❓ A parliamentary question addresses a subdivision approval discrepancy regarding Duncraig House, a heritage-listed site, and the Minister defends the decision, citing heritage conservation benefits and planned legislative changes to planning commission powers.
AnsweredQoN 43Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Why did the Western Australian Planning Commission, in considering an application for development of Duncraig House in Applecross, recently approve a subdivision that is 80 square metres less than the minimum lot size permissible under the density zoning of community planning scheme 5? (2) Does the minister approve of this decision, which affects a heritage-listed site? (3) When will the minister introduce legislation that curtails the powers of the WAPC to overturn local planning guidelines? (4) Are any options available to the Melville City Council or the community to have this decision reconsidered? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(2) Does the minister approve of this decision, which affects a heritage-listed site? (3) When will the minister introduce legislation that curtails the powers of the WAPC to overturn local planning guidelines? (4) Are any options available to the Melville City Council or the community to have this decision reconsidered? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(3) When will the minister introduce legislation that curtails the powers of the WAPC to overturn local planning guidelines? (4) Are any options available to the Melville City Council or the community to have this decision reconsidered? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(4) Are any options available to the Melville City Council or the community to have this decision reconsidered? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(2) Does the minister approve of this decision, which affects a heritage-listed site? (3) When will the minister introduce legislation that curtails the powers of the WAPC to overturn local planning guidelines? (4) Are any options available to the Melville City Council or the community to have this decision reconsidered? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(3) When will the minister introduce legislation that curtails the powers of the WAPC to overturn local planning guidelines? (4) Are any options available to the Melville City Council or the community to have this decision reconsidered? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(4) Are any options available to the Melville City Council or the community to have this decision reconsidered? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
I thank the member for notice of the question. (1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
(1)-(4) It is true that a former conservative minister, Richard Lewis, introduced the notorious section 20(5) of the Town Planning and Development Act, which basically says that the WA Planning Commission need not be fettered by town planning schemes in its decision making on subdivisions. However, our fabulous, progressive government will reverse that. In the legislation which we introduced into Parliament last year and will introduce again some time this week, we are reversing that and providing very clear restrictions on circumstances that would allow the WA Planning Commission to put to one side the provisions of a town planning scheme. I believe that is appropriate, because it is important that we recognise the status of town planning schemes. However, I am pleased to say that in this instance the WA Planning Commission did not rely on Mr Lewis’s notorious section 20(5). Indeed, clause 6.6(n) of the City of Melville town planning scheme allows any provision of the scheme to be varied to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve heritage values. The degree of variation was very small; that is, an 80 square metre reduction on the standard minimum lot size of something in the order of 650 square metres. It is very important that we be prepared to make those sorts of concessions to make heritage buildings usable. I urge those people who claim to be interested in heritage to be prepared to take the measures that are needed to ensure that these buildings have a useful life into the future.
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.