Hart & Anor and Western Australian Planning Commission - [2007] WASAT 114

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: HART & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2007] WASAT 114

MEMBER: MR L GRAHAM (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 20 FEBRUARY 2007

DELIVERED : 18 MAY 2007

FILE NO/S: DR 328 of 2006

BETWEEN: STEVEN JAMES HART
SHARON FREDRICA HART
Applicants
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning – Application for subdivision approval – On-site effluent disposal – Infill sewerage program – Exemptions under the draft country sewerage policy – Undesirable precedent – Mandatory sewerage requirements – Protection of public health, the environment and water resources

Legislation:

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 251(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), Table 1
Shire of York Town Planning Scheme No 2, cl 4.4(a)

Result:

The application for review is dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: Mr S Ramanathan (Acting as Agent)
Respondent: Mr JR Bouwhuis (Acting as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicants: Sri-Nathan & Associates Pty Ltd (Town Planners)
Respondent: Western Australian Planning Commission

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988)
Hawkins v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WATPAT 98

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The application for review was lodged against a decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission to not approve the subdivision of a 4036 square metre Residential zoned lot into two lots of 1345 square metres and one lot of 1346 square metres in Pool Street, York.
The Tribunal considered the arguments of the parties, the background to the proposal, the relevant legislative and policy provisions, the suitability of the soil for on‑site effluent disposal, the State's infill sewerage program in York and the matter of precedent.
It was concluded that although the proposed subdivision would accord with lot size requirements and that on‑site effluent disposal could be safely accommodated on each of the proposed lots, the proposal did not accord with the "Small Infill" provisions of the State's draft Country Sewerage Policy.
The Tribunal also concluded that having regard to the inevitability of the York 2A infill sewerage program being put into place in the short term, an approval could give rise to further applications for subdivision in the locality which would not assist the State's infill sewerage program in York.
The application for review was dismissed.

Introduction

The application for review was lodged under the provisions of s 251(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) by Mr Sri Ramanathan of Sri‑Nathan & Associates Pty Ltd, on 29 September 2006, on behalf of Steven James Hart and Sharon Fredrica Hart (applicants). The application resulted from a decision by the Western Australian Planning Commission (respondent) on 6 September 2006 to reiterate its refusal of 13 June 2006 to the subdivision of a 4036 square metre lot in Pool Street, York into two lots of 1345 square metres and one lot of 1346 square metres.
The reasons for refusal on 13 June 2006 were:
"1.The proposed subdivision does not comply with Commission Policy DC 2.2 – Residential Subdivision, by reasons that the land cannot be connected to sewerage, as required by the draft Country Sewerage Policy, and does not warrant an exemption from the requirement to connect to reticulated sewerage of that policy.
2.Approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for the further subdivision of surrounding lots."
The "Grounds for Review" include:
"The proposal upholds the objectives of the Draft Country Sewerage Policy ... "
and
"The majority of existing lots along Pool Street are compatible with the proposed lot sizes."

Subject land

The subject land, which is located on the east side of the Avon River in the townsite of York, can be described as Lot P7 (No 10) Pool Street, York, on Deposited Plan 223261 (subject land). It is recorded on Certificate of Title Volume 1743, Folio 924.
The subject land, which is on the north side of Pool Street, falls within the street block bounded by Pool Street, Newcastle Street (also referred to as Suburban Road), New Street and Panmure Road. The street block contains a total of 28 lots.
Of these lots, there is one lot of 809 square metres; but the majority are in the order of 1200 square metres to 1400 square metres. There are three corner lots of 2299 square metres, 2468 square metres and 2716 square metres and the subject land, at 4036 square metres, is the largest of the existing lots.
According to the evidence of Mr Ramanathan, a qualified town planner for the applicants, the 2299 square metre lot on the corner of Pool Street and Newcastle Street is occupied by a bed and breakfast facility (Swan Lodge), and the 2716 square metre lot at the corner of Pool Street and Panmure Road contains an existing house and outbuilding. The 2468 square metre lot at the corner of New Street and Panmure Road contains a brand new house.
Directly opposite the subject land, there is a 1.461 hectare lot at the corner of Pool Street and Panmure Road. There are five other lots in Pool Street (south) ranging in size from 642 square metres to 865 square metres, and one other lot of 2522 square metres.

