Collins and Anor and Western Australian Planning Commission
[2008] WASAT 112
•20 MAY 2008
COLLINS & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2008] WASAT 112
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 112 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:262/2007 | 21 FEBRUARY 2008 | |
| Coram: | MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) | 20/05/08 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The application is allowed The decision of the respondent is set aside and conditional approval is granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WAYNE THOMAS COLLINS SUSAN ELIZABETH COLLINS WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Town planning Subdivision of rural land Realignment of boundaries for farming purposes with no increase in the number of lots 67 hectare lot created for sandalwood production Amalgamation of balance land to create 1039 hectare lot for broadacre farming Whether subdivision is consistent with planning framework Whether, if subdivided, the subject land which has productive capacity for agricultural production would be lost as a resource Breakdown of viable farmholding Economic viability Rural lifestyle lot Diversification Environmental benefits |
Legislation: | Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 25, s 135, s 138, s 241, s 251(1) Shire of York Town Planning Scheme No 2 Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 5AA |
Case References: | Ingram & Anor v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WASCA 77 |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision of the respondent to refuse to approve the subdivision of Lot 4 and Lot 11 Badgin Road, Narraloggan is set aside and a decision is substituted that subdivision approval is granted as shown on the plan prepared by Ian C Ross (Licensed Surveyor) dated 20 April 2007, subject to the following condition:,1) Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Local Government) |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : COLLINS & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2008] WASAT 112 MEMBER : MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) HEARD : 21 FEBRUARY 2008 DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2008 FILE NO/S : DR 262 of 2007 BETWEEN : WAYNE THOMAS COLLINS
- SUSAN ELIZABETH COLLINS
Applicants
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Subdivision of rural land Realignment of boundaries for farming purposes with no increase in the number of lots 67 hectare lot created for sandalwood production Amalgamation of balance land to create 1039 hectare lot for broadacre farming Whether subdivision is consistent with planning framework Whether, if subdivided, the subject land which has productive capacity for agricultural production would be lost as a resource Breakdown of viable farmholding Economic viability Rural lifestyle lot Diversification Environmental benefits
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 25, s 135, s 138, s 241, s 251(1)
Shire of York Town Planning Scheme No 2
Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 5AA
Result:
The application is allowed
The decision of the respondent is set aside and conditional approval is granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Mr A Marsh (Acting as Agent)
Respondent : Mr J Algeri (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicants : AJ Marsh Pty Ltd (Surveying & Planning Consultants)
Respondent : Property Planning and Appeals Consultants (Town Planners)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Ingram & Anor v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WASCA 77
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 Mr and Mrs Collins applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the decision of Western Australian Planning Commission refusing subdivision approval to realign the boundaries of Lot 4 and Lot 11 Badgin Road, Narraloggan to create two freehold lots of 67 hectares and 1039 hectares.
2 The Tribunal was told that the purpose of the boundary realignment was to facilitate a more holistic approach to managing the farming enterprise by removing unprofitable areas from cereal production and utilising the available land for sandalwood production.
3 The overarching objective embodied in all of the planning instruments relevant to this matter underlines the protection of the agricultural land resource by ensuring the continued use of rural land for productive agricultural purposes. Although the planning framework advocated a general presumption against subdivision of rural land, the realignment of lot boundaries for farming purposes with no increase in the number of lots was identified as a form of subdivision that was not fragmentation, does not result in the loss of rural character and may be permitted.
4 On the merits of the application and in consideration of the matter listed in Development Control Policy DC 3.4 - Subdivision of Rural Land (February 2008), the Tribunal was satisfied that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the intent of the policy and that proposal would not result in the loss of agricultural land as a resource. The application for review was allowed and approval granted subject to one condition.
Introduction
5 Mr and Mrs Collins (applicants) made an application for subdivision to the Western Australian Planning Commission (respondent or WAPC) to realign the boundaries of Lot 4 and Lot 11 Badgin Road, Narraloggan (subject land).
6 The respondent refused the application on 10 July 2007 for the following reasons:
"1. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the "Rural" zoning of the land in Council's Town Planning Scheme. The purpose and intent of this zoning is to preserve the area's current rural use
- and density of development. Subdivision in the manner proposed would create the potential for additional building development and the introduction of increased non-rural activity in conflict with the zoning objectives.
