Nairn v Metro-Central Joint Development Assessment Panel

The case of Nairn v Metro-Central Joint Development Assessment Panel involved an application for judicial review of a town planning decision made by the Metro-Central Joint Development Assessment Panel on 19 October 2016 and a related decision by the State Administrative Tribunal on 3 April 2017. The applicants, who own neighbouring properties, opposed the development proposed by Edge Visionary Pty Ltd in South Perth, which was subject to the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No 6 (TPS6). The applicants sought to challenge the Panel's approval of a development application for the proposed development, arguing that the Panel's decision was inconsistent with earlier unlawful decisions, that the Panel had regard to irrelevant considerations, and that the Panel exceeded its jurisdiction in varying the requirements for building height and maximum residential plot ratio.

The court considered several legal issues, including whether the Panel's decision was consistent with earlier unlawful decisions, whether the Panel had regard to irrelevant considerations, and whether the Panel exceeded its jurisdiction in varying the requirements for building height and maximum residential plot ratio. The court found that the Panel's decision was not inconsistent with earlier unlawful decisions, that the Panel did not have regard to irrelevant considerations, and that the Panel did not exceed its jurisdiction in varying the requirements for building height and maximum residential plot ratio. The court also found that the Panel's decision was not vitiated by apprehended bias or a denial of procedural fairness.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the relevant provisions of TPS6, as well as relevant case law. The court found that the Panel's decision was consistent with the scope and purpose of TPS6, and that the Panel had properly exercised its discretion in varying the requirements for building height and maximum residential plot ratio. The court also found that the Panel's decision was not inconsistent with earlier unlawful decisions, and that the Panel had not had regard to irrelevant considerations. Finally, the court found that the Panel's decision was not vitiated by apprehended bias or a denial of procedural fairness.

The court's outcome was that the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Panel's decision was upheld. The court found that the Panel's decision was lawful and within its jurisdiction, and that the applicants' grounds for challenge were without merit. The court also found that the Tribunal's decision on 3 April 2017 was valid, as it did not deny the applicants procedural fairness in making consent orders in proceedings at a mediation not attended by the applicants.