| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : LANCASTER and CITY OF SWAN [2012] WASAT 241 MEMBER : MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD : 4, 5 AND 7 SEPTEMBER 2012 DELIVERED : 12 DECEMBER 2012 FILE NO/S : DR 198 of 2012 BETWEEN : CARL LANCASTER Applicant
AND
CITY OF SWAN
Respondent
Catchwords: Town planning - Development application Deemed refusal Outdoor concert venue to host six events per year with maximum capacity of 8,000 people Time limited approval for five years Located in Swan Valley Removal of vines to accommodate car parking area Land use conflicts relating to spray drift and dust Assessment of traffic generated from proposed development Cumulative effect of noise and traffic generated by two outdoor concert venues in same locality Amenity Degree of impact Planning objective to protect viticulture and to ensure development does not detract from rural character of area Orderly and proper planning Preservation of amenity of the locality
(Page 2)
Legislation: City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No 17, cl 2.2, cl 4.2.19, cl 10.2, cl 10.3, cl 10.9.2, Sch 1
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA), reg 7, reg 18
Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 241(1), s 242, s 252(1)
Swan Valley Planning Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 8 Result: Application for review dismissed
Decision of respondent affirmed
Summary of Tribunal's decision: Mr Lancaster applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the City of Swan's deemed refusal of a development application for a time limited approval for the establishment of an outdoor concert venue on land in the Swan Valley. It was envisaged that up to six concerts, with a maximum capacity of 8,000 persons per concert, would be held between October and April each year.
The key issues in dispute related to removal of vines, land use conflicts with existing viticultural uses on adjoining properties, traffic impacts on the locality resulting from concerts events at the proposed venue, and the cumulative effect of noise and traffic generated by two outdoor concert venues being located within the same locality.
The Tribunal was persuaded that there were significant concerns about land use conflicts with existing viticulture uses on adjoining properties with regard to spray drift from the standard agricultural practices carried out on the adjoining lots affecting concert patrons; and dust from vehicles driving and parking from the proposed development affecting grapes grown on the adjoining property. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the degree of impact from the cumulative effect of noise and traffic generated by two outdoor concert venues operating in the same locality would be significant and would undoubtedly diminish the existing and likely future amenity of the rural character of the locality.
Given the impact of the proposed development on the amenity and rural character of the locality and having regard to the planning objectives for the Swan Valley (which seek the protection of viticulture and to ensure that development does not detract from the rural character of the area), the Tribunal
(Page 3)
concluded that the proposed development was not consistent with the objectives of the planning framework and was contrary to orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the amenity of the locality. Consequently, the application was refused and the decision of the respondent affirmed.
Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M Hardy
Respondent : Mr C Slarke
Solicitors:
Applicant : Hardy Bowen
Respondent : McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Kipa Freeholds Pty Ltd v Development Assessment Commission (1999) 101 LGERA 414
Phil Lukin & Anor and Shire of Busselton [2006] WASAT 124
Tempora Pty Ltd v Shire of Kalamunda (1994) 10 SR (WA) 296
(Page 4)
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction 1 Mr Carl Lancaster (applicant or Mr Lancaster) made application seeking a time limited approval for five years to establish an outdoor concert venue on land in the Swan Valley. It is envisaged that up to six concerts, with a maximum capacity of 8,000 persons per concert, will be held between October and April each year. Concerts will commence in the late afternoon and conclude by 10.30 pm. The proposed development involves the following works: • re-contouring and turfing to create an amphitheatre; • the construction of hardstand 'back of house' area; • the construction of a shed (30 metres by 10 metres) for entry/ticket collection/security checks and box office; • the removal of approximately 7.6 hectares of vines for the provision of a grassed area estimated to be sufficient to accommodate parking for approximately 2,992 cars; • vehicle entry and exit routes; and • temporary installation of a central stage for each event. 2 The approval regime related to this application is complicated by the fact that the land the subject of this application is located within one of the planning areas delineated in the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995 (WA) (SVP Act) and abuts waters within the Swan River Trust Development Control Area. Consequently, the application is required to be referred to the Swan Valley Planning Committee (SVPC) for advice on how the application should be determined, and determination of the application under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) falls to the Western Australian Planning Commission (Commission). 3 The SVPC recommended that the development application not be approved for the following reason: The proposed outdoor concert venue at Lancaster Wines contravenes with planning objective[s] 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 of Area B of the [SVP Act] and clauses 3 and 4 of paragraph 5.2.1 of the Statement of Planning Policy 2.5. It is not compatible with the rural character and amenity of the area and, in accordance with Planning Objective 7, should be discouraged. (Page 5)
4 The City of Swan (City or respondent) considered the application and resolved to recommend to the Commission that the application be refused for the following reasons: The proposal is not considered to be compatible with objective (d) applicable to the subject lots' Swan Valley Rural zoning by virtue of it not being considered to accord with the following objectives for Area B of the [SVP Act]; i. Protection of viticulture (potential inability to reconcile spray activities of adjoining viticultural properties with concert venues[)]; ii. encouragement of tourist facilities to provide that they do not detract from the rural character of the area; and iii. the discouragement of uses that are incompatible with the rural character and traditional agricultural activities of the area (where resultant traffic and noise are considered to have an adverse impact on the rural character of the locality[)]. 5 Despite the two recommendations for refusal, the Commission granted approval under the MRS for the proposed development, subject to 14 conditions. 6 Notwithstanding the above actions, the City failed to determine the development application under the City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No 17 (LPS 17 or Scheme) and, consequently, the application is deemed refused pursuant to cl 10.9.2 of the Scheme. Review proceedings were commenced in this Tribunal by the applicant on 30 May 2012 under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act). 7 Furthermore, five interested parties were given leave by the Tribunal in July 2012 to make submissions pursuant to s 242 of the PD Act on the issues. However, all of the parties were called as witnesses by the respondent and, therefore, their views have been taken into account as witnesses.
