| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : VIENTO PROPERTY LTD and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2009] WASAT 229 MEMBER : MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 28 OCTOBER 2009 DELIVERED : Edited reasons delivered orally on 28 October 2009 FILE NO/S : DR 131 of 2009 BETWEEN : VIENTO PROPERTY LTD Applicant
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
52/52 PTY LTD
Proposed Intervener
Catchwords: Practice and procedure Third party participation Planning review application Application to intervene Application to make submissions Costs Legislation: City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6, cl 7.4
(Page 2)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 3, s 242
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 37, s 37(3), s 87(2)
Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 62 Result: Application for leave to intervene dismissed
Application for leave to make submissions dismissed
Each party and proposed intervener to pay its own costs Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant : Mr P McQueen
Respondent : Ms CA Ide
Proposed Intervener : Mr AG Castledine
Solicitors:
Applicant : Lavan Legal
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Proposed Intervener : Castledine Legal and Mediation Services
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth of Australia (1981) 146 CLR 493
ING Development Australia Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2008] WASAT 104
Pitt v Environment, Resources and Development Court (1995) 66 SASR 274
Shire of Augusta-Margaret River v Gray [2005] WASCA 227
(Page 3)
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision 1 52/52 Pty Ltd sought to intervene or make submissions in an application for review of the deemed refusal of an Outline Development Plan in relation to land in a subprecinct of a development area. 52/52 Pty Ltd owned land in a different subprecinct of the development area. A Local Structure Plan for the whole precinct showed the location of a high school on 52/52 Pty Ltd's land. 52/52 Pty Ltd wished to participate in the proceeding principally in order to argue that the high school should be located on the land the subject of the proposed Outline Development Plan, rather than on its land. 2 The Tribunal gave an oral decision in which it refused to allow 52/52 Pty Ltd to intervene or make submissions in the proceeding. The Tribunal found that 52/52 Pty Ltd did not have a sufficient interest in the outcome of the application for review. Furthermore, if 52/52 Pty Ltd had a sufficient interest, the Tribunal would have declined to exercise discretion to allow it to participate in the circumstances of the case. 3 The following reasons for the Tribunal's decision is an edited version of the transcript of oral reasons.
Introduction 4 52/52 Pty Ltd (52/52) seeks leave to intervene in this proceeding, pursuant to s 37(3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), or, alternatively, to make submissions in respect of the application, pursuant to s 242 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act). 5 The proceeding involves an application made by Viento Properties Pty Ltd (Viento) for review of the deemed refusal by the Western Australian Planning Commission (Commission) of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) in relation to Subprecinct 3A of Southern River (Subprecinct 3A). The ODP was lodged by Viento with the City of Gosnells (City) pursuant to cl 7.4 of the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No 6 (TPS 6 or Scheme) approximately one year ago. The City agreed to the advertising of the ODP and, ultimately, adopted it and forwarded it to the Commission for consideration. As the Commission did not address the ODP within the statutory 90 day period, it was deemed to have been refused, and Viento sought review by the Tribunal in early April 2009 of the deemed refusal to approve the ODP. (Page 4)
6 Subprecinct 3A has an area of approximately 55 hectares. It appears that Viento owns, or has contracted to purchase, about half the land in that subprecinct. Subprecinct 3A is one of six subprecincts which together comprise Precinct 3 of Southern River (Precinct 3). Precinct 3 was identified in the Southern River/Forrestdale/Brookdale/Wungong District Structure Plan (DSP) adopted in 2001. 7 The ODP proposes the location of streets, public open space, retail areas and residential areas with various residential density codings. 8 As noted earlier, the application for review was filed in early April 2009. The Tribunal subsequently conducted three directions hearings and two mediations, over a period of several months, in an effort to facilitate the resolution of the application. On 2 October 2009, 52/52 made the application to the Tribunal for leave to intervene or, alternatively, to make submissions. 9 During the course of the hearing of the application this afternoon, the Tribunal was informed that the parties that is, Viento and the Commission have reached agreement in relation to the resolution of the application. In particular, they have agreed that the ODP should be approved in a particular form, and also that a related Deed should be entered into. The parties indicated, however, that the execution of the Deed requires the approval of the Minister for Planning (Minister), and the Minister has not yet indicated his approval. Nevertheless, the parties considered that there is no need for a further mediation that is scheduled shortly, and that, subject to the Minister's agreement to the Deed, the matter is ready to be finalised by way of consent orders. 10 Section 37(3) of the SAT Act confers a discretion on the Tribunal to give leave at any time for a person to intervene in a proceeding on conditions, if any, that the Tribunal thinks fit. Section 242 of the PD Act states as follows: The State Administrative Tribunal may receive or hear submissions in respect of an application from a person who is not a party to the application if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the person has a sufficient interest in the matter. 11 52/52 owns Lot 11 Passmore Street, Southern River (52/52 land). The 52/52 land is located in Subprecinct 3D of Southern River. The southernmost point of Subprecinct 3A abuts the northernmost point of Subprecinct 3D. However, 52/52's land, which has an area of (Page 5)
approximately 4 hectares, is located on the far side of Subprecinct 3D from Subprecinct 3A. 12 Both Viento and the Commission opposed each of the applications made by 52/52.
