Smith and City of Stirling
[2006] WASAT 6
•11 JANUARY 2006
SMITH and CITY OF STIRLING [2006] WASAT 6
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 6 | |
| LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:516/2005 | 22 SEPTEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | MR J JORDAN (MEMBER) MR P McNAB (MEMBER) | 11/01/06 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | 1. The application for review is dismissed. 2. The rate imposed by the respondent and under review is affirmed. | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PHILLIP VICTOR SMITH CITY OF STIRLING |
Catchwords: | Local Government Electricity Rates Specified area rate Special rate imposed for underground power State Government underground power program Benefit to ratepayers or residents within the area Determination of rate Complex rating model Underground power supply said to be of no personal benefit to ratepayer Failure to consult ratepayers True motives of Local Government Standing Whether matter raised by applicant of general interest Application dismissed Words and phrases: "benefit" and "question of general interest" |
Legislation: | Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 6.32, s 6.37, s 6.76, s 6.77, s 79, s 6.82 |
Case References: | Galea v Brimbank CC [2004] VCAT 1061 at [50] [55] Gillespie v Little [1978] WAR 73 (FC) Little v Gillespie [1977] WAR 78 Little v Gillespie [1977] WAR 78 (at 81) Shanvale Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Livingstone (1999) 105 LGERA 380 (CA, Qld) Stevens v Keogh and Others (1946) 72 CLR 1 Rogers and Ors v Valuer General and Anor (unreported, Supreme Court of WA, Walsh J, 31 May 1004 [BC9401691]) |
Orders | 1. The application for review is dismissed.,2. The rate imposed by the respondent and under review is affirmed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA) CITATION : SMITH and CITY OF STIRLING [2006] WASAT 6 MEMBER : MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)
- MR P McNAB (MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Local Government Electricity Rates Specified area rate Special rate imposed for underground power State Government underground power program Benefit to ratepayers or residents within the area Determination of rate Complex rating model Underground power supply said to be of no personal benefit to ratepayer Failure to consult ratepayers True motives of Local Government Standing Whether matter raised by applicant of general interest Application dismissed Words and phrases: "benefit" and "question of general interest"
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 6.32, s 6.37, s 6.76, s 6.77, s 79, s 6.82
Result:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The rate imposed by the respondent and under review is affirmed.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : Mr D Naderbaum
Solicitors:
Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Galea v Brimbank CC [2004] VCAT 1061 at [50] [55]
Gillespie v Little [1978] WAR 73 (FC)
Little v Gillespie [1977] WAR 78
Little v Gillespie [1977] WAR 78 (at 81)
Shanvale Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Livingstone (1999) 105 LGERA 380 (CA, Qld)
Stevens v Keogh and Others (1946) 72 CLR 1
Case(s) also cited:
Rogers and Ors v Valuer General and Anor (unreported, Supreme Court of WA, Walsh J, 31 May 1004 [BC9401691])
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 Mr Phillip Smith is the owner of a residential unit on West Coast Highway at Scarborough. In February 2005, the City of Stirling served on Mr Smith a special rate notice for the year 2004/2005 in which he was levied $544.24 for underground power.
2 In June 2005, Mr Smith lodged with the City an objection to this rate notice. Mr Smith was concerned that, because he had not been given the opportunity to comment, the City had not properly identified the area as a specific area for which the charge should be levied. In addition, he said that, under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), in order to apply a specified area rate, there must be some benefit to the ratepayers and that he has not benefited from underground power. Mr Smith further submitted that the method of calculating the rate was confusing and therefore the rate was invalid.
3 The City disallowed the objections saying that it did not have to consult residents; that it had the power to levy the rate; that his property was rateable; and that, in City's view, he had received the benefit of the undergrounding of electricity. The City also said that the amount of the levy was a defensible proportion of the costs involved. Mr Smith was advised that he had the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) for a review of the decision.
4 Mr Smith lodged an application for review with the Tribunal, restating the reasons that were in his objection to the City and adding an argument that the developers of a local housing project had already paid for the undergrounding of the power.
5 The respondent raised as a preliminary point the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine the appeal, as the matter had proceeded as an "appeal on rating generally". The Tribunal ruled that Mr Smith had raised a question of "general interest" which the Act required to be done for such an appeal.
