Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Act 2000

Master plan: The central instrument is the master plan, prepared and kept under review by the Authority and made operative under Part 3. The master plan "may make any provision that the Authority considers will promote the orderly and proper planning, development and management of the redevelopment area, including any provision that may be made by a local planning scheme" (s 11(1)). Once approved and published it "has legislative effect" and is treated as subsidiary legislation for all purposes (s 22A(1)-(2)). The Act expressly excludes the Interpretation Act 1984 s 41 from applying to a master plan (s 22A(3)). Contravention of a master plan is an offence attracting a $50,000 penalty and a daily penalty of $5,000 (s 22B).

Redevelopment area: The geographical scope is the land defined in Schedule 1 and shown on Plan No. 1 (s 4). A certified plan is admissible evidence of boundaries (s 4(2)). All the Act’s powers that refer to the redevelopment area operate only within that delineated geography.

Authority and Commission roles: The Authority (the Western Australian Land Authority) is the master plan proponent and accountable body for redevelopment functions (s 5). The Commission (Western Australian Planning Commission) controls whether a proposed master plan may be publicly notified (s 12(4)), receives the plan for recommendation to the Minister (s 15), and exercises development approval powers in the redevelopment area (s 28). The Authority may exercise its broader powers under the Western Australian Land Authority Act 1992 to perform functions under this Act (s 5(3)).

Environmental integration: The Act builds EPA involvement into master plan preparation. The Authority must immediately refer a proposed master plan or amendment to the EPA with sufficient information (s 18). Where the EPA requires an environmental review under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), the Authority must undertake the review according to EPA instructions before public notification or submission to the Commission (s 19). The Act also provides for the Minister to withhold approval of a master plan until EPA processes (including statements under s 48F or decisions under s 48J of the EP Act) are finalised and any environmental conditions are incorporated (s 21).

Development control and approvals: Ordinary planning schemes cease to apply within the redevelopment area in relation to developments that commence under this Act (s 23). Development within the redevelopment area requires Commission approval (s 25), with applications lodged to the local government in prescribed form and fees and forwarded to the Commission within seven days (s 26). The Commission must consider the master plan, environmental protection policies, local government recommendations and consultations with public authorities before deciding, and it may attach conditions or limit approval duration (s 28). Deemed refusal occurs if no written notice is provided within 60 days of forwarding, unless agreed otherwise (s 28(6)).

Powers to acquire and reallocate land: Development or redevelopment under the Act is a "public work" for the purposes of Parts 9 and 10 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the Public Works Act 1902, enabling compulsory acquisition processes to be used (s 6(1)). The Governor may order transfer of the estate and interest in public authority land to the Authority if needed for the Act’s purposes (s 7).

Compensation and savings: Compensation for injurious affection is governed by specified parts of the Planning and Development Act 2005 as applied to the redevelopment area, with the master plan treated as a planning scheme for those purposes and the Commission as the responsible authority (s 33(1)). The Act preserves lawful continuations of developments already underway or already approved under pre‑existing planning schemes (s 24).

Enforcement and penalties: The Act includes stop and rectification notices for unlawful development (s 31), monetary penalties for various contraventions including contravening a master plan (s 22B), undertaking development without approval (s 25(1)), failing to comply with s 31 notices (s 31(5)), and failing to comply with Ministerial orders to meet environmental conditions (s 32(4)). It authorises the Commission to remove unlawful development and recover costs as a debt (s 31(6)).

Regulatory and procedural modifications: The Act modifies how valuation and rating operate within the redevelopment area (s 34(2)), enables regulations to prescribe application procedures and fees (s 35), and mandates a post‑enactment review of the Act’s operation (s 36). The 2011 amendments inserted the provisions recognising master plans as subsidiary legislation with explicit penalties (ss 22A-22B) and transitional validation of pre‑amendment acts (s 37).

Property owners and occupiers within the redevelopment area: The regime directly affects all persons who own, occupy or have an interest in land within Schedule 1. For those people, the master plan will become the primary instrument setting permitted uses, conditions and potentially zoning‑type controls (s 11(1), s 22A). The Act also creates offences and penalties that apply to owners, occupiers and developers who contravene the master plan or undertake development without Commission approval (ss 22B, 25).

Developers and prospective investors: Anyone proposing development in the area must apply via the local government in prescribed form and fee and acquire Commission approval (s 26). Developers face the risk of stop or rectification notices if they commence without approval (s 31), and they must factor in EPA processes where environmental reviews are required (ss 18-21). The Commission may attach conditions to approvals and limit approval duration (s 28(2)-(3)).

