Question regarding the City of Wanneroo's opposition to a development application and whether the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation was aware of this opposition. The answer details the City's position, the advice received by the Commissioner from various departments, and the Commissioner's limitations in objecting to the clearing.

AnsweredQoN 1878Legislative Assembly
Asked
9 September 2003
Portfolio
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

QuestionView source ↗

(b) if yes, what was the position of the council; (c) if not, why not; and (d) was the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation made aware that the City of Wanneroo opposed the development application for this site?
(c) if not, why not; and (d) was the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation made aware that the City of Wanneroo opposed the development application for this site?
(d) was the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation made aware that the City of Wanneroo opposed the development application for this site?
(b) The Council advised that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure recently upheld an appeal against a decision by the City to refuse a development application on the site. The City also advised that from a biodiversity perspective, it would object to any land clearing without prior detailed flora and vegetation assessment being undertaken by a suitably qualified person. (c) Not applicable (d) Yes. In addition to the written advice that the City would impose its conditions of approval for a development application, being a flora and vegetation assessment, it subsequently verbally advised the Office of the Commissioner that it had no power to object to the clearing under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. The Department of Environment advised the Commissioner that it had no objection to the notified clearing. The Department of Conservation and Land Management advised the Commissioner that 24% of the original extent of the vegetation type remained and that the long term future of the vegetation was insecure given the planning and land use constraints, so some clearing could be considered. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation had no power to object to clearing on biodiversity conservation grounds, nor did he have strong grounds to refer the proposal for formal assessment by the Environment Protection Authority.
The City also advised that from a biodiversity perspective, it would object to any land clearing without prior detailed flora and vegetation assessment being undertaken by a suitably qualified person. (c) Not applicable (d) Yes. In addition to the written advice that the City would impose its conditions of approval for a development application, being a flora and vegetation assessment, it subsequently verbally advised the Office of the Commissioner that it had no power to object to the clearing under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. The Department of Environment advised the Commissioner that it had no objection to the notified clearing. The Department of Conservation and Land Management advised the Commissioner that 24% of the original extent of the vegetation type remained and that the long term future of the vegetation was insecure given the planning and land use constraints, so some clearing could be considered. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation had no power to object to clearing on biodiversity conservation grounds, nor did he have strong grounds to refer the proposal for formal assessment by the Environment Protection Authority.
(c) Not applicable (d) Yes. In addition to the written advice that the City would impose its conditions of approval for a development application, being a flora and vegetation assessment, it subsequently verbally advised the Office of the Commissioner that it had no power to object to the clearing under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. The Department of Environment advised the Commissioner that it had no objection to the notified clearing. The Department of Conservation and Land Management advised the Commissioner that 24% of the original extent of the vegetation type remained and that the long term future of the vegetation was insecure given the planning and land use constraints, so some clearing could be considered. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation had no power to object to clearing on biodiversity conservation grounds, nor did he have strong grounds to refer the proposal for formal assessment by the Environment Protection Authority.
(d) Yes. In addition to the written advice that the City would impose its conditions of approval for a development application, being a flora and vegetation assessment, it subsequently verbally advised the Office of the Commissioner that it had no power to object to the clearing under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. The Department of Environment advised the Commissioner that it had no objection to the notified clearing. The Department of Conservation and Land Management advised the Commissioner that 24% of the original extent of the vegetation type remained and that the long term future of the vegetation was insecure given the planning and land use constraints, so some clearing could be considered. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation had no power to object to clearing on biodiversity conservation grounds, nor did he have strong grounds to refer the proposal for formal assessment by the Environment Protection Authority.
The Department of Environment advised the Commissioner that it had no objection to the notified clearing. The Department of Conservation and Land Management advised the Commissioner that 24% of the original extent of the vegetation type remained and that the long term future of the vegetation was insecure given the planning and land use constraints, so some clearing could be considered. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation had no power to object to clearing on biodiversity conservation grounds, nor did he have strong grounds to refer the proposal for formal assessment by the Environment Protection Authority.
The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation had no power to object to clearing on biodiversity conservation grounds, nor did he have strong grounds to refer the proposal for formal assessment by the Environment Protection Authority.

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
11 September 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Response time
2 days
(a) Yes
(b) The Council advised that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure recently upheld an appeal against a decision by the City to refuse a development application on the site.
The City also advised that from a biodiversity perspective, it would object to any land clearing without prior detailed flora and vegetation assessment being undertaken by a suitably qualified person.
(c) Not applicable
(d) Yes. In addition to the written advice that the City would impose its conditions of approval for a development application, being a flora and vegetation assessment, it subsequently verbally advised the Office of the Commissioner that it had no power to object to the clearing under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928.
The Department of Environment advised the Commissioner that it had no objection to the notified clearing. The Department of Conservation and Land Management advised the Commissioner that 24% of the original extent of the vegetation type remained and that the long term future of the vegetation was insecure given the planning and land use constraints, so some clearing could be considered.
The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation had no power to object to clearing on biodiversity conservation grounds, nor did he have strong grounds to refer the proposal for formal assessment by the Environment Protection Authority.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more