RA ADAM FAMILY TRUST and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
[2010] WASAT 88
•21 JUNE 2010
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: RA ADAM FAMILY TRUST and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2010] WASAT 88
MEMBER: MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
HEARD: 15 JUNE 2010
DELIVERED : 21 JUNE 2010
FILE NO/S: DR 24 of 2010
BETWEEN: RA ADAM FAMILY TRUST
Applicant
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Two lot subdivision of Rural zoned land - Proposed lot sizes 77.5 hectares and 80.5 hectares - Whether subdivision is to be assessed as a 'super lot' subdivision of land identified for future urban purposes or as the subdivision of rural land - Land classified as 'Area for Immediate Detailed Investigation for Development and/or Protection' and identified for 'Public Purposes' in draft sub-regional structure plan - Department of Planning proposed that land be identified for 'Future Urban' in revised draft sub-regional structure plan - Identification of land in revised draft sub-regional structure plan not known at date of review - Part of land identified for 'Potential Special Residential' development in local rural strategy - Special Residential lots between 0.2 hectare and 1 hectare with 'semi-rural character' - Whether each proposed allotment is a 'useful tradeable parcel of land'
Legislation:
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 135, s 251(1)
Shire of Murray Town Planning Scheme No 4
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(2)
Result:
Subdivision approval granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr B Robinson (Representative)
Respondent: Mr J Algeri (Representative)
Solicitors:
Applicant: Peel Planning Consultants (Town Planners)
Respondent: Algeri Planning & Appeals (Town Planners)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Maher and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 129
Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40; (2005) 149 LGERA 117
Sharp and Western Australian Planning Commission [2010] WASAT 12
Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 63; (2004) 221 CLR 30
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
This case concerned an application to subdivide a Rural zoned property into two lots of approximately 77.5 hectares and 80.5 hectares. A threshold issue was whether the proposed subdivision was to be assessed as a 'super lot' subdivision of land identified for future urban purposes or, alternatively, as the subdivision of rural land. The second issue for determination was whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with orderly and proper planning.
The Tribunal determined that, at the date of its decision, the land was not identified for urban purposes under the strategic or statutory planning framework. Consequently, the subdivision application was to be assessed as a two lot rural subdivision.
The Tribunal found that the proposed subdivision is consistent with orderly and proper planning. The subdivision would create lots which are consistent with the size of lots used for farming in the locality and allow for continued broadacre farming. The proposed subdivision does not involve the loss of rural character through fragmentation of rural land. Furthermore, the proposed lots comfortably satisfy the minimum 40 hectare site area and the intent of the lot size control in the local rural strategy.
The subdivision application was, therefore, approved.
Site and locality
RA Adam Family Trust (Trust) is the registered proprietor of Lot 330 Murray Location 14, Pinjarra Road, Ravenswood (site). The site is a 160 hectare rural property located between the Ravenswood and Pinjarra townsites in the Shire of Murray (Shire), approximately 3.8 kilometres northwest of the Pinjarra Central Business District. The site is bounded by Pinjarra Road to the southwest, Adam Road and the small urban community of Murray Bend to the west, the Murray River to the northwest, north and northeast, and rural land that is zoned Urban to the southeast.
The site is used as a cattle farm. It is substantially cleared with the exception of a 20 hectare area of remnant vegetation located centrally and a 7 hectare Environmental Protection Policy Lake (including fringing vegetation). Approximately half of the site is within the 1:100 year floodway of the Murray River.
Approximately 136 hectares of the site is zoned Rural under the Peel Region Scheme (PRS) and the Shire of Murray Town Planning Scheme No 4 (TPS 4). A strip of land adjoining the Murray River with an area of approximately 24 hectares is reserved for Regional Open Space under the PRS with a corresponding reservation under TPS 4. Approximately 2,000 square metres adjoining Pinjarra Road is reserved as Primary Regional Roads under the PRS with a corresponding reservation under TPS 4.
On 2 April 2009, the Western Australian Planning Commission (Commission) approved the excision of a 2 hectare lot from the site. The 2 hectare lot fronts Murray Bend to the south and the Murray River to the west.
