Inkpen Great Southern Hwy Inkpen" Place No. 26565) particularly in relation to the access road where proposed entry adjustments could cause irreversible damage:(i) what measures, if any, are proposed to prevent irreversible damage to this heritage asset?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 June 2026
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment
Response time
10 days
(a) No
(i) Not applicable
(ii) The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) determined that its recommended conditions and secondary environmental approvals would protect surrounding land uses and water and soil quality.
(b) Yes
(i) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation reviewed and provided advice on the proponent’s hydrological and hydrogeological investigations as recorded in the Response to Submission, published on the EPA’s website
(ii) The EPA considered inland waters to be a key environmental factor for its assessment. The EPA determined that there were no significant residual impacts to inland waters including to Thirteen Mile Brook and therefore there are no significant downstream impacts. .
(c) Yes
(i) The EPA considered social surrounds to be a key environmental factor for its assessment inclusive of Aboriginal and European heritage sites and recommended a separation distance and conditioning of a Management Plan to avoid and minimise impacts on surrounding land uses, inclusive of heritage sites, outlined in EPA Report 1738. This recommendation was informed by advice from the then Department of Aboriginal Affairs, dated 30 April 2015 and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH), dated December 2017. On 2 July 2020, DPLH was also advised of the upcoming public environmental review for the Great Southern Landfill. Conditions were strengthened though consideration of appeals to:
· Prohibit disturbance to Aboriginal sites and cultural heritage unless under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972;
· Ensure continued access for traditional use, subject to reasonable health and safety requirements; and
· Minimise impacts on important Aboriginal cultural sites close to the proposal.
(ii) Not applicable
(d) Impacts to this proposed heritage site were raised in appeals against the EPA’s report and recommendations. The Appeals committee advised that impacts to the proposed heritage site was a non-environmental matter.
(i) No measures were applied during the environmental approvals process.
(i) Not applicable
(ii) The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) determined that its recommended conditions and secondary environmental approvals would protect surrounding land uses and water and soil quality.
(b) Yes
(i) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation reviewed and provided advice on the proponent’s hydrological and hydrogeological investigations as recorded in the Response to Submission, published on the EPA’s website
(ii) The EPA considered inland waters to be a key environmental factor for its assessment. The EPA determined that there were no significant residual impacts to inland waters including to Thirteen Mile Brook and therefore there are no significant downstream impacts. .
(c) Yes
(i) The EPA considered social surrounds to be a key environmental factor for its assessment inclusive of Aboriginal and European heritage sites and recommended a separation distance and conditioning of a Management Plan to avoid and minimise impacts on surrounding land uses, inclusive of heritage sites, outlined in EPA Report 1738. This recommendation was informed by advice from the then Department of Aboriginal Affairs, dated 30 April 2015 and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH), dated December 2017. On 2 July 2020, DPLH was also advised of the upcoming public environmental review for the Great Southern Landfill. Conditions were strengthened though consideration of appeals to:
· Prohibit disturbance to Aboriginal sites and cultural heritage unless under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972;
· Ensure continued access for traditional use, subject to reasonable health and safety requirements; and
· Minimise impacts on important Aboriginal cultural sites close to the proposal.
(ii) Not applicable
(d) Impacts to this proposed heritage site were raised in appeals against the EPA’s report and recommendations. The Appeals committee advised that impacts to the proposed heritage site was a non-environmental matter.
(i) No measures were applied during the environmental approvals process.
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.