PC INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD and CITY OF ARMADALE

[2023] WASAT 45

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION:   PC INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD and CITY OF ARMADALE [2023] WASAT 45

MEMBER:   MS R LAVERY, MEMBER

HEARD:   21, 22 AND 24 JUNE 2022 (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 25 OCTOBER 2022, 15 FEBRUARY 2023, 28 FEBRUARY 2023 AND 13 MARCH 2023)

DELIVERED          :   23 JUNE 2023

FILE NO/S:   DR 252 of 2021

BETWEEN:   PC INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

CITY OF ARMADALE

Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Development application - Demolition - Whether local heritage building should be demolished - Level of heritage significance - Feasibility of restoration or adaptive reuse - Feasibility of incorporation into redevelopment - Community benefit of proposed development - Weight to be given to inconsistency between proposed development and draft structure plan

Legislation:

City of Armadale Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 1.6, cl 3.2.11, cl 3.2.11(b), Sch 8, cl 66.1
Heritage Act 2018 (WA), s 103
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), Sch 2, cl 1A(1)(e), cl 7, cl 8(1), cl 15(a)(ii), cl 27(2), cl 67(2), cl 67(2)(a), cl 67(2)(b), cl 67(2)(c), cl 67(2)(g), cl 67(2)(h), cl 67(2)(k), cl 67(2)(l), cl 67(2)(y), cl 67(2)(zb)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 241(1)(a), s 252(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(2)

Result:

Application for review dismissed
Decision of respondent is affirmed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr C Wallace
Respondent	:	Mr CA Slarke

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Lavan
Respondent	:	McLeods

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

McDonald's Australia Limited and Presiding Member of the Metropolitan Central Joint Development Assessment Panel [2015] WASAT 146

Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40; (2005) 149 LGERA 117

Paz and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 157

Rampono and City of Stirling [2014] WASAT 20

Terra Spei Pty Ltd and Shire of Kalamunda [2015] WASAT 134

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

1. PC Infrastructure Pty Ltd (applicant) made application to the City of Armadale (respondent, Council or City) for the demolition of an existing building known as 'The Manse' that is listed in the City's Heritage List (HL) and City of Armadale Local Heritage Survey (LHS) at No 31 (Lot 709) Church Avenue, Armadale (subject land or No 31).

2. The application for development approval was lodged with the City on 18 June 2021 and refused by the respondent on 3 November 2021. On 30 November 2021 the applicant made application under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) seeking an order that the Tribunal set aside the respondent's decision to refuse the application and grant development approval for the demolition of the building on the subject land.

Subject land

1. The subject land is more particularly described as Lot 709 being the whole of land described on Certificate of Title Volume 2654 Folio 894, is 914m² in area and is situated on Church Street, one lot south-west of the intersection of Church Avenue with Whitehead Street.  The subject land is located to the south-east corner of the Armadale Shopping Centre on elevated land with a stairway access to the shopping centre carpark.

2. The land is occupied by a building and associated car parking area to the side and rear of the building.  The building is commonly known as 'The Manse', a place on the heritage list prepared in accordance with City of Armadale Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS 4 or the Scheme) and is Place No 006 on the LHS kept by the respondent pursuant to s 103 of the Heritage Act 2018 (WA) (Heritage Act).

3. 'The Manse' is a brick and corrugated iron federation bungalow constructed in 1907 described by the Place Record Form of the LHS as:

   … an asymmetrical single storey face brick building with a corrugated steel hip and gable roof.  It also has a front skillion roof verandah on chamfered timber posts extending to the west.  The building has two face brick chimneys.  There is timber infill with roughcast render to the south gable.  Rendered bands break the pattern of English bond brick work to the front verandah.

   There is an addition to the south-east corner of the building and a brick lean-to with a concrete ramp to the north.  There are timber frame double hung windows with rendered sills and brick arched heads A timber front door with glazed highlights and sidelights is located on the west elevation with a City of Armadale plaque on the brick wall identifying the building as a historic site[.][1]

   [1] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 6 Extract from LHS, page 253.

4. The LHS records that The Manse had a long succession of pastors living in it over the years.  After the Armadale Congregational Church was relocated in 1988, The Manse was converted to a restaurant use, which continued until circa mid 2020.  The statement of significance for The Manse recorded in the LHS is:

   STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

   The Manse has cultural heritage signficance [sic] for the following reasons:

   •The place has aesthetic value as an example of the Federation Bungalow style of architecture.

   •The place has historical value due to its association with the Armadale Congregational Church.

   •The place has social value as a former pastor's residence and later as a restaurant in the locality[.][2]

   [2] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 6 Extract from LHS, page 254.

5. Adjacent No 29 (Lot 707) Church Avenue (No 29), at the intersection of Church Avenue and Whitehead Street, is vacant and is also owned by the applicant.  It is proposed by the applicant that both the subject land and No 29 will be developed together.

Procedural history

1. An application for development approval was made to the respondent on 18 June 2021 seeking the demolition of The Manse, to make way for a redevelopment of the subject land along with the adjoining property at No 29.  No plans have been provided or application made for the proposed redevelopment.

1. As part of that application, the applicant provided a heritage impact statement by Mr Ronald Bodycoat in support of the demolition application (Applicant's HIS).[3]  The Applicant's HIS concludes that The Manse 'no longer presents as a place of Cultural Heritage Significance' and that 'Demolition is a reasonable option, as a consequence of the eroded heritage value and substantial additions and alterations'.

   [3] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 1 Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Mr Ronald Bodycoat dated May 2021, pages 41-66.

2. The demolition application was advertised by the respondent and the respondent sought advice from its Community Heritage Advisory Group (CHAG).  During the advertising period, the respondent received 11 submissions with respect to the demolition application, all of which objected to the application.[4]  The CHAG also recommended against approval of the application.

   [4] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 2 Submissions and Consultation, pages 67-106.

3. Independent expert heritage advice was sought with respect to the application by the respondent from a heritage consultant, Element, which prepared a document titled 'Heritage Review 31 Church Avenue, Armadale' dated September 2021 (Element heritage review).[5]  The Element heritage review concluded that 'the demolition of the subject site poses a major potential impact on the overall cultural value of Armadale, diminishing the heritage status, and reducing heritage character and local authenticity'.  It 'highly recommended' retention of the building with the assistance of a heritage architect specialising in adaptive re-use of heritage buildings.

   [5] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 3 Heritage review by Element, pages 107-119.

4. The Council of the respondent refused to approve the application for development approval for demolition of The Manse on 3 November 2021 for the following reasons:

   1.The Manse Restaurant is listed as a Management Category 2 heritage place 006 under the City's Local Heritage Survey 2019.  Management Category 2 heritage places are defined as being of considerable significance to the heritage of the locality and possessing a high degree of integrity/authenticity.  The conservation of Management Category 2 heritage places is classed as highly desirable and demolition is discouraged.

   It has not been demonstrated by the application that the heritage significance of Local Heritage Survey place 006 (The Manse Restaurant) has diminished to an extent that justifies its demolition.

   2.The heritage fabric of the place remains substantially intact and the loss of the place would result in an adverse impact upon the cultural heritage significance of the Armadale City Centre.

   3.The place is capable of adaptive reuse or incorporation into a new development incorporating its built heritage form.

   4.The proposal is inconsistent with Schedule 2 Part 9 Clause 67 (k, l) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal will adversely impact on

   (k)the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance; and

   (l)the effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significance of the area in which the development is located.

   5.The proposal to demolish the place is not consistent with the intent of clauses 2.13.1b. and 2.13.2a of the proposed Armadale City Centre Structure Plan Design Guidelines.[6]

   [6] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 5, pages 126-127.

5. The matter proceeded to final hearing for adjudication by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal, together with representatives of the parties and their experts, had the benefit of a view of the subject land and surrounds, however, did not include an internal view of The Manse.

6. Following the final hearing the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) adopted and released the updated Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys dated August 2022 (2022 Guidelines).  The parties were provided the opportunity to make submissions in respect to the 2022 Guidelines and the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant dated 25 November 2022 and the respondent dated 25 October 2022 and 1 November 2022.

7. Amendment 103 was gazetted on 16 December 2022 and the parties were provided the opportunity to make submissions in relation to this change to the planning framework with the applicant making submissions dated 15 February 2023 and 13 March 2023 and the respondent making submissions dated 15 February 2023.

Local planning framework

1. The subject land is zoned 'Strategic Regional Centre' with an RAC-0 density coding within Development Area No. 66 (DA66) under LPS 4 as a consequence of Amendment 103 to LPS 4 being gazetted on 16 December 2022 which was after the final hearing.  The Tribunal is required to determine this application on the planning framework as of the date of this determination. 

2. Amendment 103 made several modifications to LPS 4 which are detailed in the following paragraph [35].

3. LPS 4 is comprised of the Scheme Text, the deemed provisions as set out in Sch 2 - Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) (deemed provisions), the Scheme Map and the supplementary provisions set out in Schedule A of the Scheme Text.

4. Clause 1.6 of LPS 4 sets out the aims of the Scheme.  The relevant aims relating to this matter are:

   …

   (b)to preserve and enhance the amenities of the district and to manage land uses so as to minimise conflicts between otherwise incompatible uses;

   (c)to promote a sense of place and community identity for residents by fostering a distinctive character based on good design principles;

   (d)to provide for a variety of development to meet the needs of the community with regard to housing, employment and services, and to facilitate the provision of a wide range of social and cultural experiences within the district;

   (e)to promote the development of an integrated strategic regional centre with a wide range of services, including housing, business, commercial, recreational, leisure, entertainment and community facilities;

   …

   (h)to promote sustainable development that integrates consideration of economic, social and environmental goals for the district;

   …

   (l)to facilitate and encourage high quality design, built form and streetscapes throughout the district[.]

5. Clause 3.2.11 of the Scheme sets out the objectives of the Strategic Regional Centre Zone which are relevant to this matter:

   a)To designate land for future development in the Armadale Strategic Metropolitan City Centre.

   b)To provide a basis for future detailed planning in accordance with the structure planning provisions of this Scheme or the Activity Centres State Planning Policy[.]

6. The subject site is located in DA 66 which is described in Sch 8 and includes and specifically identifies the subject site.  Schedule 8 to LPS 4 also identifies additional provisions applicable to subdivision and development within DA 66 and states at cl 66.1:

   Generally in accordance with an approved Activity Centre Structure Plan or Precinct Plan.

7. Clause 15(a)(ii) of the deemed provisions is relevant to this matter:

   15.When structure plan may be prepared

   A structure plan in respect of an area of land in the Scheme area may be prepared if —

   (a)the area is —

   …

   (ii)identified in this Scheme as an area requiring a structure plan to be prepared before any future subdivision or development is undertaken[.]

8. Clause 27(2) of the deemed provisions provides discretion in the consideration of the situation where there is an application for development approval or subdivision and a structure plan is required and has not been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC):

   …

   (2)A decision-maker for an application for development approval or subdivision approval in an area referred to in clause 15 as being an area for which a structure plan may be prepared, but for which no structure plan has been approved by the Commission, may approve the application if the decision-maker is satisfied that —

   (a)the proposed development or subdivision does not conflict with the principles of orderly and proper planning; and

   (b)the proposed development or subdivision would not prejudice the overall development potential of the area.

9. The deemed provisions provide for heritage places and cl 1A(1)(e) is relevant to this matter:

   1A.Heritage‑protected places

   (1)A heritage‑protected place is a place —

   …

   (e)that is included on a heritage list as defined in clause 7[.]

10. Part 3 Heritage Protection, cl 7 of the deemed provisions defines a heritage list and heritage place as follows:

    heritage list means a heritage list established under clause 8(1);

    place has the meaning given in the Heritage Act 2018 section 7(1)[.]

11. Clause 8(1) of the deemed provisions provides the requirement and procedure for the preparation of a heritage list for a local government states:

    8.Heritage list

    (1)The local government must establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places within the Scheme area that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of built heritage conservation.

    (2)A heritage list established under subclause (1) must set out a description of each place and the reason for its entry on the heritage list[.]

12. The City of Armadale has a heritage list that has been adopted pursuant to cl 8(1) of the deemed provisions and The Manse is included on that list as Place No 006 with a Management Category 2.[7]

    [7] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, pages 256-261, the reference to The Manse can be found at page 256.

13. The Manse is also a place included on the LHS kept by the respondent pursuant to s 103 of the Heritage Act and in accordance with the Heritage Council's Draft Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys.[8]  The Manse is assigned Management Category 2 by the LHS meaning that the place has 'Considerable Significance'.  Places that are allocated Management Category 2 are described by the LHS as 'Very important to the heritage of the locality.  High degree of integrity/authenticity' and that '[t]he inclusion of the Manse on the LPS 4 heritage list indicates that it has such cultural heritage significance that it is worthy of built heritage conservation'.[9]

    [8] Heritage Council 'Draft Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys', March 2019.

    [9] Respondent's Statement of Issues Facts and Contentions (SIFC's) dated 13 April 2022, paras 27-28.

14. The 'Outcome' for Management Category 2 states:

    Conservation of the place is highly desirable.  Any alterations or extensions should reinforce the significance of the place.  Maximum encouragement to the owner should be provided under the City of Armadale's Town Planning Scheme to conserve the significance of the place.  A Heritage Assessment* and Impact Statement should be undertaken before approval is given for any major redevelopment.  Incentives to promote heritage conservation should also be considered.[10]

    [10] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 6 Page 148 - City of Armadale Local Heritage Survey February 2020, page 20 - '* Note:  The term Heritage Assessment, referred to in Category 1, 2, and 3 is defined as:  A brief, independent evaluation by a heritage architect or heritage consultant.  It is not to be confused with a Heritage Council Heritage Assessment or a Conservation Plan, which are more extensive and detailed documents'.

15. The LHS place record indicates that 'The Manse' was built in 1907, adjacent to the Armadale Congregational Church which was built in 1903 and that a succession of pastors lived in it over the years. The LHS says that early photographs show The Manse as a residence in a bush setting accompanied by the Armadale Congregational Church and nearby school. After the Armadale Congregational Church was relocated to the Minnawarra Reserve in 1988, The Manse was converted to a restaurant use called 'The Manse', which continued until circa mid­2020. The statement of significance for The Manse in the LHS is provided at para [6].

16. Clause 67(2) of the deemed provisions provides that in considering an application for development approval, the local government is to have due regard to a range of specified matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government (and the Tribunal on review), those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application. The relevant matters relating to this application are as follows:

    •the aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area (subclause (a));

    •the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving (subclause (b));

    •any approved State planning policy (subclause (c));

    •any local planning policy for the Scheme area (subclause (g));

    •any structure plan or local development plan that relates to the development (subclause (h));

    •the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance (subclause (k));

    •the effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significance of the area in which the development is located (subclause (l));

    •any submissions received on the application (subclause(y)); and

    •any other planning consideration the local government considers appropriate (subclause (zb)).

Draft Armadale Strategic Metropolitan City Centre Structure Plan

1. The respondent has prepared a draft Armadale Strategic Metropolitan City Centre Structure Plan (draft Structure Plan).  The draft Structure Plan has been advertised and was considered by the Council of the respondent, which resolved on 27 August 2018 to support the draft Structure Plan and forward it to the WAPC for approval. 

2. On 10 September 2019 the WAPC advised the respondent that amendments would be required to LPS 4 in order to ensure that it aligns with the draft Structure Plan which resulted in the preparation of Amendment 103.  Amendment 103 was gazetted on the 16 December 2022 resulting in the creation of the Armadale Strategic Metropolitan City Centre (City Centre) within which the subject land falls.  The respondent asserts that one of the objectives of the proposed City Centre is to 'provide a basis for future detailed planning in accordance with the structure planning provisions of this Scheme'.[11]

   [11] Respondent's SIFC's dated 13April 2022, para 16.

3. The respondent on 18 January 2023 confirmed the gazettal of Amendment 103 and provided the Tribunal with a copy of the relevant Government Gazette and an update on the progress of the draft Structure Plan:

   As a consequence of Amendment 103, the position with respect to the relevant provisions of the City of Armadale LPS4 now is:

   •The subject land is zoned Strategic Regional Centre with an RAC­0 density coding, and is located in a new Development Area known as Development Area No. 66 (DA66);

   •The objectives for the Strategic Regional Centre zone in clause 3.2.11 now state:

   'Strategic Regional Centre

   (a)To designate land for future development in the Armadale Strategic Metropolitan City Centre.

   (b)To provide a basis for future detailed planning in accordance with the structure planning provisions of this Scheme or the Activity Centres State Planning Policy.'

   •Pursuant to clause 4.13.1 of LPS4, 'Schedule 8 sets out requirements relating to development that are included in structure plans, activity centre plans and local development plans that apply in the Scheme area.'

   •In Schedule 8, the first column applicable to DA66 describes the land comprised within Armadale Strategic Metropolitan City Centre.  The second column sets out additional provisions applicable to subdivision and development within DA66.  Additional provision 66.1 states 'Generally in accordance with an approved Activity Centre Structure Plan or Precinct Plan.'

4. The subject land is within the City Centre Core precinct in the draft Structure Plan, which states in part of the Precinct Statement of Intent for the City Centre Core that '[t]he restoration and maintenance of buildings, groups of buildings and other places which have substantial historical or other significance will be encouraged'.[12]

   [12] Respondents SIFC's dated 13 April 2022, para 20(b).

5. The design guidelines at cl 4.2.5 Heritage of the draft Structure Plan set out that the intent of the heritage provisions is that '[r]etention, restoration and sympathetic development of places of historic significance within a centre help to entrench a sense of place and richness of character'.  The relevant subsections of cl 4.2.5 Design Criteria states:

   4.2.5.1Intent

   a.New development will respond to Armadale's heritage.  The activity centre's character and charm are influenced by the stories of its past, by its development history and the way this is reflected in its built form.  Retention, restoration and sympathetic development of places of historic significance within a centre help to entrench a sense of place and a richness of character.

   b.New development will promote and facilitate appropriate and sensitive adaptive re-use of underutilised heritage buildings (as identified in the City's Municipal Heritage Inventory (December 2008) or as modified) and ensure high quality architectural responses for additions and infill development.

   4.2.5.2Design Criteria

   a.Heritage places identified in the City of Armadale Municipal Heritage Inventory (December 2008) (or as modified) shall be considered in accordance with their identified level of significance.  Where possible, Categories A+, A and B are to be accorded a high level of protection.

   b.New development associated with a heritage place shall be consistent with Burra Charter principles and be designed in a contemporary manner.

   c.Where any development is proposed which would conserve, by incorporation in the development or otherwise, the whole or a substantial part of an existing Heritage Place which the City of Armadale considers worthy of conservation, the City may permit variations to development standards where it is considered an improved design outcome is achieved.

   d.Development proposals for a heritage place containing in-situ fabric shall be accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement, describing and evaluating the likely impact of a proposed development on the significance of the heritage place, as well as measures designed to minimise impact.  A Heritage Impact Statement is required for all development applications that propose significant alteration of a place, adaptive reuse, significant additions or extensions, or part or full demolition[.][13]

   [13] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents dated 13 April 2022, Tab 8 pages 373, 374.

6. The draft Structure Plan cl 5.2 Precinct 1 - City Centre Core map clearly identifies the subject land containing The Manse with a white asterisk as a '[h]eritage building which should be conserved for adaptive re-use'.

Local Planning Policy

1. The respondent adopted Local Planning Policy PLN 3.8 Heritage Management and Incentives Policy (LPP 3.8), most recently revised and adopted by the respondent on 25 January 2021.  The introduction to LPP 3.8 states:

   The careful management of Armadale's diverse and rich history and cultural heritage is vital to its future development.  It is appropriate to identify those places which have a special link with the people, activities and events of the past as the foundation for the present and future community.  In a world of increasingly rapid change the recognition of, and appropriate response to, cultural heritage plays an important role in the sustainable economic development of the City.

   …

   The City therefore recognises the importance of protecting and supporting heritage and character within its municipality[.][14]

   [14] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents dated 13 April 2022, Tab 9, pages 268-271.

2. The objectives of LPP 3.8 are:

   a)To promote public awareness of places of cultural heritage significance within the City of Armadale.

   b)To encourage the retention, conservation and promotion of heritage places located within the City of Armadale.  In particular, encouraging development that reinforces heritage values outlined within the Local Heritage Survey.

   c)To recognise the commitment of property owners that conserve heritage places that provides benefit to the wider community.

   d)To provide assistance to owners with the conservation of places recognised as having cultural heritage significance within the City of Armadale.[15]

   [15] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents dated 13 April 2022, Tab 9, page 269.

3. Clause 5 of LPP 3.8 details the planning concessions and incentives the City may consider for developments that support the retention, conservation and promotion of heritage places and reinforce the cultural heritage values of the place including but not limited to variations to development standards in the Town Planning Scheme, approved Structure Plan, Residential Design Codes or other Local Planning Policy including but not limited to, plot ratio, setbacks and other development standards.

4. Clause 6.3 of LPP 3.8 refers to two specific criteria relevant to the exercise of discretion in this case:

   6.3The City's consideration of discretionary applications for planning approval or amendments to the Scheme will have due regard to the objectives of the policy and Local Heritage Survey and approvals shall be dependent upon the City being satisfied that:

   (a)approval is consistent with proper and orderly planning, the strategic objectives of regional and local policy and the "Matters to be Considered by the City" criteria set out in Clause 67 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

   (b)any discretion or variation permitted by the approval will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development, the amenity of the locality or the opportunities for future development.[16]

State planning framework

[16] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents dated 13 April 2022, Tab 9, page 271.

1. The subject land is zoned 'Central City Area' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

2. In addition to cl 67(2)(c) of the deemed provisions, the Tribunal, pursuant to s 241(1)(a) of the PD Act is required to have due regard to any State planning policy that may affect the matter of an application for review. In this case State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP 3.5) is relevant and has as its objectives:

   •To conserve places and areas of historic heritage significance.

   •To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places and areas.

   •To ensure that heritage significance at both the State and local levels is given due weight in planning decision-making.

   •To provide improved certainty to landowners and the community about the planning processes for heritage identification, conservation and protection.[17]

   [17] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 8, page 264 - SPP 3.5, s 6.5 Government Gazette, WA 29 May 2007, page 2479.

3. Clause 6.5 of SPP 3.5 provides the specific matters that should be considered in assessing an application for approval to demolish a heritage place as:

   Alterations, extensions, change of use or demolition affecting a heritage place (including a place within a heritage area)

   •The level of heritage significance of the place, based on a relevant heritage assessment.

   •Measures proposed to conserve the heritage significance of the place and its setting.

   •The structural condition of the place, and whether the place is reasonably capable of conservation.

   •Whether the place is capable of adaptation to a new use which will enable its retention and conservation.[18]

   [18] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 8, pages 262-267 - SPP 3.5, s 6.5 Government Gazette, WA 29 May 2007, page 2481.

4. With respect to the proposed demolition of a heritage place, cl 6.6 of SPP 3.5 sets out the following development control principles:

   Demolition of a heritage place (including a place within a heritage area)

   •Demolition of a State heritage place is rarely appropriate and should require the strongest justification.  Demolition of a local heritage place should be avoided wherever possible, although there will be circumstances where demolition is justified.  The onus rests with the applicant to provide a clear justification for it.

•Demolition approval should not be expected simply because redevelopment is a more attractive economic proposition, or because a building has been neglected.  Consideration of a demolition proposal should be based upon the significance of the building or place; the feasibility of restoring or adapting it, or incorporating it into new development; the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment; and any local planning policies relating to the demolition of heritage places.[19]

Issue

[19] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 8, pages 262-267; SPP 3.5, s 6.6 Government Gazette, WA 29 May 2007, page 2481.

1. The parties identified the following issue for determination in relation to this matter:

   Is approval of the proposed demolition application the correct and preferable decision, having regard to:

   (a)the cultural heritage significance of the place;

   (b)SPP 3.5;

   (c)LPP 3.8; and

   (d)the draft Structure Plan.

1. As these matters are interrelated, they will be dealt with together.

2. The parties agree that SPP 3.5 at cl 6.6 sets the development principles for demolition of a local heritage place.  Therefore, it is anticipated in applying for the demolition of The Manse the applicant will provide justification for the demolition on the basis of the four matters in cl 6.6.  The four principle matters as agreed by the parties are:

   •the significance of the building or place;

   •the feasibility of restoring or adapting it, or incorporating it into new development;

   •the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment; and

   •any local planning policies relating to the demolition of heritage places.

3. In relation to these matters the Tribunal had the benefit of expert evidence from Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray a heritage and conservation consultant and Mr Nikolas Edward Hidding a town planning consultant called on behalf of the applicant, and Ms Flavia Boghossian Kiperman a heritage architect, Mr Joe Algeri a town planning consultant, and evidence from Mr Terence John Holton an architect, planner and member of the respondent's CHAG and resident of the City and Mr Jeffrey Errol Green a graduate architect and historian and long-time member of the City's CHAG called on behalf of the respondent.

•       The significance of the building or place

1. There is no dispute between the parties that The Manse has been included in the City of Armadale Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and LHS since the inaugural document in 1995 when it was given a Category B level of significance in the MHI.  The MHI, now LHS, has been reviewed three times in 2008, 2015 and 2019 by two separate heritage architects and the level of significance allocated to The Manse as Management Category 2 in the LHS has not diminished despite the changing context surrounding the place.  The Manse maintains the equivalent level of significance to Category B, Management Category 2 pursuant to the LHS, meaning that the place has been consistently identified as having 'Considerable Significance'.

2. Article 1.2 of the Burra Charter defines cultural significance as:

   Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.  Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself[.][20]

   [20] Witness Statement of Ms Flavia Kiperman dated 26 May 2022, para 17.

3. Ms Gray submits that she has undertaken a heritage impact statement for the subject land dated June 2022 having visited the external of the building and surrounds on 8 June 2022.[21]  Ms Gray contends that the social significance of the restaurant in association with The Manse is minimal, that 'With reference to the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Area [sic] (Criteria) (attached as Annexure B), I contend that The Manse does not satisfy the criteria for aesthetic, historic or social cultural heritage that is claimed in the Statement of Significance that led to the allocated 'Considerable' significance finding'.[22]  She also contends that the extensive additions for the adaptive re-use of The Manse as a restaurant have impacted the authenticity of the original fabric of The Manse.  She says that without considerable interventions the use of The Manse for residential use in the future is significantly diminished and that the setting is not conducive to residential use.

   [21] Witness Statement of Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray dated and signed 7 June 2022, Annexure D Heritage Impact Statement - Congregational Church Manse (former) - June 2022.

   [22] Witness Statement of Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray dated and signed 7 June 2022 and Annexure B - Heritage Council of Western Australia's Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas dated November 2007.

4. Ms Gray contends that The Manse is denigrated by its elevation and isolated position above the carpark to the Armadale Shopping Centre, that the entry ramp to the carpark from Whitehead Street and the shopping centre itself significantly impact the subject land aesthetically and visually which in turn impacts the amenity of a use on the subject land.

5. Ms Gray in her heritage impact statement says that The Manse is a Federation bungalow but does not present as a typical example due to the Flemish Bond brickwork on the front walls that she says are not usual in the Federation period and because the bullnose verandah roof and timber verandah floors have been replaced.  Ms Gray contends that The Manse has minimal integrity because it has not provided a residential function for many decades and that views of the place do not inform of its history.  She says that is a detrimental representation of its association with the Congregational Church and makes no contribution to the progressive Armadale City Centre.  She also says in her heritage impact statement that:

   The demise of the former Manse building with relevant interpretation including community involvement and include the existing plaques would serve to inform of the history of the Congregational Church that used to be on the adjoining site, and the Manse that was associated with that church, in a more positive understanding and appreciative manner.[23]

   [23] Supplementary Witness statement Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray signed and dated 16 June 2022 - Exhibit 12 - Annexure D: Heritage Impact Statement - Congregational Church Manse (former) Proposed demolition page 4.

6. Ms Gray says that cultural heritage of The Manse is significantly diminished as it is no longer a residence of the pastors of the congregational Church or associated with the Congregational Church or the original setting.  She says that The Manse is in an extremely compromised location that negates its integrity as a residential function, that:

   … There are no realistic functional solutions to retain what remains of its authenticity without significant intervention that would further impact the remaining original fabric and understanding of what the place represented, and its already diminished cultural heritage significance.

   Demolition of the Manse will provide an opportunity to interpret the history of the place, with the involvement of the interested community, in a more meaningful and positive manner than is evident in the existing building and its intrusive setting.[24]

   [24] Supplementary Witness statement Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray signed and dated 16 June 2022 - Exhibit 12 - paras 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.

7. Ms Gray says she does not dispute that The Manse has cultural heritage significance, but it is her opinion that The Manse does not meet the thresholds of the criteria to substantiate a 'considerable' level of significance or the implications of that level of heritage value.

8. The applicant raised the Tribunal's decision of Rampono and City of Stirling [2014] WASAT 20(Rampono and City of Stirling) and in particular at [35] onwards. The applicant contends that there is a parallel to this case as in Rampono and City of Stirling particularly at [39]:

   The Tribunal finds that the dwelling has lost its historical context through the significant erosion of the heritage character of the south­western side of Tenth Avenue, and is of the view that the loss of the subject dwelling will not have a material impact on the heritage character of either the relevant streetscape (either north-eastern nor south-western) or the Heritage Protection Area as a whole[.]

9. The applicant argues that the loss of historical context for The Manse has diminished is heritage value.

10. The respondent contends that far from losing relevance, with the incremental loss of other heritage places in the locality, that the The Manse is at least as relevant, if not more so.  This is supported by the MHI and LHS maintaining its classification as Management Category 2 with 'Considerable Significance' despite changes to its context and the respondent contends that it is still related to the relocated Congregational Church which is still in proximity to the subject land and maintains historical relevance to the community as a reminder of what was previously on the adjoining site.

1. I find that the circumstances of this case are distinguishable from  those of Rampono and City of Stirling as The Manse is not located in a Heritage Protection Area that contemplates that demolition may occur where the context for the heritage precinct has been lost, but rather the draft Structure Plan and the planning framework generally in this case, expressly contemplate the retention and adaptive reuse of this specific heritage place, The Manse, as part of the redevelopment of the area unless the applicant can adequately demonstrate why this should not be the case.

2. Ms Kiperman told the Tribunal that she prepared a heritage review in relation to The Manse in September 2021 for the respondent based on the documents provided by the respondent including the development application for demolition of The Manse, which included a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Mr Bodycoat, in May 2021.  She also undertook an internal and external inspection of the building on the subject land on 16 September 2021.  Ms Kiperman carried out a further inspection of the building externally and the Church Avenue streetscape on 11 January 2022.

3. Ms Kiperman points out that SPP 3.5 which applies to development, includes the process for establishment of a heritage list which the City has followed and established a heritage list under LPS 4.  The City has prepared its heritage list in accordance with SPP 3.5 cl 6.4 'Establishment of heritage lists'.

4. Further, she asserts that the heritage significance of The Manse was determined in 1995 by the MHI, confirmed in 2002 by the Armadale Redevelopment Authority and reviewed in 2008 and 2015 by Palassis Architects and in 2019 by the heritage architect Stephen Carrick a part of the establishment of the LHS.  Ms Kiperman contends that the level of significance is 'considerable' and asserts that it has not diminished during this time.

5. Ms Kiperman does not agree with the applicant's assertion that the social value of The Manse is not strongly held by the local community and that the community's interest in The Manse is minimal as she asserts that a place will generally only be included in a LHS and heritage list if it is considered by the community to have heritage significance.[25]  She maintains that the preparation of a LHS involves a great deal of community and stakeholder consultation and for the City this also involves the CHAG.

   [25] Applicant's SIFC's dated 13 May 2022, para 37.

6. Ms Kiperman opines that the demolition of The Manse would have a 'major potential impact on the overall cultural value of Armadale, diminishing the heritage stock, and reducing heritage character and local authenticity'.[26]  She asserts that The Manse as a building makes a positive contribution to the heritage character and cultural heritage significance of the City of Armadale when considering its aesthetic, historical and social character defining elements and its contribution to the character of the streetscape.  In Ms Kiperman's opinion, this is why The Manse is individually listed by the City, she says 'In this case I do not believe that the circumstances provide a clear justification for demolition of The Manse.  The property retains cultural heritage significance at the local level which justifies its classification of Considerable Significance, and I am not aware of any reason why the building could not be conserved and put to an adaptive reuse'.[27]

Relevant Assessment Criteria

[26] Witness Statement of Ms Flavia Boghossian Kiperman dated and signed 26 May 2022, para 23.

[27] Witness Statement of Ms Flavia Boghossian Kiperman dated and signed 26 May 2022, paras 21 and 23.

1. Ms Gray has used the Heritage Council of WA Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas (2012 Guidelines) referred to by the parties as the 2012 Guidelines, as the basis for her assessment of the heritage significance of The Manse and in evidence agrees that she has referred to the 2012 Guidelines in her 7 June 2022 witness statement at paras 13, 17, 21, 23, 28 and 30 and in her supplementary 16 June 2022 witness statement at para 7.15.[28]  The applicant says that the 2012 Guidelines are acceptable to use for this purpose.

   [28] Applicant's s 24 Bundle of Documents, Tab 1 and Witness Statement of Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray dated and signed 7 June 2022 Annexure B - Heritage Council of WA Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas.

2. Ms Kiperman says in evidence that her understanding as a heritage practitioner is that the 2012 Guidelines as used by Ms Gray, are not the most current guidelines for the assessment of heritage significance because the Burra Charter was revised in 2013, and the Heritage Act was revised in 2018, which resulted in the Heritage Council adopting the Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys - July 2019 (2019 Guidelines) as the current guidelines for the assessment of heritage significance.[29] Ms Kiperman asserts therefore that there were three documents, and one quite substantial document, which is the Heritage Act, that came after the 2012 Guidelines and the more credible document for use in this instance is the 2019 Guidelines because it is backed up by the Heritage Act and it is a more recent document. The 2019 Guidelines at cl 4.1 say:

   4.1The assessment of a place should employ either:

   4.1.1the factors relevant to cultural heritage significance as developed at the National Heritage Convention (HERCON) in Canberra, 1998; or

   4.1.2 the criteria defined under the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013(Burra Charter criteria);

   and be guided by a thematic history of the local district or region.[30]

   [29] Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys - July 2019, Heritage Council of WA - Exhibit 16.

   [30] Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys - July 2019, Heritage Council of WA - Exhibit 16, page 5.

3. Ms Gray was resistant to that.  Further, while it is acknowledged that Ms Gray was engaged with short notice to be a witness in these proceedings, I also accept the respondent's concerns that Ms Gray's witness statement dated 7 June 2022 and heritage assessment were prepared by reference to outdated guidelines and relying to a large part on the heritage impact statement prepared by Mr Bodycoat[31] without visiting the site.  This resulted in preparation of a supplementary witness statement by Ms Gray.[32] 

   [31] Mr Bodycoat was not called by the applicant to give evidence at the final hearing.

   [32] Supplementary Witness statement Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray signed and dated 16 June 2022 - Exhibit 12.

4. Ms Gray in evidence relating to the use of the 2012 Guidelines rather than the 2019 Guidelines steadfastly stood by her use of the 2012 Guidelines.  The applicant relies on the email from an officer of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and acknowledges that the 2012 criteria refers to an 'old piece of legislation and is in the process of being amended' but says that it is not without relevance and can be utilised and that the 2012 Guidelines mirror the criteria in the Burra Charter.

5. While the applicant says that the 2012 Guidelines have not been revoked and provided an email from an officer of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) suggesting the 2012 Guidelines could be used and acknowledging that his advice is not the position of the Heritage Council, the Tribunal heard from the respondent that the 2012 Guidelines no longer appear on the DPLH website and are no longer a publicly available document.[33]

   [33] Email from Callum Crofton, Manager of Policy and Practice at Heritage and Property Services for the DPLH dated 22 June 2022 - Exhibit 22.

6. Since the final hearing, the Heritage Council of WA has released an updated Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys August 2022 (2022 Guidelines) and whilst the remainder of cl 4 - Assessment Processes remains unchanged, cl 4.1 has been amended as follows:

   4.1The cultural heritage significance of a place should:

   •be expressed in terms of its aesthetic, historic, scientific, social and spiritual value;

   •consider matters including rarity and representativeness; and

   •be guided by a thematic history of the local district or region.[34]

   [34] Heritage Council of WA - Guidelines for Local Heritage Surveys, August 2022, page 5.

7. The expression of cultural heritage in the terms listed in the first bullet point cl 4.1 of the 2022 Guidelines is consistent with article 1.2 of the Burra Charter, which is the article which defines cultural significance and says that:

   Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.  Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself.[35]

   [35] Applicant's s 24 Bundle of Documents dated 12 May 2022, tab 4 - The Burra Charter, page 35.

8. The parties were provided the opportunity to make further submissions in regard to the 2022 Guidelines and their implications for this case, which they did in submissions from both parties dated 25 October 2022 and a response by the respondent to the applicant's submissions dated 1 November 2022.  The applicant advised on 4 November 2022 that it would not be responding to the respondent's submissions.

9. I do not agree that at the time of the final hearing the 2012 Guidelines were the relevant guidelines because the 2019 Guidelines reflect the changes to the Burra Charter and Heritage Act. Having heard from both parties, it is clear that the relevant document for use in considering heritage significance of a place at the time of the final hearing was the 2019 Guidelines and that this is now the 2022 Guidelines.

10. Since then and having heard from the parties in relation to the 2022 Guidelines, the parties agree that the 2022 Guidelines are the relevant guidelines and are substantially consistent with the 2019 Guidelines.  The respondent points out in its submission of 25 October 2022 that the LHS was prepared in a manner consistent with cl 4.1 of the 2022 Guidelines.  The 'Statement of Significance' in the place record form of the LHS for The Manse refers to The Manse having cultural heritage significance due to it aesthetic value, historic value and social value.  The respondent notes that it may therefore be assumed that it is not listed for its rarity or representativeness.  Ms Kiperman submits that the place does not have to meet all criteria to be worthy of being listed.

11. While the applicant suggests that less weight should be given to Ms Kiperman's evidence because of the amendments to cl 4.1 of the 2019 Guidelines such that the 2022 Guidelines now refer only to the Burra Charter and not the HERCON factors, the respondent points out relevantly that Ms Kiperman in her witness statement[36] and in the joint statement of expert witnesses[37] addressed the Burra Charter in addition to the HERCON criteria consistent with cl 5.1 of both the 2019 Guidelines and 2022 Guidelines 'The inclusion of places on the LHS should be on the basis of cultural heritage significance as identified through a recognised assessment process' and the respondent submits that both the Burra Charter and the HERCON criteria are recognised assessment processes'.

    [36] Witness Statement of Ms Flavia Kiperman dated 26 May 2022, paras 17,18, 22 and 28.

    [37] Joint Statement of Expert Witnesses dated 15 June 2022, paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.

12. I prefer the evidence of Ms Kiperman because Ms Gray under cross­examination admitted that she was unaware of the 2019 Guidelines and the changed framework for assessment and failed in her statement to refer to the guidelines current at that time, or to acknowledge that the HERCON factors could be used as part of the 2019 Guidelines.

13. Therefore, the weight to be attributed to Ms Gray's evidence is impacted by what appeared to be the precursory manner in which her assessment was undertaken, her reliance on Mr Bodycoat's assessment and her reliance on outdated guidelines together with an absence of acknowledgement of current guidelines.

14. Having considered the evidence in relation to the significance of The Manse, I find I am persuaded by the evidence of Ms Kiperman that:

    (1)The Manse is of considerable cultural significance according to her assessment and the assessment and reviews undertaken as part of the MHI and LHS listing and reviews; and

    (2)that the cultural significance of The Manse has not diminished as a result of the changes to its context. 

15. This is also evident in the consistent Category B and Management Category 2 classification of The Manse through several iterations of the MHI from its adoption in 1995 and its review in 2008 and 2015 by Palassis Architects and LHS prepared by Heritage Architect Stephen Carrick in 2019 despite the changes to its context.  

16. The applicant contends that while there was some evidence provided by the respondent in relation to connection to community and that there was some agreement in relation to that connection being evident and one which related to the element of the community associated with the Congregational Church, the applicant says that that element is small.  Ms Gray contends that 'There is no demonstrated special attachment by the community, except for 1987, although that was more for the Church, certainly no sense of place and it is a symbolic landmark for the wrong reasons:  a remnant surrounding [sic] by expanses of concrete'.[38]

    [38] Witness Statement of Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray dated and signed 7 June 2022, para 29.

17. Ms Gray says that 'The Manse does not evidence social significance' but provides no justification and adduces no evidence to support this.  She goes onto say that 'The significance of the Manse has diminished to an irretrievable situation.  The impact of the setting is very significant and not conducive to retaining and/or adapting the Manse for any viable function'.  Ms Gray had not, prior to preparing her initial witness statement, attended the site and other than providing this statement, there is no evidence to support this position which appears to be at significant odds to the listings in the MHI and LHS in its many iterations over time and at odds to the evidence of Ms Kiperman and also Mr Holton and Mr Green who indicated in their witness statements and in evidence, that there is a strong connection of the community to The Manse.

18. Mr Holton says 'The history of the Congregational Church closely parallels that of Armadale, and The Manse has played a significant role in Armadale's history'.  He goes on to say that the Manse has a social significance to the Armadale community for its long association with the Congregational Church and more recently, as a popular restaurant operating for over 30 years.

19. Mr Green in relation to the community says that The Manse was possibly about to be demolished in 1987 along with the Congregational Church, its Hall and other outbuildings, but over 500 people were involved in saving two special buildings that are now part of the Minnawarra Historic Precinct.  Mr Green contends that the interest in The Manse is not a small group of the church community, it is a broader community interest and that opinion comes from being a long-term member of CHAG and a long-term member of the community.

20. While the applicant acknowledges that there was no alternative proposal submitted for the redevelopment of the subject land, its contention is nonetheless that there is no community benefit arising from The Manse and that the benefit to the community would be significantly improved by a redevelopment of the subject land consistent with the planning framework.

21. The respondent provided an encapsulated history of The Manse and its correlation to the broader story of the City of Armadale, linking the Armadale Congregational Church and its manse to the early growth of a town being opened up by the railways, the building of significant infrastructure and churches for the community and its new settlers.  The Catholic, Anglican and Congregational churches were all proposed in the vicinity of Church Avenue and the Congregational Church was built in 1903 to cater for the needs of the significant growth in population following the completion of the Claisebrook to Pinjarra Railway Line in the late 1890s.  The church then appointed John Elliot to design a new manse for the pastor and his family in 1906 in the then latest English Queen Anne revival building style and designed a number of residences of that style in Subiaco and North Perth.  The new manse was designed in this new Australian Federation bungalow style, but with Queen Anne influences in 1907.

22. The respondent contends that the Congregational church and its manse have always had strong community support, and that this was evidenced in the mid-1980s when the church needed to expand and relocate and the community banded together to save the church building itself from destruction such that it was relocated to Minnawarra Park, adjacent to the Armadale School Building and History Museum.  That now forms the centrepiece of Minnawarra Park and the city as a whole.

23. The respondent says that The Manse is a physical connection to the historic evolution of the City of Armadale and whilst the demolition of The Manse would not change the history of the site it would mean there is no longer a physical connection to the history.

24. The respondent, points out that the Burra Charter Practice Note says that social value refers to the associations that a place has for a particular community or cultural group and the social or cultural meanings that it holds for them, is often not well assessed and the guidance provided says that:

    Social value is the value of the place to the present community, and it is not the same as social history.  Historical research into past connections and users of a place can provide a useful foundation for understanding social values.

    A variety of social research methods can be used to help assess social value.  Generally these include direct engagement with the communities or cultural groups that have known associations with the place using established research techniques such as interviews, group discussions and surveys.[39]

    [39] Exhibit 20 Australian ICOMOS Incorporated Practice Note - Version 1 November 2013, pages 8 and 9.

25. The respondent submits that this process was undertaken through the process of establishing the LHS in arriving at the conclusion that The Manse has social value to the present community, as a required aspect of the methodology.  Ms Gray did not adduce evidence to suggest she had undertaken this or any similar process in coming to her position that The Manse was not valued by the present community. 

26. Mr Wallace challenged the expert nature of the evidence given by Mr Holton and Mr Green, because both witnesses are members of the CHAG and Mr Green is a member or a former member of the Congregational Church, therefore suggests that they may have an interest in the outcome of this review.  Mr Wallace submits that it is clear from pages 77 and 93 of the respondent's s 24 bundle of documents that both Mr Green and Mr Holton provided comment to this application to the City as part of the original development application, and the comment from Mr Green is in fact a passionate and a personal response to or against this application and refers to his personal connection.[40]

    [40] Respondent's s 24 Bundle of Documents, pages 77 and 93.

27. Mr Slarke says in relation to the weight to be given to the evidence of Mr Green and Mr Holton, that they clearly are relevant experts, both in relation to heritage architecture and for historic matters.  The fact that they are on the City's CHAG does not give rise to a conflict.  The CHAG is an advisory group which the City goes to when heritage matters arise.  He says that it is 'undoubtedly the case, though, that Mr Green has a personal connection to the place, and his evidence has to be considered and weight given to it keeping that in mind.  Mr Holton does not have the same direct connection, although he was involved in the relocation of the church'.[41]  Mr Slarke says that 'both Mr Green and Mr Holton gave, with respect, fair, well-considered evidence'. [42]

    [41] ts 308, 24 June 2022.

    [42] ts 308, 24 June 2022.

1. Both Mr Green and Mr Holton are suitably qualified in a relevant field of expertise, however the Tribunal recognises they made submissions and I accord some weight to their evidence.  In any event, my determination of this matter does not turn on this evidence.

1. In considering the evidence in relation to the social value of The Manse to the present community I find I am not persuaded by the applicant's evidence that there is no community support or connection to The Manse or that there is any community benefit in The Manse being demolished and replaced with a subsequent, as yet unknown, development.  I prefer the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and find that there is established evidence of the social value of The Manse to the present community.

•       the feasibility of restoring or adapting it, or incorporating it into new development

1. Firstly, the applicant submits that the building cannot readily be used for a residential use.  There was no compelling evidence adduced as to why the building could not be modified to return to its original residential use if that was the desired outcome.  That having been said, the respondent has not sought to have the building returned to residential use and it is unclear why the applicant's witness has placed such focus on returning the building to a residential use.

2. Ms Gray opines that The Manse is not suitable to be used for residential purposes.  She says that there have been substantial works undertaken which would require significant reinstatement to achieve residential use of The Manse.  Ms Gray does not consider other options but concludes regardless that any further work to the building will further diminish the heritage value of The Manse and that it is therefore better to demolish it.

3. Ms Gray also submits that The Manse is not suitable for adaptive reuse.  She says that 'The Manse does not evidence social significance' and contends that 'any further adaption to the place will further impact the already diminished authenticity of the fabric and not result in an honest understanding or interpretation of what the place supposedly represents'.[43]

   [43] Witness Statement of Ms Laura Gwendolyn Gray dated and signed 7 June 2022, paras 35 and 36.

4. Ms Gray considers that an opportunity to interpret the history of the place could be generated by the demolition of The Manse by 'the involvement of the interested community, in a more meaningful and positive manner than is evident in the existing building and its intrusive setting'.  However, no details of how that might be achieved are provided by the applicant.

5. Secondly, the applicant contends that the adaptive reuse or development with retention of The Manse is not feasible, but no further design or other analysis or justification has been adduced in evidence to support this argument.

6. Mr Hidding considers that adaptive reuse or incorporation of The Manse into the redevelopment of the subject land is likely to be costly, and in terms of its acceptability in terms of the planning framework, is somewhat difficult.  The applicant says that the planning framework contemplates a different form of aspirational development for the site that would mean that the existing building is inconsistent with the intended future built form.

7. Mr Hidding submits that restoring or adapting The Manse in such a way that it would be consistent with the design objectives of SPP 3.5 and all other relevant planning controls would not be feasible, particularly commercially.  He also acknowledges that incorporating The Manse into a new development in a manner consistent with the planning framework may be possible, however there is no development application for the redevelopment of the subject land for the Tribunal to consider.  He says that given the draft Structure Plan requires development to achieve a minimum height of three storeys and maximum height of six storeys with a 4 metre setback to Church avenue and preferred uses for the precinct of Shop, Office, Tavern, Restaurant, Small Bar, Cinema/Theatre and Hotel, it would be difficult to achieve the built form and car parking requirements for the preferred uses whilst retaining The Manse.  The applicant has however not adduced evidence to demonstrate this.

8. The applicant refers the Tribunal to Paz and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 157(Paz) at [53]-[55] inclusive drawing parallels to that decision which was in relation to a Federation heritage dwelling constructed in the early 1900s albeit it was located in a Residential zoned heritage precinct. The applicant says this is a relevant case as the Tribunal found that in that case it would be difficult to adapt the existing dwelling to meet contemporary residential living standards and whether it was feasible to do so.

9. That decision was based on the dwelling not being suitable for contemporary residential living and that 'any adaptation was not only likely to impinge on the heritage value of the dwelling but would not meet any reasonable expectations in terms of contemporary living standards or in fact a number of requirements of the current planning provisions for residential development'.[44] 

   [44] Paz at [5].

10. While the returning of The Manse to a residential use may have been the focus of Ms Gray in her evidence, where despite having only viewed the building from the outside, she opines that this could not be undertaken without impacting negatively on the heritage integrity of The Manse.  Ms Gray concentrated on the returning of The Manse to residential use and did not consider any other uses.

11. Ms Kiperman was not of the same opinion and having undertaken an internal and external assessment of the site, concluded that The Manse was suitable for adaptive reuse.

12. If it was the case that a residential use was the preferred use under the planning framework for the subject land, as in the case of Paz, this decision may have had more relevance to the Tribunal's deliberations, however given the zoning of the subject land, The Manse could be used for a multitude of other uses which may be appropriate for the building.  Other possible uses were not explored by the applicant.

13. The respondent says that the definition of 'feasibility' in the Macquarie Dictionary is 'capable of being done, effected or accomplished'.  Mr Algeri contends that The Manse is capable of adaptive reuse or incorporation into a new development incorporating its built heritage form.  He says that the heritage considerations are articulated clearly and unequivocally under cl 4.2.5 Heritage of the draft Structure Plan including that, where possible, Category B (now Category 2 buildings in the LHS) are to be accorded a high level of protection.  He asserts that it is his understanding that a high level of protection would require that The Manse should be conserved for adaptive re-use.

14. Mr Algeri opines that the feasibility of restoration or adaptation is not in doubt.  The respondent has identified The Manse as being a place suitable for adaptive reuse and provides incentives under the draft Structure Plan to encourage the retention of the heritage place as part of development.  Development incentives for retention of heritage places are also included in cl 5.1 of LPP 3.8.

15. Ms Kiperman sees no impediment to adaptive reuse of The Manse, she contends that:

    In this case I do not believe that the circumstances provide a clear justification for demolition of the Manse.  The Property retains cultural heritage significance at the local level which justifies its classification of Considerable Significance, and I am not aware of any reason why the building could not be conserved and put to an adaptive reuse.[45]

    [45] Witness statement of Ms Flavia Boghossian Kiperman dated 26 May 2022, para 21.

16. Ms Kiperman concludes in her Heritage assessment that:

    •Retention of the building is highly recommended with the assistance of a heritage architect specialised in adaptive re-use of heritage buildings.  There are many other successful cases in Western Australia that can be used as benchmark.

    •Heritage interpretation is highly encouraged, highlighting connections to Aboriginal cultural heritage in the area, the Federation Bungalow style of architecture, its association with the Armadale Congregational Church and pastor's residence, and important people that frequented the area[.][46]

    [46] Respondents s 24 Bundle of Documents dated 13 April 2022, page 119.

17. On the evidence I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that The Manse cannot be adaptively reused, and it has also not demonstrated that The Manse cannot be incorporated into the proposed redevelopment of the site.  Rather, the applicant has simply gesticulated without supporting evidence, that incorporation of The Manse into a redevelopment of the subject land (and the adjacent land owned by the applicant) would be difficult and not commercially viable.  Further, I am not persuaded that recognition of the considerable significance of The Manse could be achieved more appropriately by demolishing and reinterpreting its heritage in an undescribed manner rather than retaining the building. 

18. Adaptive reuse is common practice for heritage listed buildings whereby they are appropriately modified and adapted to achieve a new use that ensures the building is maintained through use for future generations.  I find I cannot reasonably come to the conclusion on the evidence before me that the building is not suitable for adaptive reuse.  The applicant's position is difficult to understand given that the place has been adaptively reused for over three decades and there is no evidence adduced that conservation of the building means that it needs to return to its original use and no evidence to support the applicant's contention that there are impediments to the retention of The Manse as part of redevelopment.  Further there is no feasibility study or similar to demonstrate to the Tribunal that retention is not feasible.

19. Therefore, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that The Manse cannot be retained as part of redevelopment or that The Manse cannot be adaptively reused. 

•       The structural condition of the place, and whether the place is reasonably capable of conservation.

1. The respondent asserts that there is no evidence that the building is structurally unsound and this is not disputed by the applicant or the evidence of the witnesses.  I therefore find that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, from the perspective of structural soundness the building is reasonably capable of conservation.

•       The extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment

1. In considering this element and the extent to which the proposed redevelopment of the subject land would benefit the community, it is noted that no evidence was adduced by the applicant in relation to the future redevelopment of the site, other than to discuss generally the possibilities under the planning framework and in particular the draft Structure Plan.  There is currently no development application to be considered by the Tribunal in relation to the future development.

2. Mr Algeri says that the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment of the subject land cannot be assessed as there is no development application for the decision-maker to assess.  He asserts that 'there are ample opportunities for redevelopment on other sites within the Armadale town centre and therefore any assessment of community benefit would be quite speculative'.[47]

   [47] Witness Statement of Mr Joe Algeri dated and signed 31 May 2022, para 91(c).

3. In considering whether the community would benefit from proposed redevelopment of the site, which the applicant considers requires the demolition of The Manse, I find that in the absence of any plans for the proposed redevelopment of the site to provide clarity as to the likely outcome, I agree with the evidence of Mr Algeri and can see no benefit to the community in the demolition of The Manse.

Weight to be accorded to the draft Structure Plan

1. The Tribunal in Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40; (2005) 149 LGERA 117 (Nicholls) at [40]­[59] stated the principles in relation to the consideration of amendments to local planning schemes and other 'seriously entertained planning proposals' or as described now in cl 67(2)(b) of the deemed provisions 'any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving'. In Nicholls at [45] the Tribunal stated as follows:

   45.It appears that, when a draft planning instrument or policy or a draft amendment to a planning instrument or policy is raised for consideration in relation to a subdivision or development application, the planning consent authority or appeal tribunal must undertake four stages of inquiry.  The four stages are as follows:

   (1)In jurisdictions where there is no statutory requirement to take into consideration a draft planning instrument or policy or a draft amendment to a planning instrument or policy once it has reached a certain specified stage, the authority or tribunal must consider whether the draft constitutes a seriously-entertained planning proposal.  If it determines that it is a seriously-entertained planning proposal, it is a relevant matter for consideration in relation to the planning assessment.

   (2)If the draft is a relevant matter for consideration, the authority or tribunal must consider the extent to which the application before it is consistent with the planning objective or planning approach embodied or reflected in the draft. In particular, the authority or tribunal must consider whether the approval of the application is likely to impair the effective achievement of the planning objective or planning approach embodied or reflected in the draft or is likely to render more difficult the ultimate decision as to whether the draft should be made or its ultimate form.

   (3)The authority or tribunal must consider the weight to be accorded to the consistency or otherwise between the application and the draft.

   (4)The authority or tribunal must weigh its conclusions in relation to the foregoing matters in the balance along with all other relevant considerations relating to the application, and determine whether, in light of all relevant considerations, it is appropriate in the exercise of planning discretion to grant approval to the application and, if so, subject to what conditions.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the Nicholls principles in Terra Spei Pty Ltd and Shire of Kalamunda [2015] WASAT 134 (Terra Spei Pty Ltd and Shire of Kalamunda) at [198] - [206] following the introduction of the deemed provisions into local planning schemes and states at [202]­[206]:

   202The first stage of the four stage inquiry described in Nicholls at [45] has also been overtaken in relation to development assessment under a local planning scheme in Western Australia by cl 67(b) of the deemed provisions in the case of 'any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving'. Although the words 'is seriously considering adopting or approving' clearly hark back to the well-known expression in planning law of a 'seriously-entertained planning proposal', given that there is now a legislative expression of the concept, it is the legislative expression ('is seriously considering adopting or approving') that must be applied, not the former expression ('seriously-entertained planning proposal').

   203The term 'planning instrument' is unfortunately not defined in the deemed provisions. The term 'planning instrument' is defined in reg 77 of the LPS Regulations for the purposes of Pt 9 of the LPS Regulations which contains repeal and transitional provisions. That definition is as follows:

   planning instrument means any of the following instruments -

   (a)a consolidation of a local planning scheme;

   (b)an activity centre plan;

   (c)a development contribution plan;

   (d)a local development plan;

   (e)a local planning policy;

   (f)a local planning scheme;

   (g)a local planning strategy;

   (h)a structure plan;

   (i)an amendment to an instrument referred to in paragraph (b) to (h)[.]

   204However, the definition of 'planning instrument' for the purposes of Pt 9 of the LPS Regulations, while contextually relevant, does not apply for the purposes of cl 67(b) of the deemed provisions for two reasons. First, reg 77 states that the definition applies '[i]n this Part' and does not extend the definition to the deemed provisions. Secondly, cl 67(b) of the deemed provisions specifically refers to 'any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving' (emphasis added), whereas a local government does not have any role in adopting or approving an activity centre plan, a development contribution plan or a structure plan. In terms of the list of 'planning instruments' in reg 77 of the LPS Regulations, the only planning instruments that a local government has the role of adopting (other than a local planning scheme or an amendment) or approving are a local development plan and a local planning policy. However, deriving contextual assistance in the interpretation of the expression 'planning instrument' in cl 67(b) of the deemed provisions from reg 77 of the LPS Regulations (of which the deemed provisions are Sch 2), in our view, the expression 'planning instrument' in cl 67(b) of the deemed provisions refers to a local development plan and a local planning policy.

   205In relation to the third stage of the four stage inquiry described by the Tribunal in Nicholls at [45] ('the weight to be accorded to the consistency or otherwise between the application and the draft'), having reviewed authorities in Western Australia and New South Wales, the Tribunal said in Nicholls at [59] that the authorities 'together identify the four principal criteria which should be utilised to determine the weight which should appropriately be given to a draft planning instrument or policy or a draft amendment to such an instrument or policy in a planning assessment or appeal'. The Tribunal then said:

   These criteria are:

   (1)The degree to which the draft addresses the specific application.

   (2)The degree to which the draft is based on sound town planning principles.

   (3)The degree to which its ultimate approval could be regarded as 'certain'.

   (4)The degree to which its ultimate approval could be regarded as 'imminent'.

   206These four criteria have been referred to and applied in many decisions of this Tribunal in the decade since Nicholls. The four criteria remain the principal criteria to be applied when the planning consent authority or the Tribunal on review is required under cl 67(b) of the deemed provisions to have 'due regard' to a proposed local planning scheme or amendment to the applicable local planning scheme that has been advertised under the LPS Regulations or to any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving. However, the list of criteria or considerations in relation to weight is not closed. Other considerations may be relevant in a particular case.[48]

   [48] Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission, Re [2005] WASAT 40; (2005) 149 LGERA 117 (Nicholls) at [40], the Coty principle 'has been followed or applied in a large number of cases, including in each Australian State'.

3. In regard to the draft Structure Plan the respondent advised the Tribunal that the intention of the draft Structure Plan is to provide the detailed planning contemplated by LPS 4 cl 3.2.11(b) and that now that Amendment 103 has been gazetted.  The City is finalising modifications to the draft Structure plan to include modifications as a direct consequence of Amendment 103 and also modifications required as a consequence of the Armadale Station being redeveloped as with a viaduct design rather than an underground station and that there are no modifications proposed with respect to the heritage provisions of the draft Structure Plan 'other than (as foreshadowed at the final hearing), in the Legend to the Figure at page 49 where it says "Heritage building:  conserved for adaptive re-use, ideally within activated alfresco dining plaza" the words "ideally within activated alfresco dining plaza" are to be removed entirely'.  It is the intention of the City to present the draft Structure Plan to the WAPC for approval within the next three to six months.

1. The respondent submits that the Tribunal can have a high degree of confidence that the approval of the draft Structure Plan by the WAPC is reasonably imminent and certain given:

   (a)the WAPC has already considered the draft Structure Plan and offered preliminary comments on it;

   (b)the WAPC recommended that the Design Guidelines be incorporated into the draft Structure Plan;

   (c)the WAPC did not suggest that any of the provisions of the draft Structure Plan or Design Guidelines concerning heritage matters should be modified; and

   (d)the draft Structure Plan was the catalyst for Amendment 103, which has now been gazetted.[49]

   [49] Respondent's Submissions in reply to the Applicant's Submissions dated 15 February 2023, para 9.

2. The respondent asserts that '[t]he Tribunal should therefore afford weight to the draft Structure Plan provisions which indicate The Manse should be conserved and adapted for re-use' and that in terms of cl 67(2) of the deemed provisions, which requires consideration of whether approval of the proposal would be consistent with orderly and proper planning submits that it would not be consistent where: ^[50]

   …

   (a)it is allocated the level of 'considerable' significance by the Local Heritage Survey;

   (b)it is on the Heritage List kept pursuant to LPS4;

   (c)it would be contrary to the objectives of SPP 3.5, and with its development control principle that demolition of a heritage place should be avoided wherever possible;

   (d)it would be contrary to Local Planning Policy 3.8; and

   (e)it would be contrary to the draft Structure Plan.[51]

   [50] Respondent's Submissions in reply to the Applicant's Submissions dated 15 February 2023, paras 11 and 12.

   [51] Respondent's Submissions dated 28 February in reply to the Applicant's Submissions dated 15 February 2023, para 11.

3. The respondent contends that whilst the draft Structure Plan contemplates significant development in the city centre, it also contemplates the retention of heritage places and The Manse is one of the heritage places specifically identified for retention.  The draft Structure Plan also provides incentives for incorporation of these heritage places into new development. 

4. The respondent accepts that the proposed application if approved would not prejudice the overall development potential of the area but submits that any subsequent development of the subject land would not be in accordance with the draft Structure Plan as it would not include the conservation and adaptive reuse of the Manse.  The respondent also seeks to reiterate its submissions at the final hearing that:

   … the draft Structure Plan clearly encourages the retention of heritage listed buildings generally, and The Manse specifically through its identification in the City Centre Core Precinct Guidelines.  There is nothing whatsoever in the draft Structure Plan to suggest that redevelopment should take place at the expense of The Manse or any other heritage building.  The opposite is the case.  Redevelopment is encouraged, but subject to redevelopment responding to the heritage values of Armadale and promoting and facilitating appropriate and sensitive adaptive re-use of heritage buildings.[52]

   [52] Respondent's Submissions dated 28 February in reply to the Applicant's Submissions dated 15 February 2023, para 6.

5. The applicant made submissions dated 15 February 2023 in which it details the amendments that are relevant to the application under review and these are agreed by the respondent in its submission of 28 February 2023:

   Draft Structure Plan

   14The Applicant submits that Amendment 103 seeks to amend the Respondent's LPS4 to facilitate the intent of the draft Structure Plan and provide complementary zoning provisions for the land identified within the draft Structure Plan area.

   15The draft Structure Plan prescribes the basis for future detailed planning in the "Strategic Regional Centre" zone, contemplated by clause 3.2.11(b) of LPS4.

6. The applicant submits that the 'amendments to the draft Structure Plan (albeit minor in nature) do not change the substance of the applicant's submission in this proceeding, nor require additional evidence to be adduced by the parties'.

7. The applicant contends that McDonald's Australia Limited and Presiding Member of the Metropolitan Central Joint Development Assessment Panel [2015] WASAT 146 at [107] (McDonald's case) is relevant in this case, and submits that 'the Tribunal found that in the exercise of planning discretion, where a proposal is inconsistent with a planning objective or planning approach reflected in a draft statutory planning document, such an inconsistency should mean that the draft statutory planning document should only be accorded limited weight in the circumstances'.[53]  The applicant is at pains to reiterate its contention that 'any perceived inconsistency with the Design Guidelines proposed at cl 4.2.5 of the draft Structure Plan does not bind the Tribunal to refuse the proposed demolition application'.[54]  The applicant further contends that as the draft Structure plan seeks through its objectives to intensify the retail and related services and 'the conservation of the Manse through the refusal of the proposed demolition application does not meet the objectives of the City Core Centre precinct and the intent of the draft Structure Plan', that the Design Guidelines at cl 4.2.5 of the draft Structure Plan does not bind the Tribunal to refuse the proposed demolition application and argues that 'the demolition of places listed on the LHS is not expressly prohibited, rather it provides flexibility and discretion for such an approval to be considered on its merits'. 

   [53] Applicant's Submissions in respect of Changes to Planning Framework dated 15 February 2023, para 30.

   [54] Applicant's Submissions in respect of Changes to Planning Framework dated 15 February 2023, para 31.

8. While the applicant accepts that the draft Structure Plan identifies the heritage significance of The Manse, they assert that the heritage significance of the site can be achieved by means other than retention of the existing built form but does not provide details of that means other than to say that it can be dealt with as a condition of approval. 

9. The applicant submits that the draft Structure Plan does not mandate the conservation and adaptive reuse of The Manse and, while no application or details for the subsequent development have been submitted for consideration, maintains that the subsequent development of the site would be capable of addressing the objectives and development controls contained in the draft Structure Plan and that  the retention of The Manse will not result in the subject site achieving the ambitious significant degree of development proposed by the draft Structure Plan.

10. In the McDonald's case, which was specifically in regard to the drive­through component of a fast-food outlet being inconsistent with the provisions of the draft local planning scheme, the Tribunal applied limited weight to the proposed scheme provisions for the following reasons:

    (1)there remained significant confusion and uncertainty about the ultimate relevant form of the draft local planning scheme;

    (2)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the prohibition of drive­through facilities in all fast food outlets in all neighbourhood centres was based on sound planning principles; and

    (3)the Tribunal was unaware of the view of the Minister for Planning, or even of the Commission, in relation to the proposed prohibition of fast food outlets containing a drive­through component on the site, and it could not be said that the ultimate approval of draft LPS 6 incorporating such a prohibition in relation to the site is reasonably certain or reasonably imminent.[55]

    [55] McDonald's case at [102]­[106].

11. Whilst the draft Structure Plan may not be a draft planning instrument that the local government is considering approving, as discussed in Terra Spei Pty Ltd and Shire of Kalamunda, if it is considered to have relevant weight it is relevant to the consideration of whether the proposed development is consistent with orderly and proper planning.  I find that I am persuaded by the submission of the respondent that significant weight should be given to the draft Structure Plan in this case as:

    (1)the draft Structure Plan specifically addresses The Manse which is the subject of this application;

    (2)there is no evidence adduced that the draft Structure Plan is not based on sound planning principles;

    (3)as the draft Structure Plan was the catalyst for Amendment 103 which introduces the draft Structure Plan into LPS 4, has been reviewed by the WAPC and no changes are proposed to the heritage provisions, its approval is regarded as substantially certain; and

    (4)as informed by the respondent the draft Structure Plan is likely to be presented to the WAPC for its consideration for approval within the next six months, it is regarded as reasonably imminent.

12. In this case, for the reasons discussed in the paragraph above, I find that the draft Structure Plan is considered to be reasonably certain and reasonably imminent, and that this case is distinguishable from the McDonald's case.  The draft Structure Plan should therefore be given considerable weight in this case.

13. I am persuaded that that the proposed application is not consistent with the planning objectives of the draft Structure Plan including the objective to reinforce the unique character of Armadale, nor is it consistent with the draft Structure plan expressly seeking retention and adaptive reuse of The Manse.

14. While the Tribunal is fully cognisant it has discretion to consider demolition subject to the considerations required by cl 67(2) of the deemed provisions, I find that the retention of The Manse rather than being inconsistent with a planning objective or planning approach reflected in a draft statutory planning document, is contemplated by the draft Structure Plan. It is therefore for the applicant to demonstrate why the Manse cannot be retained, adaptively reused or incorporated into future redevelopment of the site and the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that The Manse cannot and should not be retained.

15. On balance having considered all the matters the Tribunal is required to take into consideration in the exercise of its discretion I am satisfied on the evidence that the structure plan meets the four criteria and significant weight should be accorded to this document.

16. Pursuant to cl 27(2) of the deemed provisions I am not satisfied given there is a draft structure plan that should be accorded significant weight that it is appropriate to exercise discretion to approve the proposed demolition of The Manse in this case and therefore that the application warrants refusal.

Conclusion

1. The purpose of this review, under s 27(2) of the SAT Act, is 'to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review' and the Tribunal in considering the material before it must form its own view, in the exercise of discretion, as to whether development approval should be granted for the proposed development in this case.

2. The Tribunal, having considered the substantial merits of this case, taking into account the planning framework and having due regard to the relevant matters for consideration specified in cl 67(2) of the deemed provisions, considers the proposed development warrants refusal in the exercise of discretion. The application for review is dismissed and the decision of the respondent dated 3 November 2021 is affirmed.

Orders

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

   The Tribunal orders:

   1.The application for review is dismissed.

   2.The decision of the respondent is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

MS R Lavery, MEMBER

23 JUNE 2023