Lenz and Western Australian Planning Commission

[2008] WASAT 34

LENZ and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2008] WASAT 34

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2008] WASAT 34
Act:	PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
Case No:	DR:441/2006	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	13/02/08
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for review upheld Decision of respondent set aside and conditional subdivision approval allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WALTER LENZ WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Catchwords:	Subdivision City of Gosnells Composite Residential/Industry zone Land divided by watercourse Proposed lot too small to allow integrated composite uses Interface between industry and residential zoned land Compliance with general intent of local planning scheme Question of precedent Efficient and effective use of land
Legislation:	City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6, cl 5.5, cl 5.10.1, cl 9.2, Sch 3 Metropolitan Region Scheme Planning and Development Act 2000 (WA), s 138(3)
Case References:	Nil
Orders	1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision of the respondent made on 9 November 2006 to refuse subdivision approval of Lot 51 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale into two lots is set aside and a decision is substituted that subdivision approval is granted subject to the following conditions:,CONDITIONS,i) The applicant/owner is to provide a geotechnical report certifying that the land is physically capable of development prior to the commencement of subdivision work. (Local Government),ii) The land being filled and/or drained. (Local Government),iii) The land being graded and stabilised. (Local Government),iv) Suitable arrangements being made for connection of the land to the comprehensive district drainage system at the applicant/owner's cost. (Local Government),v) A detailed plan demonstrating the location and capacity of fire emergency infrastructure is to be prepared and implemented to the specifications of the Water Corporation and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. (Water Corporation) ,vi) All cut and fill is to be contained within the proposed lot boundaries by the construction of masonry retaining walls. (Local Government),vii) All buildings have the necessary clearance from the new boundaries as required under the relevant legislation. (Local Government),viii) A masonry or similarly constructed wall or fence not less than 2 metres in height shall be erected to provide screening at the rear of the proposed Lot 801. (Local Government),ix) Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of a suitable water supply service will be available to lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Water Corporation),x) Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of sewerage service will be available to the lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Water Corporation),xi) The provision of easements for existing or future water, sewerage and/or drainage infrastructure as may be required by the Water Corporation being granted free of cost to that body. (Water Corporation),xii) Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Western Power for the provision of an underground electricity supply service to the lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Western Power),xiii) The transfer of land as a Crown Reserve, free of cost to the Western Power Corporation for the provision of electricity supply infrastructure. (Western Power),xiv) This approval is valid for three years from the date of the Tribunal's decision.  Within this period the Diagram or Plan of Survey in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision should be submitted for approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission when the conditions set out above have been fulfilled.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : LENZ and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2008] WASAT 34 MEMBER : MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 14 FEBRUARY 2008 FILE NO/S : DR 441 of 2006 BETWEEN : WALTER LENZ

Applicant

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent

Catchwords:

Subdivision - City of Gosnells - Composite Residential/Industry zone - Land divided by watercourse - Proposed lot too small to allow integrated composite uses - Interface between industry and residential zoned land - Compliance with general intent of local planning scheme - Question of precedent - Efficient and effective use of land

Legislation:

City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6, cl 5.5, cl 5.10.1, cl 9.2, Sch 3

(Page 2)

Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2000 (WA), s 138(3)

Result:

Application for review upheld

Decision of respondent set aside and conditional subdivision approval allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant : N/A
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office

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

Nil

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 This is a review of the Western Australian Planning Commission's decision to refuse subdivision of a 'Composite Residential/Industrial' zoned lot, on the periphery of the Canning Vale industrial estate, into two lots divided along the alignment of a water course (within a drain reserve) traversing the land.

2 The respondent argued that the subdivision should not be allowed because the proposed smaller lot of 870 square metres could not be used for composite residential/industrial purposes in the manner prescribed by the local planning scheme.

3 The use of the smaller lot would be practically limited to residential purposes because of its size and shape. Accordingly, the respondent reasoned there was potential for land use conflict with light industry in the area and that otherwise, the proposal would not conform with the objectives and requirements of the zone under the local planning scheme.