6 The Tribunal carefully considered each of the grounds raised by Mr Smith but did not accept any of his arguments for impugning the rate. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that there was a proved significant benefit to the amenity of the area that was rated for underground power.
7 The Tribunal therefore confirmed the respondent's special rate.
(Page 4)
Introduction to the issues
8 Mr Phillip Victor Smith (applicant) is the owner of residential unit No 7 on Lot 7 of strata plan 462 at 159 West Coast Highway, Scarborough (subject property). The applicant's unit is one of ten units in the complex. The subject property is on the west side of West Coast Highway between the highway reserve and the reserves adjacent to the foreshore of Scarborough Beach.
9 Minutes of relevant meetings of the Council of the City of Stirling (respondent), attached to the witness statement of Mr Graeme Reddin (who is Manager, Finance Services of the respondent), show that in 2003 the respondent resolved to commit to the "State Underground Power Program Round Two Scarborough Localised Enhancement Project". Annexed below is a copy of the respondent's plan "Project Boundary September 2003" (project area plan), which defines the area included within the project. (The area was extended slightly in 2004 to include six lots in Pearl Parade).
10 The project area extends for approximately 1.2 kilometres north to south and at its widest extends to about 400 metres. Lots to the east of the highway could generally be described as of a residential size while to the west of the highway the lots are larger and are developed with grouped and multiple dwellings and the Rendezvous Observation City Hotel. The subject property is at the northernmost end of the project area.
11 This respondent's 2003 resolution had the effect of retaining a State Government subsidy and committing the respondent to the expenditure of funds. The respondent also resolved to require the owners of property in the project area to contribute to the project.
12 The works to install underground power were completed in 2003.
13 In August 2004 the respondent adopted its 2004/2005 Municipal Fund Budget. Under the item "Specified Area Rate Underground Power Scarborough" the respondent, by absolute majority in accordance with the provisions of s 6.32 and s 6.37 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act), struck a rate in the dollar of the gross rental value (GRV) for the area shown on the project area map, as modified by the 2004 resolution.
14 In January 2005, the respondent wrote to individual property owners within the project area advising them of the plan to underground the
(Page 5)
- electricity supply within what it termed the "Scarborough Beach Precinct". The letter advised that:
"It is common practice within underground power projects for property owners to contribute towards the project in recognition of the benefits the project will bring.
The State Government and the City of Stirling will also contribute funding. The State Government has pledged $250 000 and the City of Stirling will match the contributions from owners on a dollar for dollar basis."
"Details Current Total
Network not subject to GST $890.14 890.14
Council concession + funds surplus -345.90
After project finalisation Total levy $544.24"
16 On 14 June 2005, the applicant lodged with the respondent an objection to the rate notice for underground power. The respondent disallowed the objection. The applicant then lodged this application for review with the Tribunal.
Legislation
17 The applicant's submissions and the respondent's reply make reference to the following sections of the LG Act:
"6.32 Rates and service charges
(1) When adopting the annual budget, a local government
…
(b) may impose* on rateable land within its district
- (i) a specified area rate; or
…
- * Absolute majority required
…
6.37. Specified area rates
(1) A local government may impose a specified area rate on rateable land within a portion of its district for the purpose of meeting the cost of the provision by it of a specific work, service or facility if the local government considers that the ratepayers or residents within that area
(a) have benefited or will benefit from;
(b) have access to or will have access to; or
(c) have contributed or will contribute to the need for,
that work, service or facility.
6.76. Grounds of objection
(1) A person may, in accordance with this section, object to the rate record of a local government on the ground
(a) that there is an error in the rate record
(i) with respect to the identity of the owner or occupier of any land; or
(ii) on the basis that the land or part of the land is not rateable land;
or
- (b) if the local government imposes a differential general rate, that the characteristics of the land recorded in the
- rate record as the basis for imposing that rate should be deleted and other characteristics substituted.
- (2) An objection under subsection (1) is to
(a) be made to the local government in writing within 42 days of the service of a rate notice under section 6.41;
(b) identify the relevant land; and
(c) set out fully and in detail the grounds of objection.
- …
- (5) The local government is to promptly consider any objection and may either disallow it or allow it, wholly or in part.