Legislative framework

The subject land is zoned "Residential" in the Shire of York Town Planning Scheme No 2 (TPS 2). It has a density coding of R10/30.
Of relevance to this matter are the Western Australian Planning Commission's Policy DC 2.2 – Residential Subdivision (DC 2.2), a July 1982 Policy of the Water Authority of Western Australia (with subsequent updates) on "Developer Contributions for Water Authority Water and Services Applicable at Subdivision and Building Stages in Country Areas" (1982 Policy) and a "draft" Country Sewerage Policy of September 2002 (amended 2003) (DCSP).

Respondent's position

The position of the respondent is outlined it its Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions, dated 27 November 2006. The statement argues:
a)The respondent has constantly applied the DCSP. It is a "seriously entertained planning proposal".
b)The proposed subdivision does not satisfy the criteria for an exemption under the DCSP.
c)The proposed subdivision is contrary to objectives (a) and (b) of the DCSP which aim to protect public health, the environment and the State's water resources. Also, it is inconsistent with objective (c) which aims to reduce the extent of reticulated infill sewerage, and in this case, sewerage is planned to be available for the subject land in 2008 or 2009.
d)An approval would set an undesirable precedent within the street block and elsewhere.

Applicants' position

The position of the applicants is outlined in their Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions, dated 21 December 2006. They argue:
a)Each subdivision has to be considered on its merits. The proposal has specific merits.
b)Under the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) (Codes), the minimum lot size for an R10 coding is 875 square metres. The proposed lot sizes are 1345 square metres.
c)There are lots in the vicinity that support environmentally sustainable on‑site effluent disposal systems. The subject land could sustain such a system.
d)Based on reasons (a) to (c), the proposal will not create an undesirable precedent for subdivision in the locality.

Planning issues

The principal planning issues are:
a)Does the proposal accord with State policy and local scheme provisions?
b)Is subdivision of the subject land justified on the merits of the argument?
c)Would subdivision of the subject land be likely to create an undesirable precedent in the general locality?

Assessment of proposal

Background

On 28 March 2006, a Form 1A application for subdivision approval was lodged with the respondent for the subdivision of the subject land into three lots.
The proposal was referred to the Shire of York (Shire) and, by letter dated 5 April 2006, it advised that it did not support subdivision because of non‑compliance with the DCSP which recommends a minimum lot size of 2000 square metres. However, it also advised that if the applicant could prove that sewerage disposal could be handled appropriately, it would consider supporting the subdivision subject to conditions.
In a response dated 22 May 2006, the Department of Health (DOH) advised that the proposal did not meet any of the criteria to warrant exemption from the mandatory sewerage provisions of the DCSP.
The subdivision was refused by the respondent on 13 June 2006.
Following a request for reconsideration by the applicant, the Shire, in a letter dated 30 June 2006, changed its earlier position and supported the application for the following reasons:
a)The proposal will result in lot sizes (approximately 1400 square metres) similar to existing lots.
b)There have been no recorded concerns over the last 10 years relating to the use of septic systems on these size properties.
c)The DCSP is still in "draft" form, has no statutory or legal standing and should be totally ignored.
In a related matter at the hearing, Mr Ramanathan asked Mr JR Bouwhuis, a qualified town planner for the respondent, why the proposal had not been referred to the Department of Environment for comment. Mr Bouwhuis advised that as it did not need to be assessed under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), there was no need for referral.

Legislative and policy provisions

Shire of York Town Planning Scheme No 2

Under TPS 2, the density coding applicable to the subject land is R10/30 which, as provided for under Table 1 (General Site Requirements) of the Codes, would allow for a minimum site area for dwellings of 875 square metres (R10) down to 270 square metres (R30).
However, under cl 4.4(a) of TPS 2 under the special application of the Codes:
"(a) the local government may permit an increase from R10 up to a maximum of R30 for land in the Residential zone with dual R10/30 coding where:
(i)adequate connection to reticulated sewerage is available; ... "
A reasonable interpretation of this clause is that the Shire will insist on sewerage above an R10 coding, but not necessarily at R10. However, as a decision on subdivision and the conditions relating thereto does not rest with the Shire, the matter sits firmly with the respondent, or this Tribunal on review.

