❓ Question on Notice regarding the compliance of City of Stirling Town Planning Amendment 458 with state planning policies, specifically concerning height restrictions in Scarborough and community opposition to high-rise development. The Minister's response indicates general compliance and consideration of community feedback.
AnsweredQoN 903Legislative Council
Asked
17 October 2007
Member
QuestionView source ↗
CITY OF STIRLING TOWN PLANNING AMENDMENT 458 - SCARBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
I refer to City of Stirling Town Planning Amendment 458, which seeks to alter height restrictions in the coastal area of Scarborough and ask - (1) How does proposed town planning amendment 458 comply with state planning policy 2.6? (2) Does the minister see any conflict with the recently amended section 5.3 of the state coastal planning policy? (3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA
I refer to City of Stirling Town Planning Amendment 458, which seeks to alter height restrictions in the coastal area of Scarborough and ask - (1) How does proposed town planning amendment 458 comply with state planning policy 2.6? (2) Does the minister see any conflict with the recently amended section 5.3 of the state coastal planning policy? (3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(1) How does proposed town planning amendment 458 comply with state planning policy 2.6? (2) Does the minister see any conflict with the recently amended section 5.3 of the state coastal planning policy? (3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(2) Does the minister see any conflict with the recently amended section 5.3 of the state coastal planning policy? (3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(1) How does proposed town planning amendment 458 comply with state planning policy 2.6? (2) Does the minister see any conflict with the recently amended section 5.3 of the state coastal planning policy? (3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(2) Does the minister see any conflict with the recently amended section 5.3 of the state coastal planning policy? (3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(3) How is the minister addressing the significant community opposition to the high-rise development? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(1) The area contained within proposed City of Stirling amendment 458 is generally outside the 300-metre setback requirement in state planning policy 2.6. A small number of properties on the western side of West Coast Highway are affected by SPP 2.6, where a height limit of five storeys applies. For that area, higher height limits up to eight storeys may be permitted subject to a number of factors identified in SPP 2.6 - policy measure 5.3, amended in December 2006 - including broad community support, suitability of the development for the location, the location to be part of a large activity node, no negative amenity to occur, and the visual permeability of surrounding properties to be maintained. (2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(2) There is no conflict between proposed amendment 458 and the state planning policy. (3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
(3) All submissions received by the City of Stirling during the advertising period and comments sent directly to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be considered in determining the amendment.
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.