- 2. The Commission's Rural Landuse Planning Policy requires Council's to prepare a Local Rural Strategy to comprehensively plan for change and development in rural areas. In the absence of an approved Local Rural Strategy, the Commission is not prepared to approve the subdivision of rural land that would lead to unplanned development and could be to the detriment of the proper management of rural land.
3. The proposal represents an unplanned breakdown of land holdings which would be detrimental to the use of the land for rural purposes.
4. Approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for the further subdivision of surrounding lots."
7 The applicants, on 8 August 2007, made application under s 251(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) to have the decision reviewed.
Proposal
8 In essence, the proposal seeks to amalgamate Lot 4 and Lot 11 Badgin Road, Narraloggan and resubdivide to create two freehold lots of 67 hectares and 1039 hectares. It is intended that the 67 hectare lot (proposed Lot 46) be used for sandalwood production and the 1039 hectare lot (proposed Lot 47) maintain its current use for cropping and grazing.
Planning framework
Regional
9 The respondent has prepared a number of planning documents relating to the subdivision of rural land for the purpose of exercising the power of the WAPC under s 135 and s 138 of the PD Act to approve a plan of subdivision; and include:
(Page 5)
- • Statement of Planning Policy No 1 - State Planning Framework Policy (SPP 1) unites existing State and regional policies, strategies and guidelines within a central framework to provide a context for decision-making on land use, subdivision and development in Western Australia. It informs decision-makers in the planning process on those aspects of State level planning policy which are to be taken into consideration, and given effect to, in order to ensure integrated decision-making across all spheres of planning. SPP 1 is an approved statement of planning policy prepared under s 5AA of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) and continues in force as a State Planning Policy under the PD Act: s 25. Under s 241 of the PD Act, the Tribunal is required to have due regard to any State Planning Policy which may affect the subject matter of an application for review. The plans, policies and strategies that form the State Planning Framework are listed in Pt B of SPP 1. The following policies listed in SPP 1 are relevant in the consideration and determination of this matter:
(i) Statement of Planning Policy No 2.5 - Agriculture and Rural Land Use Planning (SPP 2.5) - This policy applies to all rural land in Western Australia. The implementation of the four key principles embodied in SPP 2.5 is envisaged through the preparation of planning schemes, local planning strategies and policies. This policy, together with Development Control Policy DC 3.4 - Subdivision of Rural Land (February 2008) (DC 3.4) forms the basis for determining applications for the subdivision of rural land.
(ii) DC 3.4 - This operational policy guides the subdivision of rural land to achieve the four key objectives of SPP 2.5.
10 The Tribunal "standing in the shoes" of the original decision-maker is required under s 138(2) of the PD Act to have due regard to the provisions of any local planning scheme that applies to the land under consideration and is not to give approval that conflicts with the provisions of a local planning scheme.
11 The subject land is zoned "General Agriculture" in the Shire of York Town Planning Scheme No 2 (TPS 2or Scheme). The objectives of this zone are as follows:
(Page 6)
- "(a) To ensure the continuation of broad-hectare agriculture as the principal land use in the district encouraging where appropriate the retention and expansion of agricultural activities.
(b) To consider non-rural uses where they can be shown to be of benefit to the district and not detrimental to the natural resources or the environment.
(c) To allow for facilities for tourists and travellers, and for recreation uses.
(d) To have regard to residential use of adjoining land at the interface of the General Agriculture zone with other zones to avoid adverse effects on local amenities."
12 TPS 2 does not provide guidance on lot size for land which is zoned "General Agriculture".
13 The Shire of York (Shire) has prepared and adopted the Shire of York Local Planning Strategy (2007) (LP Strategy). This strategy has also been endorsed by the respondent. The LP Strategy supersedes the Local Rural Strategy (2000) (LRS), which is referenced as a resource document in the LP Strategy, particularly when investigating rural land use within the Shire. The subject land falls within the Kauring Plains Precinct (4), the objectives of which are:
"• to preserve and enhance the environment and natural resources; and
• protect sustainable agricultural production."
