A parliamentary question regarding a potential breach of mining lease conditions due to vegetation clearing near a property without consent. The Minister's answer indicates the clearing was for fire prevention, thus no breach occurred.

AnsweredQoN 256Legislative Council
Asked
27 September 2001
Portfolio
State Development

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to a incident which I understand occurred on or about November 14 2000 on Mining Lease 26/353 where a bobcat was operating pushing earth, soil and clearing vegetation within 100 metres of 30 Brownhill Road without the written consent of the property occupier -
(1) Have the holders/operators of Mining Lease 26/353 breached condition number 5 on the Mining Lease?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) If so, will the Minister or the Department issue forfeiture proceedings and impose a fine?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
20 February 2002
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
146 days
(1) – (2) The operations using a bobcat on 14 November 2000 within 100 metres of 30 and 39 Brownhill Road was for the purpose of clearing vegetation to maintain a firebreak along and inside KCGM’s safety fence line to protect its and any adjoining property from possible fires and as a general safety initiative. (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more