Luzny and Anor and Western Australian Planning Commission
[2006] WASAT 35
•17 FEBRUARY 2006
LUZNY & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2006] WASAT 35
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 35 | |
| TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:553/2005 | 5 DECEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | MR J ADDERLEY (SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 17/02/06 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for review is dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN LUZNY TERESA LUZNY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Subdivision – City of Gosnells – Draft foothills regional strategy – General rural zone – WAPC development control policies – Landscape protection – Rural character |
Legislation: | Metropolitan Region Scheme City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6 Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review of the Western Australian Planning Commission's decision to refuse subdivision of lot 40 Connell Avenue, Martin, is dismissed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA) CITATION : LUZNY & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2006] WASAT 35 MEMBER : MR J ADDERLEY (SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 5 DECEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 17 FEBRUARY 2006 FILE NO/S : DR 553 of 2005 BETWEEN : JOHN LUZNY
- TERESA LUZNY
Applicants
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
Catchwords:
Subdivision – City of Gosnells – Draft foothills regional strategy – General rural zone – WAPC development control policies – Landscape protection – Rural character
Legislation:
Metropolitan Region Scheme
City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6
(Page 2)
Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA)
Result:
Application for review is dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Mr S Allerding
Respondent : Mr J Algeri
Solicitors:
Applicants : As Agent
Respondent : As Agent
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's Decision
1 The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) refused an application for subdivision of lot 40 Connell Avenue, Martin, in the City of Gosnells on grounds that the proposal was inconsistent with orderly and proper planning as required by State and local policies affecting the area.
2 The applicants sought review of the WAPC's decision on grounds that the subdivision was in part consistent with the objectives of policies relevant to the area, and that the land was demonstrably capable of additional development without compromise of planning objectives for landscape protection, environmental management and servicing.
3 The State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) was reluctant to accept the evidence submitted by the applicants that the subdivision was able to be effected without manifesting an undesirable visual impact on the key view outlooks of the area which are identified as important planning objectives designed to protect landscape and rural character. Nor could the applicants' argument persuade the Tribunal that an undesirable precedent would not be set in relation to unplanned fragmentation of similarly configured land surrounding lot 40, if that lot was subdivided.
4 The Tribunal was not satisfied that the State and local policies applicable to the area could be set aside in whole or in part, or that the proposed subdivision otherwise represented orderly and proper planning of the area.
5 The application for review of the respondent's decision was accordingly dismissed.
Introduction
6 This is an application for review of the decision by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to refuse an application for subdivision of lot 40 Connell Avenue, Martin, in the City of Gosnells.
7 The application for the subdivision was submitted on behalf of the owners, J and T P Luzny, to the WAPC on 5 April 2005.
(Page 4)
8 The WAPC determined the application and issued a notice of refusal of the subdivision on 3 August 2005. The notice included the Commission's reasons for refusal and explanatory advice to the applicants.
9 On 30 August 2005, the applicants on behalf of the owners lodged an application for review of the WAPC's decision of 3 August 2005, requesting conditional approval of the subdivision of lot 40, Connell Avenue, Martin (lot 40).
The Proposal
10 Lot 40 is situated within a rural corridor of land which is bounded to the west by the Albany Highway and to the east by the Darling Range Park. The Canning River flows from south to north roughly centrally through this tract of rural land which is also diagonally traversed by Tonkin Highway as it crosses both Albany Highway and the Canning River a little over half a kilometre to the west of lot 40.
11 Connell Avenue roughly parallels the alignment of the Canning River on the eastern margins of the rural corridor.
12 Lot 40 is an oblong shaped property of 1.1019 hectares with an eastern boundary of 128 metres fronting the Water Corporation's Canning Trunk Main Reserve adjoining Connell Avenue. The southern, western and northern boundaries are 84.67 metres, 106.86 metres and 108 metres respectively. Access to Connell Avenue across the Trunk Main Reserve is enabled by a right of carriageway easement granted by the Water Corporation.
