Robeson and Anor and Western Australian Planning Commission
[2006] WASAT 310
•18 OCTOBER 2006
ROBESON & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2006] WASAT 310
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 310 | |
| TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:619/2005 | DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | MR L GRAHAM (SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 18/10/06 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The application for review is dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KA ROBESON PM ROBESON WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Undesirable precedent Economic viability Ad hoc fragmentation of rural land Rural/residential lots |
Legislation: | City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No 9, cl 8.2.4.1, cl 8.2.4.2, cl 8.2.4.2(a), cl 8.3.3.3 Metropolitan Region Scheme Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 5AA, s 61(1)(a) |
Case References: | Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988) Brister, R and Ors v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WATPAT 103 Falc Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (1991) 5 WAR 522 L & M Radice and Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WATPAT 85 Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is dismissed.,2. The decision under review is affirmed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA) CITATION : ROBESON & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2006] WASAT 310 MEMBER : MR L GRAHAM (SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 18 OCTOBER 2006 FILE NO/S : DR 619 of 2005 BETWEEN : KA ROBESON
- PM ROBESON
Applicants
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
Catchwords:
Undesirable precedent Economic viability Ad hoc fragmentation of rural land Rural/residential lots
Legislation:
City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No 9, cl 8.2.4.1, cl 8.2.4.2, cl 8.2.4.2(a), cl 8.3.3.3
Metropolitan Region Scheme
(Page 2)
Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 5AA, s 61(1)(a)
Result:
The application for review is dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : Mr J Algeri (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : Western Australian Planning Commission
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988)
Brister, R and Ors v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WATPAT 103
Falc Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (1991) 5 WAR 522
L & M Radice and Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WATPAT 85
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's Decision
1 The application for review by Mr KA and Mrs PM Robeson was lodged against a decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission to refuse an application for subdivision of a 2.9 hectare rural zoned lot into two lots of approximately 1.8 hectares and 1.1 hectares.
2 In undertaking this review the Tribunal has had regard to existing State policy as it relates to rural land, and to the relevant provisions of the City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No 9 as they relate to the 'general rural' zone into which the subject land falls.
3 Matters relating to the relevance of two existing homes on the property as a reason for subdivision, the economic viability argument and the likely planning implications of an approval in this case on other nearby properties in like circumstances were also examined. Attention was also given to the Bush Forever 2000 policy and the proposed access of the subdivided lots onto Neaves Road.
4 In the view of the Tribunal there has been no convincing case made by the applicants on planning grounds, or technical information provided to support subdivision, to cause this Tribunal to put the relevant rural policies and scheme provisions to one side.
5 The application for review is dismissed.
Introduction
6 The application for review by Mr KA and Mrs PM Robeson (applicants), dated 5 November 2005, was lodged against a decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission (respondent or WAPC) on 12 October 2005 to reiterate its earlier decision of 19 April 2005 to not support the subdivision of Swan Location 2136, Neaves Road, Bullsbrook in the City of Swan.
7 An application for subdivision, dated 17 October 2004, of the 2.9416 hectare rural zoned lot into two lots of 1.8310 hectares and 1.1106 hectares was the subject of the refusal.
8 The reasons for refusal, as contained in the respondent's letter of 19 April 2005, can be broadly summarised:
(Page 4)
- 1. The proposed subdivision does not comply with Commission Policy DC 3.4 in that it would result in the subdivision of rural land which is not provided for in a current town planning scheme, an endorsed local planning strategy or an endorsed local rural strategy.
2. The land is zoned 'rural' in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and 'general rural' in Council's town planning scheme; the purpose of which is to preserve the area's current rural use and density of development. The subdivision would create the potential for additional building development and the introduction of increased non-rural activity in conflict with the zoning objectives.
3. The Commission does not favour the further fragmentation of 'rural' land as this leads to smaller lot sizes and closer development.
