Outlook Contracting Pty Ltd and Town Of Port Hedland - [2009] WASAT 53

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: OUTLOOK CONTRACTING PTY LTD and TOWN OF PORT HEDLAND [2009] WASAT 53

MEMBER: MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 25 MARCH 2009

FILE NO/S: DR 364 of 2008

BETWEEN: OUTLOOK CONTRACTING PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
TOWN OF PORT HEDLAND
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Development application - Refusal - Proposed development of two sheds each of 150 square metres floor area - Special Rural zone - Characterisation of sheds and use of them under the town planning scheme Storage shed or warehouse use - Type and use of goods stored in shed - No specific reference to sheds in town planning scheme - No specific shed policy Use of Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) Use of Building Code of Australia

Legislation:

Building Code of Australia (2008 ed), Pt A3.2 (Vol 1), A3.2 (Guide)
Buildings Regulations 1989 (WA), reg 5
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008), cl 1.2, cl 1.3, cl 6.10, cl 6.10.1 A1
State Administrative Tribunal Act (2004) (WA), s 27, s 60(2)
Town of Port Hedland Town Planning Scheme No 5, cl 3.2.6, cl 4.1.1, cl 4.1.3(f), cl 4.5, cl 5.1.1, cl 6.1, cl 6.1.1, cl 6.2.3

Result:

The application for review is dismissed
The decision of the Town of Port Hedland to refuse the application is affirmed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr B Alexander (as Agent)
Respondent: Mr R Bairstow (as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicant: N/A
Respondent: Town of Port Hedland

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

This matter involved the review of the refusal by the Town of Port Hedland of an application for the development of two sheds, each of 150 square metres, for storage of personal belongings on the rural residential lot at No 39 – 41 Greenfield Street, South Hedland. There would be no sale of any goods from the sheds and no business would be conducted from the premises.
The Tribunal has found that, in this matter, the use of the Residential Codes of Western Australia (2008) was not appropriate because no residential development was proposed. The use of the Building Code of Australia, referred to by the Town of Port Hedland, was found to be applicable only to the extent it would provide development standards for the building but not for the purpose of characterising the development for town planning purposes.
The Tribunal rejected the Town of Port Hedland's submission that the development would be a warehouse. No commercial activity was proposed, which the Tribunal considered necessary for a warehouse in the Rural Residential zone. The use was characterised as sheds for the storage of private assets, a use not mentioned in the zoning table of the town planning scheme. Under the provisions of the town planning scheme, it was then required to determine whether the proposed use would be consistent with the objectives and purpose of the Rural Residential zone.
The Tribunal found that the development of sheds used for the storage of personal assets without an approved house would be inconsistent with the objectives and purpose of the Rural Residential zone. The defined purpose of the Rural Residential zone is the development of dwellings in a rural setting. The Tribunal has no reason to doubt that the owner would eventually apply for a house, but from the submissions made, a house design had not been finalised and there was no timetable for lodging a building licence application. It was found that the proposed use could continue without there being a residence on the site and the Tribunal considered that this would not assist in achieving the objective of the Rural Residential zone of having a dwelling in a rural setting.
The Tribunal also formed the view that, in the absence of an approved house, two sheds with a total area of 300 square metres would not be consistent with the amenity objectives of the Rural Residential zone.
The proposed development was found to be inconsistent with the requirements of orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the amenity of the locality, and the application was dismissed.

Introduction

These proceedings involve an application brought by Outlook Contracting Pty Ltd (applicant) pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) for review of a decision of the Town of Port Hedland (respondent, Town or Council) made on 3 September 2008 to refuse development approval for the erection and use as storage of two sheds, each of 150 square metres, at No 39 ‑ 41 Greenfield Street, South Hedland (site).

Site and locality

The site has an area of 1.9745 hectares. It has a frontage of 100 metres to Greenfield Street at the western end, and a depth of between 194 metres and 198 metres. The site falls to the rear by about 1 metre over the length of the block. It is currently cleared except for isolated trees and has no permanent structures. The only development is a sand pad a minimum 0.5 metre above the surrounds which is about 2,500 square metres in area and set back about 25 metres from the road.
Lots in this locality are generally of between 1.5 hectares and about 2.8 hectares, with most being about the same size as the site. Immediately east of the site is unsubdivided rural land.

