Hotham Ridge Winery Pty Ltd and Shire Of Wandering
[2013] WASAT 86
•11 JUNE 2013
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: HOTHAM RIDGE WINERY PTY LTD and SHIRE OF WANDERING [2013] WASAT 86
MEMBER: MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)
HEARD: 6 DECEMBER 2012 AND 13 FEBRUARY 2013
DELIVERED : 11 JUNE 2013
FILE NO/S: DR 282 of 2012
BETWEEN: HOTHAM RIDGE WINERY PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
SHIRE OF WANDERING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development approval Restaurant, function/reception centre and education facility associated with vineyard and winery Review of conditions imposed on approval Access and parking requirements Signage Fire management plan
Legislation:
Liquor Control Act 1998 (WA)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 214, s 241(1), s 252(1), s 255
Shire of Wandering Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 9.1(f), cl 9.1.2, cl 9.2, cl 9.2(a), cl 10.2, cl 10.2(c), cl 10.2(e), cl 10.5.1, Sch 7
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27
Result:
Application for review upheld in part
Conditions 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 deleted. Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 deleted and replaced with new conditions, and new Condition 6 imposed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
This matter was concerned with a review of conditions imposed on planning approval granted for a restaurant, function/reception centre and educational establishment in an existing winery in a rural setting. The conditions in dispute were concerned with the provision of further information to support the application, the standard and construction of accessways and parking, a fire management plan and a proposed roadside sign.
The Tribunal upheld the application for review in part determining that the additional information subsequently provided to be included with the proposed uses satisfactorily addressed accessway, drainage and fire management plan requirements. The Tribunal further determined that the conditions in dispute could be replaced with conditions that recognised that the accessways and parking areas had been constructed to a sufficient standard and it was required that the standard be maintained. Further conditions referred to implementation of the approved fire management plan and approval conditions for the sign.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr W Denig with Mr L Bruin (Acting as Agents)
Respondent: Mr J Douglas (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant: N/A
Respondent: Urban & Rural Perspectives Town & Regional Planning
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Kellett and Town of Vincent [2007] WASAT 155
Morea Architects and Town of Vincent [2006] WASAT 263; (2006) 44 SR (WA) 301
Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
These proceedings involve an application brought by Hotham Ridge Winery Pty Ltd (applicant), pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act), for review of the conditions imposed by the Shire of Wandering (Shire or respondent) when granting retrospective planning approval for a restaurant, and planning approval for a function/reception centre and an education establishment within the existing Hotham Ridge Winery premises at No 586 (Lot 6) WanderingPingelly Road, Wandering (site).
The site is zoned Rural under the Shire of Wandering Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3). It has an area of approximately 67.75 hectares and is developed as a vineyard with buildings used as a winery and for cellar tasting. There is also on the site a house and two short stay accommodation units, landscaping, accessways and areas set aside for parking.
The conditions
The respondent's approval of the uses, issued on 24 July 2012, was subject to 10 conditions. The decision sought by the applicant in the application for review was to have all 10 conditions deleted.
Subsequent to a series of directions hearings the respondent conceded that 'upon reflection' conditions 6, 7, 8 and 9 were advice of obligations required in respect of the proposed uses under other legislation, and condition 1, referring to a two year approval period within which development must be substantially commenced, was advice of cl 10.5.1 of TPS 3. The respondent accepted that these 'conditions' could be deleted from the planning approval.
The conditions as imposed on 24 July 2012 that remained before the Tribunal for review were as follows:
2.Additional plan/s are required to [be] prepared and submitted to the Shire of Wandering, to the specifications and satisfaction of the Shire, for consideration and approval by the Shire's Chief Executive Officer. These additional plans are to be suitably scaled and are required to clearly illustrate the location, dimensions and surface finishes for all internal vehicle accessways and car parking areas.
3.All internal vehicle accessways and car parking areas shall be constructed in accordance with the details of the additional plan/s required by Condition No.2 above if and when these plans are approved by the Shire's Chief Executive Officer and shall be maintained to the specifications and satisfaction of the Shire of Wandering.
4.A fire management plan shall be prepared and implemented to the specifications and satisfaction of the Shire of Wandering and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority.
5.All stormwater generated by the current and proposed use of the land shall be managed and disposed of to the specifications and satisfaction of the Shire of Wandering.