Local governments: The City of Cockburn and the Town of Kwinana are explicitly named in several provisions (ss 8(2), 13(2)(b)) and act as the intake point for development applications, obliged to forward applications to the Commission within seven days and entitled to make recommendations within 42 days (s 26(1), (3)-(4)). The Act modifies local government powers concerning valuation and rating within the area; local governments must continue to use the valuation method that applied immediately before commencement unless certain development has begun, and they are restricted from imposing differential rates, specified area rates, minimum payments or service charges merely because the land is in the redevelopment area (s 34(2)).

Public authorities and Ministers: A public authority is defined broadly (s 3(1)) and several powers and duties interact with public authorities. The Governor may direct transfer of public authority land to the Authority (s 7), and public authorities may be consulted on proposed developments (s 27). The Minister for the Environment and the Minister (responsible for land use approvals) both have defined roles: the former participates in EPA agreements under the EP Act and advises on environmental conditions (ss 18-21), and the latter approves master plans on the Commission’s recommendation and lays directions before Parliament when issuing them (s 15(3)-(7)).

The Authority and Commission: The Authority prepares and maintains the master plan, may exercise powers under its establishing Act to perform this role (s 5(3)), and must operate in accordance with a master plan (s 10). The Commission decides whether a proposed master plan may be publicly notified (s 12(4)), recommends approval to the Minister (s 15(3)), and is the development approval authority for the redevelopment area (s 28). The Commission is empowered to close streets temporarily or permanently within the redevelopment area to facilitate development, subject to notice requirements when closures exceed three days (s 8).

Third parties and the public: The Act prescribes public notification measures for proposed master plans (s 13) and a minimum 60‑day submission period (s 14(1)) giving the public and other affected persons the opportunity to make submissions. Submissions must be summarised and reported to the Commission as part of the approval process (s 15(2)). The EPA receives copies of public submissions on environmental issues and the Authority must respond to those matters within statutory timeframes (s 20).

Creditors, contractors and courts: The Commission can recover the costs of removing unlawful development from the person who failed to comply, as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction (s 31(6)). That creates an avenue for cost recovery that contractors, financiers and owners must account for in risk assessments.

Compensation claimants: Persons with claims for injurious affection are affected, because Part 11 Divisions 1 and 2 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, and specified sections of that Act, apply to land in the redevelopment area as if the master plan were a planning scheme and the Commission were the responsible authority (s 33(1)). Compensation is not payable twice for the same injurious affection (s 33(3)), and pending claims may continue (s 33(4)).

In short, the Act centralises planning control in the Authority/Commission/Minister governance chain, integrates EPA environmental processes, limits local government rating discretions, and sets statutory penalties and compensation rules that materially affect all private and public actors with interests in the redevelopment area.

Authority duties: The Authority must plan, undertake, promote and coordinate redevelopment and prepare and keep the master plan under review (s 5(1)-(2)). It must submit proposed master plans and amendments to the Commission under prescribed timelines (s 12(1)), consult with City of Cockburn and Town of Kwinana and have regard to their views (s 12(3)(a)-(b)), refer proposals immediately to the EPA with sufficient information to enable EPA compliance with s 48A of the EP Act (s 18), undertake any EPA‑mandated environmental review before public notification or Commission submission (s 19), make reasonable endeavours to consult persons likely to be affected (s 13(4)), and keep a copy of the master plan available for public inspection free of charge (s 10(2)).

Commission powers and duties: The Commission may consent or refuse to consent to public notification of a proposed master plan and may require modifications (s 12(4)-(6)). It considers proposed master plans with accompanying summaries of public submissions and a report from the Authority and makes a recommendation to the Minister on approval (s 15(2)-(3)). The Commission is the approval authority for developments in the area with discretion to grant or refuse approvals, attach conditions that are within the objects of the Act, and limit approval duration (s 28(1)-(3)). It must cause notice of its decision to be given to the applicant, the relevant local government and consulted public authorities (s 28(5)); failure to give notice within 60 days is treated as a refusal unless extended by agreement (s 28(6)).

Ministerial role and constraints: The Minister makes the final decision to approve or refuse a master plan after considering Commission recommendations, and may approve subject to directed modifications (s 15(4)). The Minister must lay any direction given under s 15(4) or (5) before each House of Parliament within 28 sitting days and include the direction in the Authority’s annual report (s 15(7)). The Minister must also refrain from approving a proposed master plan if the EPA process under the EP Act requires assessment or conditions that have not been resolved (s 21).

Local government duties and rights: Local governments receive applications for development approval in prescribed form and are required to forward applications to the Commission within seven days (s 26(1), (3)). They may make recommendations within 42 days or such longer period as the Commission allows (s 26(4)). The Act restricts their rating discretions within the redevelopment area by limiting valuation methods and barring certain differential rates or charges merely because the land is in the redevelopment area (s 34(2)).