Applicable principles in relation to intervention and leave to make submissions 13 In ING Development Australia Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2008] WASAT 104 (ING) at [28], Chaney J helpfully set out the applicable principles in relation to intervention under s 37(3) of the SAT Act, specifically in a case involving an application for review under the PD Act. The reference to Australian Conservation Foundation in the following quotation is to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth of Australia (1981) 146 CLR 493 (Australian Conservation Foundation). Chaney J said the following (citations omitted): In my view, the authorities and statutory provisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that in relation to applications under the PD Act: (i) to be granted leave to intervene, a person must demonstrate at least an interest sufficient to meet the test for standing identified in Australian Conservation Foundation; (ii) merely demonstrating a sufficient interest does not by itself enliven a right to intervene; (iii) an incorporated or unincorporated body will not gain standing to intervene merely because it has constitutional objects directed to promoting outcomes relevant to the matter under a review. Similarly private citizens will not gain standing to intervene merely because they hold strong beliefs or emotions concerning the matter under review; (iv) although the third party's interest may not necessarily be a legal interest (although it commonly will involve a legal interest), merely demonstrating any of the other matters referred to in s 38 of the SAT Act will not usually be sufficient to secure leave to intervene under s 37; (v) the third party will generally need to demonstrate that its intervention is necessary to enable the Tribunal to meet the objectives of the SAT Act (including minimising cost and avoiding delay) and the PD Act. Factors which the Tribunal will take into (Page 6)
14 In Shire of Augusta-Margaret River v Gray [2005] WASCA 227 (Gray), Pullin JA provided guidance, at [138] [139], as to the meaning of the term 'sufficient interest' in s 62 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) which was in substantially the same terms as s 242 of the PD Act. Having noted that the terms 'special interest' and 'sufficient interest' are sometimes interchanged as a shorthand expression, for example in Australian Conservation Foundation, his Honour held, at [139], as follows: In my opinion, the expression 'sufficient interest' in s 62 means that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant had an interest which would give standing for judicial review and which would pass the test for standing approved by the High Court in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (supra). That must be shown before the Tribunal's discretion is enlivened under s 62. That is not to say that if the jurisdiction is enlivened that [sic] the Tribunal is then obliged to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Factors such as those referred to (Page 7)
in [Pitt v Environment, Resources and Development Court (1995) 66 SASR 274] would then be taken into account in deciding whether to permit a person, not a party, to make submissions. 15 In Australian Conservation Foundation, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ held that, in cases that do not concern constitutional validity, a person who has no special interest in the subject matter of an action over and above that enjoyed by the public generally, or a segment of the public, has no standing to seek an injunction or declaration to prevent the violation of a public right or to enforce the performance of a public duty. Gibbs J held, at 530, as follows: I would not deny that a person might have a special interest in the preservation of a particular environment. However, an interest, for present purposes, does not mean a mere intellectual or emotional concern. A person is not interested within the meaning of the rule, unless he is likely to gain some advantage, other than the satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a contest, if his action succeeds or to suffer some disadvantage, other than a sense of grievance or a debt for costs, if his action fails. A belief, however strongly felt, that the law generally, or a particular law, should be observed, or that conduct of a particular kind should be prevented, does not suffice to give its possessor [standing]. 