WA Billboards and Shire Of Murray
[2015] WASAT 130
•20 NOVEMBER 2015
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: WA BILLBOARDS and SHIRE OF MURRAY [2015] WASAT 130
MEMBER: MR J JORDAN (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD: 21 AUGUST 2015
DELIVERED : 20 NOVEMBER 2015
FILE NO/S: DR 101 of 2015
BETWEEN: WA BILLBOARDS
Applicant
AND
SHIRE OF MURRAY
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development Refusal double faced billboard Pylon sign Pond with reed beds around base Adjacent to regional road Grazing land Lot zoned Industrial Development Impact on road users Local Planning Scheme objectives Signs adjacent to main roads policy Impact on environment Impact on amenity Precedent Structure planning for locality
Legislation:
Peel Region Scheme
Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), Sch 2, cl 60
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Shire of Murray Town Planning Scheme No 4, cl 3.3.2, cl 6.13, cl 6.13.1, cl 6.13.8, cl 7.5.1.1, cl 7.5.3, cl 7.5.3.1
Result:
The application for review is dismissed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
Refused was the development of a 19 metre high pylon sign with two faces each of 72 square metres adjacent to the Kwinana Freeway. The site was zoned for industrial development but was used for rural purposes.
The Tribunal concluded that the timing and the forms of the future industrial development of the locality was too uncertain to support the proposal. The Tribunal further found that the proposed sign would be in conflict with the objectives for signs under the local planning scheme and the local government's policy for signs adjacent to the freeway because of the proposed height of the sign, the size of the two billboards and the adverse impact the sign would have on the amenity of the site and this locality. The Tribunal therefore decided to dismiss the application.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr S Robinson (as agent)
Respondent: Ms L McGuirk (as agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant: N/A
Respondent: Shire of Murray
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd and Shire of Murray [2010] WASAT 180
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
These proceedings involved an application for review by WA Billboards (applicant) pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) against the refusal by the Shire of Murray (Shire or respondent) to grant planning approval for the development of a pylon sign adjacent to the Kwinana freeway within the boundary of Lot 602 Seaeagle Court, Stake Hill (site).
Site and locality
The site, which is about 10 kilometres north east of the City of Mandurah, is triangular shaped with an area of some 38 hectares. Vehicle access is from Seaeagle Court, which runs east west along the northern boundary of the site. The eastern boundary runs north south and the south western boundary of the site, which is effectively the hypotenuse of the triangle, is formed by a frontage of about 950 metres to the Kwinana Freeway reserve. The freeway carriageways are constructed approximately 2 metres higher than the adjacent site.
The site and the locality are generally flat with a gentle decline to the west. The site and locality is characterised by a high water table with surface water evident during the view of the site in August 2015. There are three sets of culverts under the freeway adjacent to the land, one at the northern end, one at the southern end and one approximately in the middle of the freeway frontage in the vicinity of where the sign would be located. A shallow manmade drain has been dug across the land generally toward the central set of culverts.
Water from the culverts eventually makes its way westward some 5 kilometres to Black Lake, which is associated with the Serpentine River. The site is used as pasture and has stands of mostly paper bark and tea tree with mature eucalypts on and adjacent to the south part of the site.
The Tribunal went on to the site to view the location proposed for the sign and the adjacent freeway, accompanied by the agents for the parties, and the witnesses.
Proposed development
The pylon sign would be approximately 550 metres from the northern boundary and about 550 metres from the southern boundary of the site set back about 15 metres from the freeway boundary. Immediately to the north of the site is an offramp which leads from the freeway to Lakes Road.
The proposed development would comprise two billboards touching at the western end closest to the freeway and fanning out to form a wedge shape, with one face directed north west toward south bound traffic on the freeway, and the other facing south west towards north bound traffic. Each face would be 18 metres in length and 4 metres high. The signs would sit on top of a 15 metre high steel pole, 1 metre in diameter, giving an overall height of 19 metres above the ground level of the site.
The base of the pylon would be situated on a small artificial island within an artificial pond of about 1000m². The applicant's submission was that the pond would be developed as a reed filter bed.