Applicant and public rights: Any person may make written submissions on a proposed master plan during a period fixed by the Authority of not less than 60 days from Gazette notice publication (s 14(1)). The Authority must summarise all submissions received and include a report on their merits when submitting the plan to the Commission (s 15(2)(a)-(b)). Applicants for development approval have the right to apply for review by the State Administrative Tribunal of decisions under s 28 (s 29) and, in the case of a direction under s 31(1)(b), the right to apply to SAT to review that direction (s 31(2)). A person served with a direction under s 31(1)(b) has suspension of the direction pending determination of a SAT application (s 31(3)).

Environmental duties and constraints: When the EPA indicates under the EP Act that a proposed master plan should be assessed, the Authority must transmit submissions relating to environmental issues to the EPA within seven days after the public submission period expires and must inform the EPA of its response within 42 days or such longer period as the Minister allows (s 20). The Minister cannot approve a plan until EPA processes are complete or certain timeframes have elapsed, and must be satisfied that any environmental conditions have been incorporated into the plan (s 21).

Compensation rights and constraints: For injurious affection and related matters, the relevant provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005 apply, with the master plan treated as a planning scheme and the Commission as responsible authority (s 33(1)). Compensation is not payable under that regime if it has already been paid for the same or substantially the same injurious affection (s 33(3)), and pending claims may be continued as if made under the section (s 33(4)).

Enforcement powers and penalties: The Commission may serve stop or rectification notices (s 31(1)). A person must comply with such notices and faces a penalty of $50,000 and daily penalties for non‑compliance (s 31(5)). The Commission may remove unlawful works and recover costs as a debt (s 31(6)). The Minister may impose short stop orders for assessed schemes and direct steps to ensure compliance with environmental conditions (s 32), enforceable by penalties (s 32(4)).

Regulatory and procedural rights: Regulations may prescribe the procedure for applications and the imposition and payment of fees (s 35). The Authority may charge fees for supplying copies of proposed master plans and master plans (ss 13(3), 16(3)). The Act requires review of its operation after five years (s 36), which is a statutory administrative obligation by the Minister.

Collectively these duties and rights reallocate planning decision rights from ordinary planning schemes and local government discretion to the master plan process, the Commission and the Authority, while integrating EPA processes and maintaining statutory protections for compensation and review.

Monetary penalties: The Act prescribes significant pecuniary penalties for key contraventions. Contravening a master plan is an offence with a maximum penalty of $50,000 and a daily penalty of $5,000 (s 22B). Undertaking development without Commission approval or in contravention of approval conditions carries an identical penalty structure , $50,000 and a daily penalty of $5,000 (s 25(1)). Failure to comply with a Commission notice to remove, pull down or alter unlawful development similarly attracts a $50,000 penalty and a daily penalty of $5,000 (s 31(5)). Failure to comply with Ministerial or Commission notices directed to ensure environmental conditions are met (s 32) also attracts the $50,000 and daily $5,000 penalty (s 32(4)). The repeated use of the same monetary sums across different contraventions shows the Act’s consistent penalty levels for non‑compliance.

Enforcement notices and orders: Where development contravenes s 25, the Commission may serve written notices to stop works immediately (s 31(1)(a)) or may direct the person to remove or alter contravening works within not less than 21 days (s 31(1)(b)), or both. A person served with a direction under s 31(1)(b) may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for review; that direction is suspended pending determination of the SAT application (s 31(2)-(3)). If SAT confirms or varies the direction, it may then be given effect with a further not less than 21 days for compliance (s 31(4)).

Commission remedial powers and cost recovery: If a person fails to comply with a direction under s 31(1)(b), the Commission, after the appeal period and subject to SAT determinations, may remove or alter the development itself and recover the costs incurred from the person as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction (s 31(6)). That provides a direct cost recovery mechanism and shifts financial risk to non‑complying parties.

Ministerial short‑term stop powers and environmental enforcement: For developments implementing an assessed scheme under the EP Act, after receiving advice from the Minister for the Environment under s 48H(4) of the EP Act, the Minister may make short stop orders (written orders to stop the development for periods not exceeding 24 hours) (s 32(3)(a)). The Minister may also cause the Commission to serve notices directing actions necessary to comply with environmental conditions or advise the Commission to take steps itself (s 32(3)(b)-(c)). Compliance with such orders is mandatory and enforceable by the s 32(4) penalties. The Act preserves application of Part V of the EP Act to such developments and pollution or environmental harm arising from non‑compliance (s 32(5)).

Criminal and civil hybrid enforcement: The Act uses both criminal penalties (express monetary penalties) and civil enforcement mechanisms (directed remedial action, recovery of costs as a debt). The availability of recovery as a debt is likely to be quicker and more certain than some administrative penalties since a court may be used for recovery (s 31(6)).