WAPC Policy DC 2.2 – Residential Subdivision

In its reasons for refusal, the respondent referred to DC 2.2, which requires land to be connected to sewerage under the DCSP, unless an exemption is warranted.
An examination of DC 2.2 reveals that it principally takes its lead from a series of policies dating back to 1982, as described in the respondent's Planning Bulletin No 7 1995 Government Sewerage Policy Perth Metropolitan Region.
However, it is DC 2.2 itself that makes specific reference to country areas in this way:
"3.3.4Similarly, outside the metropolitan region, the Commission will have regard to the Country Towns Sewerage – Subdivision Policy of the Water Corporation of Western Australia which specifies those towns, or parts of towns, where the provision of sewerage is mandatory for new subdivisions, together with exceptions."
Just which policy cl 3.3.4 is referring to is not at all clear, but what is clear is that there is no specific reference to the DCSP. In all probability, the reference is to the original and periodically updated 1982 Policy, and is meant as a "blanket" or "transition" clause to cover all subsequent "draft" and finalised policy documents.

1982 Policy (updated document)

The 1982 Policy is divided into "water" and "sewerage" matters with the latter addressed in this way:
"4SEWERAGE SUBDIVISION POLICY
In towns where sewage treatment facilities to serve the whole town have been established, sewerage as a condition of subdivision is mandatory.
In towns where sewage treatment facilities are available for parts of towns only, sewerage as a condition of subdivision is only mandatory within those parts.
In towns where sewage treatment facilities are not available and not an early prospect, sewerage as a condition of subdivision is not required.
In towns where sewage treatment facilities are not available, but are an early prospect, sewerage as a condition of subdivision is not required, but in these towns the provision of large numbers of new lots should not be permitted. (It is not intended that this proviso should place an undue restriction on the number of lots available for sale in such towns, but rather, it is aimed to provide a reasonable number of lots available for sale, without development of an excessively large sewerage backlog).
The towns in these four categories are listed in Appendices A to D. The lists are subject to continual review and will be reissued annually."
An examination of the appendices shows that York fell within Appendix D which was notated as:
"Country towns where the provision of sewerage is an early prospect and where the creation of large numbers of new lots should not be permitted without sewerage as a condition of subdivision ... "
The 1982 Policy also included exceptions to the mandatory sewerage requirement in the case of small subdivisions, large lots (2000 square metres or greater) and remote or isolated subdivisions. Only the first category is relevant in this review:
"6.1 Small Subdivisions
Subdivisions involving the creation of less than five new lots will be given individual consideration on their merits. In these cases the following factors need to be taken into consideration:
•the suitability of the lots to be created for septic systems (by way of lot size and soil type).
•is the area already closely subdivided into lots of similar size[?]
•it is not planned to provide backlog sewerage within [five] to [seven] years and lots are not in a water supply catchment area (surface or underground) or in a locality where effluent from the septic systems will otherwise create health or environmental problems.
If all these conditions are satisfied, the sewerage condition may be waived. In other cases, the subdivisions are to be abandoned or deferred."
In a response to a question from Mr Ramanathan on the likely timing of sewerage in the vicinity of the subject land, Mr John Todd, Manager of Land Servicing for the Water Corporation, advised:
" ... I'll need to preface these comments by saying that it's part of the government infill sewerage program and is currently scheduled for 2008-9. Now, having said that, I need to caveat that by saying this is a government-funded program, therefore the amount of funds available for this program are directly allocated by Treasury. The Water Corporation is not the funding source for the infill program, so it does have a dynamic nature."
Based on the scheduled timing of 2008/2009, the proposed subdivision would not meet all of the criteria for "Small Subdivisions" as outlined in the 1982 Policy. That is to say that although soil type may be suitable for septic systems, and the proposed lots would be of similar size to those existing, the provision of backlog sewerage in this case is planned within the next five to seven years.

