Smith and ANOR and Western Australian Planning Commission
[2007] WASAT 261
•12 OCTOBER 2007
SMITH & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2007] WASAT 261
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2007] WASAT 261 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:107/2007 | 19 JUNE 2007 (FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 20 JUNE 2007, 21 JUNE 2007, 17 SEPTEMBER 2007 AND 18 SEPTEMBER 2007) | |
| Coram: | MR B HUNT (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 12/10/07 | |
| 20 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The application for review is allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GORDON SMITH JANET SMITH WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Town planning Subdivision of rural land Local planning strategy requires rezoning before land is subdivided Adjacent land approval for subdivision by minute of consent orders Issues of precedent Uncoordinated development in advance of rezoning and overall planning Infrastructure contributions |
Legislation: | Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) Shire of Northam Town Planning Scheme No 3 |
Case References: | Morrissey v State Planning Commission (1994) II SR (WA) 35 |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. Approval is granted for the subdivision of Lot 27623 Valencia Lane, Bakers Hill into two lots, subject to the following conditions:,i. All buildings and effluent disposal systems, having the necessary clearance from the new boundaries as required under the relevant legislation (Local Government).,ii. Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of a suitable water supply service will be available to lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. The service is to be consistent with the Water Corporation's policy and planning for the locality and may involve the resolution of land matters and the payment of financial contributions to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation (Water Corporation).,iii. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) being shown on the approved plan of subdivision (Local Government).,iv. The applicant/owner of the land making arrangements to ensure that prospective purchasers of the proposed lot(s) are advised in writing that provision of a reticulated sewerage service will not be available to the lot(s) and that all future dwellings on the lot(s) will need to be connected to on site effluent disposal system(s) (Local Government).,v. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Western Power for the provision of an underground electricity supply service to the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision. If an existing aerial electricity cable servicing the land the subject of this approval crosses over a proposed lot boundary as denoted on the approved plan of subdivision, satisfactory arrangements will need to be made for the removal and relocation of that cable (Western Power).,vi. Measures being taken to ensure the identification and protection of any vegetation on the site worthy of retention prior to commencement of site works (Local Government). |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : SMITH & ANOR and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2007] WASAT 261 MEMBER : MR B HUNT (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 19 JUNE 2007 (FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 20 JUNE 2007, 21 JUNE 2007, 17 SEPTEMBER 2007 AND 18 SEPTEMBER 2007) DELIVERED : 12 OCTOBER 2007 FILE NO/S : DR 107 of 2007 BETWEEN : GORDON SMITH
- JANET SMITH
Applicants
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Subdivision of rural land Local planning strategy requires rezoning before land is subdivided Adjacent land approval for subdivision by minute of consent orders Issues of precedent Uncoordinated development in advance of rezoning and overall planning Infrastructure contributions
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)
Shire of Northam Town Planning Scheme No 3
Result:
The application for review is allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : Mr Jason Bouwhuis (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Morrissey v State Planning Commission (1994) II SR (WA) 35
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 This matter involved an application for review of the refusal of a subdivision application of Lot 27623 Valencia Lane, Bakers Hill, Shire of Northam, into lots.
2 The proposed subdivision created lots of 3.9531 hectares and 2.0548 hectares with frontage to Valencia Lane.
3 The subject land was zoned "Agriculture Local" under the Shire of Northam Town Planning Scheme No 3 and is located approximately 1.7 kilometres from the Bakers Hill townsite.
4 The local authority did not support the subdivision, contending that a rezoning to "Rural Smallholdings" was a prerequisite to subdivision, along with an overall development plan and contributions to infrastructure and amenities. The potential use of Valencia Lane was an issue for the planning agencies.
5 Abutting land of the same zoning was recently approved for subdivision by a minute of consent orders, subject to conditions.
6 The Tribunal considered that in the absence of specific concerns that may be resolved by overall planning, the approval of this subdivision would not prejudice the future orderly planning of the area.
7 In considering draft conditions, the respondent advised that it was unlikely that there would be future demand on Valencia Lane, as other more appropriate access was available to undeveloped land in the area.
8 The application for review was allowed.
Introduction
9 This is an application for the review of a decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission (respondent or Commission) to refuse an application for the subdivision of Lot 27623 Valencia Lane, Bakers Hill (site) into two lots of 3.9531 hectares and 2.0548 hectares.
10 The respondent refused the subdivision application on 28 February 2007 for the following reasons:
(a) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Rural zoning of the land in Council's Town Planning Scheme.