13 Lot 40 features a gentle grade of about 1:10 from an elevation of 39 metres AHD at the Connell Avenue frontage to 29 metres at the rear reflecting the typical contours of the landform in proximity to the Canning River in this locality. A sand pad and leach drain have been established in the southern central sector of the property, otherwise the lot is vacant and unused for rural purposes. Approximately half the site sustains remnant native vegetation
14 The proposed subdivision would divide lot 40 into two regular shaped lots of 5929 square metres and 5090 square metres respectively, each with frontage to Connell Avenue via the Trunk Main Reserve. The latter, southern lot would contain the sand pad and leach drain development.
(Page 5)
Town Planning Scheme and Policy Provisions
15 The subject property is located within an area zoned Rural under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).
16 The respondent has indicated to the Tribunal that several WAPC statements of policy have direct relevance to assessment and determination of the proposed subdivision. These policies are integral to the over arching Statement of Planning Policy No 1: State Planning Framework Policy (Variation No 1) which sets out principles relating to the environment, community, economy, infrastructure and regional development of Western Australia and guides planning decisions in respect of land use, subdivision and development in the State. The relevant policies under the State Planning Framework are:
• Statement of Planning Policy No 2.5: Agricultural and Land Use Planning (SPP No 2.5);
• Development Control Policy 3.4: Subdivision of Rural Land (DC 3.4); and
• Development Control Policy 2.5: Special Residential Zones (DC 2.5).
17 SPP 2.5 requires local governments to prepare a local planning strategy which should, amongst other matters, mentioned at cl 5.1:
• Provide a clear strategy for settlement growth;
• Identify areas suitable for closer settlement in rural areas; and
• Provide a guide for future land use, zoning, subdivision and development within the settlement areas identified.
18 SPP 2.5 further provides at cl 5.3.1 that:
"Land identified in the local planning strategy as being suitable for closer settlement in rural areas should be zoned 'Rural Residential' for a residential use in a rural environment ..."
19 The same policy provision also states that such a zone should, amongst others, incorporate town planning scheme provisions providing for:
• The requirements for a subdivisional guide plan;
• Restrictions on the type and scale of any agricultural land uses or rural pursuits;
(Page 6)
- • The identification of clearing, land management controls and environmental repair requirements including the retention of areas of remnant vegetation or regeneration of degraded areas;
• The identification of either a building envelope, or building exclusion area, on each lot to which all development is restricted;
• The restriction of development to only one dwelling per lot;
• The control over the location of development (including the siting of dwellings, ancillary buildings, service roads and firebreaks) so that it does not significantly detract from any scenic landscape and/or conservation attributes;
• Road design to allow for safe egress in event of any emergency; and
• The preparation and implementation of bushfire management plans.
20 The clause concludes with the statement that:
"The Commission will only support subdivision for Rural - Residential and Rural Smallholdings where the land has been appropriately zoned within the town planning scheme and the provisions of DC 3.4 (2001) cl 6 can be complied with."
21 SPP 2.5 also provides at cl 5.3.2 that in areas zoned Rural - Residential:
"The lot size should range from 1 ha to 4 ha depending on local conditions
Mandatory provision of a reticulated potable water supply to an appropriate standard as determined by the licence holder."
22 DC 3.4 sets out the WAPC's framework for the subdivision of rural land and commences by stating at cl 3.1:
"There is a general presumption against subdivision of land unless it is specifically provided for in a town planning scheme, an endorsed local planning strategy or endorsed local rural strategy."
23 Further to cl 3.1, at cl 3.2, DC 3.4 lists limited circumstances of exception to cl 3.1 where the WAPC may approve subdivision contrary to the general presumption against subdivision. These relate to:
(Page 7)
- • Significant natural or man-made features already physically dividing the lot and circumstances that an undesirable precedent would not be set.
• The presence or proposed accommodation of non rural uses such as recreation, public utilities or ancillary rural use of land such as abattoirs or Canning Works.
• Excision of a conservation lot.
• Facilitation of heritage conservation.
• Boundary relocation.
24 DC 2.5 sets objectives:
• To provide for the creation of lots of between 2000 square metres and one hectare in suitable locations.
• To ensure that the use and development of such lots are subject to appropriate standards and controls.
• To protect the character and amenity of adjacent rural areas.