The applicant said that one face of the sign would be used on a permanent basis by the Road Safety Commission to broadcast its messages. The other face would be made available on a commercial basis to local businesses and the Shire. It was proposed that the sign be approved for a period of 20 years. The applicant said he was negotiating with the owner a 10 year lease with a 10 year option for that part of the site which would include the pond and the pylon.
Planning controls
The site is one of three adjoining lots zoned 'Industrial Development' under the Shire of Murray Town Planning Scheme No 4 (TPS 4). Under the Peel Region Scheme the site is zoned 'Industrial' and adjacent to the western boundary is, in part, reserved 'Primary Regional Road'.
The term 'advertisement' is not defined under TPS 4. Under the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) (2015 Regulations), which came into effect on 19 September 2015, at Sch 2 the following is now included in local planning schemes, including TPS 4:
advertisement means any word, letter, model, sign, placard, board, notice, device or representation, whether illuminated or not, that is used wholly or partly for the purposes of advertising, announcing or directing, and includes
(a)any hoarding or similar structure used, or adapted for use, for the display of advertisements[.]
Clause 60 of the 2015 Regulations states:
A person must not commence or carry out any works on, or use, land in the Scheme area unless
(a)the person has obtained the development approval of the local government under Part 8; or
(b)the development is of a type referred to in clause 61.
Notes:
1.Development includes the erection, placement and display of advertisements[.]
The 2015 Regulations also added into TPS 4 the following definition:
amenity means all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity.
Clause 7.5.1.1 of TPS 4 states:
For the purpose of this Scheme, the erection, placement and display of advertisements and the use of land and buildings for that purpose is development within the definition of the Act requiring, except as otherwise provided, the prior approval of the Council. Planning approval is required in addition to any licence pursuant to Council's Signs, Hoarding and Bill Posting ByLaws.
Clause 7.5.3.1 of TPS 4 states:
Without limiting the generality of the matters which may be taken into account when making decisions upon an application for planning approval to erect, place or display an advertisement, Council shall examine each such application in the light of the objectives of the Scheme and with particular reference to the character and amenity of the locality within which it is to be displayed, including its historic or landscape significance and traffic safety, and the amenity of the adjacent areas which may be effected [sic].
Clause 6.13 of TPS 4 is concerned with the Industrial Development zone. Clause 6.13.1 of TPS 4 states:
Planning for an industrial estate should take account of the need to derive maximum amenity or benefit for adjacent property owners as well as for prospective resident industries. This planning consideration should be reflected in a plan for future subdivision and development, to be known as an 'Outline Development Plan'. The subdivision and development of land zoned 'Industrial Development' should not proceed unless it accords with an approved 'Outline Development Plan'.
Clause 6.13.8 of TPS 4 provides that:
Notwithstanding clause 6.13.1, Council may … approve the development of land within the Industrial Development zone prior to the approval of an Outline Development Plan, provided Council is satisfied that this will not prejudice the progressive subdivision and development of the area.
Clause 3.3.2 of TPS 4 requires that regard be had to the following matters when considering an application. These include:
(i)the aims and objectives of the Scheme;
…
(iii)the nature of the proposed development in relation to the development either existing or proposed on adjoining land;
…
(v)the design and external appearance (including the exterior cladding) of any new building and its effect upon the amenity of existing buildings and the area generally;
…
(vii)the existing and likely future amenity of the Scheme Area;
…
(ix)any other matters relevant to town and regional planning, the public interest in general and the locality surrounding the proposed development in particular; and
(x)any policy adopted by Council pursuant to Clause 2.5.
In March 2015, the respondent adopted its 'Main Roads Third Party Advertising Signs Policy' (MRTPA Signs Policy). This policy sets out objectives and requirements for signs. Attached is a plan illustrating the 'general signage zone', 'signage exclusion zone' and 'Shire of Murray signage zone'. The site is affected by a signage exclusion zone.