14 The strategies identified for this precinct are:
• A general presumption against subdivision of rural zoned land unless it can satisfy the requirements of SPP 2.5;
• Encourage action that supports environmental enhancement through revegetation and wetland improvements;
• Clearing of native vegetation will generally not be supported."
(Page 7)
15 The LRS recognises that continued large scale agriculture is the most suitable land use of this region, and sets out the following matters to be considered in relation to subdivision and development in the Kauring Plains Precinct:
"(i) a general presumption against small lot subdivision other than in accordance with the settlement strategy;
(ii) rationalisation of lot boundaries will be considered on the merits of each application;
(iii) a sustainable water supply must be proven at the planning stages for each development;
(iv) tree planting in strategic areas should be encouraged for vegetation belts, fauna corridors, shelter zones and wind breaks;
(v) remnant vegetation should not be cleared; and
(vi) tree planting should be encouraged along stream and drainage lines."
Issues
16 The following two issues were identified for consideration in this review:
1) Whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the "General Agriculture" zone of TPS 2 and LP Strategy, and the extent that it is relevant, the LPS.
2) Whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing policy framework for subdivision of agricultural productive land, including SPP 2.5 and DC 3.4.
17 The issues identify the local and regional planning instruments as discrete components when in fact they form a comprehensive planning framework, which together provides a context for decision-making for the subdivision of rural land. The Tribunal's reasons consider the identified planning instruments, but not as separate issues, as the determination of this matter needs to be considered in the context of the overall planning framework and in light of the particular merits of this application.
(Page 8)
18 The planning framework that has been formulated in regard to the subdivision of rural land both at State and local level is soundly based on key principles and objectives to establish future planning direction which provides the context for decision-making. The overarching objective embodied in all of the planning instruments relevant to this matter underlines the protection of the agricultural land resource by ensuring the continued use of rural land for productive agricultural purposes.
19 The State Planning Policies advocate a general presumption against subdivision of rural land to safeguard against further fragmentation of rural land unless specifically planned for, through the use of appropriate planning mechanisms to achieve co-ordinated development. The local planning framework is consistent with the approach of State Planning Policies, and through the local planning scheme and local planning strategy, provide guidance on the planning and development of the Shire's rural area. The local planning scheme pursues the protection of broadacre farming as the principal land use in the "General Agricultural" zone, and more particular to this locality (Kauring Plains Precinct), the local planning strategy advocates a general presumption against subdivision of rural zoned land unless it can satisfy the requirements of SPP 2.5.
20 DC 3.4, which guides the subdivision of rural land to achieve the four key objectives of SPP 2.5, identifies that the following forms of subdivision are "not fragmentation, do not result in loss of rural character and may be permitted" (cl 4.1):
"(a) To realign lot boundaries for farming purposes and/or for access to landlocked lots, with no increase in the number of lots.
(b) To reduce the area of large land parcels which are two or more times the area of typical lots used in the district for farming.
(c) To protect and actively conserve places of cultural and natural heritage.
(d) To allow for the efficient provision of utilities and infrastructure and/or for access to natural resources.
(e) To allow for the continued occupation of existing houses when they are no longer used in a farming operation.
(Page 9)
- (f) For other unusual or unanticipated purposes which, in the opinion of the WAPC, do not conflict with policy and are necessary in the public interest."
21 The applicants contended that the proposed application was not a subdivision but a realignment of existing boundaries for farming purposes with no increase in the number of lots. It was considered that the form of the subdivision was the type of application contemplated by subclause 4.1(a) of DC 3.4. The Tribunal was told that the purpose of the boundary realignment was to facilitate a more holistic approach to managing the farming enterprise by removing unprofitable areas from cereal production and utilising the available area for sandalwood production. The applicants asserted that the area of land used for sandalwood production (proposed Lot 46) would provide a long term revenue source while at the same time deliver a range of positive environmental outcomes, including biodiversity, improved surface water management and decreased erosion.