Subject land and locality 8 The outdoor concert venue is proposed to be located on No 5228 (Lot 2), No 5180 (Lot 200) and portion of No 5080 (Lot 3) West Swan Road, West Swan (subject land or Lancaster site). The subject land is located between the Swan River and West Swan Road and has a total area of approximately 25.2 hectares. (Page 6)
9 The applicant is: 10 Lot 3 is owned by Clarendon Developments Pty Ltd. Portion of Lot 3 (approximately 5.64 hectares) is currently under lease to Roundhouse Entertainment Pty Ltd and Wokka Enterprises Pty Ltd for a term ending 30 April 2016, and with the benefit of a further five year term ending on 30 April 2021 at the lessees' option. Two portions of Lot 3 are excluded from the lease area, being the western portion of land fronting West Swan Road and the eastern portion of land, on which two existing sheds are situated. The majority of Lot 3 is currently under vines; however, the undisputed evidence before the Tribunal is that these vines are diseased and should be removed. 11 Lot 2 is currently used for viticulture purposes, operating as Lancaster Wines (Lancaster). A right of access easement benefiting Lot 200 divides Lot 2 into two portions. A dam is situated on the northern side of the right of access easement. There are a number of sheds located on Lot 2, one of which is the Lancaster outdoor tasting shed. It is envisaged that Lancaster will continue to operate the cellar door in conjunction with the concert venue. 12 Lot 200 abuts the Swan River and is currently used for residential purposes. A 10 metre wide drainage easement is located to the north of the existing dwelling and there are two shed structures located south of the existing dwelling. 13 The subject land is located on the eastern side of West Swan Road, approximately 1.2 kilometres north of the Reid Highway and West Swan Road intersection and opposite the Margaret River Chocolate Factory. The subject land and the immediately adjoining properties (Lots 1, 9 and 37) are currently used for viticulture, more particularly for table grape growing. The Yahava Koffee Works outlet and the Penny Garden restaurant are located to the south of Lot 37. 14 Northeast of the intersection of Reid Highway and West Swan Road is a reasonably densely populated area of about 50 rural residential lots, and to the east of this subdivision is Bandyup Women's Prison. Sandalford Winery (Sandalford) is located approximately 600 metres (Page 7)
south of Reid Highway, and can be accessed via West Swan Road and Harris Road. The planning framework 15 The subject land is located in Planning Area B of the SVP Act. The general planning objectives for the Swan Valley as specified in s 6 of the SVP Act are: • the encouragement of traditional agricultural and other productive uses of the area that complement its rural character; • the protection of the environment and the character of the area; • the reduction of nutrient levels in the Swan River; and • the promotion of tourism that complements the rural character of the Swan Valley. 16 The specific planning objectives for Area B as set out in s 8 of the SVP Act that are of particular relevance to this application are: 1. The protection of the viticulture. 2. The provision of water for viticulture and horticulture and the discouragement of other activities that have high water demands. 3. The encouragement of tourist facilities provided that they do not detract from the rural character of the area. … The discouragement of uses that are incompatible with the rural character and traditional agricultural activities of the area. … 17 Additionally, the subject land is zoned Rural in the MRS and Swan Valley Rural under LPS 17. The objectives of the Swan Valley Rural zone (cl 4.2.19 of LPS 17) are to: (Page 8)
18 The proposed use has been classified by the respondent as 'place of assembly'. The classification of the use is not in dispute. 'Place of assembly' for the purposes of LPS 17 means 'premises provided for people to assemble for a public activity'. 19 The use permissibility for a 'place of assembly' is 'D', which means: The use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. 20 Clause 10.3 of LPS 17 provides authority for the City to refuse or approve an application. Without limiting the scope of the discretion to determine the matter, cl 10.2 of the Scheme sets out matters to which due regard is to be given in the determination of an application. The pertinent matters relating to this application are as follows: • the aims, objectives and provisions of the Scheme (cl 10.2(a)); • the requirements of orderly and proper planning (cl 10.2(b)); • any approved statement of planning policy of the Commission (cl 10.2 (c)); • any local planning policy under cl 2.4 of the Scheme (cl 10.2.(f)); • the compatibility generally of a use or development with its setting (cl 10.2(k)); • any social issues that have an effect on the amenity of the locality (cl 10.2(l)); (Page 9)
• the preservation of the amenity of the locality (cl 10.2(o)); • whether the proposed means of access to and egress from the site are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for manoeuvring and parking of vehicles (cl 10.2(q)); • the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety (cl 10.2(r)); • whether public transport services are necessary and, if so, whether they are available and adequate for the proposal (cl 10.2(s)); • any relevant submission received on the application (cl 10.2(z)); and • any other planning consideration the local government considers relevant (cl 10.2.(zb)). 21 Clause 2.2 of LPS 17 empowers the respondent to make planning policies relating to planning and development of the Scheme area. The City has adopted Local Planning Policy TP 126Building and Development Standards Rural Zones (TP 126),which contains the following provisions concerning development in the Swan Valley Rural zone: … 2.9 Development Conditions Applicable to the Swan Valley Rural Zone The purpose and intent of the Swan Valley Rural Zone is to promote the area primarily as a horticultural, recreational, tourism and landscape resource, with areas containing high quality horticultural soils and scarce plastic clays receiving special protection. Having regard to the purpose and intent of the zone, the Council shall apply the following guidelines when dealing with applications for approval to commence development or otherwise planning for development within the zone: a) The Council shall not approve of any development where, in its opinion, such development would: (Page 10)
i) conflict with the planning objectives of Area B as specified in the Swan Valley Planning Act; ii) jeopardise the high quality horticultural soils; iii) jeopardise scarce plastic clays; iv) detract from the rural character and amenity of the area[;] or v) cause a nuisance by the production of noise, dust, smell or other pollutants. … The Council may approve the establishment of tourist oriented recreational and cottage industry uses where, in the opinion of Council, such uses have the potential to enhance the purpose and intent of the zone provided that such development is: … 22 In addition to cl 10.2(c) of the Scheme, s 241(1) of the PD Act requires the Tribunal to have due regard to any State planning policy which may affect the subject matter of the application. State Planning Policy 2.5 Agricultural and Rural Land Use Planning (SPP 2.5) is relevant, as it applies to all rural land in the State, which includes the subject land. Part 4 of SPP 2.5 set outs four key objectives, of which the following two are of particular relevance to this matter: (Page 11)
a. providing adequate separation distance between potential conflicting land uses; b. introducing management requirements that protect existing agricultural land uses; c. identify[ing] areas that are suitable and capable for intensive agricultural pursuits as agricultural priority areas; and d. avoid[ing] locating new rural settlements in areas that are likely to create conflict with established or proposed agricultural priority areas. … 23 Appendix 4 of SPP 2.5 identifies the Swan Valley as an Agriculture Priority Management Area requiring investigation for identification as a potential agricultural area of State or regional significance.