16 Similarly, Mason J held, at 547, that: Depending on the nature of the relief which he seeks, a plaintiff will in general have [standing] when he can show actual or apprehended injury or damage to his property or proprietary rights, to his business or economic interests … and perhaps to his social or political interests. … 17 In Gray, at [129], Pullin JA set out with approval an extract from the judgment of Doyle CJ in Pitt v Environment, Resources and Development Court (1995) 66 SASR 274 at 275, in which the Chief Justice identified factors which guide the exercise of the discretion to join a person as a party to any proceedings (and which, Pullin JA held, at [139], should be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion to receive or hear submissions in respect of an application from a third party who has a sufficient interest in the matter) as follows: Important factors in any such case will be the nature and strength of the interest of the applicant for joinder in the decision under appeal, the contribution which the applicant for joinder is likely to be able to make to the proper resolution of the issues before the ERD Court and whether the interest which the applicant for joinder represents and the material to be advocated by that person would be adequately dealt with by the parties already before the ERD Court. It will also be appropriate for the (Page 8)
ERD Court to consider the impact upon the proceedings of the joinder. The Court can and should consider the interests of the parties before it as of right and the public interest in the prompt and efficient despatch of the proceedings. In addition, there will in each case be other factors particular to the case.
52/52's case for intervention and to make submissions 18 52/52 contends that it has a sufficient interest to meet the test of standing in Australian Conservation Foundation, because any approval of the proposed ODP the subject of this proceeding 'has the potential to directly impact on future planning decisions' in respect of the 52/52 land, particularly in relation to the potential location of a high school within Precinct 3, the allocation of public open space in that precinct generally, and cost sharing arrangements. 19 52/52 emphasised the planning framework within which future subdivision and development applications in relation to Precinct 3 are to be decided. Mr Castledine, who appeared for 52/52, referred in particular to a three stage planning process involving: 20 The LSP adopted in May 2009 showed the 52/52 land and other land, but not the land the subject of the ODP before the Tribunal, as 'Areas subject to further investigation'. One of the unresolved planning issues, on account of which parts of Precinct 3 were identified as areas subject to further investigation, was the location of a high school. In the DSP, the high school was proposed to be located in Precinct 2 of Southern River. While the DSP has apparently not been amended, it is common ground that there is a proposal for the high school to be relocated to Precinct 3. 21 52/52 has lodged an ODP in relation to Subprecincts 3C and 3D of Southern River, in which it proposed several alternative locations for the high school outside Subprecinct 3D. At the time when 52/52 prepared its written submissions, it understood that the Commission had approved, (Page 9)
or proposed to approve, an amended LSP providing more detailed planning for the areas designated in May 2009 as areas subject to further investigation, and that, in particular, the amended LSP showed the location of the high school on the 52/52 land. The evidence presented by the Commission to the Tribunal today indicated that, on 15 September 2009, the Commission noted a modified or amended version of the LSP for the whole of Precinct 3, which located the high school on the whole of the 52/52 land and contiguous land. The decision sheet of the Commission's relevant committee stated that the amended or modified LSP: … is suitable for use as a guiding document to assess MRS and TPS amendments and subprecinct Outline Development Plans within Southern River Precinct 3, subject to the modifications listed in Schedule 1 below. 22 52/52 submitted that any approval of the ODP in this proceeding, based on the amended or modified LSP, is likely to: … close off a number of planning options for the neighbourhood subprecincts and make it almost impossible for the LSP to be further amended. 23 52/52 expressed the concern that there has been inadequate local structure planning carried out and that there is therefore a risk of 'first in, best dressed', which would be inconsistent with orderly and proper planning. While, as noted earlier, 52/52 has lodged its own ODP application in relation to Subprecincts 3C and 3D, that application remains undetermined and, indeed, unadvertised. 24 In addition to the question of the location of the high school site, which 52/52 wishes to agitate in this proceeding, it also wishes to raise issues relating to the allocation of public open space and cost sharing arrangements for developer contributions in Precinct 3 generally.