25 Clause 3.1.2 of DC 2.5 signals that a local government's decision to create a special residential zone should be based upon site analysis taking into consideration matters such as topography, soil, climate and the effects on the environment.
26 Clause 3.1.3 of DC 2.5 refers to the desirability of such zones being located adjacent to existing or planned residential areas with good access to schools, community facilities and other urban services. Further provisions of DC 2.5, particularly cl 3.2.3, outline the expectations for comprehensive design and servicing of special residential zones to a standard generally typical of normal residential zones.
27 Lot 40 is zoned general rural under the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6 (TPS 6).
28 The objective of the general rural zone in TPS 6 is:
"To provide for a range of rural pursuits which are compatible with the capability of the land and retain the rural character and amenity of the locality."
29 The City of Gosnells has been preparing a draft Foothills Rural Strategy (draft FRS) which has been advertised for public comment and submitted to the WAPC for endorsement. Final endorsement of the draft
(Page 8)
- FRS by the WAPC is awaiting investigation by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Department of Environment as to impacts of the Readymix Quarry located in the foothills north of the subject land.
30 The draft FRS is intended to set out the Council's vision for the foothills area and progressively implement this vision through the TPS 6, rezoning proposals, subdivision assessments and development control mechanisms. It will be an integral component of the City of Gosnells' local planning strategy.
31 Lot 40 lies within an area known as Precinct 2 within which the draft FRS proposes a minimum lot size of 1 hectare provided the proposed subdivision demonstrates the protection of landscape character. The draft FRS identifies the locality within which lot 40 lies as being an area of significant landscape character associated with key panoramic views.
32 The draft FRS states within objective 4 relevant to Precinct 2 that where relevant the Council will require any rural-residential land use, development or subdivision proposal to be preceded by a rezoning proposal to "Special Rural" and incorporation of the subdivision guide plan and appropriate conditions into TPS 6.
Determination of the WAPC
33 The WAPC resolved that the application for subdivision of lot 40 submitted on 5 April 2005, should be refused for the following reasons:
"(1) The plan of subdivision is inconsistent with orderly and proper planning for the following reasons:
(a) It proposes the creation of lots less than 1 hectare which will be contrary and inconsistent with the regional planning strategies and policies to secure an appropriate settlement pattern for the Martin locality;
(b) It proposes the creation of lots that are not or cannot be provided with connection to reticulated sewerage services;
(c) Residential land use will be impacted by and will impact on the nearby quarry operations;
- (d) Approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for further subdivision of surrounding lots;
- (2) As a consequence of the above, the plan of subdivision is inconsistent with:
(a) The Metropolitan Region Scheme;
(b) The City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6;
(c) The City of Gosnells Draft Foothills Rural Strategy (March 2004);
(d) Statement of Planning Policy No 2.4 Basic Raw Materials Policy (July 2000);
(e) Development Control Policy 3.4 Subdivision of Rural Land (March 2003);
(f) Development Control Policy 2.5 Special Residential Zones (June 1998);
(g) Development Control Policy 1.1 Subdivision of Land - General Principles (June 2004)."
34 The WAPC's witness, Ms Baxter, a senior officer of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, conceded that lot 40 is unlikely to be affected by dust emanating from the CSR quarry as referred to in the WAPC reasons for refusal, and that this ground for refusal would not be further contested.
35 Ms Baxter also indicated, in the course of evidence, that according to conclusions of a report on land capability for effluent disposal and geo-technical assessment, tendered in evidence by the applicants, that the subject land was capable of accommodating conventional on-site effluent disposal. Accordingly, the WAPC's reason for refusal relating to the need for reticulated sewerage services would not be further contested in this matter.
36 Other than the above concessions, Ms Baxter's evidence, on behalf of the WAPC, relied substantially on the relevant state and local policy
(Page 10)
- provisions cited in the WAPC's reasons as grounds for maintaining refusal of the application.
37 Ms Baxter's evidence noted the requirement under SPP 2.5, for local governments to prepare a local planning strategy to plan for change and development in rural areas. The City of Gosnells has prepared such a strategy, the draft FRS, which has been advertised and is awaiting endorsement by the WAPC. As such, the draft FRS is a seriously entertained planning proposal which should be given weight by the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal).