4 The respondent argued that the water course did not constitute a significant impediment to the use of the whole of the land for composite purposes.

5 It was also argued that the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for the creation of other residential lots in the 'Composite' zone area.

6 The Tribunal acknowledged that the proposed small lot would be incapable of accommodating an integrated residential/industrial development. Nevertheless, the physical presence of the water course within a drain reserve, isolating the proposed lot, already limited the ability to develop an integrated composite development consistent with the intent of the local planning scheme.

7 The Tribunal was of the view that the water course represented a significant barrier to integrated use, whether or not the subdivision was allowed. Any industrial use on land beyond the drain to be associated with a dwelling on the segregated portion of land would, of necessity, be remote and poorly integrated in terms of the intent of the 'Composite' zone.

8 Insofar as the objectives of the local planning scheme were concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that allowance of the subdivision

(Page 4)

would not compromise the primary objective of maintaining a suitable interface between industrial and residential zoned land in this area, as intended by the scheme.

9 Because the circumstances occasioned by the severance of the land by the watercourse are not repeated elsewhere, the Tribunal was satisfied that allowance of the subdivision to create the proposed residential lot would not create a precedent for further subdivision in the locality.

10 The Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient justification to refuse the application.

11 The application for review was upheld and the proposed subdivision was conditionally approved.

Introduction

12 This is an application for review of the Western Australian Planning Commission's (respondent) decision to refuse subdivision of Lot 51 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale, a 1.5325 hectare lot zoned 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' (Composite zone) and 'Light Industry', into two lots of 870 square metres and 1.4455 hectares.

13 The application for subdivision was submitted to the respondent on 10 August 2006.

14 Following consultation with relevant agencies, including the City of Gosnells (city), the respondent issued its refusal of the subdivision application on 9 November 2006.

15 Mr Walter Lenz (applicant) lodged an application for review of the respondent's decision with the State Administrative Tribunal on 7 December 2006.

The proposed subdivision and its context

16 Lot 51 Nicholson Road is located on the south western periphery of a small light industrial precinct at the eastern extremity of the Canning Vale industrial estate.

17 The light industrial precinct is generally rectangular in shape, bounded by Nicholson Road to the south-east and east, and the standard gauge rail line to the north-west. The precinct appears to be progressively developing in association with the subdivision of lots serviced from

(Page 5)

Tulloch Way, which forms an internal loop road within the area, accessed from Nicholson Road.

18 The south-western boundary of the precinct (where Lot 51 is located) is Hughes Street. Across Hughes Street from Lot 51 is a well developed housing estate, characterised by single dwellings on large residential lots.

19 The land immediately adjoining Lot 51 to the north-west (Lot 101 Hughes Street) is largely undeveloped other than what appears to be a small industrial enterprise accessed off Tulloch Way. It is identified in the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6 (TPS 6) as zoned 'Residential' with a Density Code of R17.5 across its frontage to Hughes Street. The slightly larger portion of the lot fronting Tulloch Way is zoned 'Light Industry'.

20 The locality appears to be generally flat and cleared. A water course traverses the western margin of the precinct. The water course is protected within a 5 metre drain reserve.

21 Lot 51 is itself severed by the drain reserve at its western corner, but is otherwise configured as an 'L' shaped lot of 1.5325 hectares. The eastern portion of the lot is occupied by a restaurant and brewery known as the 'Last Drop'.

22 The proposed subdivision of Lot 51 would divide the land into two lots, separated by the water course drain reserve. The smaller, western, triangular shaped lot (proposed Lot 801) between the drain and Hughes Street would measure 870 square metres in area, with a frontage of 60.41 metres to Hughes Street and a maximum depth of 28.79 metres along its north-western boundary. The balance lot (proposed Lot 800), containing the restaurant and a substantial area of vacant developable land, would measure 1.4455 hectares and would retain frontages to Hughes Street, Nicholson Road and Tulloch Way.