- The purpose and intent of this zoning is to preserve the area's current rural use and density of development. Subdivision in the manner proposed would create the potential for additional building development and the introduction of increased non-rural activity in conflict with the zoning objectives.
- (b) The subject land forms part of a large area, which requires comprehensive planning (including agreement to an overall road pattern, the allocation of land for recreation and other public uses, provision for essential infrastructure and equitable arrangement for developer contributions), and approval to the subdivision would be premature and prejudice the overall planning for the area.
(c) The Commission is not prepared to approve a subdivision creating rural smallholdings in a locality zoned "Rural" in the Local Town Planning Scheme as it will conflict with the intent and purpose of such zoning.
(d) Approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for the further subdivision of surrounding lots.
The proposed subdivision
11 The application for the subdivision would create two lots of rectangular shape with frontages of 131 metres and 117 metres to Valencia Lane and depths of 116 metres to 365 metres.
12 There is an existing residence and shed on the proposed western lot, set back approximately 60 metres from the road.
The site and locality
13 The site is located 1.7 kilometres west of the Bakers Hill townsite in a precinct bounded to the north by Valencia Lane, to the east by Jose Road, to the south by Koojedda Road and to the west by the Woondowing Reserve, an area of approximately 70 hectares (precinct).
14 The lots abutting and nearby the site to the south, south-west and east are zoned "Agriculture - Local" and are all used for rural residential purposes. They range in size from 1.27 hectares to 5.89 hectares with an average size of 4.22 hectares.
(Page 5)
15 Lot 2829 to the west of the site is a 30.9 hectare lot which is also zoned "Agriculture - Local" in the Shire of Northam Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3).
16 The land to the north of Valencia Lane is zoned "Rural Smallholding" in TPS 3, and is an estate of 70 lots.
17 The estate is accessed by an extension of Jose Road and there are six rural smallholding lots that back onto Valencia Lane but which are accessed from Almond Avenue. These lots range in area from 5.4 hectares to 1.05 hectares with an average lot size of 2.54 hectares.
18 The site is currently used for rural residential purposes and is accessed from Valencia Lane. The land falls from west to east at approximately 5%. The site generally has sparse vegetation with a significant clump of trees in the south-eastern corner.
19 Valencia Lane is a 20 metre wide road reserve, with a 5.0 metre wide gravel surfaced roadway. Approximately 300 mature trees line the sides of Valencia Lane.
20 The site is serviced by reticulated power, water and telephone. Effluent disposal is managed on site.
Planning framework
21 The site is zoned "Agriculture - Local" in TPS 3. There is no guidance in TPS 3 regarding subdivision or minimum lot size for land zoned "Agriculture Local".
22 The objectives of the Agriculture Local zone are to provide for the following:
(a) horticulture;
(b) intensive agriculture;
(c) agroforestry;
(d) local services and industries;
(e) buffer areas for extractive industries;
(f) tourist uses; and
(Page 6)
- (g) conservation of landscape qualities in accordance with the capability of the land.
23 The Shire of Northam Local Planning Strategy (LPS) was endorsed by the respondent in December 2004 and cl 5.8 relates to the subdivision strategy for the Shire of Northam (Shire).
24 In considering Bakers Hill, the LPS states at cl 5.8:
"It is considered that subdivision may be possible within a 5 kilometre radius from the centre of Bakers Hill as illustrated on the Local Planning Strategy map. It is further proposed that smaller size rural residential lots (i.e. 1ha to 2ha) be considered within a 2 kilometre radius of the town centre, that larger size rural residential lots (i.e. 2ha to 5ha) be considered within a 2 to 4 kilometre radius of the town centre, and that larger rural smallholding type lots (i.e. 5ha to 20ha) be considered from 4 to 5 kilometres from the town centre."
25 Under the heading "Rezoning and Subdivision Criteria", the LPS states:
"The local government will not support the subdivision of land surrounding the Wundowie, Bakers Hill, Clackline and Grass Valley townsites for rural residential/rural smallholding purposes until such land is appropriately zoned. Proponents of subdivision within these areas are therefore required to make all necessary arrangements with regard to a suitable zoning classification in Town Planning Scheme No. 3 prior to submission of a formal subdivision application.