Does 52/52 have a sufficient interest? 25 The Tribunal considers that 52/52 does not have a sufficient interest to meet the test of standing identified in Australian Conservation Foundation. In particular, the fact that the ODP the subject of this proceeding does not propose the location of a high school on the subject land, whereas the amended or modified LSP shows the location of a high school on the 52/52 land, does not, in my view, have the effect that 52/52 has a sufficient interest in this matter. I have come to this view for three reasons. (Page 10)
26 First, 52/52 does not have an interest in the outcome of the application that is not shared by at least a segment of the public. Insofar as the ODP the subject of this proceeding does not propose a high school on the subject land, with the consequence that it is likely to be located elsewhere, whether in Precinct 2 or in one of the other sub-precincts of Precinct 3, 52/52's interest is shared with other landowners in the precinct or subprecincts where the high school is likely to be located. 27 Second, 52/52's interest lies in the location of the high school on its land under the amended or modified LSP for Precinct 3, not in the failure of the ODP to propose the location of the high school on the land the subject of the ODP. The amended or modified LSP is a non-statutory strategic planning document that applies, as I have said, to the whole of Precinct 3. As each of the parties acknowledged in their submissions, and as, indeed, is acknowledged in the planning evidence presented by 52/52, the planning for the broad DSP area has been undertaken in order of increasing levels of detail to facilitate ultimate subdivision and development. As I have said earlier, the first level of detail was the DSP for the broad area, which was approved in 2001. The second level of detail was the LSP for all of Precinct 3, which was approved in May 2009 and has been recently amended or modified. The third level of detail is the approval of an ODP for one or more subprecincts. 28 In this planning context, the expectation is that each strategic planning document will be more specific and detailed than the previous document or documents, but will nevertheless be guided and informed by the previous document or documents. This point was made by Ms Sally Grebe, a town planner employed by the Department of Planning, in her evidence, on behalf of the Commission, when she said: The Precinct 3 Structure Plan is a guiding plan to inform detailed planning of … subprecincts. 29 This is the case, notwithstanding the fact that it was the submission of the ODP the subject of this proceeding that appears to have prompted the preparation of the Precinct 3 LSP. This is also the case, notwithstanding the fact that the Precinct 3 LSP was prepared by the same consultant town planner or planners as was the ODP the subject of this proceeding. The relevant planning authorities have endorsed the LSP as amended or modified. 30 The expectation is that the ODP the subject of this proceeding will be guided and informed by the LSP applying to the whole of Precinct 3. (Page 11)
As the LSP does not show the location of the high school on the land the subject of the ODP, as a matter of orderly strategic planning, the ODP that is the subject of this proceeding would not propose the location of the high school on the land the subject of the ODP in this proceeding. 31 The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter to amend the LSP to move the high school from the 52/52 land to the land the subject of the ODP. However, as Ms Grebe said in evidence: It is anticipated that modifications to the Precinct 3 Structure Plan are likely to occur as detailed planning of [sub-]precinct[s] 3B to 3F are undertaken. 32 While the Commission can do that, having regard to its various strategic planning functions in relation to Southern River, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this application to alter the LSP. 33 Third, 52/52 does not have a sufficient interest, in my view, in this application, in relation to the high school, because the approval of the ODP would not have the effect of precluding the high school ultimately going elsewhere than on the 52/52 land. As Ms Grebe said, it is conceivable that, as part of the ODP assessment in relation to Subprecincts 3C and 3D, changes may be made to the LSP to then guide the ultimate assessment and consideration of the ODP in relation to those subprecincts. 34 Certainly, as Mr Castledine submitted, if the ODP the subject of this application were approved, then it is likely that the high school would not be located in Subprecinct 3A; however, significantly, the LSP has never relevantly contemplated that as a planning option. As noted earlier, the LSP adopted in May 2009, shortly after the commencement of this proceeding, left open the location of the high school, but did not leave open the possibility of locating the high school in Sub-precinct 3A. 35 I also do not consider that 52/52 has a sufficient interest in relation to the allocation of public open space and cost sharing arrangements for three reasons. 36 First, 52/52's interest in relation to those aspects of the proposed ODP is shared with all landowners in Precinct 3, and is not a special interest. 37 Second, 52/52's interest is not sufficiently direct. The amount of public open space in Subprecinct 3A and the contribution aspect of the (Page 12)
ODP do not have a direct impact on 52/52's land, which will be subject to a separate ODP. 38 Third, as Ms Grebe said in evidence, development contributions have not been finalised or 'locked in', and all owners in subprecincts will be subject to equal public open space contributions.
