❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the proposed siting of a multipurpose service (MPS) on Denmark community park, focusing on site selection process and community opposition. The Minister's response outlines the site selection process and reasons for choosing the community park.
AnsweredQoN 791Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the proposed siting of a multipurpose service on the Denmark community park. (1) Why were the alternative sites not considered more fully, given the community opposition to the choice of the community park, as evidenced by the production of a petition containing the signatures of 1 288 local adult residents? (2) Were communications undertaken between the Department of Health and the owners of the land on Hardy Street where an MPS might be built? (3) If yes to part (2), what were those communications? (4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(1) Why were the alternative sites not considered more fully, given the community opposition to the choice of the community park, as evidenced by the production of a petition containing the signatures of 1 288 local adult residents? (2) Were communications undertaken between the Department of Health and the owners of the land on Hardy Street where an MPS might be built? (3) If yes to part (2), what were those communications? (4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(2) Were communications undertaken between the Department of Health and the owners of the land on Hardy Street where an MPS might be built? (3) If yes to part (2), what were those communications? (4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(3) If yes to part (2), what were those communications? (4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(1) Why were the alternative sites not considered more fully, given the community opposition to the choice of the community park, as evidenced by the production of a petition containing the signatures of 1 288 local adult residents? (2) Were communications undertaken between the Department of Health and the owners of the land on Hardy Street where an MPS might be built? (3) If yes to part (2), what were those communications? (4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(2) Were communications undertaken between the Department of Health and the owners of the land on Hardy Street where an MPS might be built? (3) If yes to part (2), what were those communications? (4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(3) If yes to part (2), what were those communications? (4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(4) If no to part (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(1) Several potential sites nominated by the Shire of Denmark were examined in some detail. Of these sites, two were rated as being almost equally suitable. One of these sites, the community park, has subsequently been chosen by the shire council. Council recently reaffirmed its decision after the petition was tabled at its meeting. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(3) Not applicable. (4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
(4) The site was not considered suitable by the Department of Health. It did not meet the site selection criteria in comparison with the proposed sites of the community park and the golf club.
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.