23 The purpose of the subdivision, according to the applicant, is to utilise the smaller triangular lot fronting Hughes Street for residential development. The larger balance lot would be retained for light industrial purposes.

Statutory and policy instruments

24 Lot 51 Nicholson Road is predominantly zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. A narrow portion across the frontage of

(Page 6)

Nicholson Road required for road widening is reserved as 'Other Regional Road'.

25 Under the TPS 6, a rectangular portion of Lot 51 fronting Hughes Street is zoned 'Composite Residential/Light Industry'. This zone extends beyond the drain reserve, which traverses this portion of Lot 51, to a depth of 50.3 metres. The width of the composite zoned area is 82.5 metres.

26 Under TPS 6, the zoning of the balance rectangular portion of Lot 51, which relies on frontages to Nicholson Road and Tulloch Way, is 'Light Industry'.

27 The objective of the 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' zone in accordance with the provisions of TPS 6 is:

"To provide for composite residential/light industrial development to meet the needs of businesses which require a residential component and provide a suitable interface between industrial zoned land and residential zoned land."

28 Clause 5.10.1 of TPS 6 sets out general requirements of the 'Composite Residential/Light industry' zone, including the particular relevant requirements that no person shall:

"(a) develop, establish, continue or allow to be developed or established an industry or business use unless a dwelling is erected first and forms an integral part of the development;

(b) develop, establish, continue or allow to be developed or established an industry or business use within the first 35 metres and extending the full width of the lot from the residential frontage, such part of the land as this is required to be set aside exclusively for residential purposes and access unless the lot is a corner lot or is irregular in shape in which case Council shall determine the area to be used for industry or business;

(c) allow a dwelling to be occupied by any person other than the owner or manager or an employee of the industrial or business use;

(Page 7)

(d) use or permit to be used an area in excess of 2500 [square metres] for industrial or business use, including open storage buildings, yards, vehicle movement areas, unless otherwise approved by Council."

29 The City resolved, in March 2007, to initiate an amendment to TPS 6 (Amendment 73) to rezone a portion of Lot 51 Nicholson Road from 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' to 'Residential R 17.5' and 'Light Industry' with a Restricted Use (as per item 3 in Sch 3 of TPS 6).

30 Amendment 73 has been advertised, and on 13 November 2007, the City resolved to recommend that the amendment be adopted in a modified form.

31 Amendment 73 presently awaits consideration of the respondent and the decision of the Minister for Planning as to whether the proposed scheme amendment will be adopted.

The respondent's decision

32 In determining the application for subdivision, the respondent took into account the recommendation of the City. The City advised that:

"1) Approval to the subdivision would result in the creation of lots that would not be able to achieve the objectives and requirements of the current zoning (Composite Residential/Light Industry) under TPS 6.

2) Approval of the subdivision would result in the creation of an irregular shaped lot (proposed Lot 801) with limited development potential."

33 The respondent's decision to refuse the proposed subdivision of Lot 51 was expressed in the following terms:

"1) The Commission is unable to approve the proposed subdivision as an approval would contravene Section 138(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Section 138(2) stipulates that subject to subsection (3), in giving its approval under Section 135 or 136, the Commission is to have regard to the provisions of any local planning scheme that applies to the land under consideration and is not to give an approval that conflicts with the provisions of a local planning scheme. The proposal is not considered to meet any of the criteria

(Page 8)

set out in s 138(3) of the Act to warrant subdivision in conflict with the scheme provisions.

2) The size and configuration of one of the proposed lots (Lot 801) is insufficient to enable the establishment of a light industrial use in conjunction with a residence on the same site. In the absence of such an integral relationship the proposal would be contrary to the objectives and provisions of the 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' zone under […TPS 6].

3) The Commission is not prepared to approve subdivision to create a residential lot in the 'Composite Residential/ Light Industry zone as this would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zone and lead to potential land use conflict having regard to the reasonable amenity expectations of future residents.

