❓ Question regarding a closed-door meeting about the Raffles Hotel redevelopment proposal and concerns about lack of community consultation. Minister acknowledges the disagreement between the WAPC and Melville Council and suggests the meeting is a form of mediation.
AnsweredQoN 484Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is the minister aware that later this afternoon a meeting will take place behind closed doors between representatives from the Western Australian Planning Commission, the Melville City Council and Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd to discuss the Raffles Hotel site redevelopment proposal? (2) As the minister has expressed disappointment that the WAPC did not support the council’s position on the Raffles proposal, will she assure the House that today’s meeting is not an attempt to ram through a compromise deal so that the redevelopment can go ahead without any further community consultation or government accountability? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) We have an unusual situation with the redevelopment of the Raffles Hotel site. The WA Planning Commission has determined that it was appropriate that it withdraw the delegation from the Melville City Council to deal with the approval required under the metropolitan region scheme. Nevertheless, obviously the City of Melville needed to make a determination under its own town planning scheme. The City of Melville believes that a 15 storey, a nine storey and a five-storey configuration is the most appropriate for the redevelopment of the site and the restoration of the important heritage precinct. The WA Planning Commission takes a different view. It believes we will get a much better aesthetic and architectural outcome by having a 17 storey and a five-storey configuration and completely eliminating the nine storey portion of the redevelopment. In its view a more slender structure will add more to the aesthetic value of the site. These are questions of judgment. We now have the rather complex situation in which we have two separate sets of approvals, neither of which can go ahead. There obviously needs to be some reconciliation of this matter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the WA Planning Commission, the City of Melville and the developer are now trying to come together to deal with this problem and negotiate a way through it. The only other strategy that would be available is for the developer to lodge an appeal against one or other - or, indeed, both - of the applications. If it were to do that, of course, the first part of that process would be mediation. I can assume only that what they are attempting to do now, without activating that legal process, is mediate and get a reasonable outcome so that they can go forward. The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
(2) As the minister has expressed disappointment that the WAPC did not support the council’s position on the Raffles proposal, will she assure the House that today’s meeting is not an attempt to ram through a compromise deal so that the redevelopment can go ahead without any further community consultation or government accountability? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) We have an unusual situation with the redevelopment of the Raffles Hotel site. The WA Planning Commission has determined that it was appropriate that it withdraw the delegation from the Melville City Council to deal with the approval required under the metropolitan region scheme. Nevertheless, obviously the City of Melville needed to make a determination under its own town planning scheme. The City of Melville believes that a 15 storey, a nine storey and a five-storey configuration is the most appropriate for the redevelopment of the site and the restoration of the important heritage precinct. The WA Planning Commission takes a different view. It believes we will get a much better aesthetic and architectural outcome by having a 17 storey and a five-storey configuration and completely eliminating the nine storey portion of the redevelopment. In its view a more slender structure will add more to the aesthetic value of the site. These are questions of judgment. We now have the rather complex situation in which we have two separate sets of approvals, neither of which can go ahead. There obviously needs to be some reconciliation of this matter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the WA Planning Commission, the City of Melville and the developer are now trying to come together to deal with this problem and negotiate a way through it. The only other strategy that would be available is for the developer to lodge an appeal against one or other - or, indeed, both - of the applications. If it were to do that, of course, the first part of that process would be mediation. I can assume only that what they are attempting to do now, without activating that legal process, is mediate and get a reasonable outcome so that they can go forward. The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) We have an unusual situation with the redevelopment of the Raffles Hotel site. The WA Planning Commission has determined that it was appropriate that it withdraw the delegation from the Melville City Council to deal with the approval required under the metropolitan region scheme. Nevertheless, obviously the City of Melville needed to make a determination under its own town planning scheme. The City of Melville believes that a 15 storey, a nine storey and a five-storey configuration is the most appropriate for the redevelopment of the site and the restoration of the important heritage precinct. The WA Planning Commission takes a different view. It believes we will get a much better aesthetic and architectural outcome by having a 17 storey and a five-storey configuration and completely eliminating the nine storey portion of the redevelopment. In its view a more slender structure will add more to the aesthetic value of the site. These are questions of judgment. We now have the rather complex situation in which we have two separate sets of approvals, neither of which can go ahead. There obviously needs to be some reconciliation of this matter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the WA Planning Commission, the City of Melville and the developer are now trying to come together to deal with this problem and negotiate a way through it. The only other strategy that would be available is for the developer to lodge an appeal against one or other - or, indeed, both - of the applications. If it were to do that, of course, the first part of that process would be mediation. I can assume only that what they are attempting to do now, without activating that legal process, is mediate and get a reasonable outcome so that they can go forward. The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