Procedural enforcement constraints and safeguards: The Act provides procedural protections for persons served with rectification directions, namely the right to apply to SAT and suspension of the direction pending review (s 31(2)-(3)). It also creates a deemed refusal mechanism where the Commission fails to notify an applicant of its decision within 60 days of application being forwarded, treating non‑notification as a refusal, unless an extension is agreed (s 28(6)). That can be strategically relevant for applicants and affects enforcement timetables.

Penalties in context of master plan legislative status: Because master plans are expressly given legislative effect and treated as subsidiary legislation (s 22A(1)-(2)), contravening a master plan is an offence with significant penalties (s 22B), and enforcement can be framed as enforcement against a statutory instrument rather than mere administrative guidance. The Act also excludes Interpretation Act s 41 from applying to master plans (s 22A(3)), which changes certain interpretive presumptions about subsidiary legislation; practitioners must check the Interpretation Act to understand the practical consequences of that exclusion.

Street closures and transfer powers: The Commission can effect temporary street closures or restrictions to facilitate development and must give 14 days’ notice to the local government where closures exceed three days (s 8(1)-(2)). Permanent street closure may be effected under s 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 with the Commission treated as local government for that purpose and the named local governments excluded for these streets (s 9). The Governor may direct transfer of public authority land to the Authority (s 7), and where land has been taken for public works under the Public Works Act or Land Administration Act, certain Land Administration Act sections do not apply (s 6(2)), potentially affecting the normal acquisition and compensation processes; these are enforcement‑adjacent powers for land reallocation.

Regulatory sanctions and ministerial parliamentary accountability: If the Minister gives directions as to master plan modification, the text of directions is to be laid before Parliament within 28 sitting days and included in the Authority’s annual report (s 15(7)), providing a parliamentary transparency mechanism over ministerial orders.

In practice, the enforcement regime combines injunctive administrative steps, criminalised pecuniary penalties, cost recovery as a debt and judicial review avenues via SAT. The statutory design concentrates enforcement capability in the Commission and Minister with built‑in SAT review processes for affected parties.

Planning and Development Act 2005: The Act repeatedly cross‑references and imports parts of the Planning and Development Act 2005. The term "development" is defined with reference to the Planning and Development Act 2005 (s 3(1)). Sections 33(1) applies Part 11 Divisions 1 and 2 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, and other specified sections, to compensation claims in the redevelopment area as if the master plan were a planning scheme and the Commission were the responsible authority. Section 34(1) applies s 132 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 with modifications for carrying out a master plan. The State Administrative Tribunal’s review jurisdiction under Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 is available for review of Commission decisions under s 28 (s 29).

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and EPA processes: The Act explicitly integrates EP Act processes. The Authority must refer proposed master plans and amendments immediately to the EPA with sufficient information to permit EPA compliance with s 48A of the EP Act (s 18). Where the EPA acts under s 48C(1)(a) of the EP Act, the Authority must follow instructions for an environmental review and provide that review to the EPA before public notification or Commission submission (s 19). The Minister cannot approve a master plan until EPA assessment outcomes or timeframes under the EP Act are resolved and conditions (if any) are incorporated into the master plan (s 21). The Act also gives the Minister powers to enforce environmental conditions arising from an assessed scheme and retains Part V of the EP Act applicability to developments and environmental harm (s 32(5)).

Land Administration Act 1997 and Public Works Act 1902: Development under this Act is declared a "public work" for the purposes of Parts 9 and 10 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the Public Works Act 1902, enabling compulsory acquisition routes and associated processes (s 6(1)). However, when applying those Parts, ss 187-191 of the Land Administration Act 1997 do not apply to land in the redevelopment area taken or acquired under the Public Works Act before the commencement of this Act (s 6(2)), and land not required for the original public work may be held or used for other purposes authorised by this Act (s 6(3)). Permanent street closures are available under s 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 with the Commission treated as local government for that purpose (s 9).

Local Government Act 1995: The Act disapplies aspects of the Local Government Act 1995 with respect to temporary street closures (s 8(1)) and with respect to rating and valuation. Section 34(2) prescribes the valuation method to be used by a local government as the basis for a rate on rateable land within the redevelopment area, generally preserving the pre‑commencement valuation method unless a development has commenced, and restricts the imposition of differential rates, specified area rates, minimum payments or service charges merely on the basis that land is in the redevelopment area (s 34(2)(a)-(b)). Those modifications change local government revenue powers as applied to the redevelopment area.

Western Australian Land Authority Act 1992: The Authority is defined by reference to the Western Australian Land Authority Act 1992 (s 3(1)) and may exercise any of its powers under that Act for purposes of performing functions under this Act (s 5(3)). Section 34(3) notes that s 32 of the Western Australian Land Authority Act 1992 is unaffected.