22 The respondent did not oppose the amalgamation of existing Lot 4 and Lot 11 Badgin Road, and accepted that such an amalgamation may create greater economic productivity than if the subject land remains in its current configuration. The respondent did, however, object to the creation of proposed Lot 46, as it was concerned that the proposed lot would lead to the erosion of the agricultural land base and would effectively become a de facto rural lifestyle lot. The respondent contended that the size of proposed Lot 46 was too small to produce an economically viable stand alone agricultural lot, and the creation of such a lot would result in the loss of rural land for productive agricultural purposes. The proposed subdivision was considered to be an unplanned breakdown of a rural holding that conflicted with the objectives of the established planning framework.
23 The parties called a number of experts to give evidence on the sustainability of proposed lots for agricultural purposes. The respondent called Mr Rodney Safstrom, who is a Development Officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), and Mr Michael Carter, who is the Manager Midwest Plantation of the Forest Products Commission Western Australia (FPC). Mr David Stead, who is an agronomist, and Mr Peter Jones, who is a forester with 24 years' experience in operational forestry, were called on behalf of the applicants. Mr Safstrom and Mr Stead gave their evidence jointly by reference to a joint statement. There were no areas of disagreement between the two experts. Mr Carter and Mr Jones also prepared a joint statement which
(Page 10)
- was filed with the Tribunal, but due to unforseen circumstances, Mr Carter was unavailable to give evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal accepted the witness statement of Mr Carter and the joint statement prepared by Mr Carter and Mr Jones as evidence, but acknowledged the there was no opportunity for the applicants or the Tribunal to test the veracity of Mr Carter's evidence. It is also noted that the joint statement of the two experts points out that "there are no major points of disagreement".
24 Mr Stead inspected the subject land and concluded that the soil type of proposed Lot 46 is very different from the rest of the farm, and as such, is not very productive in terms of conventional cropping. He considered that, although the soil type is not ideal for sandalwood (Santalum spicatum), it is a better option than broadacre rotation cropping and is the best opportunity to make the paddock economically viable. Mr Safstrom assessed the agricultural potential of proposed Lot 46 against the Department of Agriculture and Food Farnote 73/1994 Water Supplies for Irrigation on the Small Farm and concluded that "[a]lthough the proposed Lot 47 ... is of sufficient size for a crop or pasture, there is insufficient water on the subject land to [sic] for agricultural uses requiring irrigation ..." He also considered that 67 hectares was insufficient for a viable cropping enterprise.
25 The following matters were agreed by Mr Safstrom and Mr Stead in relation to proposed Lot 46:
"Soils
Agreement on the soil types, their agriculture productive potential and degradation risks.
Crop production
Agreement that:
• the subject paddock could produce between 0.6 tonne and 1.4 tonne per year and could be cropped on a four or six year cycle;
• the cropable area is in the order of 58 hectares;
• the subject paddock as a stand alone could not be farmed profitably.
Horticulture
(Page 11)
- Agreement that:
• there is sufficient water available to sustain 0.3 hectare of intensive horticulture or between 0.3 hectare and 1.2 hectares of fruit production[;]
• the subject land as a stand alone could not be farmed profitably.
Sandalwood
Agreement that:
• the Net Present Value (total future profit discounted to an annual return) could be between $15,000 and $18,000 depending on future markets, and that income does not commence for 5 - 8 years;
• the land is not a preferred site for Sandalwood due to soil type, although this is currently the only economically viable proposition;
• the subject paddock as a stand alone would be able to realise a profit at the completion of the project's life.
Carbon credits
Agreement that:
• carbon credits are not yet a tangible income source but could be in the future.
General
Agreement that:
• using the land for Sandalwood or an alternative perennial crop is a sensible environmental and economic diversification approach;
• amalgamating the balance of the land into one consolidated cropping title would mean a more viable and sustainable lot for broadacre farming."
26 During the hearing, Mr Safstrom and Mr Stead further agreed that, although proposed Lot 46 as a stand alone lot could not be used for crop production profitably, it could, however, be a component of a larger farming enterprise to
(Page 12)
- make up a viable economic unit. They also agreed that it would be a tradeable agricultural entity.
27 The following matters were agreed by Mr Carter and Mr Jones:
"• A sandalwood plantation can be established on [proposed] Lot 46.
• Provided a sandalwood plantation is established and managed in accordance with normal industry practices, it will generate revenue at some [time] in the future most likely between 15 and 25 years from establishment.