4. The subdivision, if approved, would result in the unplanned breakdown of rural landholdings.
5. Approval to the subdivision would result in the creation of lots not having frontage to a gazetted road.
6. The proposal is contrary to Commission Policy No 2.5 which requires connection to a reticulated water supply for rural/residential lots.
7. The proposed subdivision cannot be implemented or managed to conserve the high conservation values of the existing bushland area (Bush Forever Site No 100) and wetland (Conservation Category Wetland) located within the site.
8. The proposal does not comply with the City of Swan's Town Planning Scheme No 9 (TPS 9 or the Scheme) in that the majority of existing buildings do not meet the required setbacks for the 'general rural' zone, and the applicants have not demonstrated that lots are provided with an adequate source of potable water in accordance with cl 8.3.3.3 of the Scheme.
9. An approval to the subdivision would create lots much smaller than those prevailing in the locality, and therefore set an undesirable precedent for further subdivision of a similar type in the general area.
(Page 5)
Subject land
9 The subject land is described as Swan Location 2136 on Certificate of Title Volume 1422, Folio 200. It is rectangular in shape and has an area of 2.9416 hectares.
10 A description of the property was given in a report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Swan on 15 December 2004.
"The land is located on the southern side of Neaves Road between Davidson and South Roads. The land slopes gradually towards a creek located on the northern portion of the land. The boundary of the Bush Forever site along the creek extends between 35 and 45 m either side of the creek line. The lot incorporates two dwellings and the applicant has advised that the northern most dwelling was constructed around 1925 and the southern dwelling around 1940. The lot is predominantly cleared with scattered trees mainly concentrated along the creek line.
The immediate surrounding lots vary in shape however are generally larger than the subject lot."
11 In October 2002, a building licence was issued for 165 square metres of additions and alterations to the existing northern dwelling.
Legislative framework
12 The subject land is zoned 'rural' in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and 'general rural' under the TPS 9.
13 The matter is covered under s 5AA of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) (TPD Act) which provides for Statements of Planning Policy. The Tribunal is required "to have due regard" to such statements under s 61(1)(a).
14 Specific policies relevant to the matter under s 5AA of the TPD Act include:
(a) Development Control Policy 1.1: Subdivision of Land – General Principles (DC 1.1);
(b) Development Control Policy 3.4: Subdivision of Rural Land (DC 3.4); and
(Page 6)
- (c) Statement of Planning Policy No 2.5: Agriculture and Rural Land Use Planning (SPP 2.5).
15 Additional policies and legislation include:
(a) draft Statement of Planning Policy No 2.8: Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region (draft SPP 2.8); and
(b) Metropolitan Rural Policy, 1995 (MR Policy).
Respondent's position
16 The respondent's position is outlined in their Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 19 January 2006. They argue:
(a) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the 'rural' zoning of the land.
(b) The proposed lot sizes of approximately 1.9 hectares and 1 hectare are not in keeping with the rural character of the area, and the applicants have not provided any information to demonstrate that the lots would be viable for horticultural and/or agricultural uses.
(c) The proposed lots are inconsistent with the prevailing lot size in the immediate area which range from 64.75 hectares to 4.66 hectares, and although smaller lots do exist approximately 1 kilometre to the south-east these are part of a town site.
(d) The smaller lots in the 'general rural' zone are the result of historical land releases and do not constitute a precedent.
(e) The proposal is inconsistent with DC 3.4, in particular cl 4.1.1, as TPS 9 does not provide for the subdivision of land in the 'general rural' zone. Also, there is no endorsed local planning strategy or local rural strategy identifying the subject land for rural/ residential or rural smallholding purposes.
(f) In the absence of an appropriate rural strategy the proposal represents the ad hoc fragmentation of rural land, and therefore contrary to the objectives of SPP 2.5.
(g) The existence of two dwellings on the subject land should not form a rationale for the ad hoc fragmentation of rural lots.
(Page 7)
- (h) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with cl 3.7.1 of DC 1.1 in that the section of Neaves Road between Davidson Road and the eastern boundary of the subject land is not currently located within a dedicated rural reserve. The land is owned by the Commonwealth and would have to be excised from their existing Lot 2820.