If 52/52 had a sufficient interest, should discretion be exercised to allow intervention or submissions? 39 The findings in relation to sufficient interest preclude the granting of leave to intervene under s 37 of the SAT Act or leave to make a submission under s 242 of the PD Act. However, if 52/52 did have a sufficient interest to satisfy the test of standing in Australian Conservation Foundation, I would decline to grant leave to either intervene or make a submission in the exercise of discretion. 40 In relation to the application to intervene, which was the principal matter of argument today, 52/52 submits that it is able to: … significantly contribute to the proceedings in a manner which will assist the Tribunal to make the correct and preferable decision in the review application. 41 In particular, 52/52 submits that there are significant constraints precluding the location of the high school in Subprecinct 3D, arising out of the previous use of the 52/52 land as a piggery, and in consequence of concerns expressed by the Department of Education and Training. Moreover, 52/52 contends that there may be preferable alternatives for the proposed location of the high school under the LSP, including in Subprecinct 3A. 52/52 said that it is in a position to bring to the Tribunal's attention other matters going to orderly and proper planning of Precinct 3 as a whole, and the equitable allocation of public open space. 42 However, the Tribunal does not consider that intervention, or the making of submissions, by 52/52 is necessary to enable the Tribunal to meet the objectives of the SAT Act, relevantly, to review the deemed refusal fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case, to act as speedily as is practicable and to minimise the cost to the parties (s 9 of the SAT Act), or to meet the relevant objective of the PD Act, to promote the sustainable development and use of land (s 3 of the PD Act). 43 In particular, the proposed location of a high school on the 52/52 land does not properly bear on the assessment of the proposed ODP. As noted earlier, the higher order strategic planning for the Precinct (Page 13)
clearly contemplates that the high school should not be located on the land the subject of the ODP. In relation to the matters that properly fall within the scope of consideration in this proceeding in relation to the proposed ODP, the Tribunal is satisfied that the parties to the application are in a sufficient position to assist the Tribunal to arrive at the correct and preferable decision in relation to the application. 44 Second, significantly, the applications for intervention and to make submissions were made some six months after the proceeding was commenced in the Tribunal. As noted earlier, during that six month period, there have been a number of facilitative processes undertaken by the Tribunal. In particular, there have been three directions hearings and two mediations. The Tribunal's objectives include that it will act as speedily as is practicable. As Mr McQueen, who appeared for Viento, stressed, this consideration is particularly material in a case which has already taken six months to bring to finalisation. While it is true, as Mr Castledine said, that it appears that settlement has been reached in a process of mediation which obviously was not open to the public nevertheless, 52/52's delay of some six months in the commencement of its applications to intervene and make submissions, in my opinion, counts strongly against it. 45 The third reason why I consider that discretion should not be exercised, even assuming that there was a sufficient interest, is that, as noted earlier, the parties have, in fact, settled the matter. Moreover, they have done that through facilitative dispute resolution provided by the Tribunal. Facilitative dispute resolution is an important means by which the Tribunal fulfils its objectives under s 9 of the SAT Act, and therefore promotes the public interest. Allowing leave to intervene at this stage, and even allowing leave to make submissions, would undoubtedly lengthen the proceeding and increase the costs to the parties. Certainly, granting leave to make submissions would involve less costs, because a submitter does not have the ability to call evidence. Nevertheless, the parties are, subject to approval of the Minister, in a position to finalise the matter without delay. Allowing leave to intervene, or to make submissions, would inevitably result in a hearing of a substantive nature. The parties would need to prepare for that hearing. This would be the case, even if leave to intervene, or leave to make submissions, were limited to the issues that 52/52 wishes to agitate, or even limited to the principal issue it wishes to agitate, namely, the location of the high school. Allowing 52/52 to participate would lengthen the proceeding and increase its costs for the parties. (Page 14)
46 Finally, as Mr McQueen observed, an intervener will not ordinarily be allowed to extend the subject matter of the proceeding. Ordinarily, an intervener will be allowed only to support or oppose a position contended for by one or other of the parties. The issues that 52/52 wishes to ventilate in the proceeding are not issues that either party wishes to ventilate, or, indeed, appear ever to have wished to ventilate. In particular, the principal issue that 52/52 is concerned with, the location of the high school, has never been an issue of concern to the Commission, which, of course, is the primary strategic planning authority in relation to Southern River. As Ms Grebe said in evidence, it has never been contemplated by the Commission that the high school would be located in Subprecinct 3A. Certainly, it has never been contemplated in the LSP for the precinct.