Any proposal for rezoning and subdivision for rural residential/rural smallholding purposes around these settlements will only be supported by the local government where it is able to satisfy the following criteria:
i) Where it is located within the Rural Townsite Precinct Boundaries as depicted on the Local Planning Strategy map;
ii) Where it avoids areas required for the future logical urban expansion of existing townsites;
(Page 7)
- iii) Where it is not located on land identified as having significant agricultural potential;
iv) Where it will not reduce or conflict with the long-term agricultural potential of adjoining land;
v) Where safe and efficient road access can be provided;
vi) Where essential services are capable of being provided and maintained efficiently and at reasonable cost;
vii) Where the scenic landscape attributes of an area will not be compromised including vistas along major roads;
viii) Where the conservation attributes of an area will not be compromised;
ix) Where the Aboriginal and European heritage attributes of an area will not be compromised;
x) Where bush fire risk can be suitably managed;
xi) Where natural primary resources including prospective areas for mineralisation and basic raw materials, water catchments and areas of environmental significance are protected;
xii) Where it is not located within any defined floodplain;
xiii) Where the risk of land and water degradation are minimal, development will not lead to any adverse impacts in terms of flooding, soil erosion, landslip or any other form of environmental impact and environmental protection and repair are promoted;
xiv) Where a detailed site analysis and assessment has been undertaken which demonstrates that the land is of fair to very high capability of sustaining the proposed development and use".
26 The respondent's policies that are relevant to this matter in providing a context for decision-making on land use, subdivision and development in Western Australia are:
(Page 8)
- • Policy No DC 3.4 Subdivision of Rural Land (DC 3.4); and
• Statement of Planning Policy No 2.5 Agriculture and Rural Land Use Planning (SPP 2.5).
The issues
27 The parties agreed the following issues arise for determination in this review:
(a) Whether the proposed subdivision should be granted having regard to the relevant planning considerations, namely the:
(i) Agriculture Local provision of TPS 3.
(ii) The LPS which provides for subdivision of lots to 1 or 2 hectares being considered with a 2 kilometre radius of the centre of Bakers Hill, subject to these lots being rezoned; and
(iii) Provisions of SPP 2.5 and DC 3.4.
(b) Whether approval of the proposed subdivision is warranted given the incremental subdivision activity occurring within the Bakers Hill locality without an Outline Development Plan (ODP) to provide for comprehensive planning within the locality.
(c) Whether the approval of Lot 89 Koojedda Road (DR 215 of 2006) is a precedent for the proposed subdivision.
(d) Whether approval of the proposed subdivision is warranted given the refusal for subdivision of Lot 500 Koojedda Road.
(e) If the proposed subdivision were approved, what conditions it ought to be subject.
28 The Tribunal will address these issues in turn.
(Page 9)
Whether the proposed subdivision should be granted having regard to the relevant planning considerations
29 The respondent contended that the land use that would result from subdivision, namely rural residential, is not a use which upholds the objectives of the Agriculture Local zone, and that if the site is to be subdivided, it should first be rezoned to Rural Smallholdings.
30 Rural residential use is supported in the Rural Smallholdings zone, and as part of the rezoning process, a comprehensive plan of the general area in the form of an ODP would be developed and address such matters as the road network, public open space, infrastructure provision and a developer contribution procedure.
31 The respondent also contended that the proposed subdivision was contrary to its policies DC 3.4 and SSP 2.5 in that it was not specifically provided for in a town planning scheme or a local planning strategy and that the existing services, namely Valencia Lane, were not adequate.
32 Mr Jason Bouwhuis, a senior planning officer with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, gave evidence for the respondent. Mr Bouwhuis contended that the relevant planning instruments provide for subdivision to be considered within the area generally, but only when the land is appropriately zoned and planned.
33 The applicant gave evidence that rezoning was not required, or sought, and that subdivision within the existing zoning was appropriate, and that, furthermore, there was no reasonable prospect of minor landowners arranging and facilitating rezonings and overall planning.
34 The applicant contended that approval to the subdivision of Lot 89 Koojedda Road demonstrated that subdivision could be permitted within the existing planning framework.
35 The Tribunal noted that the current land use described for all the lots in the precinct other than the large Lot 2829 is "rural residential", which is a use Mr Bouwhuis expected would occur in the Rural Smallholdings zone. The current zoning appears to facilitate this use in this precinct.
36 The LPS contemplates subdivision in this area, and in cl 5.8, states that "smaller size rural residential lots (that is, 1 hectare to 2 hectares) to be considered within a 2 kilometre radius of the town centre". The subject land satisfies the criteria in the LPS for rezoning and subdivision.