Draft County Sewerage Policy – status and content

In a question from Mr Bouwhuis to Mr AL Tan, the officer responsible for the administration of the Perth Metropolitan Sewerage Policies and Country Sewerage Policies at the DOH, on when the DCSP might be finalised, he replied:
"We're looking at the next five to six months before this can happen."
From information before the Tribunal, it appears that an original "draft" in 2002 has been amended on at least one occasion and that key stakeholders have provided input to a Senior Officers' Committee on Waste Management for deliberation by a Cabinet Committee on Waste Management prior to consideration by Cabinet. The DCSP is clearly a seriously‑entertained government document and, when finalised, will represent State policy on country sewerage.
In answer to a question from Senior Sessional Member Graham (Mr Graham) on which of the two policies is used by the respondent, Mr Bouwhuis responded in this way:
"The issue relating to using the Water Corporation's country sewerage policy instead of the draft country sewerage policy still has merit in relation to it still being a valid policy and the draft country sewerage policy was generated from the existing Water Corporation policy. Even though ... we've got two policies, it's the position of the respondent that the draft country sewerage policy is – I suppose the more up‑to‑date policy."
In an exchange at the hearing, the following was stated:
"Mr Ramanathan: There are different draft country sewerage policies that are floating around; which one do you apply?
Mr Todd: ... I suppose, just to clarify that, there is only one draft country sewerage policy and that's the one that Mr Tan has spoken to. The Water Corporation ... does not have a country sewerage policy that is a public policy. We have an internal document which is to aid our officers in providing advice to the Planning Commission and it is the policy that Alan Tan has spoken to, with the absence of a couple of minor, what I would describe as typing differences. For example, I think the example of no more than five lots and greater than or less than five lots. There's a slight difference, the intent being the same. So the Water Corporation does not have a public policy [on] the provision of sewerage to country towns.
Mr Graham: So you have a document, though, which you use?
Mr Todd:We have an internal document which is more in the line of a procedure and guidance notes to our officers."
From the perspective of the Tribunal, it did appear that there was some inconsistency in the evidence of the government officers as to the actual documents being used as a basis for advice to the respondent. However, although it seems that the latest version of the DCSP is the favoured document, there is clearly a need for it to be finalised in the interests of both the public sector and those private landowners contemplating subdivision and development.
Under the DCSP, the provision of reticulated sewerage is mandatory, but as in the updated 1982 Policy, there are exceptions. The only relevant exception in this case is described in cl 5.1 of the DCSP:
"5.1 Small Infill
Proposals for small infill subdivision or density development can be considered where there is no potential for the creation of more than four additional lots, dwellings or single residential equivalents in the immediate vicinity (generally interpreted as within the street block), so that the proposal completes rather than extends an existing pattern of subdivision. Lot sizes and land use shall be consistent with the existing pattern of subdivision or development."
The important words here are:
" ... where there is no potential for the creation of more than four additional lots ... "
and
" ... in the immediate vicinity ... "
Taking into account the three lots the subject of this review, there is clearly the "potential" for at least two additional lots to be created elsewhere in the street block, making a total of five additional lots to be subdivided from the subject land and two of the corner lots described in [11]. Also, there is clearly the "potential" for further lots to be subdivided from the 1.4651 hectare lot "in the immediate vicinity" (directly opposite) as described in [13].
In that sense, the proposal does not comply with the provisions of cl 5.1 of the DCSP.

Of relevance in the DCSP is that the York townsite now falls within Sch 1, which lists localities with established sewerage schemes. Also, that where proposals for subdivision are contemplated under the "exceptions" provision, the necessary on‑site wastewater disposal requirements are as outlined in Appendix 1 of the DCSP. The suitability of the subject land for on‑site wastewater disposal is addressed below.

On‑site wastewater disposal

In the witness statement, dated 9 January 2007, of Mr LJ Stephens, a qualified scientist in the fields of geology, geomorphology and indigenous plant ecology, he concludes from his detailed geotechnical assessment and other research:
"6.0 Conclusions
6.1Provided waste water systems are correctly installed, there are no environmental or geotechnical reasons that will cause additional significant health risks associated with subdividing Lot P7 into three lots rather than two lots.
6.2The use of onsite waste water systems is a temporary situation until the local provision of sewerage."
In his opening remarks to the Tribunal, Mr Bouwhuis advised:
" ... the respondent concedes that other than the lack of compliance with the Draft Country Sewerage Policy, and that granting subdivision approval for the proposed subdivision would set an undesirable precedent, there is no objection to the proposed subdivision application."
Based on the information and evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that on‑site wastewater disposal could be safely accommodated on each of the proposed three lots.