Costs 47 Viento made an application that 52/52 should pay its costs of the applications heard today. Mr McQueen submitted that it is appropriate to depart from the usual practice of the Tribunal in relation to costs, because, in effect, the application was hopeless, at least after Viento notified 52/52 that the proceeding had been settled and that, therefore, 52/52 would be seeking to raise issues in circumstances where neither party contended for refusal of the ODP. That indication was given to 52/52 on Thursday, 22 October 2009. Mr McQueen relied on the observation of Chaney J in ING that: An intervener, unlike a party, will ordinarily be allowed only to support or oppose a decision contended for by one or other of the parties to the proceedings, and will not be permitted to expand the issues to be decided. 48 The application for costs was opposed. Mr Castledine questioned whether the Tribunal has power to grant an order for costs, because s 87(2) of the SAT Act only authorises the Tribunal to make an order for the payment 'by a party of all or any of the costs of another party'. Mr Castledine also disputed that the argument was hopeless, even following the indication last Thursday, and said that the application was a reasonable response in the circumstances to the predicament that 52/52 found itself in. 49 It is unnecessary to express a considered view in relation to the question of whether s 87 of the SAT Act would authorise an order for costs against a nonparty, because I do not consider that, in the exercise of discretion under s 87(2) of the SAT Act in the circumstances of the case, an order for costs should be made. It is certainly arguable, however, (Page 15)
that s 87 of the SAT Act does authorise the making of a costs order against a nonparty, on the basis that the words 'a party' in that section would include, relevantly, in the context of an application under s 37 of the SAT Act, a party to the application for intervention. 50 However, I do not consider that the conduct of the applicant for intervention was unreasonable. At the very least, it was reasonable for 52/52 to have an opportunity to consider its position after it was advised that the parties to the application had settled. Furthermore, whilst the observation of Chaney J in ING relied on by Mr McQueen was one of the considerations I referred to earlier as to why, in the exercise of discretion, leave should not be granted to intervene if there was a sufficient interest, it was not the only consideration on account of which I would have declined to grant leave to intervene assuming there was sufficient interest. Moreover, it is not a consideration that would preclude the granting of leave, although it is a weighty consideration. 51 In all the circumstances, I consider that each party should bear its own costs of the application to intervene and the application to make submissions.
Orders 52 The orders that I make are: 1. The application by 52/52 Pty Ltd for leave to intervene in the proceeding pursuant to s 37(3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) is dismissed. 2. The application by 52/52 Pty Ltd for leave to make a submission in relation to the application pursuant to s 242 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) is dismissed. 3. Each party and 52/52 Pty Ltd is to pay its own costs of the applications referred to in the preceding orders. 4. The mediation scheduled for 9 November 2009 is vacated. 5. The matter is to be adjourned to a directions hearing at 9 am on 13 November 2009 to await the filing of consent orders. (Page 16)
|