(Page 10)
37 The respondent, in its response to the Shire of Northam explaining the decision to agree to the subdivision of Lot 89 Koojedda Road, stated that " … the existing lot is not of a size suitable for broad acre agriculture". The Tribunal agrees with the respondent and considers the same comment is appropriate for the site.
38 The Tribunal considers that the planning considerations do not of themselves provide a basis for refusing subdivision.
Whether approval of the proposed subdivision is warranted given the incremental subdivision activity occurring within the Bakers Hill locality without an Outline Development Plan to provide for comprehensive planning within the locality
39 The respondent advised of a recently approved subdivision at Lot 89 Koojedda Road and a recently refused application at Lot 500 Koojedda Road as evidence of subdivision activity.
40 The requirement for an ODP was not identified in evidence by links to TPS 3 or the LPS; however, it was referred to in responses to the respondent from the Shire. The Tribunal understands that an ODP would be a requirement of a rezoning application.
41 Mr Bouwhuis contended that any further subdivision approvals would restrict the flexibility required to develop appropriate subdivision arrangements for the land to the south-west and west of the site. There was no evidence led as to the extent of any adverse effect, other than the fact that any further subdivision could have an impact not only in design but also in sharing the cost of infrastructure and community facilities.
42 The development of Valencia Lane was considered an important consideration in the context of overall planning in the area, and the Tribunal was advised that the road is 5.0 metres wide and lined with up to 300 mature trees. Photographs of the road were provided by the applicants and showed a relatively straight, apparently level road of good gravel standard.
43 The applicants provided photographs of Valencia Lane which demonstrated that it was a well maintained gravel road. Mr Bouwhuis considered that provision of a road with a width of less than 6.0 metres required Ministerial approval. He referred the Tribunal to Planning Bulletin 33 for details on this matter.
(Page 11)
44 Planning Bulletin 33 principally relates to rights of ways or laneways in established areas and refers to reserves needing to be 6.0 metres wide, whereas in this instance, the road reserve is 20 metres wide and the trafficable width is 5.0 metres, and from evidence of the applicants, is adequate for the low level of traffic that occurs.
45 The Tribunal does not consider that Valencia Lane is inappropriate; however, some upgrading may be required.
46 The applicants advised that as a requirement of the Rural Smallholdings zone development to the north, Valencia Lane was not to be used so that its tree lined aspect could be retained.
47 There was no confirmation of this matter, although the design of the subdivision to the north is consistent with this proposition.
48 The Shire advised the respondent that there are no proposals to upgrade the road if subdivision does not occur. They did consider that if subdivision did occur then their experience has been that requests are made for road upgrading.
49 Mr Bouwhuis contended that Valencia Lane would need to be upgraded to facilitate access to the large landholding to the west, whilst the applicants contended that provision was already made for access to that property from Almond Avenue by the western section of Valencia Lane.
50 Mr Bouwhuis did not provide any evidence of proposed or potential development plans for the precinct that identified whether Valencia Lane would be required to be upgraded.
51 The Tribunal agrees with the respondent's position that comprehensive overall planning may be required for planning in the precinct; however, notes that in the determination of Lot 89 Koojedda Road, it considered that in that matter, "approval is unlikely to prejudice overall planning for the area", and then went further to say that " … it is considered that the requirement for an outline development plan is more appropriate for larger land parcels where consideration needs to be given to coordinating subdivision to ensure orderly and proper development including a logical road pattern".
52 The advice from the respondent to the Shire explaining its decision regarding Lot 89 Koojedda Road went on to consider future matters as "it is unlikely that the Commission would support further subdivision in this area without
(Page 12)
- comprehensive planning being undertaken, and the Shire's proposal to include the remaining land in a developer contribution area is supported. This should be progressed, along with comprehensive planning, as soon as possible in order to provide a framework for future subdivision in the area".
53 The Tribunal heard from Mr Bouwhuis that there were no proposals for planning in that area by the Shire in the near future, and that if the subdivision were approved, a condition regarding developer contributions would be sought.
54 The Tribunal agrees with the earlier view of the respondent in determining the subdivision of Lot 89 Koojedda Road, namely, that overall planning is required for larger holdings, and also notes that the eastern section of Valencia Lane may not be required to provide access to lands to the west and therefore that its retention as a low traffic access with its significant treed verges may be able to be retained.