Planning framework

The site and the lots to the north, south and west are zoned 'Rural Residential' in Town of Port Hedland Town Planning Scheme No 5 (TPS 5). The land abutting to the east is zoned 'Rural'.
TPS 5 includes the following definition:
Rural residential ‑ Subdivision and development of land where lots and dwellings are located in a rural setting, where the use of lots may include agriculture or intensive agriculture and the development standards for lots, including lot sizes, have been endorsed by the Council and Commission in accordance with Commission policy.
Clause 4.1.1 of TPS 5 provides that:
Subject to exclusions in subclause 4.1.3, the planning approval of Council is required for all development, including building, works, changes in use and new uses …
In the zoning table of TPS 5, a single house is a permitted ('P') use in the Rural Residential zone. Clause 4.1.3(f) of TPS 5 provides that planning approval is not required for, relevantly:
(f) the erection on a lot of a single house, including ancillary buildings, in a zone in which a single house is a permitted (P) use, except as otherwise required by the Scheme.
Clause 4.5 of TPS 5 provides that, in considering an application for planning approval, due regard shall be had to certain matters, including:
(a)the provisions of this Scheme …
…
(j)the requirements of orderly and proper planning and the preservation of amenity of the locality,
(k)any other planning consideration which the Council considers relevant, and
(l)any relevant local law or policy of the Council.
The Council has the capacity to adopt local planning policies at cl 5.1.1 of TPS 5. It has no adopted policy on the development of sheds.
In the submission on this matter, both parties made reference to the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) (Codes) and the Building Code of Australia 2008 Edition, Australian Building Codes Board (BCA). The Codes include the following definition:
Outbuilding
An enclosed non‑habitable structure that is detached from any dwelling.
The BCA is published in two parts and there is also published an accompanying guide to assist in interpretation, if required:
BCA Volume 1 Class 2 to Class 9 Buildings (BCA Volume 1)
BCA Volume 2 Class 1 and Class 10 Buildings (BCA Volume 2)
Guide to the BCA 2008 Class 2 to Class 9 Buildings (BCA Guide)

Proposed development

The application to the Council first sought development approval for a single 450 square metre shed. The application was amended and the Council considered a proposal for two sheds, each of 150 square metres (10 metres by 15 metres) and 7.458 metres high. The sheds would be at the northern and southern edges of a 450 square metre concrete pad, about 60 metres from the road at the rear edge of the existing sand pad. The gap between the sheds would be about 10 metres. The application letter said the sheds would be used to store 'personal assets', more particularly, 'the private vehicles and boats belonging to the owners of the company', which is Outlook Contracting Pty Ltd, which, in turn, is the owner of the site and the applicant for review before the Tribunal.

The refusal

At its meeting of 3 September 2008, the Council resolved to refuse to grant planning consent for the construction of the two sheds:
… as the use of a warehouse is a use that is not permitted by the Scheme in a Rural/Residential Zone.

Issues

This matter is being determined on the documents, pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). In its statement of issues, fact and contentions, the respondent listed the following issues for consideration (the Tribunal has re‑ordered them from the respondent's statement to assist in the determination of the matter):
1)whether the use of the Codes and the BCA is appropriate within a Rural Residential zone;
2)whether the use 'warehouse' is the most appropriate description of the use;
3)whether the development can be considered for domestic storage without a 'single house' approved on the land; and
4)whether the development, as proposed, is beyond what would be considered reasonable for the purposes of domestic storage.

Discussion

In examining the issues, the Tribunal, as it must, has kept in mind s 27 of the SAT Act which states:
Nature of the hearing
(i)the review of a reviewable decision is to be by way of a hearing de novo, and it is not confined to matters that were before the decision-maker but may involve the consideration of new material whether or not it existed at the time the decision was made.
(ii)the purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review.
(iii)the reasons for decision provided by the decision-maker, or any grounds for review set out in the application, do not limit the Tribunal in conducting a proceeding for the review of a decision.
This, of course, also includes, as with this case, matters determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the SAT Act.

