❓ A parliamentary question regarding KCGM's mining operations within 100m of a residence without consent, focusing on alleged breaches of the Mining Act 1978 and environmental impact. The Minister's response defends the Department's actions.
AnsweredQoN 3369Legislative Council
Asked
4 April 2006
Member
Portfolio
Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter signed by Roy Burton (enquiries Bob Stevens) Department of Industry and Resources (DOIR) dated 31 January 2006, addressed to Mr Peter Shaw (departmental reference 7321/99) -
(1) Is Mr Shaw obligated or required in any way to negotiate with KCGM concerning breaches of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), why?
(4) Can the Minister specifically state and identify what is the ‘offending infrastructure’?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) Will DOIR direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and other supporting infrastructure to outside the 100 metre buffer zone, given that Mr Shaw has not given his written consent and this infrastructure is in breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain why the Department claims that there is no significant risk of harm to persons or the environment given that the large operating conveyor belt within 100 metres of the residential property produces noise, dust, visual pollution and affects the amenity of Mr Shaw?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) Can the Minister explain for each item of the ‘offending infrastructure’ why its removal or relocation by KCGM is considered by DOIR to constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw’s complaint?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Did Mr Shaw request as part of his original complaint, that the infrastructure complained of, be relocated or removed?
(13) If no to (12), what specifically did he request?
(14) If yes to (12), where was each piece of infrastructure asked to be relocated or removed to?
(1) Is Mr Shaw obligated or required in any way to negotiate with KCGM concerning breaches of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), why?
(4) Can the Minister specifically state and identify what is the ‘offending infrastructure’?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) Will DOIR direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and other supporting infrastructure to outside the 100 metre buffer zone, given that Mr Shaw has not given his written consent and this infrastructure is in breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain why the Department claims that there is no significant risk of harm to persons or the environment given that the large operating conveyor belt within 100 metres of the residential property produces noise, dust, visual pollution and affects the amenity of Mr Shaw?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) Can the Minister explain for each item of the ‘offending infrastructure’ why its removal or relocation by KCGM is considered by DOIR to constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw’s complaint?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Did Mr Shaw request as part of his original complaint, that the infrastructure complained of, be relocated or removed?
(13) If no to (12), what specifically did he request?
(14) If yes to (12), where was each piece of infrastructure asked to be relocated or removed to?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 May 2006
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
Response time
28 days
(1) No. (2) It is the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) to raise with the relevant party any allegation that a breach of section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 has occurred. In this case, however, DoIR has concluded that an impasse has been reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity within 100 metres of Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain his written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve that impasse in the public interest. The question of whether or not Mr Shaw is willing to negotiate with KCGM concerning any issue relating to this case is entirely a matter for him to decide. (3) Not applicable. (4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(2) It is the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) to raise with the relevant party any allegation that a breach of section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 has occurred. In this case, however, DoIR has concluded that an impasse has been reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity within 100 metres of Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain his written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve that impasse in the public interest. The question of whether or not Mr Shaw is willing to negotiate with KCGM concerning any issue relating to this case is entirely a matter for him to decide. (3) Not applicable. (4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain his written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve that impasse in the public interest. The question of whether or not Mr Shaw is willing to negotiate with KCGM concerning any issue relating to this case is entirely a matter for him to decide. (3) Not applicable. (4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(3) Not applicable. (4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(2) It is the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) to raise with the relevant party any allegation that a breach of section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 has occurred. In this case, however, DoIR has concluded that an impasse has been reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity within 100 metres of Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain his written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve that impasse in the public interest. The question of whether or not Mr Shaw is willing to negotiate with KCGM concerning any issue relating to this case is entirely a matter for him to decide. (3) Not applicable. (4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain his written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve that impasse in the public interest. The question of whether or not Mr Shaw is willing to negotiate with KCGM concerning any issue relating to this case is entirely a matter for him to decide. (3) Not applicable. (4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(3) Not applicable. (4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(4-5) The infrastructure involved in this case is clearly identified in Mr Shaw's letter to the Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005 and on page 2 of DoIR's letter to Mr Shaw dated 8 December 2005. It includes the KCGM's Williamstown Switchboard, a dust monitor and a conveyor belt. (6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(6-7) DoIR has no statutory authority to request or direct KCGM to relocate the conveyor belt and its supporting infrastructure because its use does not pose any significant risk of an adverse impact on the environment. (8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(8-9) DoIR has monitored the operation of the conveyor belt for over ten years and considers that its impact on the environment and nearby residents is minimal. This view is supported by the Department of Environment (DoE) which recently informed DoIR that, over the same ten year period, it has received very few complaints concerning noise or dust allegedly produced by the conveyor's operation. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that DoE's dust monitor which is located at the East Kalgoorlie Primary School close to Mr Shaw's property and the conveyor belt has, with very few exceptions, recorded only low levels of ambient dust. (10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(10-11) Mr Shaw's complaint centred on a number of items of infrastructure that were located and being used by KCGM within 100 metres of his property without his written consent, in contravention of the 100 metre "stand-off" imposed by section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 . With the exception of the conveyor belt and its associated infrastructure, all of these items of infrastructure have now been either totally removed or relocated by KCGM to positions beyond a distance of 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property, thereby removing the basis of his complaint. DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
DoIR considers that the removal and relocation of these items of infrastructure, together with KCGM's undertaking to modify its maintenance activities involving the conveyor belt (ie, to be carried out during dayshift only, except in emergencies), constitute a reasonable response to Mr Shaw's complaint. (12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
(12-14) In Mr Shaw's initial letter of complaint dated 5 January 2005 he requested that DoIR direct KCGM to "... permanently cease all of the above 5 named activities within 100 metres of my property until my written consent has been obtained."
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.