(i) As the proposed lots are similar in size to those in a rural/ residential zone they should be connected to a reticulated potable water supply as required by cl 5.3.2 of SPP 2.5.
(j) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the best practice criteria for rural subdivision specified in Sch 2 of draft SPP 2.8. In particular, it is inconsistent with the presumption against lots generally below 4 hectares set out in item (iii)(c) in Sch 2.
(k) In the light of advice received from the Department of Environment (DoE), and Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), the respondent believes that the proposed subdivision would have a negative environmental impact on the Conservation Category Wetland (CCW) and the high conservation values of the Bush Forever Site No 100.
(l) An approval to the proposed subdivision would result in lots much smaller than those prevailing in the locality, and set an undesirable precedent for subdivision proposals of a similar type.
Applicants' position
17 The applicants' position is contained in their Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions filed with the Tribunal on 7 February 2006. They argue:
(a) The proposal is in keeping with the established rural character of the area because it formalises what has been in existence for at least 50 years.
(b) The land has not been viable for many years, and the proposal will not alter this situation. The Bush Forever and CCW constraints have effectively destroyed any viability prospects.
(Page 8)
- (c) The subdivision will not increase the potential for increased building development or non-rural activity, as this would be subject to the approval of the City.
(d) Smaller lots do exist in the 'general rural' zone and it is not reasonable to claim that a precedent has not been established.
(e) It is unreasonable to argue that the proposal would be an unplanned breakdown of rural land to the detriment of a rational settlement pattern.
(f) The existence of two separate dwellings with distinct access justifies an approval.
(g) The proposal is not 'ad hoc' as it would reflect a long standing established use.
(h) There is no evidence to indicate that the Commonwealth is not willing to excise and dedicate portion of their land for the Neaves Road reservation. In any event the current title provides an ongoing right of carriageway to the south towards West Road, should ongoing access to Neaves Road be denied.
(i) The subdivision could be redesigned to effect access via the right of carriageway if required.
(j) Whilst it is accepted that the strict provisions of cl 5.3.2 of SPP 2.5 are not met, this should not be a reason to refuse subdivision as no subdivision in the general area has access to a reticulated water supply.
(k) Although the 'draft' SPP 2.8 may hold a presumption against smaller lots, the reality is that smaller lots already exist in similar circumstances to the subject land.
(l) Subdivision will not have any material effect on the environmentally sensitive areas on the subject property, and may provide an improved opportunity to achieve the desirable conservation outcomes. For instance, access to the rear lot will be provided without disruption to existing trees along the eastern boundary.
(m) A precedent has already been established by way of smaller lot sizes in the area, and will not result from an approval to this application. This application is site
- specific and it is open to the planning authorities to deal with other applications on their respective merits.
Planning issues
18 The principal planning issues are:
(a) Does the proposal conform to existing rural policy and scheme provisions at State and local level?
(b) If the answer to (a) is in the negative, have the applicants provided a sufficiently convincing case to cause the Tribunal to put the relevant policies and scheme provisions to one side?
(c) Would an approval, in the circumstances of this case, be likely to encourage other owners in like circumstances to seek subdivision?
Assessment of proposal
Metropolitan Region Scheme and TPS 9
19 The MRS is a broad based statutory regional scheme that clearly differentiates between 'rural' and 'urban' land, but it is of little assistance in resolving a detailed matter such as that under review.
20 The purpose and intent of the 'general rural' zone under cl 8.2.4.1 of TPS 9 is to:
" … retain the rural character of the area and encourage a range of rural pursuits … "
21 Of assistance also is cl 8.2.4.2 of TPS 9 which provides criteria to be applied in the consideration of applications for development approval and other related matters and includes:
"a) Retention of lots in sizes which are considered to be viable for horticultural and agricultural uses."