38 The draft FRS recommends a minimum lot size of 1 hectare within Precinct 2 within which lot 40 is located. Ms Baxter's evidence confirmed that the WAPC has indicated qualified support for this standard as appropriate to maintain the rural break between adjacent urban areas.
39 Ms Baxter drew attention to the circumstance that SPP 2.5 requires that rural land suitable for closer settlement and subdivision should be identified as such under a local rural strategy and zoned "Rural - Residential" if the lot sizes were to range from 1 hectare to 4 hectares. Lot sizes below 1 hectare, as proposed in this application, are not viewed as maintaining a rural outcome, are more of an urban nature and form and would need to meet the planning criteria set out in DC 2.5.
40 Ms Baxter held that the proposed subdivision did not comply with DC 2.5 because the land in question had not been identified as suitable or appropriate for special residential zoning, the land in question is not located adjacent to existing or planned residential areas and is not provided with services expected in a residential setting.
41 Whilst lot 40 is not of sufficient size or soil capability for economic agricultural production, it is still suitable for rural lifestyle pursuits.
42 The draft FRS references the Foothills Structure Plan (1992) which suggests that an intensification of land use and development, in the form of lots less than 1 hectare in area, to be contrary to the objectives of the draft FRS because lots of 1 hectare or less will result in:
• More intensive development that will have the potential to adversely impact rural amenity and landscape character.
• An incoherent settlement pattern and form.
• Attraction of non-rural uses and create conflict with sensitive uses.
(Page 11)
- • Necessitation of the provision of expensive unplanned service infrastructure and community services.
• Facilitation of environmental degradation.
43 The proposed subdivision of lot 40 Connell Avenue into two lots of 5090 square metres and 5929 square metres is inconsistent with the principles and provisions of the draft FRS which recommends a minimum lot size of 1 hectare.
44 Ms Baxter cited a history of subdivision applications in the immediate locality since 1994, which, as a result of WAPC and Town Planning Appeal Tribunal decisions, demonstrate a consistent maintenance of approved lot sizes in the area at or above the 1 hectare threshold.
45 Ms Baxter's evidence indicated that the lot in question lies within a locale between Connell Avenue and the Canning River that is characterised by lots of 1 hectare or greater. The few lots less than 1 hectare are historic anomalies out of character with the prevailing lot sizes of the area.
46 It is acknowledged by Ms Baxter that land to the east of Connell Avenue sustains an enclave of higher density lots of approximately 2000 square metres. This land, known as the Blue Hills Estate, was subdivided in the 1970's. In Ms Baxter's opinion, this estate does not reflect current planning policies and strategies for the locality, particularly the draft FRS, and should not be construed as a precedent for similar subdivision of the area west of Connell Avenue.
47 Approval of the subdivision of lot 40 would create a significant precedent for the subdivision of 17 similar size rural lots within the immediate locality to the west of Connell Avenue and elsewhere in Precinct 2 as depicted in the draft FRS.
48 The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the objectives and provisions of relevant strategies and policies applicable to the area and would, if approved, create an undesirable precedent for similar lots in the area to be subdivided in a manner contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the area.
Applicants' argument
49 Mr John Luzny, owner of lot 40, gave evidence to the effect that the property had been bought seven years ago in order to construct a family
(Page 12)
- home and enable his son to attend Lumen Christi College which is located close by.
50 Mr Luzny's wife [was] diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005, compounding a situation of emotional stress with financial hardship and resulting in a diminished capacity to construct the proposed family dwelling.
51 Mr Luzny did not believe that his subdivision would adversely affect the amenity of the area.
52 Mr Allerding, an experienced town planner and director of a firm of town planning consultants, gave evidence supporting the subdivision of lot 40.
53 Mr Allerding referred to the land capability assessment report tendered with his evidence, appended at SGA3, which demonstrated the adequacy of the property to manage on site disposal of waste water without the need for sewer connection and the identification of remnant vegetation suitable for retention and use as a visual barrier surrounding future development sites.