Interpretation Act 1984: The Act designates master plans as subsidiary legislation (s 22A(2)) but expressly provides that Interpretation Act 1984 s 41 does not apply to a master plan (s 22A(3)). Practitioners must consult s 41 of the Interpretation Act to understand what interpretive consequence has been excluded, but the Act’s plain text signals that certain standard presumptions about subsidiary legislation are intentionally displaced for master plans.

Other statutory intersections and transitional provisions: The Act contemplates variation of planning scheme operation (s 23) and includes savings for developments already lawfully being carried out or already approved under prior planning schemes (s 24). The compilation table and Part 6 include provisions reflecting amendments by a range of statutes that have reformed planning approvals and SAT jurisdiction, including the Planning Appeals Amendment Act 2002, Environmental Protection Amendment Act 2003, State Administrative Tribunal conferral changes in 2004, the Planning and Development (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005, approvals and related reforms in 2010, and the Hope Valley‑Wattleup Redevelopment Amendment Act 2011 (Compilation Table). Section 37 provides a transitional validation that a master plan in operation before the 2011 amendment day is taken to have had legislative effect from the day it came into operation until the commencement day and validates acts done pursuant to it (s 37).

Practical legal interactions: The net result is a layered statutory regime where master plan instruments sit alongside and in many contexts supplant or modify the application of other statutes. For procedural matters (public notification, submissions, referral to EPA, review rights) the Act imposes specific timeframes which interact with EPA timelines under the EP Act (ss 18-21). For property rights, acquisition and compensation, the Act invokes the Public Works Act and Land Administration Act processes, but also imports compensation rules from the Planning and Development Act 2005 (s 33). Local government revenue and valuation methods are constrained inside the redevelopment area (s 34). Practitioners must therefore read this Act in tandem with the Planning and Development Act 2005, the EP Act, the Land Administration Act 1997 and relevant local government legislation to determine which statutory process controls a given matter.

The compilation table in the source provides the sequence of amendments and commencement dates up to the most recent entries. Key amendments and enactments recorded in the compilation table and notes include:

• Hope Valley‑Wattleup Redevelopment Act 2000 (Act No. 77 of 2000): Assented 7 December 2000; operative provisions mostly from 1 January 2001 with s 1 and s 2 effective 7 December 2000 and s 3(2) likewise noted (Compilation table, entries for the principal Act; also Notes 1 and compilation details).
• Planning Appeals Amendment Act 2002 s 25 (Act No. 24 of 2002): Amended provisions commencing 18 April 2003 (Compilation table).
• Environmental Protection Amendment Act 2003 s 68(3) (Act No. 54 of 2003): Commencement 19 November 2003 (Compilation table).
• State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 Pt. 2 Div. 62 (Act No. 55 of 2004): Commenced 1 January 2005 (Compilation table and Note 3 indicate transitional issues may be relevant).
• Planning and Development (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005 s 15 (Act No. 38 of 2005): Commencement 9 April 2006 (Compilation table).
• Financial Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2006 Sch. 1 cl. 84 (Act No. 77 of 2006): Commenced 1 February 2007 (Compilation table).
• Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 4) (Planning) Act 2010 s 32 (Act No. 28 of 2010): Commenced 22 November 2010 (Compilation table).
• Hope Valley‑Wattleup Redevelopment Amendment Act 2011 (Act No. 8 of 2011): Assented 2 May 2011; operative day for most provisions 3 May 2011. The 2011 Act inserted new provisions including Division 5 of Part 3 (ss 22A-22B) and s 37 (transitional validation), among other amendments (Compilation table; see inserted headings and s 37 text).
• Directors’ Liability Reform Act 2023 Pt. 3 Div. 35 (Act No. 9 of 2023): Commenced 5 April 2023 (Compilation table).

The source also notes reprints reflecting versions of the Act as at specific dates: Reprint 1 as at 1 September 2006; Reprint 2 as at 5 August 2011, which include listed amendments (Compilation table). The 2011 amendments are particularly material because they expressly made master plans legislative instruments and introduced the criminal penalties for contravention (ss 22A-22B) and a transitional validation clause for acts done under a master plan prior to the amendment (s 37).

The Act has been adjusted alongside larger systemic reforms such as the conferral of SAT jurisdiction and changes to planning appeals (2002, 2004) and environmental protection interaction (2003). The compilation table identifies commencement dates and locates each amending instrument; practitioners should consult the particular amending Acts in the compilation table for precise textual changes and consult reprints for consolidated language at given dates.

Note that the compilation table and the Act text together are the source of amendment history. The Act itself records that certain sections were inserted or deleted at specific amendment dates (annotations within the text, e.g. edits to s 3, insertion of Division 5, etc.). For current operative language, use the latest reprint or the official consolidated text, checking the compilation table entries for any amendments made after the last reprint.

