Rigg and Western Australian Planning Commission

In the case of Rigg and Western Australian Planning Commission, the applicants sought a subdivision of a survey strata title into three lots in an extreme bushfire hazard area. The applicants proposed a conservation scheme for the property, but the Planning Commission refused the application, citing concerns about bushfire management and the adequacy of the proposed building envelope. The Supreme Court was asked to review the decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had adequately demonstrated that the bushfire risk could be managed and whether the proposed building envelope was sufficiently certain. The court needed to determine if the evidence provided was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the relevant planning legislation.

The court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the bushfire risk could be managed. The evidence showed that there was only one publicly available evacuation route, and the vegetation survey was insufficient to provide the necessary certainty. Furthermore, the applicants had not provided a clear and precise building envelope, which was essential for assessing the development's impact on the environment and surrounding properties. The court concluded that the refusal of the application was justified and dismissed the applicants' appeal. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence provided by the applicants and the need for greater certainty in the proposed building envelope.