Issue 1: whether the use of the Codes and the BCA is appropriate within a Rural Residential zone

The use to be made of the Codes and the BCA is directly related to the purpose for which they have been developed and adopted. The purpose of the Codes is set out at cl 1.2 of the Codes and states:
The purpose of the R‑Codes is to provide a comprehensive basis for the control, through local government, of residential development throughout Western Australia.
Clause 1.3 of the Codes sets out the objectives of the Codes which include:
…
(b)To provide for local variations in neighbourhood character.
(c)To ensure appropriate standards of amenity for all dwellings.
(d)To ensure provision of on-site facilities for all dwellings.
(e)To protect the amenity of adjoining dwellings.
…
Clause 1.3.3 states that the objectives of the Codes are to be used 'in assessing and determining applications for residential development'. In the Explanatory Guidelines that accompany the Codes, it states at Pt 1 under Purpose of the Codes:
The Codes do not address the physical construction requirements or the internal arrangements of buildings; these are matters controlled by the Building Code of Australia.
At cl 6.2.3 of TPS 5, it provides:
Unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the Residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Planning Codes shall conform to the provisions of those Codes.
The Tribunal does not agree with the respondent's submission that, if the proposed use of the sheds was considered to be of a 'domestic nature', such a use would be for a residential purpose and the Codes would apply. The Tribunal is of the view that the storage of private possessions of the owner of the land in two sheds when there is no dwelling on the land does not make this use residential development. It would not be appropriate to use the Codes to control this form of development unless a residential development is approved for the site and there comes into play consideration of buildings that might be either ancillary to or outbuildings of the dwelling.
The use classification of the proposed development for the purposes of TPS 5 is addressed in issue 2 below and whether, in the absence of a dwelling the use can be considered for the site, is addressed at issue 3 below. Whether the Codes might be used as 'guidance' in the circumstances of this case as submitted by the respondent is addressed further under issue 4 below.
In respect of the Codes and the BCA, at cl 6.1 of TPS 5 it states:
Unless otherwise indicated by the Scheme, the provisions of the Building Code of Australia apply to development in the Scheme Area in addition to the development requirements of the Scheme.
The BCA, in the introduction to both BCA Volume 1 and BCA Volume 2, states:
The goal of the BCA is to enable the achievement of nationally consistent, minimum necessary standards of relevant, health, safety (including structural safety and safety from fire), amenity and sustainability objectives efficiently.
Also stated is:
The BCA contains technical provisions for the design and construction of buildings and other structures, covering such matters as structure, fire resistance, access and egress, services and equipment, and energy efficiency as well as certain aspects of health and amenity.
The Tribunal considers this statement is to be read consistent with the explanation that the Codes do not address physical construction requirements or internal arrangements of buildings.
There is no indication in TPS 5 that the BCA does not apply to the site, and so, as provided by cl 6.1.1, the BCA applies to the development in addition to the development requirements of TPS 5. Under reg 5 of the Building Regulations1989 (WA) the BCA applies to, and relates to, any building that can be classified according to use under Pt A3 of BCA Volume 1. In the BCA Guide at A3.1, it states:
The use of a building determines its classification. Use is determined on the basis of its design, construction or adaption.
At A3.2 of the BCA Guide, it states that the intent of the classification is:
To categorise buildings of similar risk levels based on use, hazard and occupancy.
Once classified according to the BCA, there can be imposed standards consistent with achieving the BCA goals listed above. The Tribunal does not accept the submission of the respondent that a classification under the BCA can be used to supplant the obligation to classify, or more properly characterise, the use under TPS 5, or that if a classification of use is made under both TPS 5 and the BCA, the BCA classification should prevail for town planning purposes.
How the use is to be classified or characterised is dealt with more particularly under issue 2 below. In respect of issue 1 and the use of the BCA, to be noted is that Pt A3.2 of BCA Volume 1 sets out the classification of buildings and structures from Class 1 to Class 10 which are common to both volumes and the BCA Guide. Relevantly, BCA Class 7 and BCA Class 10 are, respectively:
Class 7:a building which is ‑
(a)Class 7a ‑ a carpark; or
(b)Class 7b ‑ for storage, or display of goods or produce for sale by wholesale.
Class 10:a non‑habitable building or structure being ‑
(a)Class 10a ‑ a non‑habitable building being a private garage, carport, shed or the like; or
(b)Class 10b ‑ a structure being a fence, mast antenna, retaining or free-standing wall, swimming pool, or the like.
Depending upon the classification of the building, the BCA then determines particular standards of construction and facilities, including fire rating, level of access to the building, particularly for disabled persons, and extent of sanitary facilities.
When the application for development approval in the Rural Residential zone of TPS 5 includes a building in addition to a use, the use of the BCA is appropriate to the consideration of building standards. The Tribunal considers, however, that it is first necessary to identify what use has actually been applied, and to consider that use in the light of the zoning table and provisions of TPS 5. This is not to merely look at the size of the sheds and that there will be storage of some type. How the use is characterised according to TPS 5 will inform the classification of the building under the BCA, and then the relevant standards of both TPS 5 and the BCA can be applied to the development and the building, respectively, as required by cl 6.1.1 of TPS 5. The characterisation of the use is addressed in issue 2.