The Act text supplied does not include precedents, cases or a litigation history. It does, however, indicate routes for administrative and judicial review which have likely been used in practice even if no cases are cited in the text:

• Review by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT): Applicants may apply to SAT for review of Commission decisions under s 28 in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (s 29). A person served with a Commission direction under s 31(1)(b) may also apply to SAT for review of that direction (s 31(2)), with the direction suspended pending the SAT determination (s 31(3)). The compilation table and notes record statutory amendments conferring jurisdiction on SAT and transitional arrangements for SAT matters (e.g. State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004; compilation notes indicate Pt. 5 and related provisions deal with transitional issues relevant to this Act).
• Court recovery of costs: The Commission may recover costs of removing or altering unlawful development as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction (s 31(6)), which gives a procedural route for civil enforcement that may generate court decisions on enforcement facts and costs recovery, though no reported decisions are named in the Act itself.

Because the primary source does not list authorities or decisions, readers seeking case law on interpretation of this Act, enforcement of master plans, the interaction with the EP Act, or the application of SAT review should search state court and tribunal databases for decisions invoking the Hope Valley‑Wattleup Redevelopment Act 2000, or for matters citing provisions such as ss 22A-22B (master plan effect and penalties), ss 18-21 (EPA referral and review), and ss 25-31 (development control and enforcement). The Act’s integration with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the EP Act means related judicial or tribunal decisions on those Acts could be relevant to interpretation and application in the redevelopment area.

In the absence of cases cited in the legislative text, practitioners must build litigation strategies from the Act’s procedural architecture: administrative decisions by the Commission with SAT review channels; enforcement actions by the Commission with cost recovery in courts; and ministerial/ EPA decisions and statements under the EP Act that are imported into master plan approval processes (ss 18-21, 32). For authoritative binding interpretations, consult SAT and court reported decisions post‑enactment.

Master plan is statutory and contravention is criminalised: The master plan is explicitly given "legislative effect" and treated as subsidiary legislation (s 22A(1)-(2)). Contravening a master plan carries a maximum $50,000 penalty and a daily $5,000 penalty (s 22B). This is not advisory policy language; it is criminalised conduct with significant pecuniary exposure. Practitioners must treat master plan provisions as binding regulatory instruments when advising clients.

Interpretation Act exclusion: The Act excludes Interpretation Act 1984 s 41 from applying to a master plan (s 22A(3)). Do not assume interpretation‑act presumptions apply in the usual way to master plans; check s 41 of the Interpretation Act to understand the precise interpretive effect excluded, because standard presumptions about subsidiary instruments may be displaced.

Deemed refusal timeline: If the Commission fails to notify applicants of its decision within 60 days after the application is forwarded by the local government, the Commission is taken to have refused the application, unless a longer period is agreed in writing (s 28(6)). Practitioners should diarise and confirm agreed extensions; apparent silence can be a deemed refusal that may trigger SAT review rights under s 29.

EPA procedural lock‑in: The Authority must refer a proposed master plan to the EPA forthwith with sufficient information (s 18). If the EPA directs an environmental review under the EP Act process, the Authority cannot submit the plan to the Commission for public notification until the review is forwarded and the EPA has confirmed it complied with instructions or 30 days have elapsed without advice (s 19(1)). If the EPA advises the review is not compliant, complex ministerial escalation processes apply (s 19(2)-(3)). This can materially delay master plan progression and create regulatory uncertainty for developers. Factor EPA timeframes and possible conditions into project schedules.

Compulsory acquisition nuances: The Act declares development under it to be a "public work" and treats the Authority as a local authority for the Public Works Act 1902 (s 6(1)). It also provides that ss 187-191 of the Land Administration Act 1997 do not apply to certain land taken or acquired under the Public Works Act before the commencement of this Act (s 6(2)). These carve‑outs may have implications for acquisition and post‑acquisition use; do not assume standard Land Administration Act processes fully apply without checking the specific sections and timing.

Governor’s transfer power: The Governor can direct a public authority to transfer estates and interests in public authority land to the Authority if the land is required for redevelopment (s 7). The public authority must comply despite any other written law (s 7(4)). This creates a unilateral transfer mechanism for public authority land and can affect publicly held assets in the redevelopment area.

Local government rating constraints: Section 34(2) restricts local governments’ ability to use certain rating mechanisms in the redevelopment area. Practitioners advising local governments or ratepayers need to check how valuation methods are preserved and when development commencement changes the valuation basis (s 34(2)(a)), and note the prohibition on imposing differential and other specified rates merely because land is in the redevelopment area (s 34(2)(b)).