Whether the approval of Lot 89 Koojedda Road (DR 15 of 2006) is a precedent for the proposed subdivision
55 The subdivision of Lot 89 Koojedda Road was approved by a minute of consent order dated 9 August 2006 into two Lots of 2.01 hectares and 2.34 hectares with the following conditions:
"i. Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of a suitable water supply service will be available to lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision (Water Corporation).
ii. A detailed plan demonstrating the location and capacity of fire emergency infrastructure, including hydrants, is to be prepared and implemented to the specifications of the Water Corporation and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority (Water Corporation).
iii. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision (Local Government).
iv. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Western Power for the provision of an
- underground electricity supply service to the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision (Western Power).
- v. Any existing overhead electricity supply be converted to underground service (Western Power).
vi. Satisfactory arrangements being made to remove and relocate any existing aerial electricity cable servicing the subject land (Western Power)."
56 The planning consultants for the Shire wrote to the Commission requesting advice as to why it supported the subdivision.
57 The Commission responded, advising that during the review, the application was reassessed as:
• the land is within 2 kilometres of the Bakers Hill townsite and is unlikely to impact on the agricultural viability of adjoining lots;
• services, including reticulated water, can be provided;
• there is adequate and safe road access;
• the existing lot is not of a size suitable for broad acre agriculture;
• the subdivision is limited in scale, and its location and size lend itself to subdivision in the manner proposed; and
• approval is unlikely to prejudice overall planning for the area.
58 The respondent contends that the road access that would be provided by Valencia Lane is the point of difference to the Koojedda Road matter.
59 The respondent has stated that it now considers the approval of the subdivision of Lot 89 Koojedda Road to have been an incorrect decision.
60 Mr Bouwhuis informed the Tribunal that as well as refusing the application for Lot 27623 Valencia Lane, the respondent had also refused an application to subdivide Lot 500 Koojedda Road. He further advised that an application for review of that decision had been lodged.
(Page 14)
61 The Tribunal noted that the Shire supported the proposed subdivision of Lot 89 Koojedda Road in its response dated 20 April 2006 to the Commission's request for comments.
62 The Shire's Planning Committee also supported the subdivision of Lot 27623 Valencia Lane on 2 May 2006, subject to conditions. The matter was reconsidered on 30 May 2006, and refusal recommended on the basis that before lots are subdivided, they need to be rezoned.
63 The Tribunal does not consider that there are significant differences between the application for Lot 89 Koojedda Road and the application for the site.
Whether approval of the proposed subdivision is warranted given the refusal of Lot 500 Koojedda Road
64 Lot 500 Koojedda Road abuts Lot 89 to the east, and involved the subdivision of the 3.37 hectare lot into three lots of 1 hectare, 1 hectare and 1.37 hectares.
65 This application was refused for the following reasons:
i.) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Rural zoning of the land in Council's Town Planning Scheme. The purpose and intent of this zoning is to preserve the area's current rural use and density of development. Subdivision in the manner proposed would create the potential for additional building development and the introduction of increased non-rural activity in conflict with the zoning objectives.
ii.) The subject land forms part of a large area, which requires comprehensive planning (including agreement to an overall road pattern, the allocation of land for recreation and other public uses, provision for essential infrastructure and equitable arrangements for developer contributions), and approval to the subdivision would be premature and prejudice the overall planning for the area.
iii.) Approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for the further subdivision of surrounding lots.
66 Lot 500 has frontage to Koojedda and Jose Roads, both of which are sealed.
(Page 15)
67 The Tribunal considers that all applications will be considered in relation to their circumstances.
Conclusions
68 This appeal has arisen as a result of the respondent refusing the subdivision of a 6 hectare lot zoned "Agriculture - Local" into two lots of approximately 4 hectares and 2 hectares.
69 The respondent places great weight on the provisions of the planning framework to justify refusal, and on this matter, we consider that they are but one factor that must be considered. In Morrissey v State Planning Commission (1994) II SR (WA) 35, another Tribunal stated:
"The situation cannot arise that a policy or strategy, no matter how cogent or refined, can be the basis for the enquiry to end and the appeal determined. Every strategy is entitled to a different weight in deliberations, depending on its certitude …"
70 In its decision on the subdivision, the respondent placed great weight on the zoning of the land Agriculture - Local and the need for comprehensive overall planning.
71 In this respect, we note that land uses in the area are generally described as being Rural Residential and that this proposal would give rise to one additional dwelling only.
72 The respondent recently approved a subdivision in similar circumstances on abutting land; however, in fairness to the respondent, approvals have not been granted since that time.
73 The principal issue in this matter is whether rezoning and overall planning (structure planning) is required as a prerequisite to further subdivision in this area.
