Bartlett and City of Swan
[2007] WASAT 102
•7 MAY 2007
BARTLETT and CITY OF SWAN [2007] WASAT 102
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2007] WASAT 102 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:434/2006 | 21 FEBRUARY 2007 | |
| Coram: | MR L GRAHAM (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 7/05/07 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The application for review is upheld | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER MERVYN BARTLETT CITY OF SWAN |
Catchwords: | Town planning Approval to commence development Brushwood screen Hardstand areas Unreasonable sterilisation of available land Compensating basin Vegetation buffer strip Firebreak regulations Visual impact, noise and dust |
Legislation: | City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No 9, cl 2.2.3, cl 2.3.6.2, cl 2.3.8, cl 2.3.8.1, cl 2.3.8.2, cl 2.3.8.2(e), Table 3B, Table 8B KewdaleHazelmere Integrated Masterplan Metropolitan Region Scheme Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 250(1) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(3)(b) |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is upheld on the basis of condition (b) of the respondent's approval of the 14 June 2006 being varied to read:,"A 2 metre high 'brushwood screen' being attached to the fence with the adjoining Lot 189 from a point at the south west corner of the subject land to a point 15 metres east of the eastern extremity of the proposed compensating basin." |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : BARTLETT and CITY OF SWAN [2007] WASAT 102 MEMBER : MR L GRAHAM (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 21 FEBRUARY 2007 DELIVERED : 7 MAY 2007 FILE NO/S : DR 434 of 2006 BETWEEN : PETER MERVYN BARTLETT
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF SWAN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Approval to commence development - Brushwood screen - Hardstand areas - Unreasonable sterilisation of available land - Compensating basin - Vegetation buffer strip - Firebreak regulations - Visual impact, noise and dust
Legislation:
City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No 9, cl 2.2.3, cl 2.3.6.2, cl 2.3.8, cl 2.3.8.1, cl 2.3.8.2, cl 2.3.8.2(e), Table 3B, Table 8B
KewdaleHazelmere Integrated Masterplan
Metropolitan Region Scheme
(Page 2)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 250(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(3)(b)
Result:
The application for review is upheld
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr P Webb (Acting as Agent)
Respondent : Mr P Russell (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant : Peter D Webb & Associates (Town Planners)
Respondent : City of Swan
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 The application for review was lodged against the decision of the City of Swan which reiterated an earlier decision to require a 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip along the southern boundary of the subject land adjacent to the adjoining Lot 189.
2 The Tribunal assessed the respective arguments of the parties; the background to, and the nature of, the development; the applicable legislative and policy provisions; the public consultation process over time and other relevant matters, including the extent of on-site vegetation on the subject land.
3 The Tribunal determined that based on the evidence, it was not possible to conclude that a 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip was justified.
4 The application for review was upheld in accordance with s 29(3)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
Introduction
5 An application for review, received by the Tribunal on 7 December 2006, was lodged by Mr PM Bartlett (applicant) against a decision of the City of Swan (respondent) on 8 November 2006, to reiterate an earlier decision of 14 June 2006. That decision was to approve modifications to the proposed transport depot and office on Lot 155 Talbot Road, Hazelmere, (subject land) subject to conditions.
6 The application was lodged under the provisions of s 250(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) and against condition (b) of the approval that:
"(b) A 3 metre wide strip of the existing vegetation on the southern boundary adjoining [L]ot 189 Adelaide Street is to be retained as a buffer."
7 In the grounds for review attached to the application, a number of points were made:
(a) The respondent's firebreak regulations advise that firebreaks are a legal requirement, and that a 3 metre firebreak clear of all flammable material around the inside of a property
- boundary is required for rural zoned land less than 100 hectares.
- (b) The proposed compensating basin in the south-west corner of the property would take the place of and create that firebreak.
(c) If the compensating basin is to be set back 3 metres, there is a statutory obligation on the applicant to keep the area clear of flammable material, including vegetation.
(d) The applicant is prepared to affix a "brushwood screen" to the fence for the width of the compensating basin to a height of 1.8 metres to 2.0 metres.