Under the heading 'Requirements' clause 1 of the MRTPA Signs Policy states that '[t]hird party signs are not to be located within either the "Signage Exclusion" or "Shire of Murray" Signage Zone as shown on the Plan'. Clause 3 provides that 'notwithstanding Requirement 1 and 2, the Shire may consider on a case by case basis additional third party signs'.
The other relevant paragraphs of the MRTPA Signs Policy are discussed below.
Also relevant to this matter is the draft 'Nambeelup Industrial Area District Structure Plan' (Nambeelup Structure Plan) released for public comment in December 2014. The site is within the Nambeelup Structure Plan area, which extends for approximately 1000 hectares. Relevant sections of the Nambeelup Structure Plan are discussed further below.
The refusal
The respondent refused the proposed sign and reed bed pond for the following reasons:
1.the proposal does not relate to the use of the land;
2.the proposal does not meet with the objectives and provisions of the Shire's Signs Local Planning Policy, or the draft Main Roads Third party Advertising Signs Local Planning Policy and there are not considered to be any special circumstances that would warrant deviating from the policy in this instance;
3.the proposal would contribute toward visual clutter, adverse impacts on the landscape amenity adjacent to the Kwinana Freeway, increased driver distraction, and resultant impacts on driver safety; and
4.approval of the proposal will set an undesirable precedent for the establishment of further third party signs that are inconsistent with the Shire's policies.
Issues raised in this matter, as listed by the respondent and commented on by the applicant, can be identified as follows:
1)Whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of TPS 4.
2)Whether the proposal is consistent with the objectives and provisions of the MRTPA Signs Policy.
3)Whether the signage would adversely impact on the amenity of the area and contribute to visual clutter.
4)Whether the signage would increase driver distraction and adversely impact on driver safety.
5)Whether approval of the proposal would set an undesirable precedent.
6)Whether the proposed reed bed component of the development would have an adverse environmental impact.
Discussion
The applicant called as witnesses, Mr Bruce Cameron, who with his wife owns the site, Mr Roger Farley, the communications director of the Road Safety Commission and Ms Nicola Swanepoel who is the leasing and asset manager for WA Billboards. The respondent called Mr Rodney Peake, the director of Planning and Sustainability Services for the Shire.
Mr Cameron said that when part of the site was resumed for the Kwinana Freeway Reserve the potential for returns was significantly reduced. To try and earn additional revenue from the site Mr Cameron approached WA Billboards to discuss WA Billboards leasing an area to erect and maintain an advertising sign.
Mr Cameron said that because the land was zoned Industrial Development, he believed that the placement of a sign would be acceptable. He had noted that other pole mounted signs had been approved further south along Forrest Highway on land zoned for rural uses.
The Tribunal would comment that the proposed sign is not prohibited in this zone, but must be considered in the context of the existing planning controls and these are addressed in the issues below.
Issue 1: Whether the proposed development would be consistent with the provisions of TPS 4
No Outline Development Plan (ODP), as required under TPS 4 for future subdivision and industrial development, has been prepared for the site. Mr Cameron said that it would take more money than he had to develop an ODP for the site because of the drainage problems and the lack of infrastructure. The parties agreed that it would cost millions of dollars to drain and service this locality and there was not yet a demand to use the locality for industrial purposes.
The applicant argued that the sign of the type proposed, particularly if approved for the finite period of 20 years, would not prevent the preparation of an ODP for the locality. In this regard, the applicant cited the approval of a concrete batching plant nearby without an ODP being in place: BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd and Shire of Murray [2010] WASAT 180. In that matter it was said the approval would not compromise future subdivision and development. The applicant made the comment that, in any event, the lease could be terminated if the sign was prejudicing the planning of the locality, although this came as a surprise to Mr Cameron when the comment was made. The applicant further argued that a sign of the type proposed would be consistent with industrial development, as industrial buildings have a particular character and most would likely have signage on them.
The Nambeelup Structure Plan states that industrial development of the area is anticipated to be in stages over a 25 to 30 year timeframe. It was common ground that development would most likely start in the south east corner of the Structure Plan area where the site was located but, in the applicant's submission, it might be some 10 years before development would commence. The respondent referred to the ODP already prepared for adjoining Lot 530 Lakes Road and Mr Peak said talks with relevant parties about infrastructure were ongoing.