(6) After making a decision on the objection the local government is to promptly serve upon the person by whom the objection was made written notice of its decision on the objection and a statement of its reason for that decision.
…
- 6.77. Review of decision of local government on objection
Any person who is dissatisfied with the decision of a local government on an objection by that person under section 6.76 may, within 42 days (or such further period as the State Administrative Tribunal, for reasonable cause shown by the person, allows) after service of notice of the decision, apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision.
…
6.79. New matters raised on review
- (1) Upon a review by the State Administrative Tribunal under section 6.77 or 6.78, the State Administrative Tribunal may consider
(a) grounds in addition to those stated in the notice of objection; and
(b) reasons in addition to any reasons previously given for the local government's decision that is under review.
(2) The State Administrative Tribunal is to ensure, by adjournment or otherwise, that each party and any other person entitled to be heard has a reasonable opportunity of properly considering and responding to any new ground or reason that the State Administrative Tribunal proposes to consider in accordance with subsection (1).
- …
6.82. General review of imposition of rate or service charge
(1) Where there is a question of general interest as to whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with this Act, the local government or any person may refer the question to the State Administrative Tribunal to have it resolved.
(2) Subsection (1) does not enable a person to have a question relating to that person's own individual case resolved under this section if it could be, or could have been, resolved under section 6.76.
(3) The State Administrative Tribunal dealing with a matter referred to it under this section may make an order quashing a rate or service charge which in its opinion has been improperly made or imposed."
18 This matter has proceeded on the basis that it is a purported review under s 6.82 of the LG Act, a provision of the Act which is set out immediately above.
(Page 9)
19 The respondent raised as a preliminary issue the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine this matter. The respondent submitted that an application for review pursuant to s 6.82 could only be made where there is "a question of general interest" as to whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with the LG Act.
20 The respondent referred to the applicant's ground for review, which stated that he did not agree with the specified area rate imposed by the respondent because "there is no benefit to me as a ratepayer". This, says the respondent, is an application to have an individual case considered by the Tribunal. It is the respondent's submission that whether or not the specified area rate is of benefit to the applicant is not a question of general interest. As such, the application is not open to review under s 6.82 of the LG Act.
21 During the course of the hearing, we ruled that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to consider the review, thus overruling the respondent's preliminary objection. We now provide short reasons for that conclusion.
22 In Stevens v Keoghand Others (1946) 72 CLR 1 the High Court, by majority, considered that it was not ultra vires the rules of a Police Association to fund a personal civil libel case brought by an Officer against the Commissioner of Police under a rule authorising expenditure in respect of "any appeal to a Federal or State Court wherein any question of general interest of members is involved". Starke J said (at 22):
"It is true enough that an action for libel is a personal action but the extent to which defamation of a police officer affects the general interest of members of the Police Association depends upon its character and its connection with the performance of their duties as officers of police."
(Page 10)
- truly be a triumph of form over substance, a result we think that the parliament of this State did not intend when it conferred certain rights of review upon this Tribunal.
24 We turn to consider the applicant's arguments.
Project area not identified properly
25 The applicant submitted that the respondent has not followed the correct procedure as set out in the LG Act to have the project area identified as a specified area for rating purposes.
26 The applicant does not, however, identify any procedural steps under the LG Act that the respondent has failed to follow. The essence of his argument is that the respondent had promised in April 2003 to survey owners about underground power and had subsequently resolved not to. The respondent had committed to the program and the levying of the specified area rate without affording the owners an opportunity to be heard or providing them with enough information to make a comment. The respondent had simply written to individual landowners in December 2003 advising them of its plans to install underground power.
27 The respondent points out that there is no requirement for consultation or notification when imposing a specified area rate under s 6.32 and s 6.37 of the LG Act. As required by s 6.37(1)(a), a portion of its district was identified, as set out in the project area map, the undergrounding of the power was a specific work the cost of which had to be met and ratepayers and residents within that area would benefit from the work.
28 The minutes of the respondent's meetings supplied by Mr Reddin show that the respondent properly resolved to commit to the project, and passed the necessary resolutions in the manner prescribed by the LG Act to levy the rate on the residents and ratepayers who benefited.
29 The respondent raised the expectations of landowners in the project area that they would be consulted. While the applicant considers that the respondent has behaved poorly in abandoning that process, it is not a ground for determining that the respondent has failed to follow proper statutory procedures and consequently that the rate should be quashed.