(e) The Kewdale-Hazelmere Region Integrated Masterplan (KHIMP) envisages that both the subject land and land extending south to Adelaide Street are for future industrial development. Retention of a buffer is therefore unnecessary.
(f) The concerned neighbour to the south has a primary living area at least 250 metres from the south-west corner of the subject land. The compensating basin would be barely visible (if at all) from the primary living area.
Subject land
8 The subject land can be described as Lot 155 Talbot Road, Hazelmere, on Certificate of Title Volume 2160, Folio 485 and located on Plan 4553. It is adjacent to and directly north of Lot 189 Adelaide Street (Lot 189).
9 The land is roughly triangular in shape and bounded by Talbot Road in the north and Stirling Crescent to the east. It is 5.1893 hectares in area with a southern boundary of 246.42 metres, a western boundary of 311.77 metres, a northern boundary to Talbot Road of 70.69 meters and an eastern boundary to Stirling Crescent of some 358.11 metres.
10 The subject land was described in the report to the Ordinary Meeting of the respondent's Council (Council) on 14 June 2006 as being "relatively flat and vacant, with vegetation in the back half".
11 The report goes on to say that:
"[t]he area is characterised by industrial and commercial uses, including the Pioneer Road Services bitumen plant on the adjoining land to the west, the Fertals animal by-products plant
(Page 5)
- on the northern side of Talbot Road and other manufacturing and transport businesses."
Legislative framework
12 The subject land is zoned "rural" in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and "general rural" in the City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No 9 (TPS 9).
13 Of relevance is the KHIMP as prepared by the Western Australian Planning Commission in August 2006, and the respondent's Firebreak Regulations (the Regulations).
Respondent's position
14 The position of the respondent is outlined in its undated Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions received by the Tribunal on 22 January 2007. The statement argues:
(a) The provisions of the "general rural" zone relevant to the matter are:
(i) the preservation of amenity;
(ii) site sensitive development; and
(iii) retention of remnant vegetation wherever possible.
(b) The respondent, in imposing condition (b), has sought to minimise the effects of visual impact, noise and dust on the adjoining property to the south (Lot 189) which contains a residence.
(c) The applicant contends that condition (b) requires a 3 metre wide firebreak in accordance with the Regulations which stipulate that it must be on the inside of the property and clear of all flammable material. However, the Regulations allow for firebreaks to be located other than along the inside of the property boundary at the discretion of the respondent, and this could be achieved on the subject land with vegetation retained.
(d) The alternative "brushwood screen" suggested by the applicant is not considered to be as visually effective, or in mitigating the effects of noise and dust, as mature trees of greater height and foliage density.
(Page 6)
- (e) It is reasonable to expect that "hardstand areas" at the rear of the subject land will be used for the storage of goods, machinery and equipment. There is the potential for stored items to be stacked to heights above 2 metres; thereby rendering a 2 metre high "brushwood screen" ineffective as a visual screen.
(f) The applicant argues that condition (b), together with the compensating basin, constitutes unreasonable sterilisation of available land. The respondent disagrees because, irrespective of whether this translates into an enforced 3 metres or 6 metres area (depending on how close the existing trees are to the fence), the subject land is over 5 hectares in area and the condition applies to only half the length of the southern boundary, of which the drainage basin constitutes approximately 50%.
(g) The area to the rear of the lot approved as "hardstand area" is significant and Council has granted a number of concessions in respect of setbacks. These concessions have facilitated development beyond what TPS 9 prescribes for the "general rural" zone. The applicant is not unreasonably constrained in the development of the lot by the condition.
(h) The adjoining lot to the west, which contains the Pioneer Road Services Plant, has retained a stand of vegetation to the rear of the compound.
(i) Notwithstanding that the subject land is recommended to be rezoned to "industrial" under the KHIMP, this does not preclude the retention of remnant vegetation. The KHIMP recommends a structure plan for the area which should provide for appropriate buffers to the residential land on the south side of Adelaide Street. Condition (b) is consistent with this principle.
