Madeo and Western Australian Planning Commission

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM:   DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION:   MADEO and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2008] WASAT 281

MEMBER:   MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED          :   26 NOVEMBER 2008

FILE NO/S:   DR 214 of 2008

BETWEEN:   ISOBEL MADEO

Applicant

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent

Catchwords:

Subdivision - City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2 - Rural Resource zone - Interim local rural strategy - East Wanneroo strategy - Whether subdivision is in conflict with planning framework - Whether proposed lots will facilitate continued agricultural use or be used for residential purposes in conflict with zone objectives - Whether the proposed subdivision will set an undesirable precedent for further subdivision of the area - Consideration of hardship claim

Legislation:

City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 3.17.2
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 241(3)
Metropolitan Region Scheme

Result:

Application for review dismissed
Decision of respondent affirmed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Mr J Arnold (Representative)

Respondent:     Mr T Sharp

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Cardno BSD (Town Planners)

Respondent:     State Solicitor's Office

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

Nil

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 approval of a rural lot in the City of Wanneroo.

2. The respondent submitted that the subdivision should not be allowed because it was inconsistent with the zoning objectives for the area prescribed by the local planning scheme and inconsistent with relevant local, regional and state policies governing the subdivision of rural land.

3. The respondent argued that the subdivision, if allowed, would be likely to discourage use of the land for agricultural activity and set an undesirable precedent for further subdivision of similar or larger lots in the locality.

4. The applicant argued that the proposal would facilitate continued use of the land for intensive agriculture consistent with the zoning objectives for the area and that there would be no loss of visual rural amenity as a result of the subdivision.  Other lots of similar size have been approved in the locality.

5. The applicant expressed the view that the proposed subdivision was consistent with long­term strategic planning objectives for possible urban land use identified for the locality.

6. The applicant cited personal hardship circumstances worthy of regard by the Tribunal in accordance with s 241(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA).

7. The Tribunal was not persuaded by the applicant's argument that there would be a continuity of agricultural activity on the land following subdivision.  The small size of the resultant lots and inherently limited capacity for agricultural use would, in the Tribunal's opinion, be more likely to encourage use of the land for rural residential purposes.  According to the local planning scheme, such a use would be incompatible with the priority agricultural uses to be protected under the Rural Resource zone of the area.

8. The Tribunal did not accept that the possible…