Mr Peake further argued that, even if the future use of the land for industrial development were considered, a sign 19 metres high would be considerably higher than any likely future industrial building. He was of the opinion that the proposed sign would have an adverse impact on the amenity of future neighbours in conflict with the requirements of cl 6.13.1 of TPS 4.
The Tribunal notes that TPS 4 provides that development might be considered prior to the preparation of an ODP. In the Tribunal's opinion, it is a realistic estimate that it might be at least 10 years before an ODP for the site is finalised and ready for implementation. This is because of the need to consider the form of subdivision and development that might occur on the site and related sewerage, drainage and water provision. While Mr Peake said that negotiations were ongoing in respect to how the locality might be serviced, it would appear that appropriate experts are yet to consider how this would relate to the existing Murray Drainage and Water Management Plan (2011) and the Nambeelup District Water Management Strategy, both of which may need to be amended.
Central to the Nambeelup Structure Plan is the preparation of a developer contribution scheme and this would include what various authorities and individual landowners must contribute towards the preparation of the various studies and future plan implementation. Mr Cameron's response was that he did not have the resources to participate in any of these processes and there was no evidence that the preparation of such a scheme had commenced.
The Tribunal has concluded that the industrial zoning does not provide a basis for concluding that a sign of the size proposed would be consistent with future local amenity. As noted below, it would appear that the sign would be located in a possible area of open space and drainage under the Nambeelup Structure Plan. The sign might be adjacent to future industrial use, but the timing and form of the industrial use would take is unclear. The Tribunal is of the opinion that there are too many uncertainties to determine what future amenity of the locality might be and so the zoning of the site is not considered to provide a basis for supporting the proposed sign.
In considering the likely impact on amenity, as required under TPS 4, it is also necessary to have regard to the potential impact of the development on the existing amenity. Consistent with the above comments, the Tribunal considers the existing rural amenity is more than likely to continue for some 10 years. Central to this amenity are the landscape elements, particularly as viewed from the freeway.
Ms Swanepoel said, when asked, that at present the view from the freeway was of 'nothing'. It was submitted that the proposed pond would add a visually interesting feature and the sign would introduce colour and life to the location.
Mr Peake's undisputed evidence was that the sign would appear above the height of trees on and adjacent to the site. It was his opinion that the sign would have considerable visual impact.
Clause 7.5.3 of TPS 4 requires consideration of character and amenity of the locality and the amenity of adjacent areas which may be affected. The Tribunal has concluded that the proposed sign would intrude into a landscape that is predominantly rural. The addition of the reed pond is not considered to offset this impact. The pond would only be glimpsed, at best, because it would be about 2 metres below the freeway carriageway and is likely to be indistinguishable from other vegetation on the site.
The view from the freeway is mostly of paddocks, vegetation and the scarp beyond. The proposed sign would be completely at odds with the elements that make up this landscape. The proposed sign would have an impact on the local amenity and the Tribunal has formed the opinion that this would be an adverse impact on that existing amenity.
Issue 2: Whether the proposed sign is consistent with the objective and provisions of the MRTPA Signs Policy
The Shire's decision to advertise the MRTPA Signs Policy was made on 27 February 2014 and the policy was adopted on 12 March 2015. The applicant pointed out that its development application was lodged in September 2014 and refused in February 2015.
The applicant argued that there was no relevant sign policy in place when the development application was lodged and the Council made its decision. The proposed development was said to be consistent with the provisions of the former 'Kwinana Freeway/Forrest Highway Third Party Advertising Signs Policy', which the Shire adopted in 2010 and revoked in February 2014.
The Tribunal considers that it is necessary to have regard to the provisions of the MRTPA Signs Policy, which has now been adopted and is operative. It would not be orderly planning to refer to a now revoked policy in determining this matter. The existing policy is now in place. The planning of the locality and the character that will develop from March 2015 must be influenced by the adopted MRTPA Signs Policy. The decision made on this application must be informed by the content of the policy.
