HARPER INVESTMENTS WA PTY LTD and PRESIDING MEMBER OF THE METRO INNER-NORTH JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

Harper Investments WA Pty Ltd applied for a development approval for a day care centre on a site in the Inner-North Joint Development Assessment Panel's area. The Presiding Member of the Panel refused the application, finding it inconsistent with the locational elements of the local policy. Harper Investments appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which referred the matter to the Planning and Environment Division of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had to decide whether the refusal was unreasonable, given the local policy's inconsistency with the proposed development.

The Tribunal considered whether the local policy, Local Policy Statement 24 (LPS 24), was outdated and whether the plot ratio and site coverage requirements in Table 2 of LPS 24 were relevant for the proposed non-residential development. The Tribunal noted that although the proposed development would have a higher plot ratio and site coverage than the residential development standards (R-Codes), it did not believe that the local policy was outdated or that the plot ratio and site coverage requirements in Table 2 could be disregarded. The Tribunal concluded that LPS 24 reflected the City's preferred development standards and that the plot ratio and site coverage requirements could not be given little weight because the proposed development sat within a locality that would continue to change.

The Tribunal also examined the evidence presented by the applicant's expert witness, Mr Casselton, who challenged the currency of the plot ratio and site coverage requirements in Table 2. He argued that LPS 24 was 20 years old and that he could not identify the basis for the requirements. He also noted that commercial child care centres had become more prevalent and their design had changed over the past 20 years, with two-storey centres often developed on smaller sites. However, the Tribunal rejected Mr Casselton's arguments and found that LPS 24 reflected the desired intensity of the use and that the plot ratio and site coverage requirements of the R-Codes were not relevant for a non-residential development.

The Tribunal concluded that the refusal of the development application was not unreasonable because the proposed development was inconsistent with the locational elements of the local policy. The Tribunal found that the local policy continued to reflect the City's preferred development standards and that the plot ratio and site coverage requirements in Table 2 were relevant for the proposed non-residential development. The Tribunal also found that there were no proposed changes to the planning framework of the locality that contemplated non-residential development with the level of plot ratio or site coverage of the proposed development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Presiding Member of the Panel to refuse the development application. The Tribunal did not make any orders as the appeal was dismissed.