In June 2009, the Commission advertised the draft Southern Metropolitan and Peel SubRegional Structure Plan (draft SP). The draft SP contains an Urban Growth Management Strategy (UGMS) that 'seeks to provide clear policy guidance by identifying specific land areas where State and local government investment in infrastructure is to be focused, and where the rezoning, release and redevelopment of land for urban or other purposes is to be either encouraged or discouraged'. This guidance is to be provided by the UGMS by identifying land as within one of three classifications, namely:
•'Areas Under Immediate Detailed Investigation for Development and/or Protection';
•'Areas Under Further Investigation'; and
•'Areas Not Under Consideration for Urban Development'.
Figure 2 of the draft SP includes the site within the classification 'Areas Under Immediate Detailed Investigation for Development and/or Protection'. Figure 7 of the draft SP identifies the part of the site outside the floodway as being for 'Public Purposes'. A potential Public Purposes use contemplated for this part of the site is a university campus.
Proposed subdivision
On 5 October 2009, the Trust lodged an application with the Commission to subdivide the remaining 158 hectares of the site into two lots. Proposed Lot A has an area of 77.5391 hectares and is located in the southern part of the site with frontages to Pinjarra Road and Adam Road. Proposed Lot B has an area of 80.52106 hectares and is located in the northern part of the site with a frontage to Adam Road. The proposed common boundary between Lot A and Lot B follows an existing fence line which was established on the basis of suitable site conditions for farming. The proposed boundary line is clear of vegetation with fire breaks located on either side. The subdivision application identified the proposed land use of each of the lots as continuing the current use of 'Rural Cattle Farm'.
The Commission consulted the Shire and other authorities in relation to the subdivision application. By letter dated 22 October 2009, the Shire's Acting Manager Planning Services informed the Commission that:
The subdivision as proposed is not supported by an Officer of the Shire of Murray exercising delegated authority for the following reasons:
1.The proposal is considered to be premature at this stage and further investigation is needed to investigate future land use and development outcomes for the locality.
2.Fragmentation of the land at this time would compromise the orderly and proper planning of the area.
3.The Shire is not convinced that the proposed boundary between proposed Lot 'A' and 'Balance of Title' reflects the true nature of environmental features on the property. Further investigation is required in terms of the boundaries of wet land buffer and flood prone areas in order to ascertain those boundaries.
However, at its meeting held on 27 May 2010, the elected Council resolved (by a majority of five to four) 'to support the proposed two lot subdivision of Lot 330 Pinjarra Road, Ravenswood'. In doing so, the Council rejected the Committee recommendation to not support the proposed subdivision 'as it considered that support for the proposed subdivision was consistent with the current zoning of the area and also in the interests of its ratepayers'.
Western Power, the Water Corporation, Main Roads WA, the Department of Water and the Department of Environment and Conservation did not object to the proposed subdivision.
On 24 December 2009, the Commission refused to grant approval for the proposed subdivision for the following reason:
The land is identified for Public Purposes in the draft Southern Metropolitan and Peel Regions SubRegional Structure Plan and tentatively identified for more intensive development in the Shire of Murray Local Rural Strategy. Subdivision of the land in the absence of further detailed planning may prejudice future planning outcomes for this land.
On 22 January 2010, the Trust sought review of this decision by the Tribunal under s 251(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act).
Issues for determination
The following two issues arise for determination in this review:
1)Whether the proposed subdivision is to be assessed as a 'super lot' subdivision on land identified for future urban purposes or as a subdivision of rural land.
2)Whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with orderly and proper planning.
The Tribunal will address each of these issues in turn.
Is the proposed subdivision of land identified for future urban purposes or of rural land?
Clause 3.4.1 of the Commission's Development Control Policy 1.1 Subdivision of Land General Principles (DC 1.1) states as follows:
There is a presumption against 'super lot' subdivision of landholdings which are identified or zoned for future urban purposes and which are already of a size suitable for that purpose (ie generally less than 150 hectares) where this could prejudice the orderly and proper planning of the land.
