❓ Question on Notice regarding a planning approval in Mandurah, focusing on the City's decision-making process, the validity of proposed amendments, and the Minister's involvement and communication with stakeholders.
AnsweredQoN 2666Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) on 9 September 2003 the City of Mandurah refused to review it’s approval of Lot 306 DGP, consequently on 15 September 2003 the Halls Head Action Group (HHAG) sent information about this refusal to the Minister, will the Minister now advise - (i) why the City of Mandurah refused to review the approval as requested; (ii) the validity of the two proposed amendments; and (iii) the validity of the two proposed amendments to become retrospective; (c) what is the point of a request being made by the Minister when, as stated, it is open for the Council not to do so without any penalty; (d) why hasn’t the HHAG been advised of the answers to (b); (e) why did the Minister, in her 12 January 2004 letter, consider it inappropriate to meet with the Halls Head Action Group to discuss the matters raised by the 9 September 2003 refusal, yet consider it appropriate to confer on those matters with the City of Mandurah on 10 October 2003; (f) why is the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure now assisting the City of Mandurah in the wording of the proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No.3; and (g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(ii) the validity of the two proposed amendments; and (iii) the validity of the two proposed amendments to become retrospective;
(iii) the validity of the two proposed amendments to become retrospective;
(d) why hasn’t the HHAG been advised of the answers to (b); (e) why did the Minister, in her 12 January 2004 letter, consider it inappropriate to meet with the Halls Head Action Group to discuss the matters raised by the 9 September 2003 refusal, yet consider it appropriate to confer on those matters with the City of Mandurah on 10 October 2003; (f) why is the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure now assisting the City of Mandurah in the wording of the proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No.3; and (g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(e) why did the Minister, in her 12 January 2004 letter, consider it inappropriate to meet with the Halls Head Action Group to discuss the matters raised by the 9 September 2003 refusal, yet consider it appropriate to confer on those matters with the City of Mandurah on 10 October 2003; (f) why is the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure now assisting the City of Mandurah in the wording of the proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No.3; and (g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(f) why is the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure now assisting the City of Mandurah in the wording of the proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No.3; and (g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(b) (i) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its approval of the Development Guide Plan. It reviewed its decision and, as a consequence, conveyed the fact that it had received two legal opinions which advised that the Council is not in a position to modify the Development Guide Plan. (ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. (iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(i) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its approval of the Development Guide Plan. It reviewed its decision and, as a consequence, conveyed the fact that it had received two legal opinions which advised that the Council is not in a position to modify the Development Guide Plan. (ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. (iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. (iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(ii) the validity of the two proposed amendments; and (iii) the validity of the two proposed amendments to become retrospective;
(iii) the validity of the two proposed amendments to become retrospective;
(d) why hasn’t the HHAG been advised of the answers to (b); (e) why did the Minister, in her 12 January 2004 letter, consider it inappropriate to meet with the Halls Head Action Group to discuss the matters raised by the 9 September 2003 refusal, yet consider it appropriate to confer on those matters with the City of Mandurah on 10 October 2003; (f) why is the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure now assisting the City of Mandurah in the wording of the proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No.3; and (g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(e) why did the Minister, in her 12 January 2004 letter, consider it inappropriate to meet with the Halls Head Action Group to discuss the matters raised by the 9 September 2003 refusal, yet consider it appropriate to confer on those matters with the City of Mandurah on 10 October 2003; (f) why is the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure now assisting the City of Mandurah in the wording of the proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No.3; and (g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(f) why is the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure now assisting the City of Mandurah in the wording of the proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No.3; and (g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(g) in the context of the responsibility of the Council to have due regard to those matters listed in clause 7.5 of the Scheme with particular reference to sections (m) and (n) and the closed relationship between the Development Guide Plan and the application for planning approval does the Department consider the Lot 306 Planning Application approved by the City of Mandurah on 10 February 2004 to be ‘consistent with the Development Guide Plan’ in that the Development Application is clearly not sensibly related in size and layout to either the shape or proportions of Lot 306 or to the Lot 306 DGP?
(b) (i) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its approval of the Development Guide Plan. It reviewed its decision and, as a consequence, conveyed the fact that it had received two legal opinions which advised that the Council is not in a position to modify the Development Guide Plan. (ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. (iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(i) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its approval of the Development Guide Plan. It reviewed its decision and, as a consequence, conveyed the fact that it had received two legal opinions which advised that the Council is not in a position to modify the Development Guide Plan. (ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. (iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. (iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(iii) As above. (c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(c) The Council complied with the request. (d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above. (e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306. (f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department. (g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
4 May 2004
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
55 days
(a) I requested that the Council review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan in light of legal questions in relation to the Member's findings. It is immaterial whether the Council was requested, or ordered to do so because it reviewed its decision.
(b)
(i) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its approval of the Development Guide Plan. It reviewed its decision and, as a consequence, conveyed the fact that it had received two legal opinions which advised that the Council is not in a position to modify the Development Guide Plan.
(ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions.
(iii) As above.
(c) The Council complied with the request.
(d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above.
(e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306.
(f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department.
(g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
(b)
(i) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its approval of the Development Guide Plan. It reviewed its decision and, as a consequence, conveyed the fact that it had received two legal opinions which advised that the Council is not in a position to modify the Development Guide Plan.
(ii) I am advised that the City of Mandurah has not sought consent to advertise an earlier Amendment proposal (Amendment No. 62) and that, in its place, resolved to initiate a different Amendment on Tuesday, 16 March 2004. It would be premature to comment on the validity of an amendment which has not been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions.
(iii) As above.
(c) The Council complied with the request.
(d) You were advised, in response to your letter on behalf of the HHAG, that a meeting would not be necessary at that stage as the proposed Amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. At 18 March 2004, neither Amendment has been considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. See also (b), above.
(e) The City of Mandurah did not refuse to review its decision to approve the Development Guide Plan. As indicated in my letter to you, the proposed amendment which was the source of concern for the HHAG had not (and at 18 March 2004, still has not) been received or considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, nor advertised for public submissions. Accordingly, it would be premature to meet to discuss the amendment. The purpose of the meeting requested by the City of Mandurah was to discuss a range of matters and was not arranged solely to discuss Lot 306.
(f) It is not uncommon for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to assist local government officers with the wording of Scheme Amendments on a "without prejudice" basis. It should be remembered that the decisions on such Amendments are made by the Western Australian Planning Commission and myself as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, not the Department.
(g) Clause 7.5 of the City of Mandurah Town Planning Scheme No. 3 requires the Council to have regard to certain considerations. Consistency with sub-clauses (m) and (n) involves value judgements for which there is no uniquely right answer. While the Council is required by its Scheme to have regard to these matters, it is not bound to a specific conclusion. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding a reduction in the height of the building by one storey and changes in design detail, the approved development is not inconsistent with the Design Guide Plan. In this respect, I understand the HHAG sought reduction in the height of the building and note the reference to building height in subclause 7.5(m).
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.