❓ A parliamentary question probes the Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC) decision-making process regarding the Swanbourne Hospital site development, focusing on adherence to planning scheme requirements, consideration of community commitments, and consultation with the City of Nedlands. The response indicates a lack of adherence to key planning scheme requirements.
AnsweredQoN 1264Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SWANBOURNE HOSPITAL SITE — DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
I refer to the recent decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission to approve development of the old Swanbourne Hospital site, subject to conditions. (1) When making its decision, did the WAPC have before it the following documents referred to in the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2, clause 5.15 — (a) outline development plan; (b) revised conservation plan completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council; and (c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council? (2) When making its decision, did the WAPC have regard to the history relating to the rezoning and sale of the site, including — (a) government commitments to the community regarding the site, including commitments in respect of public open space, public access to curtilage areas, vehicular traffic access, and parking; (b) reports on the outcome of community consultation relating to the site; and (c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does the WAPC intend to consult with the City of Nedlands regarding the matters referred to in (2)(a) and (2)(b)? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
I refer to the recent decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission to approve development of the old Swanbourne Hospital site, subject to conditions. (1) When making its decision, did the WAPC have before it the following documents referred to in the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2, clause 5.15 — (a) outline development plan; (b) revised conservation plan completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council; and (c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council? (2) When making its decision, did the WAPC have regard to the history relating to the rezoning and sale of the site, including — (a) government commitments to the community regarding the site, including commitments in respect of public open space, public access to curtilage areas, vehicular traffic access, and parking; (b) reports on the outcome of community consultation relating to the site; and (c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does the WAPC intend to consult with the City of Nedlands regarding the matters referred to in (2)(a) and (2)(b)? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
AnswerView source ↗
(1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(1) When making its decision, did the WAPC have before it the following documents referred to in the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2, clause 5.15 — (a) outline development plan; (b) revised conservation plan completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council; and (c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council? (2) When making its decision, did the WAPC have regard to the history relating to the rezoning and sale of the site, including — (a) government commitments to the community regarding the site, including commitments in respect of public open space, public access to curtilage areas, vehicular traffic access, and parking; (b) reports on the outcome of community consultation relating to the site; and (c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does the WAPC intend to consult with the City of Nedlands regarding the matters referred to in (2)(a) and (2)(b)? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(b) revised conservation plan completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council; and (c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council?
(c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council?
(b) reports on the outcome of community consultation relating to the site; and (c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines?
(c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines?
(4) Does the WAPC intend to consult with the City of Nedlands regarding the matters referred to in (2)(a) and (2)(b)? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(1) When making its decision, did the WAPC have before it the following documents referred to in the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2, clause 5.15 — (a) outline development plan; (b) revised conservation plan completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council; and (c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council? (2) When making its decision, did the WAPC have regard to the history relating to the rezoning and sale of the site, including — (a) government commitments to the community regarding the site, including commitments in respect of public open space, public access to curtilage areas, vehicular traffic access, and parking; (b) reports on the outcome of community consultation relating to the site; and (c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does the WAPC intend to consult with the City of Nedlands regarding the matters referred to in (2)(a) and (2)(b)? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(b) revised conservation plan completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council; and (c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council?
(c) heritage agreement completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council?
(b) reports on the outcome of community consultation relating to the site; and (c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines?
(c) that tenderers were made aware in the tender documents of special conditions relating to the site, including the development plan and design guidelines?
(4) Does the WAPC intend to consult with the City of Nedlands regarding the matters referred to in (2)(a) and (2)(b)? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(1) (a)-(b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(2) (a) Yes. (b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(b)-(c) No. (3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
(3) The outcome of community consultation as a result of the rezoning was considered when amendment 158 to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was previously assessed and considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The WAPC was not responsible for documentation and information provided to tenderers. (4) No.
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.