The parties identified a threshold issue as to whether the proposed subdivision is to be assessed as a 'super lot' subdivision of land identified for future urban purposes or, alternatively, as the subdivision of rural land. The Commission contended that, in the words of Mr Dale Sanderson, a Senior Planning Officer with the Department of Planning, 'the land has been identified for urban development, and therefore, the application is a premature super lot subdivision application', contrary to cl 3.4.1 of DC 1.1. In contrast, Mr Brian Robinson, a consultant town planner who gave evidence on behalf of the Trust, considered that the site is not identified in any strategic or statutory planning document available to the public for future urban purposes. The parties agreed, however, that in the event that the site is not relevantly identified for future urban purposes, then it is to be assessed as a rural subdivision.
The Commission advanced four principal submissions in support of its contention that the land is identified for future urban purposes. First, the Commission argued that the land is identified for future urban purposes because it is classified by the UGMS in the draft SP as within 'Areas Under Immediate Detailed Investigation for Development and/or Protection'. Mr Sanderson gave evidence that 'the principal focus within areas identified for "detailed investigation", and to a lesser extent, areas under "further investigation", is for urban related uses or protection for a public purpose'. He said that this is 'particularly evident when compared to areas "not under investigation", which is where the majority of land to be protected for agriculture will be found'. Mr Sanderson considered that the identification of the site for 'detailed investigation' in the UGMS constitutes:
a turning point from which policies designed to guide the determination of rural proposals can no longer be presumed to be the basis for considering this proposal, as the land has moved beyond its purely rural past, and the possibility of some form or urban related use on the developable part of the land is now a seriouslyentertained planning proposal.
However, as Mr Joe Algeri, who appeared as agent on behalf of the Commission, conceded, the classification of the site in the UGMS involves an investigative process. The investigative process will determine whether the site or part of it will be identified for future urban or other purposes. As noted earlier, the site is currently identified on Figure 7 of the draft SP for Public Purposes, rather than Future Urban or even Urban Investigation. The investigative process contemplated by the UGMS classification may determine that the site or part of it should continue to be identified for Public Purposes or should be identified as Urban Investigation, protection or even retained as Rural. The site is, therefore, not identified for future urban purposes under the current draft SP.
Secondly, the Commission relied on the recommendation made by the Department of Planning to it that it should amend Figure 7 of the draft SP to remove the Public Purposes designation of the site and substitute Future Urban designation. However, Mr Sanderson was unable to indicate whether the Commission has accepted the Department's recommendation. He said that this will not be known until the draft SP is revised and further advertised for public submissions in one to two months' time.
The purpose of this review is 'to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review': s 27(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). At the time of the decision upon the review, and until the draft SP is publicly advertised with Figure 7 amended to classify the site as Future Urban, rather than Public Purposes, there is not even a seriouslyentertained planning proposal expressed in the draft SP identifying the site for future urban purposes: see Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40; (2005) 149 LGERA 117 (Nicholls) at [46] [47]. Had there been a seriouslyentertained planning proposal expressed in the draft SP, then the Tribunal would have had to consider what weight to accord to that proposal, having regard to the considerations identified in Nicholls at [59], namely:
(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'.
However, as the amendment of Figure 7 to classify the site as Future Urban is not a seriouslyentertained planning proposal at the date of the review, the question of what weight to accord such a proposal does not arise.
Thirdly, the Commission submitted that the land is identified for future urban purposes by the Shire of Murray Local Rural Strategy (LRS) which is a planning strategy endorsed by both the Shire and the Commission. The site is located within Precinct 7 Ravenswood under the LRS. Page 83 of the LRS contains a map of Precinct 7 with handdrawn markings identifying areas for 'Potential Special Residential' and 'Potential Special Rural'. Relevantly, there is an oval shaped handdrawn marking identifying 'Potential Special Residential' over part of the site. Mr Sanderson and Mr Robinson agreed that this handdrawn marking is an 'indicative' or 'notional' marking. Mr Sanderson estimated that the area within the oval marking over part of the site on page 83 of the LRS is approximately 45 hectares. However, Table 4 on page 141 of the LRS sets out 'salient features' of the Potential Special Residential area on part of the site as including:
22 ha, not flood prone;
As Mr Robinson said, while the plan at page 83 of the LRS contains an indicative or notional marking, Table 4 is specific in terms of the area. When page 83 and page 141 of the LRS are read together, it is apparent that the area of the site identified for Potential Special Residential is limited to only 22 hectares within the indicative or notional marking over part of the site shown on page 83. There is no basis in the LRS to extend the Potential Special Residential to the whole of the site or even to the whole of the site outside the floodway, as Mr Sanderson sought to do.