Issues 24 The parties agreed the following issues for determination in the matter: 1) Is the proposed development consistent with the objective of the Swan Valley Rural zone, the planning objective of Area B designated by the SVP Act and the key objectives of SPP 2.5? 2) Is the Lancaster property a suitable site for an outdoor concert venue of the scale proposed? 3) Is it consistent with orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the amenity of the locality to approve the subject development, having regard to the existing approval enjoyed by Sandalford for a similar use? 4) Is it appropriate to grant planning approval in light of the amount of noise the development will generate? 25 It is usual for the Tribunal to address each issue in turn; however, in this instance, there are aspects of the development that overlap the issues, and therefore it is appropriate to consider those specific aspects first to enable determination of the broader issues. The specific aspects include removal of vines, potential land use conflicts, traffic impacts (Page 12)
relating to events at Lancaster only, and the cumulative effect of traffic and noise. 26 It should be noted that the general position of the respondent was that outdoor concert venues are not fundamentally contrary to the objectives of Area B of the SVP Act and are capable of approval in appropriate circumstances. This view is shared by the Tribunal. Therefore, this review is focused on considering the substantial merits of this particular application in light of the planning framework, and determining whether the proposal warrants approval.
Removal of vines 27 The proposed development involves the removal of approximately 7.6 hectares of vines located on Lot 2 and Lot 3 to provide a grassed area estimated to be sufficient to accommodate parking for approximately 2,992 vehicles. 28 The applicant told the Tribunal that the viticulture use of Lot 2 and Lot 100 would not be affected in any significant way, as 95% of the original Lancaster vines (present when the property was purchased) were to remain, and that the winery would continue to operate in the current manner with viticulture as its core business. He considered that there would be no undue impact on the wine production, and predicted that wine sales would increase by 14,400 bottles per annum due to patrons' expenditure during the concert events. He also submitted that other wineries and associated businesses in the Swan Valley, such as restaurants, breweries and accommodation, would gain economic benefit from the events due to increased patronage, and that indirect benefits would flow from Lancaster increasing its spending in viticulturalrelated uses in the region. 29 The applicant was not able to say what percentage of vines on Lot 2 would be lost as a result of the proposed development. He indicated that the section of vines to be removed from Lot 2 were Chenin vines that he had planted approximately five to six years ago, and he could not say that they are irretrievably diseased. Mr Peter John Nuich, owner of Lot 37, in his evidence asserted that over 50% of the planted area on Lot 2 was to be removed. 30 The evidence suggests that although 95% of the original Lancaster vines are to be retained on Lot 2, the proposed development will require the removal of about 2 hectares of relatively healthy vines on Lot 2 for the provision of car parking for the concert events. (Page 13)
31 As for Lot 3, the applicant said that it had not been used for productive viticulture for five years and, as a consequence, an area of the vineyard (approximately 5.6 hectares) was diseased and had been taken out of production in consultation with the southern neighbour (Lot 37) and the Department of Agriculture. This evidence was uncontested. The applicant also indicated that a section of vines fronting West Swan Road had been retained at the request of the landowner so that the option of apply for a cellar door operation in the future was not lost. 32 The applicant argued that the removal of vines does not require planning approval under LPS 17 and, as such, the applicant could simply remove the vines independent of the proposal, and thereby remove consideration of this matter altogether from this application. This assertion was not challenged by the respondent. 33 The Tribunal accepts that the removal of vines does not require planning approval under the current planning framework and that the removal of the diseased vines is in line with sound property management and land practices consistent with the objectives of the SVP Act. However, the proposed development, if approved, necessitates the removal of healthy vines from Lot 2 for the provision of car parking, and sterilises the use of the land which, in isolation, could not be said to be consistent with the objective of protecting viticulture. Conversely, as highlighted by the undisputed evidence of the applicant, the viticulture industry of the Swan Valley will directly and indirectly gain economic benefits from the proposed development, which is consistent with the protection of viticulture at the broader level and, therefore, the removal of vines in order to provide car parking for the concert venue, in this instance, is not fatal to the application.
Potential land use conflicts 34 The respondent argued that the proposed development has the real potential to cause land use conflicts with the existing viticultural uses on the adjoining properties, in particular Lots 1, 9 and 37. The respondent submitted that potential land use conflicts arise from spray drift from the standard agricultural practices carried out on the adjoining lots affecting concert patrons and dust from vehicles driving and parking on the subject land, affecting grapes grown on the adjoining properties.
