❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the redevelopment of the Blue Bay Motel site in Halls Head, focusing on planning scheme compliance and a request for ministerial intervention. The minister is awaiting further information before making a decision.
AnsweredQoN 910Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
BLUE BAY MOTEL SITE, HALLS HEAD - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
I refer to the processes associated with the redevelopment of the Blue Bay Motel site in Halls Head. (1) Is it the case that under the Peel region scheme, the new development application must be dealt with by the Peel Region Planning Committee on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission within 60 days or it will be deemed to be refused? (2) If yes, has the 60 days lapsed and the application been refused? (3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST
I refer to the processes associated with the redevelopment of the Blue Bay Motel site in Halls Head. (1) Is it the case that under the Peel region scheme, the new development application must be dealt with by the Peel Region Planning Committee on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission within 60 days or it will be deemed to be refused? (2) If yes, has the 60 days lapsed and the application been refused? (3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(1) Is it the case that under the Peel region scheme, the new development application must be dealt with by the Peel Region Planning Committee on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission within 60 days or it will be deemed to be refused? (2) If yes, has the 60 days lapsed and the application been refused? (3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(2) If yes, has the 60 days lapsed and the application been refused? (3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation?
Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(1) Is it the case that under the Peel region scheme, the new development application must be dealt with by the Peel Region Planning Committee on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission within 60 days or it will be deemed to be refused? (2) If yes, has the 60 days lapsed and the application been refused? (3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(2) If yes, has the 60 days lapsed and the application been refused? (3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(3) Did the minister receive a submission on or around 31 July 2006 from the Old Halls Head Residents’ Action Group concerning the approval by the Mandurah City Council of the second application for the redevelopment of the site? (4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(4) Did the submission - (a) allege that the Mandurah City Council had failed to comply with the town planning scheme and planning policies; and (b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation? (5) Will the minister accede to the request; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(b) request that the minister refer the matter under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to the State Administrative Tribunal for report and recommendation?
Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(1) Yes. (2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(2) The 60-day period specified in clause 41(1) of the Peel region scheme has expired. As the application has not yet been determined, the provisions of this clause mean the application is deemed refused, thereby creating the right for the proponent to make application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the application for planning consent. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(3) Yes. (4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(4) Yes, this allegation was made, together with a request for the matter to be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal. However, section 211 of the Planning and Development Act is not premised upon routine referral of such representations to the State Administrative Tribunal. (5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(5) The minister has previously advised that she is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed redevelopment of the former Blue Bay Motel site before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
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.