Furthermore, Special Residential for the purposes of the LRS is not 'future urban purposes' within the meaning of cl 3.4.1 of DC 1.1. It is apparent from page 150 of the LRS that Special Residential lot sizes range from 0.2 hectare to 1 hectare. Mr Robinson gave evidence that lot sizes of up to 1 hectare would be referred to, in current town planning terminology, as Rural Residential development rather than Special Residential development. While Mr Sanderson did not agree, Mr Robinson's evidence is supported by the reference, also on page 150 of the LRS, that the intent of Special Residential is:
to cater for the demand for larger residential blocks with a semirural character in areas where it is not practical to provide full servicing and infrastructure facilities associated with urban residential densities. (Emphasis in bold added)
The Tribunal finds that the range of lot sizes contemplated for Special Residential and the intention of this classification in the LRS to create a semirural character in areas where it is not practical to provide full servicing and infrastructure facilities associated with urban residential densities, indicate that the identification of 22 hectares of the site as Potential Special Residential does not identify the site or a part of it for future urban purposes. While not quite rural, Special Residential, as envisaged in the LRS, is not quite urban either.
Finally, the Commission relied on Mr Sanderson's evidence that:
Urban development is the only realistic future use of the land. This is acknowledged by key stakeholders primarily State and local planning departments as well as the applicants.
To say that urban development is 'the only realistic future use of the land' is, as Mr Robinson observed, speculative. This conclusion cannot be drawn based on the current strategic or statutory planning framework. The conclusion also cannot be drawn from the facts on the ground. It is not disputed by the Commission that the Trust can and will continue to use proposed Lot B as a cattle farm. Furthermore, as discussed below, each of the proposed allotments would be consistent with the requirements of the LRS in relation to a rural subdivision. Finally, even if urban development were the only realistic future use of the site, that would not, without reflection in the strategic or statutory planning framework, constitute identification of the site for future urban purposes under cl 3.4.1 of DC 1.1.
It follows that the proposed subdivision is not to be assessed as a 'super lot' subdivision of land identified for future urban purposes, but rather, as a subdivision of rural land.
Is the proposed subdivision consistent with orderly and proper planning?
It was Mr Sanderson's evidence and the Commission's case that, if the proposed subdivision is assessed as an application to subdivide rural land, it should not be supported, having regard to provisions of State Planning Policy 2.5 Agricultural and Rural Land Use Planning (SPP 2.5), Development Control Policy 3.4 Subdivision of Rural Land (DC 3.4), TPS 4 and the LRS. Mr Sanderson considered that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with one of the key objectives of SPP 2.5 to 'protect agricultural resources wherever possible by … minimising the ad hoc fragmentation of rural land' (cl 4(1)(b)) and the Commission policy expressed in cl 4.1 of DC 3.4 that:
in the absence of the planned provision for closer settlement and more intensive agricultural uses, existing large rural lots be retained for broadacre and traditional forms of farming and that the fragmentation of rural land and loss of rural character through piecemeal, unplanned subdivision not be permitted.
However, cl 4.2 of DC 3.4 states as follows:
In broadacre farming areas large lots may be subdivided to create lots which are consistent with the size of lots used for farming in the locality and allow for continued broadacre farming. Neither lots created in the early days of settlement nor tied lots will be used in determining prevailing lot sizes in a locality or for creating a precedent for further subdivision.