4) The Commission is not satisfied that the drainage reserve represents a significant impediment to the use and development of the 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' zoned land as a single entity given that access to land on either side of the drainage reserve can be obtained from Hughes Street and the Council is afforded the ability to grant approval to the use of an area of land greater than 2500 square metres for industrial or business uses.

5) Approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for the creation of other residential lots in this composite light industrial area."

The respondent's argument

34 The respondent argues that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the objectives of the prevailing 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' zone because the size of the small lot (870 square metres) and its triangular shape, featuring a wide frontage and shallow maximum depth (28.79 metres), would not be physically capable of supporting both residential and industrial/business uses within the lot in accordance with the zoning requirements of TPS 6.

35 The respondent acknowledges that the City has initiated Amendment No 73 to TPS 6 that would zone portion of Lot 51 west of the drain reserve 'Residential R17.5', but contends that until such time as the

(Page 9)

amendment is in force, the subdivision application should be considered against the current zoning requirements applicable to the land.

36 The creation of a residential lot in the 'Composite' zone has a potential to lead to land use conflict because residents of the lot may have an expectation of a purely residential environment that may not be realised in the circumstances that light industrial or business activities within the zone may affect amenity by way of emissions of light, noise, vibration and odour.

37 The respondent contends that the drainage reserve traversing the land does not constitute a significant impediment to the use of the land for residential and industrial/business use because:

• there is frontage to Hughes Street on either side of the drain;

• the Council may allow a lesser setback than 35 metres for industrial/business use where a lot is a corner lot or of irregular shape;

• the Council may approve the use of an area greater than 2500 square metres for industrial or business purposes.

38 The presence of the drainage reserve is not a compelling reason for the subdivision to be allowed.

39 The subdivision would create an undesirable precedent for the creation of other residential lots in the area, such as on Lot 101 Hughes Street within the 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' zone.

The applicant's argument

40 The applicant's argument is based on the grounds that the drain across Lot 51 constitutes a significant physical barrier to the practical and efficient implementation of the objectives of the 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' zone.

41 The presence of the drain dictates that the whole 3780 square metre area of the 'Composite' zone can only be used as one occupancy with the 870 square metre triangular portion used for residential purposes and the balance 2910 square metre, for light industry.

42 There would be no direct accessibility between the residential component on the triangular segment of the land and the balance area

(Page 10)

used for industrial activity because of the physical impassibility of the water course in the drain reserve. Separate road access from Hughes Street would be necessary for both uses.

43 The drain reserve is not in the control of the applicant and there is no realistic prospect of piping the watercourse or its relocation.

44 A concept development plan submitted to the City as a basis for rezoning of Lot 51 illustrates a more practical and efficient use of the land for residential and light industrial purposes. The City has initiated Amendment 73 to TPS 6, reflecting the intent of the concept plan.

45 Amendment 73, in which proposed Lot 801 is intended to be zoned 'Residential R17.5', is now awaiting final ratification and therefore the subdivision application should be supported by the Tribunal.

Draft conditions

46 The respondent has provided a list of conditions which would be recommended to be imposed in the event that the application for review is upheld and the subdivision allowed.

47 The applicant has taken issue with several of the draft conditions.

48 The applicant argues that Condition 1, requiring a 'geotechnical report certifying that the land is physically capable of development', is unnecessary for creation of a single residential lot and, in any case, is already a current requirement for a development approval on the land associated with light industrial development.

49 Condition 5, requiring a fire emergency plan, has already been lodged in relation to the previously mentioned development and is therefore superfluous. It is not relevant to creation of a single residential lot.

50 The 2 metre high masonry wall along the drain boundary required in Condition 8 has already been foreshadowed as a requirement of the second stage of the light industrial development and is therefore not required as a condition of this subdivision.

51 Conditions 11 and 13, requiring provision of easements over water, sewer and drainage infrastructure to the Water Corporation and the transfer of land to Western Power for electricity infrastructure would not be applicable to the creation of a single residential lot.

(Page 11)

52 The applicant has also suggested the addition of a condition to the effect that the approval should be subject to the zoning process associated with Amendment 73 being finalised, or that approval should be issued after Amendment 73 is completed.

