❓ Hon. Sophia Moermond asks about the management plan, groundwater testing, and soil testing for a contaminated site in Pemberton, WA, classified as requiring remediation. The parliamentary secretary requests the question be put on notice due to the time required to answer.
AnsweredQoN 665Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ENVIRONMENT —
CONTAMINATION — LOT 101, PLAN 55271, PEMBERTON
665. Hon SOPHIA MOERMOND to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the contaminated site
known as lot 101 on plan 55271 in Pemberton, which has a classification of ''contaminated—remediation
required''. Restrictions on the use of the site state ''as the
site is not currently suitable for occupation or use, the site should remain
vacant and fenced until further remediation has been undertaken''.
(1) What is the current management plan for this site,
and does this include provisions for fencing maintenance and weed and
invasive species management; and, if so, how often has that occurred since
2013?
(2) Has there
been ongoing testing of the groundwater bores located along the common boundary
of the contaminated site and adjoining property; and, if so, what were the
results?
(3) Has there
been ongoing soil testing along the common boundary shared with the adjoining
property; and, if so, what were the results?
CONTAMINATION — LOT 101, PLAN 55271, PEMBERTON
665. Hon SOPHIA MOERMOND to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the contaminated site
known as lot 101 on plan 55271 in Pemberton, which has a classification of ''contaminated—remediation
required''. Restrictions on the use of the site state ''as the
site is not currently suitable for occupation or use, the site should remain
vacant and fenced until further remediation has been undertaken''.
(1) What is the current management plan for this site,
and does this include provisions for fencing maintenance and weed and
invasive species management; and, if so, how often has that occurred since
2013?
(2) Has there
been ongoing testing of the groundwater bores located along the common boundary
of the contaminated site and adjoining property; and, if so, what were the
results?
(3) Has there
been ongoing soil testing along the common boundary shared with the adjoining
property; and, if so, what were the results?
AnswerView source ↗
This question requires
significantly more time than we have for questions without notice with some
notice given, so I ask that the member place the question on notice.
significantly more time than we have for questions without notice with some
notice given, so I ask that the member place the question on notice.
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.