Mr Robinson gave the following evidence, which was not questioned or contradicted, and which the Tribunal accepts:
Approximately 50 broadacre rural zoned lots are located within Planning Precinct No 7 [of the LRS]. In summary:
(i)Thirteen lots are less than 12 hectares;
(ii)four lots are between 12 hectares and 38 hectares;
(iii)11 lots are between 40 hectares and 78 hectares;
(iv)the remaining lots larger than 80 hectares in area represent historic patterns of land subdivision;
(v)only one rural parcel of land (other than the subject land) has an area larger than the subject land, being Location 15 Pinjarra Road.
On the above basis, and ignoring the historic pattern of development as advocated by [cl 4.2 of DC 3.4], the prevailing lot size is less than 78 hectares.
Furthermore, even having regard to the lot sizes of all of the Rural zoned lots in Planning Precinct 7 under the LRS, the lot sizes proposed in the subdivision application (approximately 77.5 hectares and 80.5 hectares) fall within the middle of the range of lot sizes in the locality. Twentyeight existing lots are less than 78 hectares in area and 22 existing lots are larger than 80 hectares in area.
The proposed subdivision would, therefore, be consistent with the size of lots used for farming in the locality. The proposed lot sizes and configurations would allow for continued broadacre farming. As noted earlier, the Trust proposes to continue to use Lot B as a cattle farm. While Mr Sanderson referred to the Trust's professed intention to sell proposed Lot A to a developer with the consequence that it will 'no longer be available for continued broadacre farming', as Mr Robinson explained:
The subdivision as proposed will not alter the existing land use, or the potential for development identified by either the [PRS] or [TPS 4].
As with any broadacre landholding, the owners will be seeking the best price for this land, which they perceive may come from prospective developers of the land. …
If and when the land is purchased by a prospective developer, they must pursue rezoning of the land under both the [PRS] and [TPS 4]. An application to rezone the land must also be [preceded] by numerous examinations and studies of the land … [T]here is no guarantee that such a rezoning will be successful. A rezoning would also involve a significant period of time, which I estimate would be a minimum of five years.
Under the current strategic and statutory planning framework, the proposed subdivision would create lots which are consistent with the size of lots used for farming in the locality and allow for continued broadacre farming. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision does not involve the loss of rural character through fragmentation of rural land.
TPS 4 does not contain any provision that militates against approval of the proposed subdivision. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the LRS. Clause 5.1.2 of the LRS at page 61 includes the following:
In addition to providing protection for good farming land, flexibility is needed within the planning system to enable the agricultural sector to respond to changes in the economy. This can be achieved through lot size control based on the concept of a 'useful tradeable parcel of land' rather than a single 'economically viable' lot size. The tradeable lot size will be determined primarily by land values and will also depend on regional and district agricultural practices and the historic pattern of land subdivision and allocation. On the Swan Coastal Plain and foothills to the scarp, the Department of Agriculture consider a 40 hectare minimum figure as appropriate for the following reasons:
•It represents an area of land which is generally 'affordable' to farmers wishing to expand, without major need for debt financing.
•It is a useful size for a grazing 'run off block', or to trade for farm 'build up' purposes.
•It is a parcel of land which is generally too large to be managed by (and hence attractive to) hobby farmers or ruralretreat users.
Unless identified by this Local Rural Strategy as having potential for other forms of development, all rural areas to the west of, and including, the Darling Scarp, are recommended as having a 40 hectare minimum block size.
(Emphasis in bold added)
Mr Sanderson expressed the opinion that the 40 hectare minimum lot size referred to in cl 5.1.2 of the LRS does not apply to the site. He reasoned that, because of the identification of part of the site as 'Potential Special Residential' on page 83 of the LRS, the site is 'identified by this Local Rural Strategy as having potential for other forms of development …' and is, therefore, excluded from the 40 hectare minimum lot size by the first part of the provision in the box in cl 5.1.2 of the LRS. In contrast, Mr Robinson considered that cl 5.1.2 of the LRS 'provide[s] clear guidance that a minimum lot size of 40 hectares is required and that a lesser lot size may be considered when the [LRS] identifies the potential for other forms of development'.