(1)-(2) We have an unusual situation with the redevelopment of the Raffles Hotel site. The WA Planning Commission has determined that it was appropriate that it withdraw the delegation from the Melville City Council to deal with the approval required under the metropolitan region scheme. Nevertheless, obviously the City of Melville needed to make a determination under its own town planning scheme. The City of Melville believes that a 15 storey, a nine storey and a five-storey configuration is the most appropriate for the redevelopment of the site and the restoration of the important heritage precinct. The WA Planning Commission takes a different view. It believes we will get a much better aesthetic and architectural outcome by having a 17 storey and a five-storey configuration and completely eliminating the nine storey portion of the redevelopment. In its view a more slender structure will add more to the aesthetic value of the site. These are questions of judgment. We now have the rather complex situation in which we have two separate sets of approvals, neither of which can go ahead. There obviously needs to be some reconciliation of this matter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the WA Planning Commission, the City of Melville and the developer are now trying to come together to deal with this problem and negotiate a way through it. The only other strategy that would be available is for the developer to lodge an appeal against one or other - or, indeed, both - of the applications. If it were to do that, of course, the first part of that process would be mediation. I can assume only that what they are attempting to do now, without activating that legal process, is mediate and get a reasonable outcome so that they can go forward. The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
[Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
(2) As the minister has expressed disappointment that the WAPC did not support the council’s position on the Raffles proposal, will she assure the House that today’s meeting is not an attempt to ram through a compromise deal so that the redevelopment can go ahead without any further community consultation or government accountability? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) We have an unusual situation with the redevelopment of the Raffles Hotel site. The WA Planning Commission has determined that it was appropriate that it withdraw the delegation from the Melville City Council to deal with the approval required under the metropolitan region scheme. Nevertheless, obviously the City of Melville needed to make a determination under its own town planning scheme. The City of Melville believes that a 15 storey, a nine storey and a five-storey configuration is the most appropriate for the redevelopment of the site and the restoration of the important heritage precinct. The WA Planning Commission takes a different view. It believes we will get a much better aesthetic and architectural outcome by having a 17 storey and a five-storey configuration and completely eliminating the nine storey portion of the redevelopment. In its view a more slender structure will add more to the aesthetic value of the site. These are questions of judgment. We now have the rather complex situation in which we have two separate sets of approvals, neither of which can go ahead. There obviously needs to be some reconciliation of this matter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the WA Planning Commission, the City of Melville and the developer are now trying to come together to deal with this problem and negotiate a way through it. The only other strategy that would be available is for the developer to lodge an appeal against one or other - or, indeed, both - of the applications. If it were to do that, of course, the first part of that process would be mediation. I can assume only that what they are attempting to do now, without activating that legal process, is mediate and get a reasonable outcome so that they can go forward. The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) We have an unusual situation with the redevelopment of the Raffles Hotel site. The WA Planning Commission has determined that it was appropriate that it withdraw the delegation from the Melville City Council to deal with the approval required under the metropolitan region scheme. Nevertheless, obviously the City of Melville needed to make a determination under its own town planning scheme. The City of Melville believes that a 15 storey, a nine storey and a five-storey configuration is the most appropriate for the redevelopment of the site and the restoration of the important heritage precinct. The WA Planning Commission takes a different view. It believes we will get a much better aesthetic and architectural outcome by having a 17 storey and a five-storey configuration and completely eliminating the nine storey portion of the redevelopment. In its view a more slender structure will add more to the aesthetic value of the site. These are questions of judgment. We now have the rather complex situation in which we have two separate sets of approvals, neither of which can go ahead. There obviously needs to be some reconciliation of this matter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the WA Planning Commission, the City of Melville and the developer are now trying to come together to deal with this problem and negotiate a way through it. The only other strategy that would be available is for the developer to lodge an appeal against one or other - or, indeed, both - of the applications. If it were to do that, of course, the first part of that process would be mediation. I can assume only that what they are attempting to do now, without activating that legal process, is mediate and get a reasonable outcome so that they can go forward. The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
(1)-(2) We have an unusual situation with the redevelopment of the Raffles Hotel site. The WA Planning Commission has determined that it was appropriate that it withdraw the delegation from the Melville City Council to deal with the approval required under the metropolitan region scheme. Nevertheless, obviously the City of Melville needed to make a determination under its own town planning scheme. The City of Melville believes that a 15 storey, a nine storey and a five-storey configuration is the most appropriate for the redevelopment of the site and the restoration of the important heritage precinct. The WA Planning Commission takes a different view. It believes we will get a much better aesthetic and architectural outcome by having a 17 storey and a five-storey configuration and completely eliminating the nine storey portion of the redevelopment. In its view a more slender structure will add more to the aesthetic value of the site. These are questions of judgment. We now have the rather complex situation in which we have two separate sets of approvals, neither of which can go ahead. There obviously needs to be some reconciliation of this matter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the WA Planning Commission, the City of Melville and the developer are now trying to come together to deal with this problem and negotiate a way through it. The only other strategy that would be available is for the developer to lodge an appeal against one or other - or, indeed, both - of the applications. If it were to do that, of course, the first part of that process would be mediation. I can assume only that what they are attempting to do now, without activating that legal process, is mediate and get a reasonable outcome so that they can go forward. The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
The SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time. Before we move to petitions, I welcome back to the Chamber the member for Swan Hills. Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
Members: Hear, hear! [Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
[Applause.] The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
The SPEAKER: I hope the member has a calming influence on us all.
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.