❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC) handling of acid sulphate soil risks associated with the sale and rezoning of land to Meath Care in Kingsley. The response indicates the WAPC took steps to assess and inform Meath Care of potential risks.
AnsweredQoN 612Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
As the Western Australian Planning Commission acquired part of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, in 1975, and the WAPC is the leading agency responsible for managing acid sulphate soils, I ask - (1) Did the WAPC inform Meath Care of the acid sulphate soil risk when it sold Meath Care that block of land? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Was the acid sulphate soil risk taken into account during the rezoning and subdivision of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, as per the advice contained in WAPC planning bulletin 64? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(1) Did the WAPC inform Meath Care of the acid sulphate soil risk when it sold Meath Care that block of land? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Was the acid sulphate soil risk taken into account during the rezoning and subdivision of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, as per the advice contained in WAPC planning bulletin 64? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Was the acid sulphate soil risk taken into account during the rezoning and subdivision of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, as per the advice contained in WAPC planning bulletin 64? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Was the acid sulphate soil risk taken into account during the rezoning and subdivision of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, as per the advice contained in WAPC planning bulletin 64? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
(1) Did the WAPC inform Meath Care of the acid sulphate soil risk when it sold Meath Care that block of land? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Was the acid sulphate soil risk taken into account during the rezoning and subdivision of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, as per the advice contained in WAPC planning bulletin 64? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Was the acid sulphate soil risk taken into account during the rezoning and subdivision of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, as per the advice contained in WAPC planning bulletin 64? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Was the acid sulphate soil risk taken into account during the rezoning and subdivision of lot 62 Hocking Road, Kingsley, as per the advice contained in WAPC planning bulletin 64? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(1)-(2) Meath Care, which is a not-for-profit aged care provider, approached the WA Planning Commission in August 2003 to purchase the surplus portion of former lot 62 - now lot 28 - Hocking Road, Kingsley. At the time the land was part of a proposed rezoning, along with Meath Care’s adjoining lot 63. A condition of the rezoning required by the Department of Environmental Protection was a soil and ground water contamination assessment, in part due to the previous use of the land as a market garden. The WA Planning Commission engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental site investigation. A copy of the Golder report was provided to Meath Care. Meath Care subsequently undertook further soil analysis for more detailed planning and due diligence purposes prior to the purchase of lot 28 on 28 July 2004. (3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Yes, the acid sulphate risk was taken into consideration when the WA Planning Commission issued subdivisional approval for the land. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the site is included within the area identified in planning bulletin 64 as having low to no risk of actual acid sulphate soil or having no potential for acid sulphate soil. (4) Not applicable.
(4) 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.