Question seeks clarification on the protections afforded to Koombana Bay shipwrecks under City of Bunbury regulations and compares them to protections under the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973. The answer identifies the relevant section of the Town Planning Scheme and highlights the Act's limitations to pre-1900 shipwrecks.

AnsweredQoN 3336Legislative Council
Asked
18 August 2015
Portfolio
Planning

QuestionView source ↗

Further to the briefing provided by the Minister for Culture and the Arts on the Koombana Bay Shipwrecks, I ask: (a) what protections are afforded the Koombana Bay Shipwrecks under the City of Bunbury regulations ; (b) what is the head of power for those protections and where can it be found in the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 ; and (c) does the Minister for Planning agree with the view expressed by the Minister for Culture and the Arts, that the City of Bunbury regulations provide additional and greater protection for the shipwrecks than would be possible under section 9 (1) of the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 and, if yes, what are his reasons for holding that view?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
22 September 2015
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Planning
Response time
35 days
(a) Please refer to LC QON 2805 part (b)
(b)  Part 7 of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7)
(c) Both the
Maritime Archaeology Act 1973
and TPS 7 provide a level of protection.
Any development would need to consider both statutory instruments. However, the protections under the
Maritime Archaeology Act 1973
only apply to shipwrecks and artefacts confirmed to be pre-1900.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more