74 The respondent provided only general concerns regarding planning and infrastructure matters and the Tribunal is not persuaded that approval of this subdivision would prejudice the future orderly planning of the area.
75 In response to the issues raised, the Tribunal can see no argument at this time to prevent the subdivision proceeding and does not consider that the creation of an additional freehold lot will have any adverse impact on the amenity of the area or jeopardise the orderly and proper planning of the locality.
(Page 16)
76 It is, however, considered justified to condition the approval to respond to matters raised by the respondent.
Conditions
77 The respondent prepared "without prejudice" draft conditions of approval, which are as follows:
"i. All buildings and effluent disposal systems, having the necessary clearance from the new boundaries as required under the relevant legislation (Local Government).
ii. Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of a suitable water supply service will be available to lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. The service is to be consistent with the Water Corporation's policy and planning for the locality and may involve the resolution of land matters and the payment of financial contributions to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation (Water Corporation).
iii. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) being shown on the approved plan of subdivision (Local Government).
iv. The applicant/owner of the land shall make arrangements to ensure that prospective purchasers of the proposed lot(s) are advised in writing that provision of a reticulated sewerage service will not be available to the lot(s) and that all future dwellings on the lot(s) will need to be connected to onsite effluent disposal system(s) (Local Government).
v. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Western Power for the provision of an underground electricity supply service to the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision. If an existing aerial electricity cable servicing the land the subject of this approval crosses over a proposed lot boundary as denoted on the approved plan of subdivision satisfactory
- arrangements will need to be made for the removal and relocation of that cable (Western Power).
- vi. Measures being taken to ensure the identification and protection of any vegetation on the site worthy of retention prior to commencement of site works (Local Government).
vii. Arrangements being made with the Local government for the upgrading and/or construction of Valencia Lane where it abuts the subject land (Local Government).
viii. The developer providing a development contribution to the Local Government for the purpose of the future provision of community facilities (Local Government)."
78 The applicants raised concerns with draft conditions 7 and 8, advising as follows:
"7 The applicant does not agree with the respondent's draft conditions 7 to the extent that this is an application for a single lot subdivision at the eastern end of Valencia Lane.
It is in fact that only local traffic uses the road which is well constructed and maintained by the Local Government therefore no upgrade would be required.
8 The applicant requires the amount of contribution to be included as discussed with Mr Bouwhuis of [the Commission].
Draft condition 8 to read "the developer providing a development contribution of $1000 (one thousand only) to the Local Government for the purpose of the future provison of community facilities" (Local Government)."
80 After consideration of the matter, the respondent advised that given:
(a) only one additional lot will be created by the proposed subdivision which will generate a maximum of only five additional vehicle movements per day; and
(Page 18)
- (b) there is unlikely to be future demand upon Valencia Lane as the unconstructed road reserve between Valencia Lane and Almond Avenue will cater for additional traffic from the potential subdivision of lot 2829,
the respondent is willing to delete draft condition 7.
82 The Tribunal agrees with the respondent's position on draft conditions 7 and 8.
Orders
83 The Tribunal makes the following orders.
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. Approval is granted for the subdivision of Lot 27623 Valencia Lane, Bakers Hill into two lots, subject to the following conditions:
i. All buildings and effluent disposal systems, having the necessary clearance from the new boundaries as required under the relevant legislation (Local Government).
ii. Suitable arrangements being made with the Water Corporation so that provision of a suitable water supply service will be available to lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision. The service is to be consistent with the Water Corporation's policy and planning for the locality and may involve the resolution of land matters and the payment of financial contributions to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation (Water Corporation).
iii. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular
- crossover(s) to service the lot(s) being shown on the approved plan of subdivision (Local Government).
- iv. The applicant/owner of the land making arrangements to ensure that prospective purchasers of the proposed lot(s) are advised in writing that provision of a reticulated sewerage service will not be available to the lot(s) and that all future dwellings on the lot(s) will need to be connected to on site effluent disposal system(s) (Local Government).
v. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Western Power for the provision of an underground electricity supply service to the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision. If an existing aerial electricity cable servicing the land the subject of this approval crosses over a proposed lot boundary as denoted on the approved plan of subdivision, satisfactory arrangements will need to be made for the removal and relocation of that cable (Western Power).
vi. Measures being taken to ensure the identification and protection of any vegetation on the site worthy of retention prior to commencement of site works (Local Government).
I certify that this and the preceding [83] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR B HUNT, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
(Page 20)
0
2