22 Although the single act of subdivision as proposed would be unlikely to alter the existing rural character, the important question of economic viability and the effect of an approval in this case on others also seeking subdivision in like circumstances are related matters that need to be considered. These will be examined later.
(Page 10)
State policy
23 Under cl 3.1.1 of DC 3.4 it states:
"There is a general presumption against subdivision of rural land unless it is specifically provided for in a town planning scheme, an endorsed local planning strategy or an endorsed local rural strategy."
24 The same broad intent is stated in the key principles (principle 5) of the MR Policy and in the policy objectives of DC 1.1.
25 An examination of SPP 2.5 shows that its prime intent is to protect agricultural land resources and to minimise the ad hoc fragmentation of rural land. This intent is also reflected in DC 3.4.
26 However, the use of the word 'minimise' does appear to open up the opportunity for subdivision where the circumstances can be justified on planning grounds.
27 The difficulty the Tribunal has with the wording of the various State policies is the apparent interchangeability of the words 'agricultural' land and 'rural' land. It can be accepted that all 'agricultural' land may be 'rural' but, for various reasons such as soil type and climatic conditions, all 'rural' land cannot necessarily be used for agriculture.
28 In the matter under review there is no information before the Tribunal as to whether the subject land is 'agricultural' land, and would therefore be captured by the provisions of cl 8.2.4.2(a) of TPS 9.
29 A further matter for consideration is at what point would the subdivision of rural land within a broad rural zone be inconsistent with State policy? The question is not an easy one to answer, but it does seem to this Tribunal that although subdivision may be supported by the WAPC for specific allowable uses (for example, a tourist use), that ad hoc subdivision of a rural/residential nature is not contemplated within a broad rural zone.
30 In fact it could be reasonably argued that the type of subdivision contemplated in this matter is exactly the type of ad hoc breakdown of rural land that the WAPC is attempting to avoid.
31 However, an additional circumstance in this case is the existence of a second home, which is not always the case in applications for subdivision of rural land. This matter will be addressed later.
(Page 11)
Bush Forever 2000
32 As outlined in the witness statement of Mr J Algeri, a qualified town planner for the respondent, Bush Forever 2000 is a non-statutory regional policy that identifies regionally significant bushland for protection and management. Draft SPP 2.8 aims to ensure that these sites are protected and managed appropriately.
33 In this particular case there is a creek that traverses the subject land from east to west towards its northern boundary, and the land some 35 metres to 45 metres on either side of the creek is classified as Bush Forever 100. The creek also forms part of the land that has been classified as CCW.
34 The situation is clearly shown in the respondent's Section 24 bundle with extensive vegetation on either side of the creek and along the eastern boundary of the site. The vegetation would be affected by the proposed new battleaxe leg as shown on the subdivision plan dated 9 November 2004.
35 However, if the subdivision was to proceed with access to Neaves Road as contemplated, it would still be possible by way of an ongoing right of carriageway to utilize the existing bridge crossing over the creek without actually clearing any bushland. This point was acknowledged by Mr Algeri in his witness statement, and such a condition of subdivision would largely overcome the objection of the DoE who were concerned with the negative environmental impact on the CCW due to the construction of an additional carriageway over the creek.
Access to Neaves Road
36 Clause 3.7.1 of DC 1.1 provides that new green title lots will only be created where each lot has, or can be, provided with direct frontage access to a constructed public road, which is connected to the road system in the locality.
37 In this particular case, the section of Neaves Road which provides access to both the existing and proposed lots is owned by the Commonwealth and has not been dedicated and gazetted under State law.
38 This situation was one of the reasons given by the respondent as a reason for refusal but, as argued by Mr John Forbes, a qualified town planner for the applicants in his witness statement of 10 April 2006:
(Page 12)
- "There is nevertheless a high expectation that it will be dedicated as a public road by the Commonwealth Government in the foreseeable future."
39 In this matter the Tribunal acknowledges that the formalisation of a road reserve across the Commonwealth land (Lot 2820) is currently the subject of negotiations as outlined in the applicants' Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions and has yet to be resolved.