Applicant's position
15 The applicant's position is outlined in its response of 22 January 2007 to the respondent's undated Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions. It argues:
(a) There was no mention in the report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 8 November 2006, of visual impact, noise and dust.
(Page 7)
- (b) The proposed condition (b), and the Regulations, appear to conflict with each other.
(c) A site inspection reveals that a 3 metre strip directly abutting the southern boundary of the subject land may contain some trees, but there would be gaps where trees outside the 3 metre strip could be removed. This would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the condition.
(d) The proposed "brushwood screen" would be a more effective barrier than the odd tree scattered along the 3 metre boundary.
(e) The primary living area of Lot 189 is in excess of 250 metres from its common boundary with the subject land. This distance further reduces the impact of the view of the compensating basin.
(f) The applicant does not contend that the drainage compensating basin is an unreasonable sterilisation of available land. It is a necessary facility located in the lowest part of the site.
(g) The applicant rejects the contention that condition (b) could be translated into a buffer strip of up to 6 metres in width.
(h) The applicant acknowledges the concessions granted to it with respect to setbacks, but these concessions are not relevant to condition (b). It is assumed they were allowed on the basis of merit.
(i) It is not clear whether vegetation on the adjacent lot to the west was retained as a result of a condition imposed by the respondent.
(j) There is nothing in the KHIMP which might require "internal" buffers within the proposed industrial area itself.
(k) The "general rural" zoning does give the respondent the opportunity to approve a range of land uses, many of which may not be aesthetically pleasing.
(l) The KHIMP does address the residential interface, but this is to do with the Adelaide Street interface which is more than 300 metres south of the subject land.
(Page 8)
Planning issues
16 The principal planning issue is:
(a) Is a planning condition requiring the imposition of a 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip justified in the circumstances of this case?
Assessment of proposal
Background
17 The background to the matter is summarised:
(a) On 18 January 1999, approval was given for a transport depot on the subject land.
(b) On 23 February 2000, final approval was granted to Amendment 363 to TPS 9 to facilitate an "Additional Use – Sales and Assembly of Relocatable Buildings; Storage; Repairs and the Warehousing of Fitout Equipment". The amendment was gazetted on 7 November 2000.
(c) On 28 February 2001, an approval was granted for an office, warehouse, workshop and maintenance building.
(d) On 13 October 2003, an approval was granted for the "Assembly and Sales of Relocatable Buildings and Equipment, Storage, Repairs and Warehousing".
18 Based on the witness statement, dated 6 February 2007, of Mr Charles DJ Watson, Finance Director of Barminico Limited, he advised:
(a) On, or around April 2005, the applicant was introduced to the subject land as a possible site to relocate from existing premises in Maddington in order to develop a transport and logistics facility.
(b) On 28 September 2005, the respondent granted conditional approval for the development of a transport depot and offices on the subject land.
(c) On 4 October 2005, the settlement for the purchase of the subject land was effected.
(d) Revised plans were submitted to the respondent on 13 April 2006.
(Page 9)
- (e) On 14 June 2006, a new development approval was issued. Condition (b) was included in the list of conditions.
(f) An attempt to renegotiate the condition was made, but the respondent reiterated its earlier decision at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council on 8 November 2006.
The proposed development
19 In the administration report to Council of 14 June 2006, the differences between the current proposal and the earlier conditional approval of 28 September 2005 were outlined:
(a) The general site layout with three buildings (and crossover locations) remains the same.
(b) Vehicle circulation has been reviewed with building positions adjusted to accommodated road trains and b-double rigs.
(c) The "goods transfer" warehouse has been changed in shape with the floor area increased from 2000 square metres to 3132 square metres with 637 square metres comprising an undercover "laydown" area.
(d) The "garage maintenance" workshop has been increased from 3000 square metres to 3333 square metres with a second wash bay and improvements to staff amenities.
(e) The office has been reduced in height from approximately 6.5 metres – 7.0 metres to 5.5 metres with the warehouse and workshop buildings increasing from 9.0 metres and 10.0 metres to 11 metres to the top of the roof.
