❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks details on the decision to extend the Kwinana Industrial Air Buffer Zone, including reasons, consultation, and impact assessments. The answer provides information on the decision-making process, stakeholder consultation, and health and environmental considerations.
AnsweredQoN 4848Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
In regard to the decision recently to extend the Kwinana Industrial Air Buffer Zone made by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in September 2010 -
(1) Please outline -
(a) the reason for the decision to modify the Kwinana Industrial Air Buffer Zone;
(b) the information upon which the decision was made, including all relevant reports considered by the WAPC; and
(c) the methodology used to satisfy the WAPC about the safety to the public or otherwise, of the relevant areas in which the buffer was extended and surrounding area.
(2) How were local landowners and residents consulted prior to the decision being made?
(3) If they were not consulted, why not?
(4) Why did the WAPC not formally advise the relevant landowners of the decision, after the decision was made?
(5) Why hasn’t the WAPC responded to landowners who have written to the WAPC, seeking an explanation of the decision?
(6) What was the process used to make the decision?
(7) Who was consulted and when were they were consulted?
(8) Were any present health, environmental or water problems or concerns with land affected by the decision reported to the WAPC?
(9) If yes to (8), please provide details.
(10) Were any potential future health, environmental or water problems or concerns with land affected by the decision reported to the WAPC?
(11) Have there been any independent impact statements and/or assessments conducted regarding the current and projected impact of Alcoa's operations in the area?
(12) If yes to (11), please provide details.
(13) Will the WAPC disclose all of the information upon which the decision was made?
(14) If no to (13), on what grounds is information being kept confidential?
(15) Which reports are confidential and why?
(16) Was Alcoa consulted in regard to the decision?
(17) Were affected property developers consulted in regard to the decision?
(18) If yes to (17), when?
(19) To date, has legal action been conducted in regard to the decision?
(20) If yes to (19), by whom and what is the status of any legal action?
(21) Have any accommodations been made for property developers affected by the decision?
(22) Is the decision reviewable?
(23) If yes to (22), how and what timelines apply to local landowners?
(1) Please outline -
(a) the reason for the decision to modify the Kwinana Industrial Air Buffer Zone;
(b) the information upon which the decision was made, including all relevant reports considered by the WAPC; and
(c) the methodology used to satisfy the WAPC about the safety to the public or otherwise, of the relevant areas in which the buffer was extended and surrounding area.
(2) How were local landowners and residents consulted prior to the decision being made?
(3) If they were not consulted, why not?
(4) Why did the WAPC not formally advise the relevant landowners of the decision, after the decision was made?
(5) Why hasn’t the WAPC responded to landowners who have written to the WAPC, seeking an explanation of the decision?
(6) What was the process used to make the decision?
(7) Who was consulted and when were they were consulted?
(8) Were any present health, environmental or water problems or concerns with land affected by the decision reported to the WAPC?
(9) If yes to (8), please provide details.
(10) Were any potential future health, environmental or water problems or concerns with land affected by the decision reported to the WAPC?
(11) Have there been any independent impact statements and/or assessments conducted regarding the current and projected impact of Alcoa's operations in the area?
(12) If yes to (11), please provide details.
(13) Will the WAPC disclose all of the information upon which the decision was made?
(14) If no to (13), on what grounds is information being kept confidential?
(15) Which reports are confidential and why?
(16) Was Alcoa consulted in regard to the decision?
(17) Were affected property developers consulted in regard to the decision?
(18) If yes to (17), when?
(19) To date, has legal action been conducted in regard to the decision?
(20) If yes to (19), by whom and what is the status of any legal action?
(21) Have any accommodations been made for property developers affected by the decision?
(22) Is the decision reviewable?
(23) If yes to (22), how and what timelines apply to local landowners?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
22 November 2011
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Planning
Response time
35 days
(1a) The buffer area was designated by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) after considering recommendations from the former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee, which had received advice from the Department of Health and the Department of Environment and Conservation, in relation to the need to designate a buffer area separation distance between the Alcoa Mandogalup site and the Kwinana Industrial Area, and residential subdivision development proposals. The buffer recognises uncertainties inherent in the level and frequency of impacts from the Alcoa Mandogalup site and the Kwinana Industrial Area generally.