The infill sewerage program and the subject land

The infill sewerage program in the vicinity of the subject land is referred to as "York 2A".
In an email from the Water Corporation to Mr A Tan on 26 October 2006, it advised:
"York 2A infill is currently scheduled for 2008/09. This timing is subject to funding and priorities of the infill [program].
Note
York 2A does not include lot Pt 7 ... "
In answer to a question from Mr Ramanathan on the exclusion of the subject land from the York 2A program, Mr Todd replied:
" ... The government infill sewerage program is community‑funded and as such there is, unashamedly, a drive to exclude lots with development potential from benefiting from a community‑funded program. So in broad terms, lots greater than 2000 square metres that have some development potential are not deliberately programmed in the program. However, lot part 7, being adjacent to lots that would fit the criteria under the objectives of the program will be a subsidiary connection to this scheme. The engineering just would not allow it to exclude certain lots. So they're consequential rather than planned deliberate."
In a further exchange between Mr Graham and Mr Todd, the following response was given:
"Mr Graham: So if you go down a street with your sewerage lines, people are obliged to hook in, are they?
Mr Todd:People are obliged to hook in. The time it takes for that to occur depends upon circumstances, but there are some obligations on people to hook in."
The conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing is that once the York 2A program is in place, there will be a sewer line available for any lots subdivided off from the subject land to hook into the sewer as a subsidiary connection.

The matter of precedent

In his witness statement, dated 2 February 2007, Mr Ramanathan refers to previous approvals granted by the respondent in the Shires of York and Toodyay as examples of precedent. The matters were also addressed in the witness statement of Mr Bouwhuis and in his response to questions from Mr Ramanathan.
In each case, the circumstances were different with respect to such matters as proposed lot sizes, the relevant residential coding, compliance with the DCSP, or the fact that there was no foreseeable future date for connection to sewerage. In any event, the position of the Tribunal is that, in each case, the proposal needs to be treated on its merits and, as explained in Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988), precedent is not to be treated as a "stand alone" argument and is but one factor to be taken into account in assessing a proposal.
The matter of precedent was also addressed in the witness statement of Mr Bouwhuis, but from the perspective of the respondent in terms of an undesirable precedent being created if the proposal was to proceed. He argues:
a)An approval would create a precedent for the subdivision of the three corner lots in the street block, which each exceed 2000 square metres in area.
b)An approval would create a precedent for the subdivision of the 1.4641 hectare lot on the opposite side of the road. Up to 14 additional lots could be created pursuant to the R10 coding.
c)The creation of additional lots in the locality that are not connected to reticulated sewerage could increase the risk to public health, or the environment, as a result of the increased use of alternative treatment effluent disposal systems (ATUs).
d)Whilst the Department of Health has endorsed the use of "ATUs" to replace traditional septic systems, the use of these units does not warrant exemption from the DCSP.
e)An approval that was contrary to one of the discretionary provisions of the DCSP would set an undesirable precedent for further subdivision without compliance with the DCSP.
In that sense, the Tribunal would concede that if an approval was granted in this case, where there was the potential to create more than four additional lots in the immediate vicinity and an infill sewerage program was contemplated within two to three years, this could lead to other proposals for subdivision in York and elsewhere in broadly similar circumstances.

Other matters

The matter of a caveat being placed on a title to achieve a connection to sewerage in the longer term was raised in the following exchange:
"MrRamanathan: One way would be to put a caveat on the title that the prospective purchaser will be required to pay the sewerage costs prior to development.
Mr Todd:That's not a mechanism the Water Corporation ... would favour.
Mr Ramanathan: Fair enough.
Mr Todd:The developer is the creator of the impost and receiving the betterment, therefore that's our logic."
A further matter was raised by the respondent in relation to Hawkins v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WATPAT 98 where the then Town Planning Appeal Tribunal ruled against the applicant where the proposed subdivision did not meet the criteria for "Small Infill" or "Large Lot" exemptions of the Metropolitan Sewerage Policy.
In that particular case, the subject land did not fall within a country townsite, but in the outer metropolitan area. However, the issue of the State's sewerage policy, and its exemption provisions, were similar type issues to those now under review.