• It is not possible to determine accurately the final yield of sandalwood products from the proposed plantation due to the variability of site productivity factors over time.
• Sandalwood plantations have become an accepted form of land use within the Wheatbelt and can be incorporated within a 'whole of farm' management plan.
• The area available for planting within [proposed] Lot 46 is approximately 56 ha."
28 Mr Carter, in his witness statement, used the FPC sharefarming scheme for sandalwood to estimate the economic return on proposed Lot 46. According to Mr Carter, the scheme operates on a "profit a prendre" basis, whereby there is a caveat over the land by which the landowner retains ownership over the land, but the FPC owns the crop. The landholder can opt between two payment options - Upfront or Annuity. Based on this scheme, Mr Carter estimated the economic return for proposed Lot 46 as follows:
"(a) Upfront: 56ha x $750 = $42,000 over two years or $21,000 per year and 15% net crop share; and
(b) Annuity: 56ha x $98/ha = $5,488 per annum and 2% net crop share."
29 At the hearing, Mr Jones observed that Mr Carter's figures only related to the FPC's sharefarming arrangements which did not necessarily relate to other commercial arrangements or enterprises that focus around sandalwood growing. He also pointed out that Mr Carter's estimation did not include revenue from nut sales, which could add a further $16,800 per annum after Year 5.
(Page 13)
30 During the hearing, Mr Safstrom, Mr Stead and Mr Carter all agreed that the establishment of a sandalwood plantation on proposed Lot 46 would be economically viable. Mr Jones also identified a number of environmental benefits that could be gained as a result of the establishment of a sandalwood plantation on the subject land. He considered that, as the subject land adjoined a number of existing remnant vegetation sites, the establishment of a sandalwood plantation would increase biodiversity values and act as a corridor for wildlife movement. He also considered that it would also allow for a better recharge of groundwater sources, which would assist on a broad scale to managing salinity in the broader region.
31 Ms Daze, a planning officer of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure called on behalf of the respondent, contended the proposed subdivision was contrary to the planning regime, as it would result in the loss of land for agricultural purposes. She accepted the viability of proposed Lot 46 for sandalwood in terms of soil capability [and] water, but was concerned that a sandalwood plantation on the proposed lot was not viable as an economically sustainable agricultural enterprise. Ms Daze did not contest the profitability of the plantation in the long term, but was concerned that the potential income generated from proposed Lot 46 would be inadequate to maintain the ongoing usage of the lot as a stand alone sustainable enterprise.
32 Ms Daze also asserted that the current land use (cropping) is more profitable than sandalwood. Ms Daze calculated the annual return from cropping the land equated to be $17,248 per annum as compared to $5,488 per annum for sandalwood. Both Mr Stead and Mr Safstrom disputed Ms Daze's calculations, as the land was incapable of sustaining any agricultural broadacre production on an annual basis, and that the land could only be cropped on a four year or six year cycle. Acknowledging this fact, the figure calculated by Ms Daze needed to be divided by 4 (as a minimum), which would equate to an annual return of $4,312 (as a maximum). Mr Collins' estimated net income for wheat based on a six year rotation equated to $1,425 per year.
33 Ms Daze held the view that the subdivision would result in the breakdown of a viable farmholding to create a lot that is not viable as an economically and environmentally sustainable enterprise. The question of the economic viability of existing Lot 4 was put to Mr Safstrom under cross-examination where he indicated that existing Lot 4, as a
(Page 14)
- stand alone lot, was not economically sustainable for broadacre farming. Both Mr Safstrom and Mr Stead agreed that the consolidation of the balance of the land into one consolidated cropping title would mean a more viable and sustainable lot for broadacre farming.
34 Ms Daze also argued that it was unnecessary to subdivide in order to have a diversity of uses on a property. The applicants did not dispute this claim; however, Mr Collins told the Tribunal that the rationalisation of the boundaries enabled him to raise sufficient funds to establish the sandalwood plantation and that it provides more financial flexibility for the future. Notwithstanding that diversification of uses can occur without subdivision, the issue before the Tribunal is whether, if subdivided, the subject land which has productive capacity for agricultural production would be lost as a resource.
