APP CORPORATION PTY LTD and CITY OF PERTH

The matter before the court involved a dispute between APP Corporation Pty Ltd and the City of Perth over a development application to install a single vertical access turbine on the roof of a commercial building in an inner city area. The City of Perth initially approved the installation of three vertical axis wind turbines on the building in December 2008, but the applicant later sought approval for a different model, the Quietrevolution 5 (QR5), which was taller and wider than the previously approved Turby model. The City of Perth refused the development application on the grounds that the proposed installation of the turbine would have an undue adverse effect on the amenity of the area and on the inhabitants of the locality.

The legal issues before the court were whether the City of Perth's refusal of the development application was consistent with its previous decisions, whether the proposed use of the wind turbine provided a significant contribution in offsetting the energy consumption of the building, and whether alternatives such as solar panels should be considered instead. The court also had to consider the effect of the proposed development on the visual amenity of the area and on birdlife.

The court found that the City of Perth's refusal of the development application was consistent with its previous decisions, as it had previously approved the installation of wind turbines on the building with certain conditions. The court also found that the proposed use of the wind turbine did not provide a significant contribution in offsetting the energy consumption of the building, and that alternatives such as solar panels should be considered instead. The court further found that the proposed development would have an undue adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area and on the inhabitants of the locality, and that the effect on birdlife was not adequately addressed by the applicant. The court therefore upheld the City of Perth's decision to refuse the development application.

The final orders of the court were that the City of Perth's decision to refuse the development application be upheld, and that the applicant bear the costs of the proceeding. The court also directed the parties to endeavour to reach an agreement on the terms of a possible development, having regard to the issues raised in the proceeding.