54 Mr Allerding stressed in his evidence that the proposed minimum lot size of 1 hectare as recommended in the draft FRS was not scientifically based and that on the merits of the application it can be shown that all the objectives of Precinct 2 of the draft FRS can be met. The objectives are:
• Protect, conserve and enhance the landscape character of the Precinct.
• Protect, enhance and conserve the natural environment in the Precinct.
• Protect drinking water resources in the Precinct and adjacent reserved areas.
• To protect and manage land uses within the Precinct.
• Maintain an adequate level of bushfire protection.
55 In response to the Precinct 2 objectives, the applicants for the proposed subdivision will undertake the following:
• Preserve the landscape character by the appropriate placement of building envelopes and planted vegetation in each lot.
(Page 13)
- • Locate building envelopes in existing cleared or partially cleared portions of each lot as supported by the land capability assessment report.
• Retain remnant vegetation wherever possible, particularly along Connell Avenue.
• Planting of additional native vegetation.
• Better management of the land to enhance environmental qualities, reduce fire hazard and encourage removal of noxious weeds because the smaller lot size is more conducive to such management.
56 Additionally it should be noted that:
• The land capability assessment demonstrates that there will be no detrimental effect on nearby watercourses.
• The proposed lots are consistent with the existing settlement pattern of the locality and utilise the existing road network.
• The lots can adhere to all bush fire protection measures of the Council and Fire and Emergency Services Authority.
57 The proposed lots are consistent with the range of lot sizes in the general rural zone of the Martin locality and with the existing settlement pattern. The site is surrounded on all sides by lots ranging from 2000 square metres to 4 hectares. Mr Allerding noted that in relation to a plan of lot sizes in the locality tendered in the witness statement for the WAPC, at attachment LB3, some 75 lots out of 97 were below 1 hectare in size. A precedent has therefore already been established in the area for rural lifestyle lots less than 1 hectare in size within the general rural zone.
58 The land is adequately serviced by roads and other reticulated services including water.
59 Mr Allerding pointed out that the land is well placed in terms of access to urban services and amenities. These include reasonable proximity to Gosnells and Kelmscott District centres, public transport infrastructure and schools, particularly Lumen Christi College.
60 In respect of state and local policy requirements, Mr Allerding was of the view that all substantial planning objectives in relation to environment, landscape character, land use and servicing of rural land were met by the application. The only exception at issue was the 1 hectare minimum lot size proposed by the yet to be endorsed draft FRS.
(Page 14)
61 Mr Allerding contrasted the merits of the application demonstrated by the applicants' land capability assessment and site investigations against the "desk top" reliance of the WAPC on policies and strategies. The officer responsible for preparing the report for the WAPC had not visited the site before recommending the decision of refusal.
Analysis
62 The applicants' argument against the WAPC decision to refuse this application is strengthened by the respondent's acceptance that reasons (b) and (c) relating to sewer and the impact of quarry operations, respectively, are no longer reasonable grounds for refusal.
63 Mr Luzny's evidence demonstrated to the Tribunal a level of hardship being experienced in being able to bring to fruition the dream of building a family home on the property in question. Whilst not diminishing the difficulties faced by the applicants in achieving the object of building the family home, the circumstances of hardship are not, in the Tribunal's opinion, so great as to outweigh the obligation to adhere to orderly and proper planning of the locality.
64 The key issues for the applicants to address and challenge were the WAPC's reliance on the WAPC policies, SPP 2.5, DC 3.4 and DC 2.5 and the City of Gosnells' draft FRS.
65 The applicants were able to demonstrate within the limits of the lot in question, that measures could be taken to address a range of environmental and landscape character objectives identified in the draft FRS. However what is not clear is how the draft FRS objectives might be further refined and articulated in detailed town planning scheme provisions and policies that would reasonably be expected to accompany a rezoning of the land to a special rural zone.
66 The WAPC policies and the draft FRS all contemplate a systematic process of comprehensive planning and town planning scheme amendment to establish appropriate zoning and development controls prior to approval of subdivision. The exceptions to this process are listed at cl 3.2 of DC 3.4 but are not applicable to this application.
67 The applicants' argument have not challenged the rationale of a comprehensive planning approach associated with rezoning to better address the land use and landscape protection issues of the area. On examination, Mr Allerding, witness for the applicants acknowledged the
(Page 15)
- advantage of such an approach to manage subdivision and development of the area.
68 Whilst the applicants have asserted the proposed subdivision will be compatible with objectives of Precinct 2 of the draft FRS, including the objective to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape character of the precinct, some doubt arises as to the capacity to conserve landscape character in the event that additional dwelling development will occur on the land as a result of subdivision. The land in question is identified in the draft FRS as of significant landscape character associated with key panoramic views. It is not clear to the Tribunal that development on lot 40 has been thoroughly assessed in respect to potential visual impact. The photographs of the site tendered to the Tribunal indicate that the existing sand pad is visible from Connell Avenue and hence, a dwelling erected thereon would be plainly seen from Connell Avenue. Further, the photographs illustrate that the remnant vegetation screening the second proposed building envelope from Connell Avenue is relatively low and not particularly dense. Gaps between the trees and scrub seem to indicate a view into the site possibly as far as the proposed building envelope. If a building of two storeys was erected on the site there would be some doubts that visual screening would be possible to minimise visual impact without significant supplementary landscaping. These are, to some extent, speculative arguments, but they arise because the issue of landscape character and its protection has not been able to be fully investigated and addressed in the context of this application. The draft FRS notes in respect of "key views" that "future views from roads may become screened by buildings or planted vegetation if located inappropriately" (Table 3). It is therefore arguable that establishing a new lot and an additional dwelling on the land with a need for additional screen vegetation may contradict the objective outlined by the draft FRS.
69 The question of precedence was addressed by the applicants with evidence that 75 out of 97 lots in the locality were below 1 hectare. Close inspection of the plan of the area (attachment LB3) indicates that the disposition of the majority of small lots is east of Connell Avenue in the Blue Hills Estate while the lots west of Connell Avenue surrounding lot 40 tend to be fairly consistently over 1 hectare. While both sides of Connell Avenue are within Precinct 2 under the draft FRS, it is nevertheless apparent that Connell Avenue is a clearly defined edge to the Blue Hills Estate and that the land west of Connell Avenue has a distinctly lower density of development and a consistently more open rural character. This is also readily apparent from the aerial photograph submitted by the applicants in evidence accompanying the Land
(Page 16)
- Capability Study Report. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is persuaded that precedence is a substantial concern in this matter and could not be disregarded if the proposed subdivision was approved.
70 The recent history of subdivision in the area has been limited to lot sizes of 1 hectare and above. The draft FRS has also recommended that a 1 hectare minimum lot size should be maintained for the Precinct 2 area. The draft FRS, in the Tribunal's opinion, must be accorded considerable weight as a planning tool of the local authority given its history of preparation, institutional and expert input, community consultation and expected imminent endorsement. The Tribunal notes in this regard that the City of Gosnells for its part recommended refusal of the subdivision because of non-compliance with the draft FRS.
71 The applicants have indicated that the land in question is well positioned in relation to urban services and facilities, and therefore suited to more intense development. Further, more intense development on smaller lots will discourage inappropriate rural activities and promote better environmental land management practices. It is possible that this argument may have some merits and could be further explored by the responsible authorities, but in the Tribunal's opinion this argument is not able to be advanced in the context of a single lot subdivision, but should be examined more comprehensively in the manner suggested by DC 2.5 so that land use change and subdivision can be conducted in an orderly, equitable and sensible manner.
Conclusion
72 For the reasons outlined in the foregoing analysis, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the proposed subdivision of lot 40 should be supported. To allow the proposed subdivision would, in the Tribunal's opinion, substantially contradict relevant State and local planning policy and create an undesirable precedent for further unplanned fragmentation of rural land in the immediate environs of the lot.
73 In the circumstances that the proposal could not be construed as insignificant in its impact on planning of the area, the Tribunal is not prepared to amend its decision on the grounds of personal hardship cited by the applicants.
(Page 17)
Orders
1. The application for review of the Western Australian Planning Commission's decision to refuse subdivision of lot 40 Connell Avenue, Martin, is dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding [73] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J ADDERLEY, SESSIONAL MEMBER
2
0
3