35 An important consideration in relation to this issue is that the properties adjoining the subject land grow table grapes. The respondent (Page 14)
called Mr Nuich, whose family have operated the vineyard on Lot 37 for nearly 80 years, and Mr Kim Maxwell Taylor, owner of Lot 9 and whose family has operated a vineyard on the lot for the past 100 years, to explain the spraying requirements for growing table grapes. 36 The Tribunal was told that a part of the management practices for growing table grapes is the need to spray for pests, fungal diseases and plant growth regulators, primarily gibberellic acid (GA). According to Mr Nuich's and Mr Taylor's evidence, the timing of spraying is absolutely critical to the production of premium quality grapes, and cannot be predicted in advance. Spray decisions are made on a daybyday basis and are determined by a combination of the growth of the vine, weather, disease pressure, temperature, and wind direction and its strength. They said that any delay in the application of chemicals will result in poor quality grapes and/or possible severe crop loss. 37 In order to assist the Tribunal in understanding the spray regime required for table grape production, Mr Nuich gave evidence relating to his last growing season, dating from 14 October to 31 December 2011. He said that this was the most active spray period of the year for grape production and that, out of the 77 days in that period, spraying occurred on 49 of those days and, for 40 of those days, the wind was blowing at sometime during the day in a southerly, southeasterly or southwesterly direction towards Lot 3. He indicated that for the January to March period, spraying occurred mainly on Saturday and/or Sunday, as grape picking occurred mainly during the week. 38 Both Mr Nuich and Mr Taylor had serious concerns about their ability to continue to carry out normal vineyard spraying practices on their lots because of a likely conflict between spraying and concert events, and that they will be forced to spray at suboptimal times. Mr Taylor also highlighted other elements of spraying that may heighten the conflict between the uses. These included noise from the tractor and air sprayer, lighting and noxious odours. 39 The applicant contended that the issue of spray drift could be managed by ameliorative and preventative steps that can be taken by the applicant to prevent an unacceptable impact on people having access to, and use of, the Lancaster premises, together with the adherence of the neighbours to the lawful obligations imposed upon them by their activities. 40 The applicant called Mr Billy Alan Gordon, who is a director of Bill Gordon Consultants Pty Ltd, which is a consultancy specialising in (Page 15)
pesticide application techniques and drift management strategies, to give evidence on the issue of spray drift. 41 Mr Gordon prepared a report detailing the potential impacts of spraying operations for table grape production west of the proposed concert venue: A detailed Analysis of the Potential Impact of the Proposed Concert Venue on the Spraying Operations of the Adjacent Table Grape Growers to the West of the Proposed Development. This report is a desktop study which only addressed the interface between Lot 1 and Lot 9 and Lancaster. The introductory section of the report set outs the legal responsibilities of spray operators which, simply put, is to contain the products that they apply to their crops within the spray area of their property. The report then proceeds to assess the impacts of three spray scenarios on the concert area: 1) spraying in the absence of an appropriate artificial barrier; 2) spraying with an appropriate artificial barrier; and 3) spraying with an appropriate artificial barrier and a buffer area. In regard to the first scenario, Mr Gordon concluded as follows: • On nights where conditions were deemed suitable for pesticide application, there would be no impact on the application of products containing GA. • There would be no impact on the application of other unscheduled products, such as those containing elemental sulphur. • Where scheduled products (poison) needed to be applied, there would be no impact on spraying operations west of the easternmost portion of the lots, as outlined in Figure 1 (see attachment 1). • There would be no adverse impact on the application of scheduled products to the easternmost portions of the lots when the wind direction is away from the proposed concert area. • The only potential impact on spraying operations would be when a scheduled product needed to be applied during a concert time to the easternmost portions of the lots and (Page 16)
the wind direction is toward the concert area during the concert time. Under such conditions, spraying would need to be completed at times outside of the scheduled concert hours. 42 As to the second scenario, Mr Gordon held the view that if a suitable artificial barrier was in place, there should be no restrictions on the spraying operations of the adjacent table grape enterprises, provided the spray operators adhere to their legal requirements for spraying. According to Mr Gordon, a suitable barrier would need to be 1.5 times the height of the neighbouring canopy (approximately 4.2 metres high) and of 50% porosity. 43 The third scenario involved a 40 metre buffer accompanied by an artificial barrier located centrally in the buffer area. In Mr Gordon's opinion, under this scenario there should be no limitations to legal spraying operations on the easternmost portions of the lots of any product while suitable conditions for spraying existed during a concert event. 44 Concern was raised by Mr Taylor that the buffer area, as identified in Figure 1 of Mr Gordon's report, involved portions of both Lot 1 and Lot 9, and that such a buffer would place restrictions on the use of his land. Mr Gordon confirmed that the buffer area would need to be moved slightly eastward to be squarely within the subject land. 45 The issue of spray drift from Lot 37 towards Lot 3 was not addressed in Mr Gordon's report. His initial view was that mitigating measures were not required, given the proposed use of Lot 3 (carpark) and the setback distances required in the planning framework. He also indicated that not every product required the same level of mitigation. When pressed by the Tribunal, Mr Gordon conceded that it might be reasonable to mitigate some of the risk associated with spray drift from scheduled products (poisons), but that the mitigation measures should be the responsibility of both parties. He submitted a possible measure could be the erection of a barrier similar to that proposed for Lot 1 and Lot 9, but was concerned that this measure placed the burden on the applicant to mitigate the risk. He also suggested the possibility of neighbour notification, which would entail giving notice of products to be sprayed and information on the products to be applied. When asked under crossexamination whether a buffer would be necessary, Mr Gordon responded as follows: I think it would require a look at the products being used, the situations and ways of minimising [the] risk betweenboth parties. (Page 17)
46 Mr Gordon went on to say that Lot 37 was a slightly different proposition to Lot 1 and Lot 9, as the level of risk was quite different for the following two reasons. Firstly, the time people would be likely to be exposed to spray drift would be considerably less and, secondly, techniques are available to Mr Nuich to stage spraying to avoid any conflict. He did indicate, however, that a buffer might be appropriate for some products. 47 The applicant, in closing submissions, agreed to the erection of a barrier, not dissimilar to the barrier proposed to be erected along the boundary of Lot 1 and Lot 9, to the extent that it provided an ameliorative effect, but contended that there was no evidence to suggest the need for the creation of a buffer by requiring a setback from the boundary of Lot 3. 48 The Tribunal expects that the landowners of the adjoining properties will take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise emissions from their properties in the course of their spraying operations. However, there is some evidence to suggest that, notwithstanding such efforts, there is the potential for spray drift to occur, creating potential for land use conflict with the proposed development. 49 The planning framework, both at the State and local levels, aims to protect viticulture, and one of the principle mechanisms, contained in the relevant (or associated) statutory instruments and policies, is to minimise the potential for land use conflicts. The setback distances for the proposed development are less than the recommended setback in the Environmental Protection Authority's Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors Separation Distance between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses (June 2005) (EPA Guidance). Appendix 1 of the EPA Guidance identifies a generic 500 metre separation distance between 'Vineyards (viticulture)' and a sensitive land use. The impacts identified include gaseous, noise, odour and dust. 50 On page 5, the EPA Guidance states that: (Page 18)
51 Clause 4.4.1 of the EPA Guidance sets out specific guidance of the Environmental Protection Authority where sensitive development is proposed near an existing/proposed industry and states: … Where the separation is less than the generic distance, a scientific study based on site and industryspecific information must be presented to demonstrate that a lesser distance will not result in unacceptable impacts. If the distance from the industrial land use to the sensitive land use is less than the recommended separation distance, and it cannot be demonstrated that unacceptable environmental impacts are likely to be avoided, then other options should generally be pursued. These may include: • modifying the project to reduce emissions via engineering controls such as process design, process enclosure or other means; and • pursuing land use planning and management controls (e.g.[,] land acquisition, rezoning) to reduce environmental impacts to acceptable levels. (Emphasis in bold added) 52 Although the report prepared by Mr Gordon is not sitespecific, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ameliorative measures proposed by Mr Gordon for Lot 1 and Lot 9, together with the legal responsibility of the spray operator, would reduce the risk of spray drift on the concert area to an acceptable level. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the offer to erect a barrier along the common boundary of Lot 37, which was proposed on the run, will be sufficient mitigation to minimise the potential for conflict between spray operations and the car parking area during concert events. Although Mr Gordon indicated that perhaps a buffer may be required for some products, the applicant resisted this notion, as it would reduce the number of car parking bays available on Lot 3 and have a sterilising effect on the land. The EPA Guidance provides for a default 500 metre separation distance between viticulture and a sensitive land use and, as there has been no considered assessment of the impacts and a demonstrated acceptability of a reduced separation distance, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the barrier proposed will be sufficient to mitigate the effects of potential land use conflicts.