Savings and transitional traps: The Act preserves the legality of developments lawfully under way immediately before commencement and approvals in force prior to master plan commencement (s 24). However, developments with approvals under the pre‑existing schemes remain governed by those schemes despite s 23 repeal (s 24(2)). Also, s 37 gives retrospective legislative effect to master plans that came into operation before the 2011 amendments for certain purposes. Practitioners must map timelines of application, approval, commencement and amendment dates carefully to determine which regime applies to a given development.

Public consultation timelines and modification powers: The Authority must publicly notify proposed master plans in the Gazette and a local paper and allow a period not less than 60 days for written submissions (ss 13-14). For amendments the period is 42 days (s 17(c)). The Authority may modify a proposed master plan as it thinks fit to give effect to any submission (s 14(2)). That broad modification power can result in material changes after public consultation; developers should engage early.

Dealing with unlawful development: If the Commission issues a direction to remove or alter development and the recipient fails to comply, the Commission can itself remove the works and recover costs as a debt (s 31(6)). That recovery via debt can be quicker and affect credit and contractual relationships. Also, a person served with a notice under s 31(1)(b) has a SAT review right and the direction is suspended pending SAT’s determination (s 31(2)-(3)). Timing is therefore critical before enforcement is acted upon.

Minister’s short stop powers limited but immediate: The Minister can make stop orders for up to 24 hours to prevent immediate non‑compliance with environmental conditions (s 32(3)(a)). While short in time, such orders can interrupt construction activities and supply chains and can be used in concert with Commission notices to require remedial steps (s 32(3)(b)-(c)). Developers should implement environmental monitoring and contingency plans consistent with likely environmental conditions.

Fees and procedural forms: Applications are to be made in the prescribed form with the prescribed fee to the local government (s 26(1)). The Authority may charge for copies of proposed master plans and master plans (ss 13(3), 16(3)). Procedural non‑compliance with form, fee and documentation requests is likely to delay forwarding to the Commission and can affect the 60‑day timelines that trigger deemed refusal consequences (s 28(6)).

Master plan content breadth: The master plan may include any provision the Authority considers will promote orderly and proper planning, including provisions that may be made by a local planning scheme (s 11(1)). That is a wide grant of substantive content authority. Given the master plan’s legislative effect (s 22A), its substantive reach can be broad, and stakeholders should scrutinise master plan drafts early and engage through the statutory consultation process.

Immediate steps for landowners and developers

1. Confirm whether the land is within the redevelopment area. Consult Schedule 1 and the certified Plan No. 1 held at the Authority’s office (s 4(1)-(2)). Treat that plan as authoritative evidence of boundaries.

2. Inspect the operative master plan. The Authority must keep a copy available for public inspection free of charge at its offices (s 10(2)) and must publish the location of inspection in the Gazette when the master plan is approved (s 16(1)). Before undertaking works, ensure proposed activities are consistent with the master plan, because contravention is an offence (ss 22A-22B).

3. Do not commence development without Commission approval. Section 25 prohibits undertaking development in the redevelopment area without Commission approval, subject to the savings in s 24 for developments lawfully under way before the Act’s commencement. Apply in prescribed form and pay the prescribed fee to the relevant local government (City of Cockburn or Town of Kwinana) which must forward the application to the Commission within seven days (s 26(1), (3)). Provide full plans, specifications and any other information reasonably required by the Commission (s 26(2)).

4. Allow for EPA processes. If the proposal raises environmental issues, the master plan or amendment may be subject to EPA processes (ss 18-21). The Authority must refer proposals to the EPA and may be required to undertake an environmental review to EPA instructions before proceeding (s 19). Where the EPA signals that assessment is needed, environmental submissions must be forwarded to the EPA within seven days after the expiration of the public submission period and the Authority must inform the EPA of its response within 42 days or such longer period as allowed by the Minister (s 20). Factor these timelines into project programming.

5. Engage in the public submission process. When a proposed master plan is publicly notified the Authority must run notice in the Gazette and in two issues of a daily newspaper circulating in the local government districts (s 13(2)). The statutory minimum period for written submissions is 60 days from Gazette publication (s 14(1)). Make submissions within that period and be prepared for the Authority to modify the proposed master plan to give effect to submissions (s 14(2)). For amendments, expect a 42‑day submission period (s 17(c)).

6. Track Commission decision timelines and protect review rights. After the local government forwards the application, it may make recommendations within 42 days (s 26(4)). The Commission must notify the applicant and consulted parties of its decision in writing; absence of written notice within 60 days of the application being forwarded is treated as a refusal unless the applicant agrees in writing to a longer period (s 28(5)-(6)). If dissatisfied with a Commission decision, an applicant may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (s 29).

For local governments

1. Use prescribed intake procedures. Accept applications in prescribed form and with prescribed fee (s 26(1)). Forward applications to the Commission within seven days (s 26(3)) and note the fixed 42‑day recommendation window (s 26(4)). Ensure records demonstrate forwarding dates to avoid disputes over deemed refusals (s 28(6)).