(b) As required by the 2008 Review of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffer Position Paper, Alcoa provided a report on dust emissions from its Mandogalup site to assist the review of the buffer in the surrounding area. The Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation provided advice to the WAPC on the report and the need for a buffer area.
(c) The methodology employed was to review the Alcoa report, seek technical advice from the Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation and consider the relevant planning and policy framework and other considerations of the Kwinana Buffer Review Committee generally.
(2) The decision is made on advice from the Department of Health and the Department of Environment and Conservation, rather than landowners and residents. While WAPC seeks to engagement with stakeholders where possible, by its very nature industrial or buffer zones are not set by community consultation.
(3) The decision rests on health and environmental factors rather than public consultation. The advice from the Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation cannot be modified by public consultation.
(4) Following the September 2010 WAPC decision, consultation was commenced with State Solicitor's Office and Alcoa in relation to determining whether the WAPC could release the Alcoa report to stakeholders. Further, consideration was given to a timeframe for a review of the buffer area and the information relating to the original decision. Those matters were then reported to the WAPC in May 2011. An information letter with Frequently Asked Questions attachment was then prepared, in consultation with the Department of Health, Department of Environment and Conservation, and relevant Local Governments, and the letter was released on 4 October 2011.
(5) Following release of the 4 October 2011 information letter, responses to individual landowners have been dispatched.
(6) Refer to 1 (a) and (b) above.
(7) The Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation were consulted at various times in 2010 prior to the WAPC decision. The former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee consisted of representatives of the Department of Planning, Department of State Development, LandCorp and the Department of Environment and Conservation.
(8) Health and environmental (air quality) impacts were considered and reported to the WAPC and advice was sought from the Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation. Correspondence from the latter was attached to the report to the WAPC; those departments did not comment in relation to water matters. The revised buffer area is intended to incorporate the potential impact of dust on surrounding land uses, as well as longer term strategic planning such as providing for expansion of industrial and residential development.
(9) The Department of Health advised that the potential impact of dust is greatest within the revised buffer area, which does not mean that dust levels will be continuously high but rather, that areas inside the buffer are on average subject to more episodes of high dust levels than areas outside the buffer area.
The Department of Health further advised that high concentrations of dust can trigger coughs, sneezes or asthma in people with underlying respiratory conditions, and that even small increases in dust can make symptoms worse.
The Department of Health advises that the most efficient way to prevent any health problems in an individual is to reduce a whole community's level of risk. The buffer area provides this protection by reducing the number of people moving into the area. People living in the area are not necessarily at increased personal risk of adverse health effects since individual tolerances vary considerably and individuals may never experience adverse health effects.
(10) Refer to (8) and (9) above.
(11) The Department of Health and Department of Environment and Conservation provided their assessments of the Alcoa report which contributed to their advice to the WAPC.
(12) Refer (11) above.
(13) Yes. The 2009 Alcoa Report and September 2010 WAPC report was supplied to residents who have written or telephoned after the letter of 4 October 2011 was released.
(14) Not applicable.
(15) There are no confidential reports.
(16) Consistent with the 2008 Review of the
Kwinana Air Quality buffer - Position Paper,
Alcoa provided its 2009 report to the former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee which was subsequently referred to DoH and DEC for comment. Alcoa addressed the former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee on several occasions and provided commentary as part of the information gathering process. Alcoa was not a member of the former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee and thus did not contribute to the decisions of that Committee.
(17) No.
(18) Not applicable.
(19) No specific legal action in relation to the buffer is known. However, the WAPC refused a residential subdivision application in Wattleup. An appeal was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal, which recently dismissed that appeal.
(20) Not applicable.
(21) No.
(22) Yes.