35 Ms Daze further argued that there is no compulsion for the land to be used for the purpose as stated by the applicants, and therefore could potentially be sold off as a lifestyle lot, resulting in the loss of land for agricultural purposes. Mr Stead and Mr Carter both gave evidence as to the likelihood of proposed Lot 46 being used as a rural lifestyle lot. Their evidence was based on their work within the Wheatbelt area and more particularly the Shire of York. They considered that it would be unlikely for proposed Lot 46 to be used as a rural lifestyle lot for reasons such as climate, location, costs relating to infrastructure, lack of services and the availability of other more viable alternatives. Ms Daze was unaware of any evidence indicating the loss of agricultural land to lifestyle lots in the locality.
Tribunal's findings
36 DC 3.4, under cl 4.1(a), clearly contemplates the subdivision of land where the proposal involves the realignment of lot boundaries for farming purposes where there is no increase in the number of lots. The Tribunal is of the view that this application falls squarely within this category and is therefore a form of subdivision that may be permitted.
37 Clause 4.2 to cl 4.9 of DC 3.4 sets out the criteria to be considered in exercising judgment and discretion when assessing the merits of an application for the subdivision of rural and agricultural land. The only applicable criterion in this instance is cl 4.6, which states:
"4.6 Farm rationalisation
(Page 15)
- Multiple lots in one ownership may be rationalised through boundary realignments to improve farm management and/or to provide access to landlocked lots provided that:
(a) the new lot pattern is consistent with the objectives of the policy;
(b) no additional lots are created;
(c) the new boundaries reflect good environmental practice and are appropriate for the intended land uses;
(d) former road reserves and small remnant portions of lots are not lots for the purpose of boundary rationalisation."
38 Ms Daze considered cl 4.2 to be a relevant consideration. This clause is not on point because the subdivision is not of a large lot in a broadacre farming area to create multiple smaller lots; therefore, consistency with prevailing lot size is not applicable in the assessment of this application.
39 On the merits of the application and in consideration of the matters listed in DC 3.4, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the intent of the policy and that the proposal will not result in the loss of agricultural land as a resource.
40 Ms Daze's position on economic viability focused substantially on whether sufficient income would be generated from agricultural production of proposed Lot 46 to support a family, which is akin to financial viability. Barker J in Ingram & Anor v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WASCA 77 found in para [79] that:
"…, in determining whether land that has a productive capacity for agricultural production may be lost as a resource it will, in my view, be seldom, if ever, useful to focus on the financial viability of a particular enterprise proposed to be carried out on the subdivided land. This is because the financial viability of a particular enterprise ultimately tells one little about the extent to which the land's productive capacity for agricultural production will be lost. An inquiry into the financial viability of a particular pursuit will often deal merely with the profitability of particular enterprise. Profitability may indirectly tell one something about the extent to which the productive capacity of land as an agricultural resource is being exploited, but it will not be a reliable measure in all cases."
(Page 16)
41 The agricultural and forestry experts clearly had a broader understanding of the term "economic viability" and agreed that the proposed Lot 46 would be a tradeable agricultural entity, and that the establishment of a sandalwood plantation on proposed Lot 46 would be economically viable. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence given by Mr Stead, Mr Safstrom and Mr Jones on the viability of proposed Lot 46 to sustain agricultural production and that the consolidation of the balance land into one consolidated cropping title will result in the creation of a more viable and sustainable lot for broadacre farming. Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied, based on the evidence given by Mr Stead and Mr Jones, that it is unlikely that the land will be lost to lifestyle purchasers.
42 The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed subdivision accords with objectives of the established planning framework, and as such, should be supported.
Conditions
43 As required by direction of the Tribunal, the respondent prepared "without prejudice" draft conditions to be imposed if the Tribunal considers that approval of the application, subject to conditions, is appropriate. The suggested condition was accepted by the applicants.
Orders
44 For the following reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. The decision of the respondent to refuse to approve the subdivision of Lot 4 and Lot 11 Badgin Road, Narraloggan is set aside and a decision is substituted that subdivision approval is granted as shown on the plan prepared by Ian C Ross (Licensed Surveyor) dated 20 April 2007, subject to the following condition:
1) Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Local Government)
(Page 17)
I certify that this and the preceding [44] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS M CONNOR, MEMBER
0
1
3