❓ Question concerns the revitalisation of Cossack, WA, focusing on development restrictions, planning scheme amendments, and engagement with Indigenous representatives. The Minister's response outlines the reasons for rejecting a planning scheme amendment and clarifies current development possibilities.
AnsweredQoN 2925Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the historic Pilbara town of Cossack, the 2017 WA Labor document 'Plan for the Pilbara', and the City of Karratha's Local Planning Scheme No. 8, Amendment No. 44, relating to developments in the town, and I ask: (a) can
the Minister please advise what progress, in a general sense, has been made in
revitalising the town: (i) specifically
in relation to the lands' designation with a view to development; and (ii) specifically
in relation to the ability of landholders to develop their freehold properties; (b) would
the Minister give reason as to why the Planning Scheme Amendment, by the City
of Karratha, allowing development and investment opportunity at Cossack, was
rejected by Government: (i) if no to (b), why not; and (ii) can the Minister confirm that the proposed amendment was sound in regard to administrative procedures and environmental considerations; (c) at present, can Cossack landowners apply to construct small-scale, temporary facilities such as caravan parks and campsites: (i) if no to (c), does
the Government intend to permit such developments in the future; (d) does the Minister consider the restrictions on development to represent an opportunity-cost for persons who invested in land in Cossack; (e) would
the Minister give comment on the Government's plan for Cossack town, in regards
to recreational, tourism, or heritage opportunities; and (f) has
the Department liaised with local Indigenous representatives to discuss the
future of Cossack: (i) if
yes to (f), which group or persons did the Department contact; and (ii) if
yes to (f), can the Minister advise of the outcomes?
the Minister please advise what progress, in a general sense, has been made in
revitalising the town: (i) specifically
in relation to the lands' designation with a view to development; and (ii) specifically
in relation to the ability of landholders to develop their freehold properties; (b) would
the Minister give reason as to why the Planning Scheme Amendment, by the City
of Karratha, allowing development and investment opportunity at Cossack, was
rejected by Government: (i) if no to (b), why not; and (ii) can the Minister confirm that the proposed amendment was sound in regard to administrative procedures and environmental considerations; (c) at present, can Cossack landowners apply to construct small-scale, temporary facilities such as caravan parks and campsites: (i) if no to (c), does
the Government intend to permit such developments in the future; (d) does the Minister consider the restrictions on development to represent an opportunity-cost for persons who invested in land in Cossack; (e) would
the Minister give comment on the Government's plan for Cossack town, in regards
to recreational, tourism, or heritage opportunities; and (f) has
the Department liaised with local Indigenous representatives to discuss the
future of Cossack: (i) if
yes to (f), which group or persons did the Department contact; and (ii) if
yes to (f), can the Minister advise of the outcomes?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
17 June 2020
Responded by
Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Planning
Response time
12 days
(a) (i)-(ii) Development in Cossack needs to be in accordance with the local planning scheme, which includes requirements for connection to reticulated power, water and sewer, and to address relevant state planning policies.
(b) The amendment did not demonstrate that certain factors such as coastal hazards, protection of environmental and heritage values, servicing requirements and bushfire risk could be adequately managed in accordance with state planning policies.
(i) Not applicable
(ii) This amendment was correctly administered, and the Minister for Planning took into account environmental considerations in determining the amendment.
(c) Yes. Any development application would need to address, and be assessed against, the requirements of the local planning scheme, and relevant state planning policies and applicable legislation.
(i) Not applicable
(d) No
(e) The State Government continues to work closely with the City of Karratha to progress future planning and use of the township.
(f) No
(i)-(ii) Not applicable.
(b) The amendment did not demonstrate that certain factors such as coastal hazards, protection of environmental and heritage values, servicing requirements and bushfire risk could be adequately managed in accordance with state planning policies.
(i) Not applicable
(ii) This amendment was correctly administered, and the Minister for Planning took into account environmental considerations in determining the amendment.
(c) Yes. Any development application would need to address, and be assessed against, the requirements of the local planning scheme, and relevant state planning policies and applicable legislation.
(i) Not applicable
(d) No
(e) The State Government continues to work closely with the City of Karratha to progress future planning and use of the township.
(f) No
(i)-(ii) Not applicable.
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.