Also imposed by the Shire on the approval was the following condition:
10.All existing and proposed advertising signage shall be displayed/provided in accordance with the specific standards and requirements for the Shire of Wandering Town Planning Scheme No 3 and Main Roads (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1996.
On 4 October 2012 the Tribunal granted the applicant leave to amend the application for review to the extent that the development applied for would also include the sign the applicant proposed be placed at the eastern end of the road frontage of the site. For this purpose the applicant was required to provide information about the proposed sign as required by cl 9.1(f) and Sch 7 of TPS 3. The applicant filed with the Tribunal in October 2012 a copy of the required information which had been provided to the Shire. The sign, as part of the proposed development, is discussed further below.
Discussion
In examining the conditions under review the Tribunal had regard to the principle that it is consistent with orderly and proper planning that a planning proposal be weighed against the requirements of the relevant planning controls. It is necessary the required information be provided so that it can be determined what conditions would be necessary to ensure that an approved use would be consistent with the objectives of the scheme. It is well established in planning practice generally, and explicit in the provisions of TPS 3 at cl 9.2(a)(iv), cl 9.2(a)(v) and cl 10.2(e), that this includes the means of access and egress for the site, and parking.
Planning for bush fire management is now also established as a relevant consideration as expressed in State Planning Policy 3.4 Natural Hazards and Disasters (SPP 3.4) and the associated Planning For Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (Edition 2, 2010) (Bush Fire Protection Guidelines) (s 241(1) of the PD Act and cl 10.2(c) of TPS 3).
The respondent made reference to the tests for the validity of a planning condition as articulated in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578. These are expressed as:
1.The condition is for a planning purpose and not for any ulterior purpose …
2.The condition reasonably and fairly relates to the development permitted.
3.The condition is not so unreasonable that no reasonable planning authority could have imposed it.
To this can be added:
4.The condition is certain and final.
The Tribunal would comment that, in circumstances where there is not yet any development on a lot that would complement the proposed uses, a condition imposed on an approval must be clear in its terms as to the work or standard to be achieved or where the relevant standard is to be found. Such a condition must also require that the work to satisfy the condition must be carried out or implemented commonly to the satisfaction of a responsible authority, usually the decisionmaker, such as the local government. A condition where the construction is to be to a standard and specification to the satisfaction of a particular officer of the responsible authority would not satisfy the tests set out above if the condition were to be inchoate. The best course is to set out the requirements to satisfy the condition within the condition itself, but the Tribunal recognises that this is not always practicable with technical requirements. To be acceptable, however, the officer concerned must be able to articulate the standard immediately upon request or identify the instrument where the standard is to be found.
In this matter there is existing development, including uses, on the site. No copy of the planning approval for the existing winery development was filed by either party and there was no evidence of any conditions imposed. The planning approval for the single house and the two holiday accommodation units now on the site was issued by the Shire on 17 November 2005 and was subject to 'nil' conditions.
As revealed in the plans and photographs filed by the parties and confirmed at the viewing of the site, parking areas and access roads have been developed on the site. There was not put before the Tribunal, however, any evidence of a planning obligation to ensure the continued existence of the accessways and parking areas.
The proposed uses are to be additional to the existing development. Where appropriate, an approval can require that existing infrastructure is available, and is to remain available, for the additional uses and at a standard suitable for the proposed uses. In circumstances where there is no identified obligation that the roads and parking areas remain as currently existing, the Tribunal has concluded that it is appropriate that the approval of the proposed additional uses on the land includes conditions to ensure that the infrastructure required to serve the uses remains.
The applicant has argued that all conditions should be deleted from the approval because, in its submission, they have been satisfied.
The Tribunal must advise that it is established law that an approval, and the conditions that have been determined to be an integral part of the approved uses, runs with the land in all but specific instances not relevant here. If a subsequent purchaser wants to exploit the approved uses, they must know what the conditions were that enabled the use to be established, and comply with them. If the conditions were deleted there would be no ongoing obligation, particularly for successive owners, to provide the facilities considered necessary for the uses to operate at an appropriate planning standard.
If at some future time the local government becomes aware that the uses are operating without the required standard of parking and access, or not in accordance with any of the other conditions of approval imposed, it is always open to the Shire to pursue the operator of the uses by issuing notices, pursuant to s 214 of the PD Act, to comply with the conditions or cease the use.