When read in the context of the paragraphs that precede it, the words within the box in cl 5.1.2 of the LRS do not have the effect that the 40 hectare minimum lot size is inapplicable in relation to the proposed subdivision. Clause 5.1.2 of the LRS states that it advocates a lot size control based on the concept of a 'useful tradeable parcel of land' and that, based on the advice of the Department of Agriculture, such a parcel must have a minimum area of 40 hectares to ensure both flexibility in the planning system and continued agricultural use of land in the Shire. In the case of a proposed rural subdivision, the minimum lot area required by cl 5.1.2 of the LRS is, therefore, 40 hectares. The fact that a part of the site is identified as 'Potential Special Residential' on page 83 of the LRS and that the LRS contemplates lot sizes in the range of 0.2 hectare to 1 hectare for that part of the site is not relevant in the assessment of a proposed rural (rather than Special Residential) subdivision. The proposed lots in this case comfortably satisfy the minimum site area required by the LRS. Furthermore, as Mr Robinson observed, the proposed lots are each 'viable tradeable agricultural parcels of land' that satisfy the intent of the lot size control prescribed by the LRS.
The Commission also relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal in Maher and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 129 (Maher) and Sharp and Western Australian Planning Commission [2010] WASAT 12 (Sharp). However, each of these decisions is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case.
Maher was a subdivision application to create two lots of only approximately 0.4 hectare and 0.6 hectare. Sharp involved a subdivision application to create lots of approximately 41.5 hectares and 1.6 hectares. Significantly, in Sharp, the Commission relied centrally on the Shire of Busselton Urban Growth Strategy (BUGS), which the Tribunal found, at [32], was 'an endorsed policy dealing in general with subdivision and related matters and which, in planning terms, is of recent provenance' that was 'consistent with the tenor of the respondent's main case which relate[d] to the need to promote orderly and proper planning for this particular area, which includes the subject land'. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission that 'central to this notion is the need to avoid ad hoc subdivisions which might prejudice wider planning considerations which are yet to be finalised'. The Tribunal concluded, at [54], that '"proper planning" requires the applicants to wait until the planning outcomes are known and provided for' as envisaged by BUGS. However, the circumstances of the present case are quite different. There is no endorsed policy consistent with the Commission's case that the proposed subdivision should be assessed as an urban subdivision or, if assessed as a rural subdivision, is inconsistent with orderly and proper planning of the site and locality.
It follows that the proposed subdivision is consistent with orderly and proper planning.
Conclusion
The proposed subdivision is not a 'super lot' subdivision of land identified for future urban purposes. Rather, it is, at the date of the review, a subdivision of rural land. Assessed in that context, the proposed subdivision is consistent with orderly and proper planning. The subdivision application, therefore, warrants conditional approval under s 135 of the PD Act.
The Commission proposed two 'without prejudice' conditions of approval that it contended should be imposed in the event that the Tribunal determines to grant approval. The first proposed condition stated as follows:
The landowner is to enter into a legal deed with the [Commission], binding current and future landowners, that requires the future ceding free of cost to the Crown of a foreshore reserve, as determined through the preparation and approval of a comprehensive structure plan for the land. (Department of Planning)
Mr Robinson objected to the condition on behalf of the Trust on the basis that it is not reasonably related to the proposed two lot subdivision. Mr Algeri sought to defend the condition on the basis that there is a 'distinct possibility' that the land will be identified for future urban purposes and that only a small part of proposed Lot B, which contains the foreshore reserve, is likely to be available for urban development because of the floodway.
The disputed condition clearly does not reasonably and fairly relate to a two lot rural subdivision and cannot, therefore, be lawfully imposed in this case: Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 63; (2004) 221 CLR 30 at [57]. Furthermore, at the date of the review, it is speculative as to whether the site will ultimately be identified for future urban purposes.
Orders
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is allowed.
2.The decision made by the respondent on 24 December 2009 to refuse subdivision approval of part Lot 330 Murray Location 14, Pinjarra Road, Ravenswood is set aside and a decision is substituted that subdivision approval is granted subject to the following condition:
Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Western Power for the provision of suitable easements under the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979 (WA) for existing and/or future transmission (33,000 Volt) electricity network infrastructure. (Western Power)
I certify that this and the preceding [49] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER
0
4
3