Issue 2: whether the use 'warehouse' is the most appropriate description of the use

The applicant's letter of 16 June 2008 that accompanied the application for development approval (at that stage for a 450 square metre shed, later adapted to the two sheds, each of 150 square metres) said its plans were to have approved the proposed sheds for the storage of personal assets. It would then apply for approval to develop a house on the site. The applicant said it had no intention to undertake or conduct a business from the site. This position has been maintained by the applicant in its submissions on the application for review before the Tribunal.
The respondent said that the size of the sheds triggered concerns about whether it was to consider the use to be domestic storage. The report of the officer to the Council dated 27 July 2008 and adopted in the submissions to the Tribunal stated:
Even though there is no evidence that the goods stored on site will be offered for sale by wholesale, under TPS 5 the proposed use is best described as 'warehouse', as this is the defined use [in TPS 5] that 'best fits' the proposal, that is
'a building where goods are stored and may be offered for sale by wholesale'.
Consideration has been given to treating the proposal as an outbuilding, appurtenant or incidental to the residence, but the massive scale of the proposal in relation to the residence makes this inappropriate.
The respondent went on to argue that the definition of 'warehouse' has two parts:
1)a building where goods may be stored, and
2)a building where goods may be offered for sale by wholesale.
It was the submission of the respondent that the second part is not contingent on the first part, and the words 'may be' confirm this position. The respondent went on to state that neither TPS 5 nor the Codes provided a maximum size for a domestic storage shed. It was said that the BCA, however, 'suggests' that any covered area, whether a single or multiple structure, in excess of 200 square metres is a commercial structure. The BCA Guide at A3.2, in commenting on BCA Class 7b buildings, refers to 'a building used for storage, often referred to as a 'warehouse''. If the respondent were correct, then it would appear that, under the BCA, sheds with an area such as that proposed must be considered a commercial building, and if used for storage, be considered a warehouse. The BCA finding would then dictate that the 'best fit' under the TPS 5 zoning table is the use class 'Warehouse'.
The Tribunal does not agree with the approach that consideration of the size of a shed and the potential for a particular use under the BCA is to determine the characterisation of the use under TPS 5. The Tribunal accepts that that if a shed in a zone in which residential development is allowed is to be used by the owner, or by someone else in an arrangement with the owner, for the storage of goods ultimately to be used for business or commercial purposes, whether sold directly from the shed or not, then the use of the shed can be considered a warehouse, no matter what size it might be. The development standards of BCA Class 7b buildings, including structural requirements, access and sanitary facilities would have to be considered.

If the owner of the shed stores personal belongings in the shed, then it is considered to simply be a shed used for private storage, not a warehouse, again with the size not being a determinative factor. It would follow from this that the BCA requirements would be found by reference to BCA Class 10a buildings. It does not follow, however, and is not explicitly required by the BCA, that a BCA Class 10a building is required to be associated with a residence.
How a proposed development is to be characterised under TPS 5 depends upon what has been applied for ‑ that is, how it is proposed that the building be used, not what other uses it might potentially be used for. How then to determine what is the most appropriate characterisation of the proposed development. The zoning table of TPS 5 includes a list of uses. These can be cross‑referenced to zones to determine whether the use might be allowed in a particular zone. At cl 3.2.6 of TPS 5, it states:
If the development of land for a particular purpose is not specifically mentioned in the zoning table and cannot reasonably be included in the definition of one of the development categories, the Council may determine:
(a)that the development or use is not consistent with the objectives and purpose of the particular zone or precinct and is, therefore, not permitted or
( b)by absolute majority that the proposed development may be consistent with the objective and purpose of the zone and an application for planning approval should be determined in accordance with Pt IV, including the advertising procedures of cl 4.3.
A shed used for private storage is not listed and does not readily fall within any use class of the zoning table of TPS 5. The proposed development is considered to be best described, or characterised, not as a warehouse, but as a development 'not specifically mentioned in the zoning table'.
As a use not mentioned, it becomes necessary under cl 3.2.6 of TPS 5 to determine whether the proposed development, that is, two sheds of 150 square metres each, for private storage, would be consistent with the objective and purpose of the Rural Residential zone. This is addressed in the issues to follow.