30 We reject the first contention of the applicant.
(Page 11)
Underground power already paid for?
31 Next, the applicant asserted that underground power had been paid for by developers and the specified area rate was therefore "double dipping". In support of this, he called Mr Philip Henson, an owner of and resident in an apartment in Observation Rise at 183 West Coast Highway. Mr Henson said that a condition of development approval for Observation Rise imposed by the respondent on the developer (Tanizawa Pty Ltd) was that underground power be supplied to the complex. It was Mr Henson's view that Tanizawa Pty Ltd installed and paid for the underground power supply and that the costs of providing this supply were incorporated into the purchase price of the apartments. Mr Henson said that the Scarborough Localised Enhancement Project did not provide any additional amenity, benefit or improved aesthetics to the owners of Observation Rise as they had already paid for and had had installed underground power.
32 Mr Henson did not provide any evidence of the precise terms of the condition imposed by the respondent on the developers of Observation Rise. When examined on what the developer actually paid for, Mr Henson said that he understood that the power was taken underground to the main power supply, which he acknowledged was "over the road". Mr Henson was not able to say whether the reticulated main power supply along West Coast Highway had been placed underground at the expense of the developer of Observation Rise.
33 When Mr Reddin was examined, he said that the respondent's records showed that the development conditions imposed by the respondent required that electricity reticulation within this large development site be underground and that a substation be provided on site. It was a further requirement that the site be connected by an underground connection across the road to the then existing overhead network. The overhead electricity reticulation network was subsequently undergrounded as part of the Scarborough Localised Enhancement Project.
34 The Tribunal accepts Mr Reddin's evidence as an explanation of what the developer of Observation Rise was actually required to do at the development stage. The developer did not place underground the reticulated main electricity supply in the locality. It did no more than provide an underground connection from the development across the road to what was then an overhead reticulation system on the east side of West
(Page 12)
- Coast Highway. The specified area rate notice is not, therefore, "double dipping".
35 We therefore reject the second of the applicant's arguments.
Benefit to residents and ratepayers of project area
36 The applicant does not dispute that he has been, is currently and will in the future be connected to the electricity supply. His argument is that, under s 6.37 of the LG Act, in order to apply a specified area rate there must be or will be some benefit to ratepayers and residents and that he does not personally benefit from the electricity supply being underground.
37 In his closing submission, the applicant said, however, that he supports the State Government and Western Power in their programs to have underground power. He gave two reasons for that support. The first was safety, arising mainly from the removal from the roadside of all other poles not supporting a light, and the second was the aesthetic value of a street clear of the additional poles. The photographic evidence supplied by Mr Reddin shows that placing the power underground does markedly improve the amenity of the immediate locality.
38 The respondent also provided a list of what it considered to be the benefits of underground power and it included the same two items. Other items in the respondent's list were not so obviously a benefit, particularly as regards West Coast Highway. For example, reference is made to the benefits accruing from the need to no longer prune street trees, but as was pointed out by the applicant and as is illustrated in the photographs provided by Mr Reddin, there are no street trees in much of West Coast Highway. Another example is a reference to better street lighting, but again, as the applicant argues, it is doubtful whether there would be an improvement in illumination of West Coast Highway as a result of the power being placed underground.
39 The applicant's property is at the very northern end of the project area and he complains that, when looking north, he can see poles. When looking across the road and to the south, however, he would see an uncluttered skyline and a streetscape which provides a marked improvement of aspect. It might well be that the applicant does not feel that he personally benefits, but the Tribunal is of the view that any person residing in that property (or, likewise, any neighbour) has or will have the benefit of the improved environment resulting from the underground power.
(Page 13)
40 Essentially, there is a difference between the parties, however, on how the benefit should be paid for.
Specified area rate or general rate
41 It is the applicant's submission that placing the power underground is for the benefit of Western Power and the State Government, in that it will ultimately reduce repair and maintenance costs to them, and that this is not the business of the respondent. The Tribunal considers, however, that enhancement of the streetscape and the amenity of the locality is a legitimate concern of the respondent, and that these matters were the primary motivations of the respondent.