53 Another potential land use conflict identified by the respondent was the potential for dust from the unsealed carpark and internal roads settling on the table grape crops on the adjoining properties. The Tribunal was (Page 19)
told that excessive dust on the grapes could render the product unsaleable. Mr Nuich was concerned that if the grassed surface of the car parking area was not maintained, there was a real potential for dust contamination of his crop as there was no buffer between the car parking area and the vineyard. 54 Mr Donald Veal, a traffic consultant engaged by the applicant to undertake, amongst other things, a transport assessment report of the proposed development, was called as a witness for the applicant. He identified in his report the need for appropriate dust management procedures to be implemented in relation to the local road network. Mr Veal stated: … Appropriate grading and maintenance of the roads prior to events will reduce the dust impact and proposed event management will include regular passes over the unsealed internal road network the day prior to and the morning of events by a water truck to dampen the roads and reduce the dust impacts. This may also occur as well once all eventgenerated traffic has arrived at the venue and prior to egress depending upon the weather and state of the roads at the time and will be an operational decision made at each event. 55 According to Mr Lancaster, Mellan Events will be responsible for dust management for each event, and he is responsible for ensuring that the grass area is reticulated and maintained when there are no events. He stated that he has a water licence that allows the irrigation of both vines and grassed area, and that the limit is sufficient to enable this to be effected. 56 Other than Mr Veal's recommendation on the treatment of the internal road, the applicant did not adduce any objective scientific evidence relating to this issue. Given the potential impact of dust on the viticulture use, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are suitable measures in place to mitigate any dust issue that may arise as a consequence of the proposed development.
Traffic impacts relating to Lancaster concert events only 57 The applicant engaged Mr Veal to undertake a transport assessment of the proposed development and to audit the proposed Event Traffic Management Plan prepared by Advance Traffic Management Pty Ltd. A SIDRA analysis of the operating performance intersection of Reid Highway and West Swan Road was also undertaken by Mr Veal. 58 The transport assessment report adopted the Western Australian Planning Commission Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development, (Page 20)
Volume 4 Individual Development Framework and considered the following aspects of the development: access and parking, service vehicles, traffic volumes and vehicle types, traffic management, sitespecific and safety issues. 59 The estimated traffic generated by a capacity crowd was forecast as 2,400 private vehicles carrying some 6,000 people, plus 100 buses, coaches and VIP limousines bring a further 2,000 people (25%). This equated to some 2,500 inbound vehicle movements and 2,500 outbound vehicles movements after the concert event. Of these, some 80% are expected to travel on the portion of West Swan Road south of the site to and from Reid Highway (2,000 northbound and 2,000 southbound). The other 20% are forecast to travel on the section of West Swan Road north of the venue (500 northbound and 500 southbound). In the initial report, vehicle access to the site for events was proposed to occur through two driveways that intersect with West Swan Road. 60 In regard to access, Mr Veal concluded that there would be sufficient road capacity to cater for the forecast traffic volumes if the northern access driveway catered for twoway traffic movements at all times and the southern access driveway catered for inbound traffic prior to the concert and outbound traffic movements postconcert, with the exception of buses and chartered vehicles, which would all enter and exit via the southern driveway. Qualified traffic controllers would also be required at the accessways, to stop traffic southbound where queuing started to impede through movement. During the hearing, a further plan was adduced that proposed an additional access road located between the northern and southern accesses for bus movements, drop off activity and emergency vehicles. Nothing arose out of this plan, other than clarifying Mr Veal's reference to a third access road in the September 2012 SIDRA report. 61 Mr Veal also recommended that both left and right turn movements be permitted at both driveway intersections, and localised widening of West Swan Road, to allow vehicles to pass queuing right turn vehicles. He was confident that the traffic management plan, once finalised by incorporating the measures recommended, would be able to manage the level of traffic demand in a safe and efficient manner. 62 Mr Veal was confident that the proposed parking arrangements for private vehicles was sufficient to cater for the capacity crowd, but there was a need for adequate traffic management staff to direct vehicles to park in an orderly manner. He also suggested that offsite parking should (Page 21)
feature as an aspect of the traffic management plan and that measures should be put in place to minimise this type of parking. In regard to the coach parking arrangements, he concluded that there was a deficiency in the number of bays provided on site and identified a need for a further 10 bus bays. He suggested that these could be provided by extending the bus layover area to the east. 63 SIDRA modelling of the intersection of Reid Highway and West Swan Road was undertaken to assess the impact on the intersection of Lancaster concert events. It should be noted that the modelling required changes to the phasing of the signals by Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA), which the Tribunal was told by Mr Veal was common practice for major events and would form part of the traffic management plan. 64 According to Mr Veal, the results for the forecast traffic for such an event would result in the intersection operating at a reduced Level of Service (LoS) F (unacceptable) for start peak period (18:00 to 19:00) and LoS D (acceptable) for exit peak hour (23:00 to 24:00), but the delays and queuing at the intersection are within the range expected to occur during major events such as concerts with standard traffic management procedures in place to inform drivers that the event is in progress. However, he recommended that advance warning signs informing motorist of expected delays be installed on the west and east approaches to the intersection one week ahead of concert events. 65 The respondent did not call an expert to dispute the findings of Mr Veal, although Sinclair Knight Merz (SMK) did review Mr Veal's initial SIDRA report and undertook additional SIDRA analysis assuming different assumptions, which resulted in further supplementary work by Mr Veal. Crossexamination of Mr Veal on this aspect of his evidence did not raise any substantive concerns that could not be appropriately addressed and managed in a traffic management plan and therefore the Tribunal accepts Mr Veal's conclusion that 'the Lancaster site can operationally and safely cater for events attracting up to 8,000 people at weekends'.