(23) The WAPC resolved to review the decision in 2016, to take into account any changing circumstances that may have occurred in the locality, for example in relation to the Alcoa site.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(b) As required by the 2008 Review of the Kwinana Air Quality Buffer Position Paper, Alcoa provided a report on dust emissions from its Mandogalup site to assist the review of the buffer in the surrounding area. The Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation provided advice to the WAPC on the report and the need for a buffer area.
(c) The methodology employed was to review the Alcoa report, seek technical advice from the Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation and consider the relevant planning and policy framework and other considerations of the Kwinana Buffer Review Committee generally.
(2) The decision is made on advice from the Department of Health and the Department of Environment and Conservation, rather than landowners and residents. While WAPC seeks to engagement with stakeholders where possible, by its very nature industrial or buffer zones are not set by community consultation.
(3) The decision rests on health and environmental factors rather than public consultation. The advice from the Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation cannot be modified by public consultation.
(4) Following the September 2010 WAPC decision, consultation was commenced with State Solicitor's Office and Alcoa in relation to determining whether the WAPC could release the Alcoa report to stakeholders. Further, consideration was given to a timeframe for a review of the buffer area and the information relating to the original decision. Those matters were then reported to the WAPC in May 2011. An information letter with Frequently Asked Questions attachment was then prepared, in consultation with the Department of Health, Department of Environment and Conservation, and relevant Local Governments, and the letter was released on 4 October 2011.
(5) Following release of the 4 October 2011 information letter, responses to individual landowners have been dispatched.
(6) Refer to 1 (a) and (b) above.
(7) The Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation were consulted at various times in 2010 prior to the WAPC decision. The former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee consisted of representatives of the Department of Planning, Department of State Development, LandCorp and the Department of Environment and Conservation.
(8) Health and environmental (air quality) impacts were considered and reported to the WAPC and advice was sought from the Departments of Health and Environment and Conservation. Correspondence from the latter was attached to the report to the WAPC; those departments did not comment in relation to water matters. The revised buffer area is intended to incorporate the potential impact of dust on surrounding land uses, as well as longer term strategic planning such as providing for expansion of industrial and residential development.
(9) The Department of Health advised that the potential impact of dust is greatest within the revised buffer area, which does not mean that dust levels will be continuously high but rather, that areas inside the buffer are on average subject to more episodes of high dust levels than areas outside the buffer area.
The Department of Health further advised that high concentrations of dust can trigger coughs, sneezes or asthma in people with underlying respiratory conditions, and that even small increases in dust can make symptoms worse.
The Department of Health advises that the most efficient way to prevent any health problems in an individual is to reduce a whole community's level of risk. The buffer area provides this protection by reducing the number of people moving into the area. People living in the area are not necessarily at increased personal risk of adverse health effects since individual tolerances vary considerably and individuals may never experience adverse health effects.
(10) Refer to (8) and (9) above.
(11) The Department of Health and Department of Environment and Conservation provided their assessments of the Alcoa report which contributed to their advice to the WAPC.
(12) Refer (11) above.
(13) Yes. The 2009 Alcoa Report and September 2010 WAPC report was supplied to residents who have written or telephoned after the letter of 4 October 2011 was released.
(14) Not applicable.
(15) There are no confidential reports.
(16) Consistent with the 2008 Review of the
Kwinana Air Quality buffer - Position Paper,
Alcoa provided its 2009 report to the former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee which was subsequently referred to DoH and DEC for comment. Alcoa addressed the former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee on several occasions and provided commentary as part of the information gathering process. Alcoa was not a member of the former Kwinana Buffer Review Committee and thus did not contribute to the decisions of that Committee.
(17) No.
(18) Not applicable.
(19) No specific legal action in relation to the buffer is known. However, the WAPC refused a residential subdivision application in Wattleup. An appeal was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal, which recently dismissed that appeal.
(20) Not applicable.
(21) No.
(22) Yes.
(23) The WAPC resolved to review the decision in 2016, to take into account any changing circumstances that may have occurred in the locality, for example in relation to the Alcoa site.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.