42 The applicant believes that it is inequitable to pay for the undergrounding of power by way of a special area rate levied on the individual landowners within the boundary of the project area, particularly because of the broad community enjoyment of any benefits arising from the improvement of the Scarborough locality. He said that he did not object to paying as a ratepayer in general, but did object to having a specific charge levied upon him. It was his argument that, if the City of Stirling were to make a contribution, this should be taken from the general rate income for the whole of the City. In his view, infrastructure costs should come out of consolidated and future revenue.
43 The respondent made reference to underground power schemes in other discrete areas such as Woodlands and Doubleview, Mount Lawley and Inglewood. Mr Reddin pointed out that the ratepayers in these project areas were levied a specified area rate to contribute to the cost of providing underground power. There is a consistency of approach which says that the ratepayers in a project area particularly benefit and so should make a contribution as opposed to all of the ratepayers making a contribution to a project area distant from where they live, and in the absence of any commitment as to when in the future they might receive underground power and a consequential improvement to their local amenity.
44 The former analogous provisions of the Local Government Act 1960 (WA) spoke in terms of authorising a differential rate arising out of works for the "special benefit to certain portions or wards of a shire": see the provisions discussed in Little v Gillespie [1977] WAR 78 (reversed on other grounds: Gillespie v Little [1978] WAR 73 (FC)). There is a useful survey of the relevant authorities on what constitutes a "special benefit" in the differential rating context undertaken by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Galea v Brimbank CC
(Page 14)
- [2004] VCAT 1061 at [50] [55], an analysis which we gratefully adopt by way of background. See also Shanvale Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Livingstone (1999) 105 LGERA 380 (CA, Qld).
45 Although these cases mostly dealt with the concept of a "special benefit" they are helpful in determining the relevant benefit that must be found to exist before a special rate is imposed. In addition, it may be noted that Jackson CJ spoke in terms of a taking a "commonsense" approach to the issue in Little v Gillespie [1977] WAR 78 (at 81).
46 The discussion in all of these cases, we think, indicates that a relevant "benefit" will include a benefit (whether direct or indirect) which is rationally found to be additional to or greater than that which other ratepayers or residents receive arising out of the identified "specific work, service or facility". Such a benefit may be considered in an abstract sense. Thus, such matters as the views of the present owner of the affected land or the present use of the land are not determinative of whether something could be said to be for the objectively determined benefit of ratepayers or residents.
47 From the evidence presented, the Tribunal finds that placing power underground here does provide an identifiable and significant benefit to the local amenity within the project boundary. That benefit is available to local residents and ratepayers immediately and continuously. That benefit is also discernibly of greater benefit to ratepayers and residents within the project boundary than to others.
48 The Tribunal finds that the respondent has made out the "benefit" requirement under the LG Act, and therefore the respondent could lawfully impose the specified area rate on that basis.
Scarborough Environs Area Strategy
49 A further argument of the applicant is that placing the power underground is actually part of the beautification of the locality under the "Scarborough Environs Area Strategy" (SEAS) and therefore not done for an individual ratepayer's benefit. It was submitted that SEAS should be funding the undergrounding of the power because the beautification is aimed at attracting tourists to Scarborough. The example given is the stated aim of SEAS to have the area upgraded for the national surf lifesaving championships in 2007. It is argued that this should not be a matter to be funded by the ratepayers in the project area.
(Page 15)
50 Mr Reddin explained that the part contribution by the Government to placing the power underground is tied to the "State Underground Power Program Round Two Scarborough Localised Enhancement Project". This, he said, is separate from SEAS, which is a five to ten year project to renew and refurbish public infrastructure along the Scarborough beachfront. As part of SEAS, it was recommended that the power be placed underground, and an application under the "State Underground Power Program Round Two Scarborough Localised Enhancement Project" was made.
51 It makes good planning sense to have various projects arising under different programs occur at the same time to achieve a common goal. The Tribunal accepts that funding programs separate from one another can occur in parallel to this end, as was the case here.
52 The Tribunal rejects the applicant's argument on this point.
The rate charged
53 The applicant also raised as a concern the difficulty he had in interpreting the rate charged to different landowners. He submitted that the method of calculation supplied by the respondent is confusing and outside that contemplated by the LG Act. He considers that the use of a formula incorporating GRV, area, property frontage and kilovolt area (KVA) draw applied on a sliding scale of rates is against the spirit of what the actual charge stands for.