Cumulative impact of traffic and noise 66 The issue of cumulative impact was raised because there are already a number of other outdoor concert venues approved in the Swan Valley. These include Sandalford, The Belvoir and Red Hill. The venue of concern in this instance is Sandalford, as it is located 1.5 kilometres south (Page 22)
of the subject land and has planning approval to host up to 10 concerts per year, catering for up to 12,000 patrons per event. 67 The respondent asserted that if planning approval is granted for the proposed development, it is possible that: 68 The respondent contended that the traffic and noise generated by the respective venues will adversely affect the same locality and that the cumulative effect of the external impacts from the two venues is unreasonable and inappropriate, and cannot be adequately controlled through the imposition of conditions on an approval for this development. 69 The applicant accepted that if the proposed development was approved, there was the potential for 16 events to be held, although contended that this proposition was not likely for the following reasons: 70 Mr Brad Mellen, Director of Mellen Events, was called by the applicant to explain why there was unlikely to be an increase in events in the Swan Valley region. Mr Mellen submitted that: i) Sandalford has never hosted 10 events in any one year; ii) market demand in Perth is not large enough to receive or support that many outdoor shows; iii) events previously held at Sandalford will be transferred to Lancaster; iv) the opening of the new Perth Arena will attract some of the concerts that would otherwise have been held (Page 23)
outdoors in the Swan Valley and, further, it is the policy of the entertainment company managing the new Perth Arena not to allow acts to play at a winery when there is a venue with adequate capacity in the same city; and v) events will be spread between venues but the majority will be held in the new Perth Arena. 71 The implementation of a booking system by the respondent to ensure that two concert events did not occur on the same day was canvassed as a solution by the applicant. However, it was accepted that this option was not feasible, given planning approval had already being given to Sandalford and, therefore, such a system could not be imposed after the fact. 72 Mr Grant Brinklow, the Chief Executive Officer of Sandalford, was called by the respondent to given evidence. Mr Brinklow told the Tribunal that Sandalford had a very significant commitment and genuine intentions to hold 10 events per season at Sandalford Estate, regardless of what alternative venues exist. To substantiate this assertion, he gave details of Sandalford's arrangements with Dainty Consolidated Entertainment regarding the promotion and hosting of events. He considered that it was very possible that concerts at the two venues could conceivably occur on the same day, and referred to several occasions, both in Perth and interstate, where concert events have been held at venues in close proximity to each other on the same day. 73 On the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that there is no definite certainty as to the actual number of events that will be held in the Swan Valley in any one year, particularly because each event is subject to a reg 18 approval under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations1997 (WA) (Noise Regulations). Nevertheless, planning approval of the proposed development will permit an additional six outdoor concert events to be held between October and April of any given year in a locality already subjected to up to 10 outdoor concert events per year. It would be remiss of the Tribunal not to consider the cumulative impact of the potential total number of concerts on the locality in determining whether the proposal warrants approval. The specific impacts identified relate to traffic and noise and are at the heart of an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the locality. (Page 24)
(i) Traffic impact for coinciding events 74 SIDRA modelling of the operational performance of the intersection of Reid Highway and West Swan Road with capacity concert events occurring simultaneously at Lancaster and Sandalford was undertaken by Mr Veal and then reviewed by SKM. This review resulted in further SIDRA modelling using different assumptions. In essence, the combined SIDRA modelling demonstrated that there is insufficient capacity at the intersection of Reid Highway and West Swan Road to accommodate such events. Mr Veal's final analysis estimated that the intersection would operate at LoS F (unacceptable) and that the 95% queue length on the south approach to Lancaster's south access is 1,066 metres, which is about 200 metres short of Reid Highway and is therefore not impacting on the intersection, whereas the 95% queue length on the northapproach to Sandalford's site access is estimated to be 1,149 metres, which results in a major part of the queue impacting on Reid Highway, as it is only 620 metres away. The modelling for Sandalford was based on a previous concert at the winery which indicated that 95% of all traffic entered via West Swan Road and only 5% via Harris Road. It was pointed out during the hearing that the arrangements for that particular concert did not reflect the current access arrangements for Sandalford, as access (and egress) from Harris Road had been improved and that if the SIDRA modelling was modified to reflect the new arrangements there would be an improvement in queue lengths and less impact on the intersection. 75 Given the results of the SIDRA analysis, it was accepted by the applicant that the intersection would not operate at an acceptable level if capacity events occurred simultaneously at both Lancaster and Sandalford wineries. Mr Veal gave evidence that if concert events were to be held at both venues on the same day, then traffic demands would be manageable, provided that: 76 Mr Veal submitted that these measures would allow for the optimisation of the traffic movements for each of the events, thereby improving the operation of the intersection to an acceptable level for event situations. He acknowledged that the coordination of events relies on the City approving a consolidated event traffic management plan for the (Page 25)
two venues, MRWA agreeing to modifications to the traffic signal operation pre and post events to assist with traffic flow, and the venue operators agreeing to coordinate start and finish times of their respective events. He agreed that if these measures did not occur, then coinciding events should not be allowed. 77 The applicant submitted that a condition of approval requiring a traffic management plan to be prepared and approved for each event was an entirely appropriate mechanism to regulate events in the locality. The applicant argued that as approval in this instance was not for finite events on finite dates during a finite period, but one which provided caps on the permissible number of events each year for a finite period, it would be open to the respondent to refuse an event management plan if it was found that the event would result in unacceptable loads and unacceptable impacts on the locality. The applicant did not consider the utilisation of the approval process for a traffic management plan as fatal to the underlying nature of a planning approval in these circumstances. 78 The Tribunal does not agree. The purpose of a planning condition is to regulate incidental aspects of the development. As Debelle J articulated in Kipa Freeholds Pty Ltd v Development Assessment Commission (1999) 101 LGERA 414 at 423: The power to impose conditions is vested in a planning authority for the purpose of enabling it to regulate incidental aspects of the development so that it does not have an adverse effect upon the amenity of the neighbourhood of the development, either in the course of construction or when the development is completed. … The power to impose conditions is not provided to enable a planning authority to alter the nature of the proposal and hedge it about with conditions which are unworkable, unenforceable, and seek to confine the development form being used in the ordinary way. Resort to the use of such conditions is tantamount to an acknowledgement that the proposed development is inappropriate for the subject land. If a planning authority imposes this latter kind of condition, it is using the power to impose conditions for a purpose which was not intended because it goes beyond incidental aspects of the intended land use and strikes directly at the intended land use. … 79 The utilisation of the condition as suggested by the applicant is inappropriate as the condition strikes directly at the intended land use. Such a condition could not be said to be regulating an incidental aspect of the development. To reiterate the words of Debelle J, to '[r]esort to the use of such conditions is tantamount to an acknowledgement that the proposed development is inappropriate for the subject land'. (Page 26)
80 The evidence of Mr Veal in relation to the cumulative impact of coinciding events clearly highlights that this issue is a critical aspect of the development and not an issue that can be deferred for later consideration: cf. PhilLukin & Anor and Shire of Busselton [2006] WASAT 124.