40 However, it is also the case that the proposed lots would have access to a constructed road which is on Commonwealth (public owned) land, and it is an arguable point as to whether the intent of cl 3.7.1 of DC 1.1 could not be met by way of an appropriately worded condition of subdivision.
41 This point was addressed in part by Mr J Forbes in this way:
"This is obviously a matter that is easily resolved through the use of a condition of approval. The applicants would then have three years to pursue the gazettal of Neaves Road and if, at the end of that time, that has not occurred then the approval would lapse."
42 The Tribunal would accept the argument of Mr Forbes in this matter, and in the "without prejudice" draft conditions provided by the respondent on 9 March 2006 an appropriate condition was worded in this way:
"Those lots not fronting an existing constructed public road being provided with frontage to a constructed public road connected by a constructed public road to the local road system and such road(s) being constructed and drained at the applicant's/owner's cost. In relation to this, Neaves Road is to be formally excised and dedicated as a road reserve from Lot 2820."
The economic viability argument
43 This matter was briefly addressed by the applicants in [17(b)] above where they argue that the land has not been viable for many years, and that subdivision will not alter the situation.
44 On the other hand the respondent argues through Mr Algeri that:
"In any event, it does not mean that the subject land could not be made viable for other 'sustainable' rural uses at some point in
(Page 13)
- the future (whether by amalgamation with neighbouring rural land or otherwise)."
45 The argument is also put by Mr Algeri that a future change of ownership of the subject land could result in changes to its use.
46 In L & M Radice and Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WATPAT 85 the economic viability argument was addressed by way of the following questions:
(a) Does the land currently operate as a full-time commercial agricultural pursuit?
(b) Does the evidence show that the land would be used more intensively or more productively, or at least as intensively and productively as it currently is, if subdivision was to proceed?
(c) Would the subdivision result in land that has a productive capacity being lost as a productive resource?
47 As the answer to all three questions is in the negative, and there is no information before the Tribunal on the productive capacity of the subject land or likely productive rural uses that would be conducted thereon, it is not possible to advance the economic viability argument in this matter.
The two dwelling argument
48 The applicants argue that the existence of two dwellings on the subject land is a reason for subdivision. The respondent disagrees.
49 The difficulty the Tribunal has with this argument is explained in Brister, RandOrs v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WATPAT 103 (28 September 2003):
"35. The Tribunal is concerned about the expectation attached to the approval of second dwellings on Rural zoned land, by landowners. The Tribunal acknowledges that there are instances, where it is appropriate to approve such development. However, the arguments that there are already two existing houses, hence no increase in density and that the proposed subdivision will not physically affect the fabric or the rural amenity of the area are deficient. These arguments only look at the issue in isolation and do not consider the 'bigger picture' and the
- serious implications for the potential to prejudice the overall planning of the locality."
50 In the view of the Tribunal the existence of two dwellings on a single property is not of itself a justifiable reason for subdivision. To allow automatic approvals in cases of this kind would certainly not discourage others in like circumstances from proceeding with their proposals.
The precedent argument
51 The applicants argue that small lots exist in the 'general rural' zone, whereas Mr Algeri for the respondent argues:
"While there are some smaller lots in the 'General Rural' zone, these were created historically, prior to the introduction of the current planning framework and, in any event, do not reflect the predominant lot size in the locality. Accordingly, they do not constitute a precedent to support further subdivision within this zone."
52 From an examination of the plan at Attachment B to the respondent's Section 24 bundle, it is clear that the size of the subject land at 2.9 hectares is inconsistent with the surrounding lot sizes in the general locality, with the exception of a large number of small residential size lots and rural/residential size lots in the 'general rural' zone. These lots are 1 to 1.5 kilometres to the south-east and appear to be part of a historical pattern of subdivision, although there is no evidence to verify that view.
53 Although the matter of precedent is a relevant consideration for planning authorities because of the risk of it progressively undermining planning policy and practice, it should not be treated as a "stand alone" argument: see Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988).