2. Advise on rating and valuation rules. When advising ratepayers or exercising rating powers remember the Act restrains rate discrimination within the redevelopment area: valuation methods remain as before unless development has commenced, and differential rates, specified area rates, minimum payments and service charges cannot be imposed merely on the basis that land is within the redevelopment area (s 34(2)).

For the Authority and Commission

1. Follow EPA referral and review steps precisely. The Authority must refer any proposed master plan or amendment to the EPA forthwith with sufficient information (s 18). If the EPA requires an environmental review under the EP Act, the Authority must undertake the review to EPA instructions and not submit the plan to the Commission until the EPA confirms the review was compliant or 30 days elapse without EPA advice (s 19(1)). If EPA finds the review non‑compliant, follow the ministerial escalation procedure in s 19(2)-(3).

2. Observe public notification and consultation obligations. The Commission’s consent is required before public notification of a proposed master plan (s 12(4)). The Authority must publish Gazette notice and two daily newspaper notices and make reasonable endeavours to consult relevant public authorities and persons likely to be affected (s 13(2)-(4)). Carefully summarise submissions and provide the required report to the Commission when submitting the plan (s 15(2)).

3. Ensure parliamentary transparency for directions. If the Minister directs modifications under s 15(4) or refuses approval and gives directions under s 15(5), the direction text must be laid before each House of Parliament within 28 sitting days and included in the Authority’s annual report (s 15(7)). Prepare for this transparency obligation when drafting directions.

For dispute and enforcement management

1. If served with a stop or rectification notice, consider SAT review immediately. Directions under s 31(1)(b) may be appealed to the SAT (s 31(2)) and are suspended pending determination (s 31(3)). A prompt application to SAT preserves procedural rights.

2. If the Commission removes unlawful development, the costs can be recovered as a debt (s 31(6)). Parties involved in construction and contracting should ensure contractual clauses allocate risk and address potential cost recovery exposure.

3. Comply with environmental orders promptly. Ministerial short stop orders for assessed schemes may be served for up to 24 hours (s 32(3)(a)); the Commission may also be directed to serve notices requiring steps to comply with environmental conditions (s 32(3)(b)). Non‑compliance carries the same monetary penalty regime (s 32(4)) and potential EP Act consequences (s 32(5)).

Administrative and project management practices

1. Map dates and deadlines. Track Gazette publication dates for master plan notification, the 60‑day (or 42‑day for amendments) submission windows (ss 13-14, 17(c)), the 7‑day and 42‑day local government/Commission windows (s 26(3)-(4)), EPA referral and review windows (ss 18-21), and the 60‑day decision notice window with deemed refusal consequences (s 28(6)). Use strict project diaries to avoid procedural traps.

2. Maintain documentary completeness. Provide full plans, specifications and any documents the Commission reasonably requires with an application (s 26(2)). A local government must forward applications promptly; careless or incomplete submissions risk refusal or delay.

3. Build environmental compliance into contracts and budgets. Given the EPA’s role and the Minister’s enforcement powers, incorporate environmental due diligence, monitoring and contingency costs into project bids. Anticipate that environmental conditions may be imposed and that the Minister or Commission may require steps to ensure compliance (s 32).

4. Engage early with local government, public authorities and the Authority. The Act requires consultation and authorises the Authority to make reasonable endeavours to consult likely affected persons (s 13(4)), and the Commission may consult public authorities with relevant functions (s 27). Early engagement reduces the risk of late objections, conditions or modifications.

Compensation claims and acquisition risk

1. If affected by a master plan reserve or public purpose classification, evaluate compensation rights under the Planning and Development Act 2005 as applied by s 33(1). Confirm whether any prior compensation has already been paid, since s 33(3) disallows duplicate compensation for the same injurious affection.

2. For land potentially subject to transfer by Governor order or compulsory acquisition, seek early legal advice on valuation, compensation processes under the Land Administration Act and Public Works Act, and any exclusions that the Act applies (ss 6-7).

Regulatory monitoring and ongoing compliance

1. Monitor for amendments. The Authority may amend a master plan following procedures that mirror preparation and approval (s 17). Amendments may have 42‑day submission windows and can alter permitted development. Keep subscribed to Gazette notices and Authority publications.

2. Implement compliance systems. For larger developments, institute compliance officers or external auditors to ensure works remain consistent with master plan provisions and environmental conditions, thereby reducing enforcement risk under ss 22B, 31 and 32.

In short, compliance requires early verification of geographical scope, careful mapping of procedural timelines, full documentation of applications, proactive environmental and local government engagement, contractual allocation of enforcement risk, and regular monitoring of master plan and regulatory changes.