Analysis

53 There appears little doubt that the proposed subdivision, if allowed, would render some practical difficulty in meeting aspects of TPS 6 objectives of the 'Composite Residential/Light Industry' zone insofar as development of the proposed small triangular lot is concerned.

54 The objective of the zone 'to meet the need of businesses which require a residential component' is unlikely to be achievable on the parcel of land comprising proposed Lot 801 because of its limited size and awkward configuration.

55 Similarly, the requirements of the Scheme under cl 5.10.1(a) and cl 5.10.1(c), which refer to the obligation for industry/business use to be integrated with a dwelling and its occupants, will be difficult to achieve.

56 On the other hand, the question that remains to be confronted is whether the objectives and requirements of the zone mentioned in the preceding paragraphs will be otherwise achieved, regardless of the proposed subdivision.

57 The present physical characteristics of the land coupled with the requirements of TPS 6 are such that the disposition of residential and industry/business uses are likely to be well removed from each other and separated by a fenced drain reserve. They will need to be serviced by separate driveway access systems; one to the triangular residential frontage area and the other to the industrial hinterland on the eastern side of the drain. The industry/business component will also need to be set back 35 metres from the road on the eastern side of the drain presumably, therefore, leaving a substantial vacant frontage.

58 Arguably, such a loose disposition and relationship of the component uses struggles to satisfy the notion that any proposed dwelling 'forms an integral part of the development' of a composite residential/industry enterprise in a meaningful and practical way.

59 This outcome is, of course, predicated on the continued presence of the watercourse across the land and the assumption that the costs of relocation and/or piping are prohibitive of an engineered alternative

(Page 12)

solution. On balance, the Tribunal accepts that this is the likely continued circumstance. It also seems to be the accepted position of the City in its pursuit of rezonings associated with Amendment 73. Having regard to these factors, and the significant physical disruption to the practical use of the land manifest because of the presence of the watercourse, the Tribunal accepts that the drain represents a practical physical division of Lot 51.

60 Thus, the physical characteristics of the land result in practical difficulty in achieving some aspects of the objectives and requirements of the 'Composite' zone, whether or not the proposed subdivision is allowed.

61 The other important objective of the 'Composite' zone is to 'provide a suitable interface between industrial zoned land and residential zoned land'. In regard to this particular application, the Tribunal has little difficulty in accepting that the anticipated residential use of proposed Lot 801, fronting the residential area across Hughes Street and backed by the drain reserve separating it from the industrial area, is compatible with the objective of the zone.

62 In this regard, the Tribunal is mindful that the principal purpose of the 'suitable interface' is essentially to achieve a visual amenity compatibility. Incompatible nuisance occasioned by light, noise, vibration and odour are already specifically restrained within the definition and limitations of light industrial use and should not, therefore, constitute a threat to compatibility between residential and light industry use.

63 It seems, in summation of the arguments thus far analysed, that there is some practical basis for acceptance of the proposed subdivision because of the peculiar circumstances dictating and limiting the use of the portion of land physically excised by the drain. Notably, these peculiar circumstances limit any concern of setting an undesirable precedent in the locality because the circumstances do not arise elsewhere.

64 It appears also that the alternative of retaining the status quo and insisting on the coupling of 'Composite' zone component uses on either side of the drain will inevitably result in inefficient use of the land.

65 If the subdivision is allowed, and the provisions of the 'Composite' zone are applied to the balance proposed Lot 800, then another residential component would be logically developed on the Hughes Street frontage, with industry behind, resulting in a more efficient use of the available land. Additionally, the extra residential component would theoretically strengthen the compatibility of the zone interface across Hughes Street.

(Page 13)

66 It is noted that provisions of TPS 6 which permit a single house on a lot (cl 9.2) and allow, if necessary, variation to site and development requirements (cl 5.5), ensure that proposed Lot 801 can be established as a viable residential lot compliant with the local scheme.