54 The approach the Tribunal takes is to treat each case on its overall merits but, in doing so, still have regard to the likely consequences of a decision on others who may wish to achieve a similar result.
55 For instance, it is a reasonable planning argument that a favourable decision for the applicants in this review would certainly not discourage other owners within the 'general rural' zone in like circumstances from seeking subdivision approval.
(Page 15)
Conclusions
56 The application for review was lodged by the applicants against a decision of the respondent to not allow the subdivision of a 2.9 hectare rural zoned lot into two lots of approximately 1.8 hectares and 1.1 hectares.
57 In considering this matter, the Tribunal has had regard to existing rural policy at State level and the provisions of the local scheme TPS 9 as well as the likely planning consequences of a decision in favour of the applicants.
58 Of relevance is s 5AA of the TPD Act which provides for the preparation of statements of planning policy, and the Tribunal is required "to have due regard" to such statements under s 61(1)(a). Specific State policies DC 1.1, 2.5 and 3.4 are covered by these provisions.
59 In examining State rural policies it is the view of the Tribunal that although subdivision may be supported by the WAPC for viable horticultural or agricultural purposes, or for specific allowable uses in a rural zone (for example, a tourist use), that an ad hoc subdivision for rural/residential purposes is not contemplated within a broad rural zone.
60 On the question of economic viability it appears that the applicants see little prospect for the long-term productive use of the land, and there was no information before the Tribunal that would allow it to make an assessment of the matter.
61 For a subdivision to be supported for rural/residential purposes by the WAPC, it would need to conform to an endorsed local planning strategy or local rural strategy identifying the land for rural/residential or rural smallholdings purposes. That set of circumstances does not apply in this case.
62 In the view of the Tribunal, the various State policies are there to guide the respondent when considering its decisions on the subdivision of rural land and to promote rational and consistent decision-making. However, the Tribunal is not so constrained, and policies should not be applied so inflexibly that where a variance is appropriate it is simply ignored: Falc Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (1991) 5 WAR 522.
63 The existence of two houses on the subject land could be considered a variance to the more usual situation of an existing single house and subdividing off an undeveloped portion, or simply subdividing
(Page 16)
- undeveloped land. The applicants argue that the presence of two homes is of itself a sufficient reason for subdivision.
64 The Tribunal disagrees on this point because to allow an approval for that reason alone would almost certainly not discourage others in like circumstances from proceeding with similar proposals. The resulting effect of this could prejudice the overall planning for the locality.
65 An additional matter for consideration was the applicants' statement dated 7 November 2005 with respect to hardship. However, although matters of this kind are understandably important to Mr and Mrs Robeson they must be treated secondary by this Tribunal to the overall planning considerations applying to the land.
66 With respect to these overall planning considerations the applicants can take little comfort from the provisions of State policy for rural land, or indeed the provisions of TPS 9 with respect to the 'general rural' zone, in order to mount a case for subdivision.
67 Although the Tribunal would accept that certain important impediments to subdivision as raised by the respondent with respect to Bush Forever 2000 and access to Neaves Road could be overcome by appropriately worded conditions of subdivision, it would need a more convincing and relevant reason to support subdivision in this case.
68 To allow the subdivision of the subject land would require an argument such as each of the subdivided lots being able to sustain a horticultural or agricultural use, or some other rural-type use that was economically viable. The argument that there are other similar size lots nearby is not sufficiently convincing on the evidence before the Tribunal.
69 In reality the proposal seeks to create two isolated rural/residential type lots that are contrary to the broad objectives of State rural policy and the purpose and intent of the 'general rural' zone as outlined in TPS 9.
70 There has been no convincing case made by the applicants on planning grounds, or relevant information provided, to cause the Tribunal to put these policies and scheme provisions to one side, or to prove that the proposal was in fact consistent with these policies or provisions.
Orders
71 For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Tribunal are as follows:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
(Page 17)
- 2. The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [71] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR L GRAHAM, SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
1
3