(f) There are 200 car parking bays provided.
20 An examination of the relevant plans shows the stormwater compensating basin in the far south-west corner of the subject land, and no remnant vegetation left along the length of the southern boundary.
Legislative and policy provisions
21 Under Table 3B of TPS 9, a transport depot is allocated an "AA" symbol in the general rural zone. The symbol is described under cl 2.2.3:
" 'AA' means that the use is not permitted unless special permission is granted by the Council."
22 Under cl 2.3.6.2 of TPS 9, it states:
(Page 10)
- " 'AA' Uses – The Council in exercising its discretion as to the approval or refusal of an application for development approval shall have regard to the provisions of subclause 2.3.8."
23 An examination of cl 2.3.8.1 and cl 2.3.8.2 show a wide range of matters that can be taken into account by the Council when exercising its discretion. These include:
"2.3.8.2 ...
(e) The comments or wishes of any objectors to or supporters of the application."
25 Although the proposal does not meet the side setback requirement to Stirling Crescent, it was supported by the Council in its conditional approval of 14 June 2006.
26 Under the KHIMP, the land use and development issues were addressed in the "overview" to the document:
"6.4.1 In order to facilitate efficient freight transport operations in Kewdale-Hazelmere, development needs to be planned to ensure that facilitates, land uses and infrastructure develop in a cohesive and complementary manner. The following matters were considered:
• identification of actual and potential incompatibilities at the interface of residential and industrial land uses;
• future zoning of rural land in the study area; and
• future use of large land holdings."
"... the KHIM[P] report does recommend, and the City has supported that recommendation, that this area ultimately be designated for industrial purposes."
(Page 11)
28 Under the Regulations, it states with respect to rural land less than 100 hectares:
"By November 2nd you MUST have a three metre wide firebreak clear of all flammable material around the inside of the boundaries of your property and it must be kept clear until March 31st the following year."
29 The Regulations also advise:
"If it is impractical for you to install a firebreak along your boundary, you can request permission from the City to install a firebreak in an alternative location or of a different nature."
30 In the view of the Tribunal, what is meant by the Regulations is that the 3 metre wide firebreak must not contain flammable material within it, rather than it itself being kept clear of other nearby flammable material. However, the wording is confusing in that regard.
31 What is clear is that a firebreak can be positioned away from the inside of the property boundary if justified and agreed
Public consultation
32 In the report to Council of 14 June 2006 on whether public consultation took place, it was advised:
"Not undertaken, however and adjoining owner to the south has requested that existing vegetation along the southern boundary of the subject lot be retained to provide a natural buffer between the two properties."
33 In answer to a question from Mr P Webb for the applicant on how the owner of Lot 189 communicated his concerns to the respondent, Mr Russell replied:
"The original submission was by letter."
34 In a further question from Mr Webb on the number of property owners notified, Mr Russell replied:
"I am not able to provide confirmation of the number of properties that were notified by mail, but I might add, also that the application was advertised with a sign on the site, inviting any potential interested parties. What I can offer the Tribunal
(Page 12)
- and Mr Webb, however, is, assuming our mail-out procedures, I could probably estimate only though, that it may have been directly mailed out to between six to nine properties."
35 Mr Russell went on to further explain:
"I think that one of the reports that went to Council after the initial advertising 28 September indicated that there were three submissions received back and one objection."
36 Based on the foregoing, it appears that public consultation may well have occurred in 2005 when the three submissions were lodged, but that process did not re-occur prior to the Council decisions of 14 June 2006 and 8 November 2006.
37 However, it is possible that a letter was written from the owner of Lot 189 relative to the revised proposal and considered on 14 June 2006.
38 What is clear from the witness statement, dated 13 February 2007 of Mr Russell, is that the basis of the objection was in relation to amenity; with specific concerns relating to views, light and noise.
39 What is also clear from the information before the Tribunal is that the conditional approval granted on 28 September 2005 did not include a 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip. That condition was applied later on 14 June 2006.