54 Attachment 6 to Mr Reddin's witness statement is the minutes of the respondent Council's ordinary meeting of 3 August 2004. These minutes include resolutions for striking general rates across the City and specified area rates for various localities, including for underground power at Scarborough.
55 Set out there is a formula to determine the net amount payable by each property owner. This formula, as mentioned, includes for the project area total GRVs, total area, total property and total KVA draw. It also includes values for each of those items for individual properties plus individual property frontage, total property connection costs and individual property connection costs. The minutes also include a variation of the formula whereby the amount of waiver for each property is worked out. These formulae were adopted together with the rate in the dollar, with the outcome that the net amount payable in all cases was not to exceed the specified area rate levy.
(Page 16)
56 The respondent has chosen this model for calculating the levy and a concession for each ratepayer. The applicant does not like this model and said that he is prepared to pay onetenth (there are ten units in the complex in which his unit is located) of the fee to connect the complex to the underground power supply.
57 In reply, the respondent says that the model chosen is consistently applied, and under the LG Act, it can only generate funds for the particular project. It cannot be used as a general revenueraising device. Mr Reddin said that the model was adopted because it provided a mechanism for equitable contributions by such diverse ratepayers as individual home owners, groups of multiple dwellings and the Observation City hotel, each having one connection to the underground power system but obviously having different characteristics for items such as power draw, power use and land value.
58 The applicant provided examples of rate notices showing different amounts for adjacent properties that were otherwise difficult to differentiate between. Mr Reddin could not provide an explanation for individual differences without further examination. The Tribunal notes that there is available the opportunity for individual ratepayers to object to any valuation. This would provide an opportunity for the values used in the formula for each individual property to be examined and clarified. Of course, that is a process that would occur outside of this hearing.
59 Absent a forensic analysis of the respondent's model, the applicant's preferred system or any alternative models, the Tribunal is reluctant to, in effect, set aside the model adopted by the respondent. In the Tribunal's experience, it is not unusual for administrative or even statutory models to include complex formulae with the aim of producing a transparent, fair and an equitable impact on those affected by the charge or levy or other regulatory regime.
60 That aim might not always be achieved but there is here no evidence, expert or otherwise, to suggest doubt as to either the motives of the respondent in the creation of the model, or as to any necessarily obvious disproportionate or unfair impact of the chosen model on affected ratepayers.
61 We therefore reject the applicant's argument on this point.
(Page 17)
Conclusion
62 Section 6.37 of the LG Act provides that a Local Government may impose a specified area rate on rateable land within a portion of its district for the purpose of meeting the cost of the provision by it of a specific work, service or facility if the Local Government considers that the ratepayers or residents within that area have benefited or will benefit from that work.
63 There was a preliminary question whether this matter gives rise to a review under s 6.82 of the LG Act as a question of general interest as to whether the specified area rate was imposed in accordance with the Act, or whether it was a question personal to the applicant.
64 The Tribunal is of the view, for the reasons stated above, that a question of general interest did arise.
65 From the evidence presented, the respondent has imposed the specified area rate on an identified project area for the specific work of placing the electricity reticulation system underground. This placing of the electricity underground was the result of the "State Underground Power Program Round Two Scarborough Localised Enhancement Project" and not as a result of contributions by developers or as part of the SEAS project.
66 The ratepayers and residents of the project area do receive a benefit directly and continuously over and above the general ratepayers of the City of Stirling, and this also is a requirement under s 6.37 of the LG Act for levying the specified area rate.
67 The evidence shows that the respondent has complied with the statutory requirements for levying the rate and that consultation with the ratepayers, while it may have increased an understanding and acceptance of the process, is not a mandatory statutory requirement.
68 There are no relevant grounds for impugning the formula used by the respondent in connection with that rate.
69 Under s 6.82(3) the Tribunal may make an order quashing a rate, which in its opinion has been improperly made or imposed. From its examination of this matter, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the specified area rate in question has been properly imposed and there are no grounds for quashing the rate.
70 For these reasons the application for review will be dismissed.
(Page 18)
ANNEXURE
(Page 19)
Order
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The rate imposed by the respondent and under review is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [70] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR P McNAB, MEMBER
5
2
1