Issue 3: whether the development can be considered for domestic storage without a 'single house' approved on the land

The applicant has not used the expression 'domestic storage'. The respondent introduced the word 'domestic' in the officer report of 29 July 2008 when it was said 'the shed cannot reasonably be considered of a domestic nature or size … .' The respondent continued with this description in its statement of issues, facts and contentions, referring to there being no definition or criteria for 'domestic or rural storage shed/s' and the proposed use being of a 'domestic nature'. The respondent said:
… without an approval for a 'single house' or other similar domestic use that could be considered under TPS 5 the shed could not be considered as a domestic storage shed as portrayed in the application.
In The Australian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition 2004 'domestic' has the relevant meaning:
of the home, household, or family affairs.
The Tribunal agrees with the respondent that, without an approved house, there could not be a shed used for domestic storage. The development also cannot be considered as an ancillary building as referred to in cl 4.1.3(f) of TPS 5 or as an outbuilding as defined under the Codes. Clause 6.10 of the Codes includes reference to what are termed 'incidental facilities serving residents' needs'. These include 'outbuildings' as defined, and the Tribunal is of the view that the dwelling from which the non‑habitable outbuilding structure is to be detached is required to be on the same lot.
The Tribunal does not accept, however, that the respondent's submission that the proposed use is a 'domestic' storage shed. The use proposed is not necessarily dependent on there being a home, household or family affairs on the site. The proposed sheds will be used for storing boats and vehicles owned privately by the owners of the site, and the Tribunal accepts that such a use might be allowed without there necessarily being a house built first on the site.
That gives rise to two planning questions. The first is the question identified under issue 2 as a consequence of the classification of the proposed use ‑ that is, whether two sheds of 150 square metres each for private storage would be consistent with the objective and purpose of the Rural Residential zone. The second arises only if the answer to the first question is 'yes', and that is, whether the development applied for is beyond what might be considered reasonable for a lot of this size in this zone.
The Tribunal has concluded that the development of sheds used for the storage of personal assets without an approved house would be inconsistent with the objective and purpose of the Rural Residential zone. It was found above that it is not what the sheds might be used for, but rather, what it was proposed that they would be used for that was the basis of characterisation of the use. Similarly, it is not what additional development it is said might be applied for at a later date ‑ that is, a house ‑ which should determine the suitability of the currently proposed use for the site. The applicant, in its letter of 7 January 2009, said it was intended to build a house and that various design alternatives were being reviewed. The house when built would provide a 'residential address' within Port Hedland for Mr Brett Alexander, a director of the company that owns the land. The Tribunal has no reason to doubt that the owner will eventually apply for a house, but to date it appears from the evidence that materials and design have not been finalised, there has been no submissions to the Town and there is no timetable for when an application for a building licence might be lodged.
The definition 'Rural Residential', set out in full above refers to the 'development of land where lots and dwellings are located in a rural setting, where use of lots may include agriculture or intensive agriculture…'. An outbuilding associated with an approved house and used for the same purpose as proposed for the sheds would be an acceptable development, if of an appropriate size. The Tribunal considers, however, that the proposed use can exist independently of a residence on the site and continue to do so should circumstances dictate delay in the development of any house. The development proposed for the site does not lead, as a matter of course, to achieving the objective of the zone of having a dwelling in a rural setting. The Tribunal has formed the view, therefore, that, as provided for at cl 3.2.6 of TPS 5, the proposed development should not be permitted.
The Tribunal has determined that the answer to the first question posed above is 'no'. It is not strictly necessary, therefore, to answer whether the development applied for is beyond what might be considered reasonable for a lot of this size in this zone. The question was, however, raised as an issue, and so comment will be made in addressing issue 4.

Issue 4: whether the development, as proposed, is beyond what would be considered reasonable for the purposes of domestic storage