Conclusions

The application for review was lodged against a decision of the respondent to not approve the subdivision of a 4036 square metre Residential zoned lot into two lots of 1345 square metres each, and one lot of 1346 square metres.
In undertaking this review, the Tribunal has considered the respective arguments of the respondent and the applicants, the background to the proposal, the relevant legislation and policy provisions, on‑site wastewater disposal, the State's infill sewerage program in York and the matter of precedent.
The position of the respondent is that the proposal needs to be assessed under the DCSP and in that sense, is contrary to objectives (a) and (b) of the policy which aim to protect public health, the environment and the State's water resources. Also, that the proposal would be inconsistent with objective (c) which aims to reduce the extent of reticulated infill sewerage and, if approved, would set an undesirable precedent.
The applicants argue that the proposal does uphold the objectives of the DCSP and should be considered on its merits. Also, that the proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum lot size of 875 square metres as specified under the R10 coding of TPS 2, and that the individual lots would support environmentally sustainable on‑site effluent disposal systems.
Based on these reasons, the applicants conclude that the proposal would not create an undesirable precedent.
The first matter that can be put to one side is that, based on the soil types (red‑brown loams) and their permeability, and information and evidence before the Tribunal that on‑site wastewater could be disposed of safely on each of the proposed three lots, there would be no risk of effluent pollution into the nearby Avon River. In that sense, the argument of the respondent that the proposal would be contrary to public health, the environment and water resources falls away.
Of particular relevance is the application of State policy by the respondent in approving or refusing subdivision in country towns. It appears that they normally use the latest version of the DCSP which, based on evidence before the Tribunal, could be finalised in late 2007. But they have also used the 1982 Policy (updated) as the basis to refuse a subdivision on at least one occasion.
The difficulty the Tribunal has with this application of policy is that, according to the evidence of Mr Todd, the Water Corporation utilises its own internal advisory document as an aid to its officers in providing advice; presumably as a supplementary document to the DCSP.
However, although the Tribunal is not critical of the agencies in this matter, they would be helped if the DCSP was finalised at the earliest opportunity. It has, after all, been in the public arena in one version or another for the last four to five years and, until finalised, will continue to present as a transitional policy to both the public and private sector. The Tribunal does accept though, that it is the DCSP with its exemption provisions that should be an important consideration in the determination of this review.
In examining the DCSP, it is clear that although sewerage is mandatory, there are a number of situations where "exemptions" apply. However, only cl 5.1 (Small Infill) is relevant in this case, and this allows for subdivision to be considered where there is no potential for the creation of more than four additional lots in the immediate locality, and where lot sizes are consistent with the existing pattern of subdivision.
As explained in this review, although the proposal would be consistent with the general lot size, there is certainly the potential to create more than four additional lots within the street block; and more so if the 1.4641 hectare site directly opposite the subject land is taken into account.
However, of particular importance in this review is that the York 2A infill sewerage program is scheduled for 2008/2009, and although the subject land is not included in the program, it is positioned between two areas that are. A sewer line would be available for any lots subdivided to hook into the sewer as a "subsidiary" connection.
In an overall sense, the prime consideration in this review is the State's infill sewerage program in country areas which is currently advanced and achieved via the latest version of the DCSP. This document aims to provide a wide range of country towns with reticulated sewerage in the interests of public health but, in doing so, to limit the extent of both the reticulated infill sewerage required in already developed areas and the cost to the community in providing it. That being the case, the more subdivision allowed prior to the program being put into place, the greater the overall community cost.
That matter was partly addressed in a question from Mr Bouwhuis to Mr Todd:
"Mr Bouwhuis: Now, in your experience with the subject land, if development was to occur over the site without connection to sewerage and that was funded at a subsequent stage, would the cost to the community increase?
Mr Todd: Yes, it would."
One matter that was not raised in submissions was the prospect of the subject land being more intensely developed once sewerage was made available. At that time, there would certainly be no impediment to the creation of more than three lots under the R10 coding, or a medium density development under the R30 coding provisions.
In summary, the Tribunal concludes that, although the subdivision proposed would, of itself, accord with the lot size provisions of an R10 coding under the Codes and TPS 2, and on‑site effluent disposal could be safely accommodated on each of the proposed lots, the proposal does not accord with the "Small Infill" provisions of DCSP.
Such being the case, and having regard to the inevitability of the York 2A infill sewerage program being put into place sometime in the next year or so, any approval at this point in time could give rise to further similar applications for subdivision in the locality. This would not assist the State's infill sewerage program in York.

Orders

For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Tribunal are:
1.The application for review is dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding [79] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR L GRAHAM, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER