Puma Energy Australia and City Of Cockburn

The matter before the court involved Puma Energy Australia, the applicant, seeking development approval for a petrol station and convenience store in the City of Cockburn. The City of Cockburn opposed the application, leading to a dispute over several legal issues, including the necessity of consent from the owners of adjoining properties, the classification of the use under the local planning scheme, and the acceptability of the development concerning traffic safety, convenience, amenity, noise, gas, odour, and risk. The case reached the Tribunal, which had to decide whether the application could proceed without the adjoining property owners' consent, whether the use was correctly classified, and whether the development could be approved despite a lack of specific technical analyses or scientific studies.

The Tribunal examined the legal framework governing development applications, including the deemed provisions and the local planning scheme. It found that Clause 67 of the deemed provisions was inconsistent with Clause 10.2 of the local planning scheme because both provisions sought to provide an exhaustive set of considerations for development approval. As a result, Clause 67 of the deemed provisions prevailed over Clause 10.2 of the local planning scheme to the extent of the inconsistency, effectively replacing it. The Tribunal determined that in considering the development application, it was required to have due regard to the matters set out in Clause 67 of the deemed provisions, including the aims and provisions of the local planning scheme, any approved State planning policy, environmental protection policies, and the compatibility of the development with its setting.

The Tribunal concluded that the development application could proceed without the adjoining property owners' consent and that the use was correctly classified as a 'convenience store' and a 'petrol filling station' under the local planning scheme. The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect traffic safety, convenience, amenity, noise, gas, odour, or risk. The Tribunal approved the development application, subject to certain conditions.