Subsequent owners and responsible authorities must in the future be able to consult a planning approval to be informed of the requirements that must continue to be met to allow the use to continue. To delete conditions from an approval simply because they had been satisfied would not be consistent with orderly and proper planning.
It is appropriate to point out that hearings before the Tribunal are by way of a hearing de novo (s 27 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)). In effect, it can be said that the Tribunal 'stands in the shoes' of the respondent in making its decision. The Tribunal is not therefore confined to matters that were before the decisionmaker, but may involve the consideration of new material whether or not it existed at the time the original decision was made.
The applicant filed a considerable number of documents detailing events and decisions associated with its endeavours to get an appropriate licence under the Liquor Control Act 1998 (WA) to enable it to operate the proposed uses and sell alcoholic drinks other than wine produced on the premises. Much of the documentation was directed to the applicant's views about how it considered the Shire had behaved in dealing with its various applications. The Tribunal noted the submissions made, but would add that the material assisted only in that it provided a background to the purpose of the application for the restaurant, function/reception centre and education establishment.
In respect of actions considered to have been taken by one party or the other in the course of processing an application, these must not influence the decision made on the planning merits of a development. In Morea Architects and Town of Vincent [2006] WASAT 263; (2006) 44 SR (WA) 301 the Tribunal observed as follows at [50]:
Section 27(2) of the [State Administrative Tribunal] Act provides that the purpose of a review by the Tribunal is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review. It is not to judicially review an administrator's actions in order to determine their validity.
The conditions in dispute are examined below.
Condition 2
As set out above, Condition 2 required additional, suitably scaled plans with additional information to be prepared and submitted.
Clause 9.2 of TPS 3 lists the 'Accompanying Material' to be included with an application for planning approval. The list at cl 9.2(a) includes:
…
(iii)the existing and proposed use of the site …
(iv)the existing and proposed means of access for pedestrians and vehicles to and from the site;
(v)the location, number, dimensions and layout of all car parking spaces intended to be provided[.]
Clause 10.2 of TPS 3 lists matters to be considered and these include:
(a)the aims and provisions of the Scheme …
(b)the requirements of orderly and proper planning …
(c)any approved [State] Planning Policy of the Commission;
…
(e)whether the proposed means of access and egress from the site are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles[.]
It was the respondent's submission that, while it had sufficient information to identify the proposal, rather than refuse the application because all the required information was not included, it chose to grant planning approval with conditions that would require the missing information to be provided.
The Tribunal considers it orderly planning that, particularly in circumstances where customers are to be invited onto the land to participate in the uses applied for, the application should include plans showing relevant items from the list in cl 9.2 of TPS 3. These include features of the site, how the public would gain access and how parking could be accommodated on the site. This information in a clear form was lacking from the application.
On 19 December 2012 the applicant filed with the Tribunal a bundle of documents that became Exhibit 10 for the purpose of the hearing. The respondent received these same documents on 20 December 2012. The documents included six plans, which comprised the following:
•Plan 1 Contour and Location Plan scale 1:5000 December 2012 showing gates, driveway, carparks, emergency access, winery, additional water tank storage, dams and proposed sign site.
•Plan 2 - Winery Carpark P1 and P2 Plan scale 1:250 with label 'construction of carparks and driveway is of graded laterite gravel'.
•Plan 3 Hotham Ridge Carpark P3 scale 1:250 angled parking or alternative bus bay.
•Plan 4 winery entry details scale 1:250.
•Plan 5 typical driveway, clearance and spoon drain dimension scale 1:250.
•Plan 6 - plan of winery ground to be licensed showing buildings, roads, carparks, gardens, water course including ponds, paths, sitting/picnic sites and lawns scale 1:500.
In response to the applicant's submission, the respondent stated in a letter to the Tribunal dated 24 December 2012 (Exhibit 11) that the claims made in respect of the accessways would need to be verified by an onsite inspection. The same statement was also made in respect of the emergency accessway from the winery through the vineyards to the gate at the eastern frontage of the site to the WanderingPingelly Road.
The respondent, in the same letter, said that sufficient information had been provided in relation to onsite vehicle parking and stormwater drainage management arrangements, and these elements could be cleared following confirmation of their suitability at a site inspection.
The Tribunal visited the site accompanied by the representatives of the parties on 13 February 2013.
The Tribunal has found that Condition 2, as imposed, could be deleted and replaced with a condition that provided that, in addition to the plan attached to the original application for development approval, the approval of the development was also to be in accordance with the six plans filed with the Tribunal on 19 December 2012 and provided to the respondent on 20 December 2012 where they related to the proposed uses.
Condition 3 and Condition 5
Condition 3 is concerned with the construction of 'all' internal accessways and parking areas in accordance with the plans required by Condition 2 'if and when these plans are approved by the Shire's Chief Executive Officer'.
The Tribunal has found that the accessways relevant to this planning application are those that would serve the proposed uses. The approval cannot revisit and include the accessways exclusive to the commercial vineyard and winery operations, the chalets and the house which were not part of this application: Kellett and Town of Vincent [2007] WASAT 155 (Kellett). The accessways relevant to this approval are the accessway between the main gate on the Wandering-Pingelly Road and the customer parking areas adjacent to the winery and the accessways that form the emergency accessway to the emergency exit gate at the eastern end of the site's road frontage. The condition should be amended to reflect this.
The Tribunal considers that relevant accessways and parking areas depicted in the application plans are integral to the uses proposed by this application because each of the uses is directed to attracting the public to the site, including in buses, and there must remain on the approval the obligation to provide for these customers.
Dealing first with the main accessway, at the hearing the respondent revealed in the course of examination that the accessway standards at Element 2 'Vehicular Access' A2.5 of the Bush Fire Protection Guidelines were a guide to the standard of construction. The applicant's plans 1 to 6 (now included as part of the approval) depict the location, surface material and dimensions of the accessway and parking areas. The respondent in its letter of 24 December 2012 said that it was satisfied these identify the standards required.
In its viewing of the site on 13 February 2013, the Tribunal, accompanied by the respondent and the applicant, walked the length of the main accessway between the main entrance and the winery. The Tribunal, 'standing in the shoes of the respondent' for the purpose of the review, accepted the submission of the applicant that the parking area and relevant accessways had been constructed generally in accordance with the standards required for the proposed uses. The accessways and parking areas as constructed were found to be adequate for the setting and for the purpose. Relevant to this conclusion was the rural location and the character of the development on the site. The applicant, not surprisingly because it would be in its self interest, had constructed the main accessway in gravel to a trafficable standard to enable two wheeled vehicles to travel to and from the uses on the site and to have those vehicles park in convenient locations.
The respondent made informal, passing comments about the standard of accessway construction at the site viewing. The Tribunal would add that the direct comparison is not with the standard required for unsealed public roads under the care and maintenance of the Shire. The standard is whether the accessway would provide appropriate access to the proposed uses and escape in an emergency. The Tribunal was satisfied that the main accessway as constructed was fit for these purposes. Missing, however, was a space specifically reserved for disabled parking.
The Tribunal, having noted that the standard to which the main accessway and parking as constructed was generally in accordance with the standard set out in the plans now included in the application, found that the condition no longer required that the construction be to the specifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire.
The condition should, however, refer to the accessways and parking areas being maintained to a standard generally in accordance with the plans. The applicant expressed little faith in the Shire being reasonable in its assessment of the standard of the accessways on the site. The Tribunal formed the view that the Shire will be objective and professional in any future assessment it makes of the standard being maintained for the accessways and parking area, bearing in mind the comment made above; that is, the direct comparison is not with the standard required for unsealed public roads under the care and maintenance of the Shire. The standard is whether the accessway and parking area remain sufficient for the approved uses and to satisfy the exit requirement for an emergency.
It follows that if, in the future, the respondent believes the accessways and parking areas have not been maintained to a standard suitable for the uses, it could choose to serve on the owner a notice to comply with the planning approval or cease use, as provided for at s 214 of the PD Act. The owner could of course seek review of such a notice under s 255 of the PD Act.
As discussed in respect of Condition 4 below, the Tribunal has also determined that the emergency accessway has been established to a standard generally in accordance with the requirements of Element 2 'Vehicular Access' A2.5 of the Bush Fire Protection Guidelines.
Condition 5 refers to management and disposal of all stormwater generated by the 'current and proposed use of the land'. As referred to in the discussion of Condition 3, a condition that refers to development, not part of the approval is ultra vires: see Kellett. In this matter the proposed uses would all be activities that would be make use of existing structures. No new building would be required that would generate runoff. However, the approval requires the accessway to be to the standard depicted on the plans now included in the application and these include spoon drains to remove runoff from the accessway.