81 The applicant engaged Mr Terry George, an acoustics engineer with 15 years' experience, to carry out a noise modelling exercise and report on potential noise emissions if a concert was to be held at Lancaster. The results of the noise modelling are depicted in Figure 4.1 of the Concert Noise Modelling Report (Noise Report) (refer to Attachment 2). The report concluded that: The proposed concert venue will most likely result in noise levels above the prescribed standards of regulations 7 & 8 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and therefore would need to be in accordance with a regulation 18 Approval for a NonComplying Event. … 82 Mr David Rosling, Manager, Health and Building Services at the City who is an authorised officer under provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) and has been an authorised officer for noise for approximately 11 years at the City, was called to give evidence on behalf of the respondent. Mr Rosling agreed that the noise modelling undertaken by Lloyd George Acoustics was a reasonable representation of the likely noise emissions from a concert at Lancaster. 83 According to the noise experts, the prescribed standards as set out in the Noise Regulations for: 84 Figure 4.1 of the Noise Report clearly indicates that these standards will be exceeded. Notwithstanding, reg 18 of the Noise Regulations 'Venues used for sporting, entertainment purposes etc.' provides for the approval of a proposed sporting, cultural or entertainment event that is to be open to the public where: a) it is likely to result in emission of noise in contravention of the standard prescribed under reg 7 of the Noise Regulations; and (Page 27)
b) would lose its character or usefulness if it were required to comply with that standard. 85 Such approval is termed an approved noncomplying event. Further, under reg 18(8) of the Noise Regulations, a noise monitoring fee is required to be paid if it is determined that the noise level received as a result of the event exceeds certain specified limits (reg 18(8)(a) and reg 18(8)(b)). 86 The experts agreed that the six events would require approval under reg 18 of the Noise Regulations and that management measures, such as those set out below, would be required: i. Written notification to residences within the worst-case predicted 65 dB(A) contour. ii. Continuous noise monitoring at the mixing desk with recommended limits of 100 dB Laeq,3min & 115dB LCeq,3min with an allowable tolerance. iii. Continuous noise monitoring at residences. iv. Soundchecks and concerts to be restricted to certain times, including a 10.30pm curfew. v. Implementation of a designated complaints line and vi. Report provided to [the] City of Swan. 87 In addition, reg 18(11) of the Noise Regulations provides that '[t]he Chief Executive Officer is not to approve the holding of more than two approved nonconforming events in or at a particular venue in any period of 12 consecutive months unless the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the majority of occupiers on whom the noise emissions will impact have no objection to the holding of the additional events' (emphasis added). 88 The noise experts disagreed on the 'area of impact'. Mr George considered the 60 dB(A) noise contour level an acceptable measure to define the 'area of impact' because, at that level, a noise monitoring fee is invoked. He submitted that it could be inferred from this requirement that noise impact for levels of less than 60 dB(A) were considered acceptable as no noise monitoring fee is required. Mr George indicated that there were approximately 58 dwellings located within the 60 dB(A) contour. (Page 28)
89 Mr Rosling defined the area of impact using the 55 dB(A) noise level contour, as he considered the area affected by the 55 dB(A) noise contour to be peri urban in nature, and therefore appropriate that the views and expectation of residents in this area be taken into consideration in determining whether the majority of occupiers on whom the noise emission will impact have no objection to the holding of additional events. It was estimated that approximately 191 noisesensitive premises are located within the 55 dB(A) noise contour of the Lancaster events. During the hearing, it was further agreed by the experts that the number of premises affected would be considerably more if the penalties relating to impulsiveness, tonality and modulation as set out in reg 7 of the Noise Regulations were applied. 90 A survey of the 191 properties affected by noise at 55 dB level was undertaken by the respondent. The survey asked residents whether they objected to the proposal to hold up to six amplified outdoor music events per year at Lancaster winery and whether their objection was based on noise concerns. A simple analysis of the responses shows that a total of 69 responses (36%) were received and, of these, 34 responses (49.2%) cited noise as the basis for their objection. From these results, Mr George concluded that the majority of occupiers do not object, whereas Mr Rosling held the view that the response rate of the survey was too low to draw any conclusions about whether the majority of affected occupiers objected to the proposed development. The Tribunal does not consider the results of this survey to be particularly valuable in determining the views of occupiers in the defined locality, as the survey only referenced the Lancaster application and failed to inform occupiers of the 'area of overlap' between the two venues. 91 The Tribunal accepts that the Noise Regulations do not provide clarity in defining the area of impact. The noise experts were at pains to explain why they did not consider the assigned noise levels which, at 10 pm would be 35 dB(A), to be an appropriate measure to determine the area of noise impact for occasional events such as concerts. Both experts considered that concerts and the like were intermittent events that occurred over the year and, therefore, higher tolerable noise levels were acceptable before individuals considered noise to be an impact. This may be true; however, tolerance to exceedances of the assigned noise levels must reduce as the frequency of events increases. 92 Mr Rosling explained that assigned levels were developed for noise that occurs on a daily basis and that if these levels were applied, it would be impracticable, as the 'area of impact' would be enormous and could (Page 29)