The applicant, in its letter of 7 January 2009, said that, in addition to storing personal assets such as vehicles and boats, the intention was to use the sheds for safe storage of housing materials during construction of the house. It was also said that the sheds would be no larger than other sheds in the locality, although the location of the other sheds and the circumstances of any approvals were not revealed. The applicant produced from the two immediate neighbours comment that they had no concerns regarding the size of the proposed sheds.
The respondent said that, in considering this matter, it had looked to the Codes for some guidance. At cl 6.10.1 A1 of the Codes, it states that 60 square metres was an acceptable development standard that met the performance criteria for outbuildings. It acknowledged that this might be an inappropriate reference as there was no residential development on the site, and the Tribunal would add that this might be a reference point for normal suburban lots, rather than rural residential lots. The respondent said it then looked to the reference it said was in the BCA of a floor area of less 200 square metres being used to distinguish 'domestic' sheds from commercial sheds. The respondent said:
The applicant has been advised on several occasions that, should the combined size of the shed/s be less than 200 [square metres], detailed floor plans indicating the use of the areas within the shed/s, and a Building Licence application for a Single House be submitted, and approved, by the respondent then the planning application for the shed would be approved.
The Tribunal has noted this information from the respondent but would only comment that this is a matter that the applicant might wish to separately take up with the respondent. The Tribunal would say that, from its examination of the material provided by the parties, there is nothing to support the submission that shed space of 300 square metres should be provided for the storage of personal assets. The Tribunal does not accept that the size of the proposed sheds should be determined by the lifestyle of an individual and the number of boats, vehicles and other equipment that this may generate. The respondent also has policies that provide for temporary site sheds for the storage of house building materials should that space be required.
The Tribunal is conscious of the need to strike a balance between the legitimate needs of the owner of a lot for shed space and minimising the impact of those sheds on neighbours, the street and the neighbourhood of this Rural Residential zone. The proposed sheds are bland, metal‑clad structures devoid of architectural features. The application sketch suggests the proposed house would be up to 450 square metres, but until the design of the house is finalised and its development more certain, any ameliorating effect the house may have on what would then be outbuildings is unknown. It cannot be determined whether it would be appropriate to allow, as an exception, an area of outbuildings as large as that proposed.
The Tribunal has formed the view from the submissions filed that two sheds, each of 150 square metres, is beyond what might be considered reasonable for the purpose of storing personal assets in the Rural Residential zone.

Conclusion

The Tribunal has found that, in this matter, the use of the Codes is not appropriate because the proposal does not include residential development. The use of the BCA would be appropriate, but only to the extent that the proposal includes a building, and TPS 5 requires that the provisions of TPS 5 and the BCA be used together to determine development standards. The BCA classifies buildings, but this is not to be used as a basis for characterising the building for town planning purposes, only for determining such items as structural standards and the provision of facilities.
The Tribunal has rejected the respondent's submission that the development is appropriately characterised as a warehouse under TPS 5. There is no commercial activity involved, which the Tribunal considers is necessary for a warehouse in this zone. The use proposed is sheds for the storage of private assets.
For this use, the appropriate characterisation under TPS 5 is as a development 'not mentioned in the zoning table'. It then becomes necessary under TPS 5 to consider whether the proposed use would be consistent with the objectives and purpose of the Rural Residential zone.
The Tribunal has found that the development of sheds used for the storage of personal assets without an approved house would be inconsistent with the objective and purpose of the Rural Residential zone. The defined purpose of the Rural Residential zone is the development of land where lots and dwellings are located in a rural setting. The Tribunal has no reason to doubt the owner's intention to eventually apply for a house, but to date, it appears from the evidence that materials and design have not been finalised and there is no timetable for when an application for a building licence might be lodged. An outbuilding associated with an approved house used for the same purpose as proposed for the sheds would appear to be an acceptable development, if of an appropriate size. The proposed use, however, can exist independently of a residence on the site and continue to do so should circumstances delay any house development. The Tribunal considers that the development proposed for the site does not lead, as a matter of course, to achieving the objective of the Rural Residential zone under TPS 5 of having a dwelling in a rural setting.
The finding that the proposed use cannot be supported leads to comment only being required on issue 4 raised by the respondent. The Tribunal has formed the view, on the submissions made and in the absence of an approved house, that two bland, metal sheds with a total area of 300 square metres would not be consistent with the amenity objectives of the Rural Residential zone. It might be that a shed or sheds of a lesser area, if outbuildings of an approved house, would achieve the objectives of the zone, but this would need to be tested by a fresh submission to the Council.
The Tribunal would comment that an applicant's task is not assisted by the absence of a Council policy on sheds and outbuildings. The officer report to Council of 29 July 2008 said a policy on outbuildings was being drafted. It would be in the interests of orderly planning of the district and greatly assist potential applicants if this policy were to be completed without delay.
The Tribunal has found that that the proposed two sheds, each of 150 square metres, to be used for the storage of personal assets would not be consistent with the requirements of orderly and proper planning of the Rural Residential zone and the preservation of the amenity of the locality. The application has therefore been dismissed.

Orders

1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The decision of the Town of Port Hedland to refuse the application is affirmed.

I certify that this and the preceding [70] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J JORDAN, MEMBER