❓ A parliamentary question concerning the approval process for a redevelopment project at Blue Bay Motel in Halls Head, focusing on compliance with planning policies, community consultation, and ministerial intervention. The Minister's response clarifies aspects of the approval process and the role of various authorities.
AnsweredQoN 4167Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the development of lot 701 (11-17) Oversby Street, Halls Head (currently Blue Bay Motel), development approval given on 27 July 2005, and I ask -
(1) Was there an approved Outline Development Plan or Development Guide Plan for the application?
(2) Was this development application advertised and the local community consulted before approval was granted?
(3) Was there a formally documented amenity impact assessment of the proposed development prepared by the Council before approval was granted?
(4) Was the height of this proposed re-development more than 15 metres above the natural ground level to top of the roof?
(5) Does Clause 3.5.5(1) of the State’s Country Coastal Planning Policy DC 6.1, limit developments within 500 metres of the coast to 12 metres in height?
(6) Has this proposed re-development been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, and if not, would the Commission’s approval be required for this re-development to proceed?
(7) Did the Minister receive representation under s18 (2) of the
Town Planning Act 1928
and/or s211 of the
Planning and Development Act 2005
by aggrieved residents from old Halls Head and, if so when?
(8) Has the Minister made a decision to refer this approval (given by the City of Mandurah) to the State Administrative Tribunal for review as to whether it complied with the City’s Town Planning Scheme and all related local and State planning policies?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(1) Was there an approved Outline Development Plan or Development Guide Plan for the application?
(2) Was this development application advertised and the local community consulted before approval was granted?
(3) Was there a formally documented amenity impact assessment of the proposed development prepared by the Council before approval was granted?
(4) Was the height of this proposed re-development more than 15 metres above the natural ground level to top of the roof?
(5) Does Clause 3.5.5(1) of the State’s Country Coastal Planning Policy DC 6.1, limit developments within 500 metres of the coast to 12 metres in height?
(6) Has this proposed re-development been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, and if not, would the Commission’s approval be required for this re-development to proceed?
(7) Did the Minister receive representation under s18 (2) of the
Town Planning Act 1928
and/or s211 of the
Planning and Development Act 2005
by aggrieved residents from old Halls Head and, if so when?
(8) Has the Minister made a decision to refer this approval (given by the City of Mandurah) to the State Administrative Tribunal for review as to whether it complied with the City’s Town Planning Scheme and all related local and State planning policies?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 November 2006
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
51 days
(2) The city advises the approval was not advertised and was issued by an officer acting under delegated authority. (3) No. The City of Mandurah advises that the applicant provided a report that discussed matters relating to amenity, and this was taken into account in the assessment of the application. (4) Yes. (5) No. Clause 3.5.5 (i) is one of the general guidelines that fall within clause 3.5 of the policy. Although the policy states this as the general benchmark for maximum building height in such areas, the 12 metre limit is not mandatory. (6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(3) No. The City of Mandurah advises that the applicant provided a report that discussed matters relating to amenity, and this was taken into account in the assessment of the application. (4) Yes. (5) No. Clause 3.5.5 (i) is one of the general guidelines that fall within clause 3.5 of the policy. Although the policy states this as the general benchmark for maximum building height in such areas, the 12 metre limit is not mandatory. (6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(4) Yes. (5) No. Clause 3.5.5 (i) is one of the general guidelines that fall within clause 3.5 of the policy. Although the policy states this as the general benchmark for maximum building height in such areas, the 12 metre limit is not mandatory. (6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(5) No. Clause 3.5.5 (i) is one of the general guidelines that fall within clause 3.5 of the policy. Although the policy states this as the general benchmark for maximum building height in such areas, the 12 metre limit is not mandatory. (6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(3) No. The City of Mandurah advises that the applicant provided a report that discussed matters relating to amenity, and this was taken into account in the assessment of the application. (4) Yes. (5) No. Clause 3.5.5 (i) is one of the general guidelines that fall within clause 3.5 of the policy. Although the policy states this as the general benchmark for maximum building height in such areas, the 12 metre limit is not mandatory. (6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(4) Yes. (5) No. Clause 3.5.5 (i) is one of the general guidelines that fall within clause 3.5 of the policy. Although the policy states this as the general benchmark for maximum building height in such areas, the 12 metre limit is not mandatory. (6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(5) No. Clause 3.5.5 (i) is one of the general guidelines that fall within clause 3.5 of the policy. Although the policy states this as the general benchmark for maximum building height in such areas, the 12 metre limit is not mandatory. (6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(6) No. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not yet made its decision on the matter. The Commission's approval would be required for the project to proceed. (7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(7) Yes. A representation, made on behalf of the Blue Bay Apartments Council of Owners under section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 , was received on 17 February 2006. (8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(8) No. (9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(9) Section 18(2) of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which was in effect at the time the representation was made, provided that the Minister may refer representations relating to: (a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(a) the failure of a local government to enforce effectively the observance of a local planning scheme; or (b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
(b) the failure of a local government to execute any works which, under a local planning scheme or this Act, the local government is required to execute, to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 before drawing any conclusions in regard to this matter.
It is not an appeal right. The Minister is awaiting the outcome of the Western Australian Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed redevelopment of Lot 701 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.