The matter of vegetation
40 At Annexure 3 to the application for review is an undated aerial photograph of the subject land. It shows extensive vegetation on the southern half of the site with the "shadow effect" from the afternoon sun appearing to indicate that the larger trees are toward the centre of the property, and the smaller trees and associated vegetation are along the southern boundary. A similar impression is given on the undated aerial photograph attached as Annexure 6 to the respondent's Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions.
41 However, in his witness statement, Mr Russell describes the situation this way:
"10.0 My inspection of the subject lot confirms that a substantial number of mature trees are in fact located within 3 metres of the fence along the common boundary
- with Lot 189. The existing firebreak has been established behind this line of trees."
42 In his summing up before the Tribunal, Mr Webb explained for the applicant:
"Three metres is not very wide in terms of the landscape in a landscaping strip. So as the condition is spelled out there, it is the applicant's view, well we might have a tree every, on average 10 or 15 metres, or so, and there is going to be big gaps between the trees. So you are still going to be able to see through it. So our view was that the condition, as it is specified, would only have very limited effectiveness."
43 At Annexure 10 to the application for review are two photographs; one showing the relatively open nature of the adjoining neighbour's land to the south (Lot 189) when photographed from the south-eastern corner of the subject land, and the other showing sporadic trees and shrubs on Lot 189 when looking south from the south-western end of the subject land.
44 In the first photograph the residence and associated shed on Lot 189 can be seen, but they are blocked from view in the second photograph by the sporadic trees on Lot 189.
45 The difficulty that the Tribunal finds itself in here is that there is no photographic evidence before it looking north from Lot 189 towards the subject land, to show the effectiveness or otherwise of providing the proposed 3 metre wide buffer strip as a visual barrier.
Other matters
46 In the witness statement of Mr Russell, he addressed the question of how much land is likely to be affected by proposed condition (b), and the total amount of land affected with the firebreak included:
"13.0 The subject condition affects approximately 400 [square metres] of the subject lot. With the provision of alternative firebreaks it is estimated a total of approximately 665 [square metres] is likely to be affected. Areas designated as alternate firebreaks must allow access by fire fighting vehicles and this may prevent the storage of materials and equipment associated with the approved development. Relative to the lot area
- (indicated as 5.1893 hectares) such a parcel represents approximately 1%, which is not considered a significant parcel."
47 In a response to a question from Mr Webb on the cost of the buffer strip and the firebreak requirements to the company, Mr Watson responded:
"My feeling for that at the moment, given the market conditions since Mr Bartlett acquired the property, the current value would be around $75 to $80 a square metre, which put the value of that 665 square metre at about $50[ 000] to $60 000."
48 On the matter of the on-site hardstand requirements of the company Mr Watson responded to a question from Mr Russell in this way:
"Our business requirement for hardstand is quite critical at the moment, so I couldn't comment on an exact measurement, but I would suggest we would be looking to maximise the use of that hardstand, so I think they would attempt to maximise the distance wherever possible. I don't know what a reasonable distance would be."
49 In his summing up on the matter of land immediately north of the proposed buffer, Mr Russell advised:
"Now, I would submit that the hard stand area that was shown which is unsealed was never necessarily contemplated as being used in its entirely for storage and I think the applicant's contention that that is an unreasonable constraint is, in fact, unreasonable in itself. It is only a small portion of land, possibly well less than 665 [metres] and it may still enable them to store some vehicles."
Conclusions
50 The application for review was lodged against a decision of the City of Swan to reiterate an earlier decision requiring the retention of a 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip on the southern boundary of the subject land adjacent to Lot 189.
51 In examining this matter, the Tribunal assessed the arguments of both the applicant and the respondent, the background to the matter, the nature of the development, the applicable legislative and policy
(Page 15)
- provisions, the public consultation process over time and other relevant matters including on-site vegetation.
52 The position of the respondent is that it has sought to minimise the visual impact of the proposed development and the effects of noise and dust on Lot 189 to the south, and that the applicant's offer to construct a "brushwood screen" adjacent to the compensating basin would not be as effective as maintaining the remnant vegetation.
53 The respondent also argues that vegetation has been retained on the adjoining lot to the west, and that proposed condition (b) requiring the 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip would accord with buffers suggested in the recently published KHIMP.
54 On the other hand, the applicant argues that the "brushwood screen" would be more effective in hiding the compensating basin than the odd tree scattered along the 3 metre wide buffer strip; that the primary living area of the owner of Lot 189 to the south is more than 250 metres from the common boundary and that proposed condition (b) is an unreasonable constraint.
55 Of importance in this matter is that the approval granted by the respondent on 28 September 2005 for a transport depot and office did not include a 3 metre wide vegetation buffer and, although it is always open to Council under cl 2.3.8.2 of TPS 9 to take into account a whole series of matters in reaching its decision, it was clearly the objection lodged by the adjoining owner of Lot 189 that caused the respondent to impose condition (b) on 14 June 2006.
56 In progressing the review, it was also clear to the Tribunal that if condition (b) was first put into effect, that the proposed compensating basin in the far south-west corner of the subject land would need to be pushed forward to the north by 3 metres. This would ensure that the 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip was in a continuous line adjacent to Lot 189.
57 In this situation, the amount of land affected by the buffer would be in the order of 400 square metres and, if the compensating basin was considered by the respondent to be part of the firebreak, then the total land area affected by the buffer strip and the firebreak would be reduced from some 800 square metres to around 665 square metres.
58 On the important question of the likely effectiveness of proposed condition (b), it is the case that the rear (north) boundary of Lot 189
(Page 16)
- adjoins some 50% to 60% only of the rear (southern) boundary of the subject land and the applicant would, if he so chose, still be able to remove the remnant vegetation along his common boundary with Lot 190. Lot 190 adjoins Lot 189 to the east.
59 Clearly the effectiveness of condition (b) would then be compromised in the situation described in [58] above.
60 A further point on the effectiveness of proposed condition (b) were the conflicting views between the parties as to whether the 3 metre wide vegetation strip would be effective in minimising the visual effect from the point of view of the adjoining neighbour to the south.
61 Keeping in mind that the neighbour is over 250 metres from the joint boundary, and there is no photographic evidence from the respondent that the trees within the proposed 3 metre vegetation strip would prove to be an effective visual barrier, the Tribunal remains unconvinced on the effectiveness of proposed condition (b).
62 Again, there is no evidence from the respondent that the proposed 3 metre vegetation strip would in fact be effective in helping to minimise both dust and noise.
63 On the other hand, the Tribunal would not find it inconsistent with any future industrial estate, as appears likely in this locality in the future, that provision be made for on-site landscaping and retention of remnant vegetation where justified in order to create a more attractive and environmentally friendly industrial estate. However, that is not the situation existing today in a locality zoned "general rural".
64 However, in the view of the Tribunal, the concept of a "brushwood screen" tied to the boundary fence adjacent to Lot 189 may prove effective in blocking views of the compensating basin when viewed from the south looking north. This would be particularly so when viewed from the residence on Lot 189.
65 It is of course always open to the applicant to retain some large trees, as appears to have happened on the adjoining lot to the west, in the interests of environmental effect. Also, there is no impediment to the owner of Lot 189 planting trees in order to preserve or protect visual amenity.
(Page 17)
66 On the weight of evidence before the Tribunal it is not possible to conclude that a 3 metre wide vegetation buffer strip, as required by condition (b), is justified in the circumstances of this case.
67 The application for review is upheld with condition (b) varied in accordance with order 1 below.
Orders
68 For the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with s 29(3)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the orders of the Tribunal are:
1. The application for review is upheld on the basis of condition (b) of the respondent's approval of the 14 June 2006 being varied to read:
"A 2 metre high 'brushwood screen' being attached to the fence with the adjoining Lot 189 from a point at the south-west corner of the subject land to a point 15 metres east of the eastern extremity of the proposed compensating basin."
I certify that this and the preceding [68] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR L GRAHAM, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
0
5