❓ Hon. Tomlinson questions the WA Planning Commission's enforcement of town planning conditions for the Bayshore Garden Estate. The Minister states the Commission has not waived conditions and is appealing a Supreme Court decision.
AnsweredQoN 1108Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
BAYSHORE GARDEN ESTATE, SINGLETON 1108. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: I gave notice of this question on 27 February. The parliamentary secretary indicated at that time that he did not have an answer. I understand he has an answer now, since counsel for the Crown Solicitor flaunted last week in the Supreme Court both my question and the parliamentary secretary’s answer. My question refers to a residential property development at Singleton in the City of Rockingham. It is a development of approximately 600 residential lots, including a resort hotel, a shopping centre and other commercial facilities. It is known as the Bayshore Garden Estate, which is owned and managed by Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Liberian registered company, Goldcorp Invesments. (1) Is it true that the Western Australian Planning Commission in the past eight years has failed to enforce the town planning conditions for subdivisions, which require Temwood to vest the foreshore, beach and reserve in the Crown on the release of separate residential titles, with all the potential environmental risks involved in that failure? (2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
BAYSHORE GARDEN ESTATE, SINGLETON
I gave notice of this question on 27 February. The parliamentary secretary indicated at that time that he did not have an answer. I understand he has an answer now, since counsel for the Crown Solicitor flaunted last week in the Supreme Court both my question and the parliamentary secretary’s answer. My question refers to a residential property development at Singleton in the City of Rockingham. It is a development of approximately 600 residential lots, including a resort hotel, a shopping centre and other commercial facilities. It is known as the Bayshore Garden Estate, which is owned and managed by Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Liberian registered company, Goldcorp Invesments. (1) Is it true that the Western Australian Planning Commission in the past eight years has failed to enforce the town planning conditions for subdivisions, which require Temwood to vest the foreshore, beach and reserve in the Crown on the release of separate residential titles, with all the potential environmental risks involved in that failure? (2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
My question refers to a residential property development at Singleton in the City of Rockingham. It is a development of approximately 600 residential lots, including a resort hotel, a shopping centre and other commercial facilities. It is known as the Bayshore Garden Estate, which is owned and managed by Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Liberian registered company, Goldcorp Invesments. (1) Is it true that the Western Australian Planning Commission in the past eight years has failed to enforce the town planning conditions for subdivisions, which require Temwood to vest the foreshore, beach and reserve in the Crown on the release of separate residential titles, with all the potential environmental risks involved in that failure? (2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
(1) Is it true that the Western Australian Planning Commission in the past eight years has failed to enforce the town planning conditions for subdivisions, which require Temwood to vest the foreshore, beach and reserve in the Crown on the release of separate residential titles, with all the potential environmental risks involved in that failure? (2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
(2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
(1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
BAYSHORE GARDEN ESTATE, SINGLETON
I gave notice of this question on 27 February. The parliamentary secretary indicated at that time that he did not have an answer. I understand he has an answer now, since counsel for the Crown Solicitor flaunted last week in the Supreme Court both my question and the parliamentary secretary’s answer. My question refers to a residential property development at Singleton in the City of Rockingham. It is a development of approximately 600 residential lots, including a resort hotel, a shopping centre and other commercial facilities. It is known as the Bayshore Garden Estate, which is owned and managed by Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Liberian registered company, Goldcorp Invesments. (1) Is it true that the Western Australian Planning Commission in the past eight years has failed to enforce the town planning conditions for subdivisions, which require Temwood to vest the foreshore, beach and reserve in the Crown on the release of separate residential titles, with all the potential environmental risks involved in that failure? (2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
My question refers to a residential property development at Singleton in the City of Rockingham. It is a development of approximately 600 residential lots, including a resort hotel, a shopping centre and other commercial facilities. It is known as the Bayshore Garden Estate, which is owned and managed by Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Liberian registered company, Goldcorp Invesments. (1) Is it true that the Western Australian Planning Commission in the past eight years has failed to enforce the town planning conditions for subdivisions, which require Temwood to vest the foreshore, beach and reserve in the Crown on the release of separate residential titles, with all the potential environmental risks involved in that failure? (2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
(1) Is it true that the Western Australian Planning Commission in the past eight years has failed to enforce the town planning conditions for subdivisions, which require Temwood to vest the foreshore, beach and reserve in the Crown on the release of separate residential titles, with all the potential environmental risks involved in that failure? (2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
(2) Does the minister intend to continue to waive the town planning conditions in Temwood’s favour with the release of further individual titles as they are developed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
I thank the member for some notice of this question, which is dated 28 February. (1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
(1)-(2) The minister has advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has never waived the condition requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost; indeed, the opposite is true. Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd appealed the imposition of the condition and was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court. The commission is about to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
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.