A parliamentary question regarding the Gnangara Mound groundwater protection, specifically concerning the boundaries of priority source protection areas and the designation of Ellenbrook. The Minister denies previous intentions regarding the Ballajura boundary and justifies Ellenbrook's designation based on existing urban zoning and a prior strategy.

AnsweredQoN 605Legislative Council
Asked
19 August 2004
Portfolio
Planning and Infrastructure

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to metropolitan region scheme proposed amendment 1036/33, Gnangara mound ground water protection. (1) Is it not the case that the boundary of the adjoining Ballajura priority 3 source protection area was previously intended to take in the Lakefarm Retreat area when the previous alignment of Hepburn Avenue was intended to be located north and east of the Lakefarm Retreat area? (2) What is the justification for Ellenbrook being designated a priority 3 source protection area when the ground water flow is in a south westerly direction similar to the ground water flow in the Lakefarm Retreat area? Hon KEN TRAVERS

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. Studies for alternative options for the best alignment of Hepburn Avenue by Main Roads, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City of Swan had never intended or recommended that the final alignment for Hepburn Avenue be located to the north of the Lakefarm area. (2) Ellenbrook was designated priority 3 in accordance with recommendations of the “Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy” and specifically table No 2, “Decision Making Process for Assigning of Groundwater Priority Classifications on Metropolitan Region Scheme Recommendations”, released in January 2001. Ellenbrook was in an existing urban zone and as such this was recognised and it was designated as a priority 3 area.
(1) Is it not the case that the boundary of the adjoining Ballajura priority 3 source protection area was previously intended to take in the Lakefarm Retreat area when the previous alignment of Hepburn Avenue was intended to be located north and east of the Lakefarm Retreat area? (2) What is the justification for Ellenbrook being designated a priority 3 source protection area when the ground water flow is in a south westerly direction similar to the ground water flow in the Lakefarm Retreat area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. Studies for alternative options for the best alignment of Hepburn Avenue by Main Roads, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City of Swan had never intended or recommended that the final alignment for Hepburn Avenue be located to the north of the Lakefarm area. (2) Ellenbrook was designated priority 3 in accordance with recommendations of the “Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy” and specifically table No 2, “Decision Making Process for Assigning of Groundwater Priority Classifications on Metropolitan Region Scheme Recommendations”, released in January 2001. Ellenbrook was in an existing urban zone and as such this was recognised and it was designated as a priority 3 area.
(2) What is the justification for Ellenbrook being designated a priority 3 source protection area when the ground water flow is in a south westerly direction similar to the ground water flow in the Lakefarm Retreat area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. Studies for alternative options for the best alignment of Hepburn Avenue by Main Roads, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City of Swan had never intended or recommended that the final alignment for Hepburn Avenue be located to the north of the Lakefarm area. (2) Ellenbrook was designated priority 3 in accordance with recommendations of the “Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy” and specifically table No 2, “Decision Making Process for Assigning of Groundwater Priority Classifications on Metropolitan Region Scheme Recommendations”, released in January 2001. Ellenbrook was in an existing urban zone and as such this was recognised and it was designated as a priority 3 area.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. Studies for alternative options for the best alignment of Hepburn Avenue by Main Roads, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City of Swan had never intended or recommended that the final alignment for Hepburn Avenue be located to the north of the Lakefarm area. (2) Ellenbrook was designated priority 3 in accordance with recommendations of the “Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy” and specifically table No 2, “Decision Making Process for Assigning of Groundwater Priority Classifications on Metropolitan Region Scheme Recommendations”, released in January 2001. Ellenbrook was in an existing urban zone and as such this was recognised and it was designated as a priority 3 area.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. Studies for alternative options for the best alignment of Hepburn Avenue by Main Roads, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City of Swan had never intended or recommended that the final alignment for Hepburn Avenue be located to the north of the Lakefarm area. (2) Ellenbrook was designated priority 3 in accordance with recommendations of the “Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy” and specifically table No 2, “Decision Making Process for Assigning of Groundwater Priority Classifications on Metropolitan Region Scheme Recommendations”, released in January 2001. Ellenbrook was in an existing urban zone and as such this was recognised and it was designated as a priority 3 area.
(1) No. Studies for alternative options for the best alignment of Hepburn Avenue by Main Roads, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City of Swan had never intended or recommended that the final alignment for Hepburn Avenue be located to the north of the Lakefarm area. (2) Ellenbrook was designated priority 3 in accordance with recommendations of the “Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy” and specifically table No 2, “Decision Making Process for Assigning of Groundwater Priority Classifications on Metropolitan Region Scheme Recommendations”, released in January 2001. Ellenbrook was in an existing urban zone and as such this was recognised and it was designated as a priority 3 area.
(2) Ellenbrook was designated priority 3 in accordance with recommendations of the “Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy” and specifically table No 2, “Decision Making Process for Assigning of Groundwater Priority Classifications on Metropolitan Region Scheme Recommendations”, released in January 2001. Ellenbrook was in an existing urban zone and as such this was recognised and it was designated as a priority 3 area.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more