At the site the respondent commented that certain sections of the accessway did not appear to be graded to provide for the water runoff from the roadway to enter the spoon drains. The Tribunal would comment again that the comparison is not with the Shire's standards for public roads and drainage, but with a driveway to winery associated uses in a rural location maintained by the winery operator. The Tribunal has afforded the applicant the benefit of assuming that it has constructed the accessway so that it will drain sufficiently for the proposed use.
The Tribunal has concluded that Condition 3 is to be reworded having regard to the findings in respect to the conclusions reached in the consideration of Conditions 3 and 5.
Condition 4
Condition 4 was concerned with the preparation and implementation of a fire management plan. Mr Wouter Denig, for the applicant, produced a Fire Management Plan. This plan was amended following comment by an officer of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) and officers of the Shire. The amended Fire Management Plan four pages with two attached plans identified by 'prepared September 2012 and revised October 2012 and December 2012' (December 2012 Fire Management Plan) was included in the bundle of documents in Exhibit 10.
The applicant filed a copy of an email dated 17 December 2012 in which Mr Kevin Parsons, DFES District Officer for the Great Southern Region, makes the comment that he has reviewed the December 2012 Fire Management Plan and advises that the plan 'seems to be a suitable document'. Mr Parsons went on to suggest the addition of signs to identify fire water supply points for fire response crews, and signage to identify emergency assembly points and to identify escape routes.
The respondent in its letter to the Tribunal dated 24 December 2012, acknowledged the DFES email regarding the general suitability of the December 2012 Fire Management Plan and said that its final endorsement would not be made until the viewing of the site so that accessways and the gate on the boundary fence at the road frontage could be examined.
In its viewing of the site on 13 February 2013, the Tribunal, accompanied by the respondent and the applicant, walked some 250 metres down from the winery along the emergency accessway and also inspected the gate at the emergency exit to the WanderingPingelly Road.
The Tribunal formed the view that the accessway from the main building to the main entrance at the western end of the road frontage and the emergency accessway shown on the plans from the main building to the emergency gate at the eastern end of the main frontage were of suitable standard for two wheeled vehicles for the purpose of escape, and for access by fire appliances. A narrow point between two trees on the main accessway still met the minimum trafficable width and the route was clearly visible in each direction from that point. The Tribunal did not believe that this narrow point presented a basis for rejecting the plan. The Tribunal concluded the main accessway and the emergency accessway sufficiently address the requirements, respectively, of Element 2 A2.5 and A2.6 of the Bush Fire Protection Guidelines.
Condition 4 could be reworded to refer to the December 2012 Fire Management Plan revised in December 2012. There was no evidence that the fire management plan had been implemented in its entirety. The Tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that implementation of the December 2012 Fire Management Plan be a requirement of the approval. The Tribunal has found that the emergency accessway exists, but that the relevant steps in the December 2012 Fire Management Plan under the heading 'Fire Mitigation Strategies' should be completed.
The Tribunal noted the applicant's opposition to signs on the two accessways that would be used in emergencies, based on its belief that the rammed earth and iron winery would be the safest place in a fire.
The Tribunal, however, considers that there is merit in the DFES officer's suggestion that the alternative escape routes from the site be identified by appropriate signs if it becomes necessary to leave the site. There should be signs near the building directing people to the exit along the accessway to the west and in case of an emergency to the alternate emergency access to the east. The emergency access route signs should be at each change in direction in the route, indicate the direction to be travelled, and placed so that there is a clear line of site between one sign and the next to ensure there is no confusion as to the route to be taken.
The Tribunal also considers that there is merit in the respondent's recommendation that the wire gate in the boundary fence at the end of the emergency access be replaced with a tubular gate more easily opened in an emergency. The Tribunal has therefore concluded that there should be imposed new conditions requiring that appropriate signs be placed to identify the direction to the main entrance, the route of the emergency access, the emergency gate and the location of fire water for the benefit of fire response crews. The respondent's suggestion that lettering be a minimum of 100 millimetres in size is considered sound.
Condition 10
In its original form Condition 10 was an advice note. For the proposed sign to be considered as part of the planning application the applicant supplied the details required by the form at Sch 7 of TPS 3 and further added to this on Plan 1 and in submissions. The proposed sign would be approximately 1 kilometre east of the main gate and would assist in identifying the products and services of the Hotham Ridge Winery and the location of the main entrance. Condition 10 of the approval could be replaced with a new Condition 10 granting planning approval for a sign as described in the applicant's submissions.
Orders
The Tribunal has determined as follows:
1.The application for review is upheld in part.
2.The conditional approval issued by the Shire of Wandering in its decision of 24 July 2012 to grant retrospective planning approval for a restaurant and planning approval for a function/reception centre and an education establishment at the Hotham Ridge Winery, No 586 Wandering-Pingelly Road, Wandering subject to conditions is amended as follows:
a)Condition 1 - deleted.
b)Condition 2 - deleted and replaced with a new Condition 2 to read:
2.In addition to the plan attached to the original application for planning approval and included in the approval granted for the development, the development is also to be in accordance with the following plans filed with the Tribunal on 19 December 2012 and provided to the respondent on 20 December 2012, comprising:
• Plan 1 Contour and Location Plan Scale 1:5000 December 2012 showing gates, driveway, carparks, emergency access, winery, additional water tank storage, dams and proposed sign site.
• Plan 2 - Winery Carpark P1 and P2 Plan scale 1:250 with label 'construction of carparks and driveway is of graded laterite gravel'.
• Plan 3 Hotham Ridge Carpark P3 Scale 1:250 angled parking or alternative bus bay.
• Plan 4 winery entry details Scale 1:250.
• Plan 5 typical driveway, clearance and spoon drain dimension Scale 1:250.
• Plan 6 - plan of winery ground to be licensed showing buildings, roads, carparks, gardens, water course including ponds, paths, sitting/picnic sites and lawns Scale 1:500.
c)Condition 3 - deleted and replaced with a new Condition 3 to read:
3.The constructed vehicle accessway between the main gate and the proposed uses and the constructed car parking areas shall be maintained to a standard generally in accordance with the plans attached to the approval and Element 2 A2.5 of the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines (Edition 2) to the satisfaction of the Shire of Wandering. A sign identifying a disabled parking space is to be erected adjacent to the entrance to the winery building.
d)Condition 4 - deleted and replaced with a new Condition 4 to read:
4.The Fire Management Plan filed with the Tribunal and provided to the respondent, prepared by Mr Wouter Denig, revised October 2012 and December 2012 with two attached plans is approved. The emergency access providing the alternative route to the east to the WanderingPingelly Road is to be maintained generally in accordance with the requirements of Element 2 A2.6 of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (Edition 2).
e)Condition 5 - deleted and replaced with a new Condition 5 to read:
5.The items set out under the heading Fire Mitigation Strategies in the Fire Management Plan, are to be implemented within 60 days of the date of this decision.
f)Condition 6 - deleted and replaced with a new Condition 6 to read:
6.In addition to the implementation of the Fire Management Plan, the applicant must also at the same time:
(i)Place signs on the accessway to the main gate and emergency accessway stating 'fire water' and pointing to where water supply for fire response crews would be found.
(ii)Place signs on the emergency accessway route near the winery buildings and car park and at each change in direction of the route so that each sign is visible from the next sign identifying the emergency route and the direction to be taken to the exit gate.
(iii)Place a sign at the emergency assembly point depicted on the emergency exit plan in the Fire Management Plan so that people will know when they have arrived at that point.
(iv)Install a tubular steel access gate with a minimum width of 3.6 metres at the WanderingPingelly Road end of the emergency access, and the gate is to remain unlocked at all times. The gate is to be signposted to state when viewed from the public road 'Emergency access only'.
(v)The lettering in the signs listed above to be in not less than 100 millimetre high letters.
g)Condition 7 - deleted
h)Condition 8 - deleted
i)Condition 9 - deleted
j)Condition 10 - deleted and replaced with a new Condition 10 to read:
10.The proposed additional sign on the site is to be:
• located approximately 400 metres from the eastern boundary.
• sited so that a fire break can still be maintained.
• free standing.
• not more than 1.5 metres high, 1 metre wide and 0.1 metre deep.
• not more than 2.5 metres to the top of the sign.
• made of timber, steel, plastic or like material.
• if illuminated, externally lit only, with no light source directed towards the road and no moving or flashing light source.
• information for potential customers of the location of the entrance to and the services, functions and products associated with the winery.
I certify that this and the preceding [55] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J JORDAN, MEMBER
0
2
4