67 On these grounds the Tribunal is inclined to favour allowance of the subdivision.

68 The issue that now arises most pertinently is the latitude available to the Tribunal under the s 138(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA).

69 The Tribunal is satisfied in this regard that although the proposed subdivision conflicts with some provisions of the local town planning scheme, it is able to form the opinion that the conflict arising is of a minor nature and that, having regard to the arguments set out above, the approval of the subdivision would be consistent with the general intent of the scheme.

Consideration of the draft conditions of approval

70 The contentious draft conditions are considered in order.

71 Condition 1 requiring a geotechnical report certifying that the land is capable of development is seen to be prudent and reasonable notwithstanding the applicant's protestation. Given that the obligation is already identified in another approval associated with the land, the condition does not seem onerous or unreasonable.

72 Condition 5 requiring a fire emergency plan is agreed to by the Tribunal for similar reasons.

73 Condition 8 requiring a screen wall at the rear of Lot 801 is considered to be a sensible and practical measure reinforcing the division between industrial and residential land uses and assisting the protection of the visual amenity of the residential zone across Hughes Street. The screen wall should be established on the boundary of proposed Lot 801 in order that its presentation and maintenance is within the control of the residential premises.

74 Conditions 11 and 13 are accepted by the Tribunal as normal requirements for the protection of public infrastructure.

75 The Tribunal notes the applicant's suggestion that an approval of the subdivision might be conditional upon the finalisation of Amendment 73.

(Page 14)

This approach is rejected by the Tribunal as unsound and unnecessary. The Tribunal takes the position that this review, whilst acknowledging the currency of the rezoning process associated with Amendment 73, should not be overly influenced by that process or its uncertain outcome. Rather, the merits of the application have been tested in the context of the prevailing zone provisions and prevailing town planning circumstances.

Conclusion

76 Based on the preceding analysis, the Tribunal concludes that the application for review of the respondent's decision to refuse subdivision approval of Lot 51 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale should be upheld. Accordingly the decision of the respondent to refuse the application should be set aside and the proposed subdivision should be conditionally approved.

Order

1. The application for review is allowed.

2. The decision of the respondent made on 9 November 2006 to refuse subdivision approval of Lot 51 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale into two lots is set aside and a decision is substituted that subdivision approval is granted subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

i) The applicant/owner is to provide a geotechnical report certifying that the land is physically capable of development prior to the commencement of subdivision work. (Local Government)

ii) The land being filled and/or drained. (Local Government)

iii) The land being graded and stabilised. (Local Government)

iv) Suitable arrangements being made for connection of the land to the comprehensive district drainage system at the applicant/owner's cost. (Local Government)

v) A detailed plan demonstrating the location and capacity of fire emergency infrastructure is to be prepared and implemented to the specifications of the Water

(Page 15)

Corporation and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. (Water Corporation)

vi) All cut and fill is to be contained within the proposed lot boundaries by the construction of masonry retaining walls. (Local Government)

vii) All buildings have the necessary clearance from the new boundaries as required under the relevant legislation. (Local Government)

viii) A masonry or similarly constructed wall or fence not less than 2 metres in height shall be erected to provide screening at the rear of the proposed Lot 801. (Local Government)

ix) Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of a suitable water supply service will be available to lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Water Corporation)

x) Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of sewerage service will be available to the lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Water Corporation)

xi) The provision of easements for existing or future water, sewerage and/or drainage infrastructure as may be required by the Water Corporation being granted free of cost to that body. (Water Corporation)

xii) Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Western Power for the provision of an underground electricity supply service to the lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Western Power)

xiii) The transfer of land as a Crown Reserve, free of cost to the Western Power Corporation for the provision of electricity supply infrastructure. (Western Power)

xiv) This approval is valid for three years from the date of the Tribunal's decision. Within this period the Diagram or Plan of Survey in accordance with the approved plan of

(Page 16)

subdivision should be submitted for approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission when the conditions set out above have been fulfilled.

I certify that this and the preceding [76] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

MR J ADDERLEY, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER