BOYNTON and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

In the matter of Boynton and the Western Australian Planning Commission, the primary dispute centred on a proposed subdivision of four lots in a bushfire-prone area. The applicant sought approval from the Commission to proceed with the subdivision, but the Commission refused the application due to the absence of access to a public dedicated road. This refusal was predicated on the State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and the local planning scheme. The applicant subsequently challenged the decision in the Land and Environment Court, questioning whether the policy and the local planning scheme were in conflict.

The court was required to determine whether the State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and the local planning scheme were in conflict, and if so, which should prevail. The applicant argued that the local planning scheme should govern the subdivision approval process, as it was more specific and detailed, whereas the policy was more general in nature. The Commission contended that the policy, being a higher-level planning instrument, should take precedence over the local planning scheme.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and the local planning scheme, finding that the two instruments were not in conflict. Instead, they complemented each other. The court held that the local planning scheme provided detailed guidelines for subdivision approval, while the policy established overarching principles to guide planning decisions in bushfire-prone areas. The court concluded that the Commission's decision to refuse the subdivision application was not erroneous, as it was in accordance with both the policy and the local planning scheme. The appeal was therefore dismissed.