potentially skew results in favour of the applicant. The Tribunal accepts the noise experts' evidence that, for concert events, it may not be appropriate to apply the assigned levels in the Noise Regulations to determine the area of impact in respect to a reg 18 approval. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the frequency of exceedances of assigned levels is not a relevant consideration in a planning assessment in order to determine the amenity impacts of such events on the locality. 93 The critical difference between the application of the 60 dB(A) or 55 dB(A) noise level contour is the overlap of the 'area of impact' of residents affected by both concert events. If the 60 dB(A) contour is used, there are no dwellings in the area of overlap; however, if the 55 dB(A) is used, there are approximately 59 dwellings potentially affected from both venues and, as such, under reg 18(14), the two venues could be treated as a single venue for the purposes of considering event approval under reg 18(11) of the Noise Regulations. 94 Consequently, if the additional six events are approved, then the cumulative effect of the two venues means that at least 59 dwellings will be subject to noise greater than 55 dB(A), plus penalties, during the evening period for up to 16 times a year during the concert season. Mr George was unable to say whether this was a reasonable proposition, as the number of events does not come into his 'sort of analysis', whereas, Mr Rosling clearly did not consider such an arrangement to be acceptable. 95 The noise experts told the Tribunal that the noise level likely to be received by the 59 dwellings if the two venues were operating on the same night would only increase to about 56 dB(A), as the noise modelling represents the worst case scenario and, therefore, the worst case scenario would not occur at both venues on the same night. However, the noise experts agreed that the reception of noise would be different, as it would be coming from two directions. 96 The Tribunal does not consider the noise impacts on the locality from an additional six concert events to be reasonable because the cumulative effect of both concert events result in a significant number of dwellings being subject to an inordinate number of non-complying events. Potentially, given the concentrated period of the concert season (22 weeks) at least 59 dwellings could experience noise levels of 55dB for 16 of those 22 weekends if concerts are held on consecutive weekends. Furthermore, as stated previously, the Tribunal considers that a planning assessment of the impact of noise on the amenity of a locality is broader than that required by a reg 18 approval. One of the considerations of the Tribunal in determining the application under LPS 17 is the 'preservation (Page 30)
of amenity'. The regularity of exceedance of the assigned noise levels on the locality in general must surely feature as a consideration, and would undoubtedly affect the character of the locality. Assessment of amenity impact 97 'Amenity' as defined in Sch 1 of LPS 17 'means all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity'. On this issue, the Tribunal had the benefit of expert evidence from two planning consultants: Mr Joe Algeri, called on behalf of the respondent, and Mr Greg Rowe, called on behalf of the applicant. 98 The planning experts identified 'locality' as the 'Swan Valley' and characterised the area as rural in nature. Mr Rowe helpfully defined what he considered rural character to mean in this locality as: Rural character includes at least the following things: open space; relatively large allotments; man made activities including agricultural enterprises and particularly viticulture; a vegetative landscape; a valley form to the landscape; the absence of large built form and built scale; views and vistas particularly to the river; nonagricultural, nonviticultural commercial activities are part of the character and that includes … restaurants, coffee houses, transport depots, [and] short stay accommodation venues. It includes perhaps unfortunately several significant and major transport routes … that form part of the character of the [Swan] Valley. And there is the presence of tourist activities. They are synonymous now with the [Swan] Valley. All of those elements represent the rural character of this particular location the Swan Valley. 99 Mr Algeri did not disagree with any of the elements identified by Mr Rowe in the characterisation of the locality. The Tribunal accepts that in the context of assessing cumulative impacts, the Swan Valley is relevantly the locality that will be affected by such impacts. 100 As to the impact of six additional concert events on the amenity of the locality, Mr Rowe agreed that the cumulative effects of the noise and traffic from up to 16 concert events was significant but acceptable, due to the intermittent nature and short duration of the events. In contrast, Mr Algeri considered the impacts from simultaneous events, or events held on consecutive weekends, to be unacceptable, as the additional concert events will result in impacts that will detract from the rural character of the locality. 101 In Tempora Pty Ltd v Shire of Kalamunda (1994) 10 SR (WA) 296, the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal observed at 304 that 'the determination of the amenity of the locality is a question of fact and consists of three parts: the existing amenity, the manner in which the proposed use will affect the existing amenity and the degree of impact on the locality'. The existing (and likely future) amenity is rural, and the characterisation of the locality as described by Mr Rowe is accepted. The manner is which the proposed development will affect the existing amenity is by introducing additional outdoor concert events into a rural locality where the impacts of such events are already experienced. The proposed development will result in further exceedances of the relevant assigned noise levels in the locality and coinciding events will result in a failure of the operational performance of the intersection of Reid Highway and West Swan Road. The evidence in relation to traffic and noise, as set out above, demonstrates that the degree of impact on the locality would be significant and will undoubtedly diminish the existing and likely future amenity of the rural character of the locality. Conclusion 102 Our conclusions on the main issues can be shortly stated, given the findings above. We are persuaded that there are significant concerns about land use conflicts with existing viticulture uses on adjoining properties and the cumulative effect of noise and traffic generated by two outdoor concert venues in the same locality. Given the impact on the amenity and rural character of the locality, and having regard to the planning objectives for the Swan Valley (which seek the protection of viticulture and to ensure that development does not detract from the rural character of the area), the Tribunal concludes that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the planning framework and is contrary to orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the amenity of the locality. Consequently, the proposed development warrants refusal. Order 103 For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders: (Page 32)
(Page 33)
(Page 34)
|