Listed under 'objectives' of the MRTPA Signs Policy are the following:
1.Ensure that the visual landscape character and environmental qualities of land adjacent to main roads are not diminished.
2.Avoid a proliferation or visual repetition of signs[.]
In the respondent's submissions there are no special circumstances that would provide an exception to the MRTPA Signs Policy.
The applicant argued that the sign would be consistent with the objectives of the MRTPA Signs Policy. The sign would be of a high standard of presentation and design, structurally sound and would provide an opportunity for the promotion of local businesses and organisations, as well as providing a reasonable opportunity to promote local tourism which identifies the region. No other signs would be visible from the sign because of the arrangements to be negotiated with the landowner.
The applicant also argued that the sign should be considered a special case, as allowed by the policy, because it would provide a community benefit and so would be of special strategic significance. The benefits would be that the sign would be used by the Road Safety Commission, could be used to advertise local businesses, events and tourist attractions, local businesses could participate in the construction and ongoing maintenance of the sign, and because the applicant was a Western Australian owned sign business. The applicant said eastern states or overseas companies owned the other major sign businesses so the income went elsewhere.
The Tribunal appreciates that an approval for 20 years is sought, and the applicant is proud of it being a long standing local business that strives to foster a good relationship with local areas. However, in respect to ownership, Professor Leslie Stein said in Principles of Planning Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) at page 172:
Perhaps the best reason for excluding personal considerations is that '[i]f the development proposed entails works of a permanent kind, it should be borne in mind that it will remain long after the personal circumstances of the applicant have ceased to be material' [Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State [1996] EWHC Admin 135]. This is consistent with the planning consent being a right that follows the land and not the applicant.
The Tribunal does not consider that it can use the applicant's current circumstances and business approach to provide a basis for setting aside its concerns about the proposed sign.
As stated above, the sign would be located in a 'Signage Exclusion Zone' under the MRTPA Signs Policy. In conflict with the requirements under the policy the proposed sign would be two sided and not single sided, and at 72m² for each face the sign would be greatly in excess of the 20m² maximum requirement.
The impact of the proposal on the visual landscape character has been addressed above. In respect to items listed under 'requirements' of the MRTPA Signs Policy, the sign would protrude above the skyline, in conflict with requirement 4 and intrude into the rural viewshed in conflict with requirement 5. The environmental qualities of the site are addressed under issue 6 below.
The Tribunal considers the development would introduce a structure at odds with the existing rural character and amenity and would be inconsistent with the intent of the MRTPA Signs Policy. The Tribunal has formed the conclusion that there are no circumstances individual to the development that warrant an exemption from the now adopted MRTPA Signs Policy.
Issue 3: Whether the sign would adversely impact on the amenity of the area and contribute to visual clutter
As indicated above, the Tribunal has concluded that the sign would impact on local amenity. At this time it would not contribute to visual clutter as there are no other third party signs generally in view. Ms Swanepoel submitted that the contract with Mr Cameron would include excluding other signs from the site and the applicant did not want to detract from the impact of this sign. This makes commercial sense.
As to whether the sign would add to visual clutter at some time in the future, it is too difficult to form a sensible conclusion on that, although it is noted that Mr Peake argued that any industrial building is unlikely to be 19 metres high so the sign would be different from most other signs in any future industrial area.
Issue 4: Whether the proposed sign would increase driver distraction and adversely impact on driver safety
Mr Peake was of the opinion that the proposed sign would distract drivers travelling north from attempting to identify the Lakes Road exit from the freeway. He considered drivers travelling south would be distracted as they approached the curve in the vicinity of the sign.
Mr Farley, from the Road Safety Commission, strongly believed that a road safety message on one face of the proposed sign would assist in his organisation's programme of reminding drivers of problems that cause traffic accidents. He supported the sign for that reason. Mr Farley did admit that he had not liaised with Main Roads, so had not obtained the views of any officers on the impact of the proposed sign on the safety of road users.
The applicant provided a letter dated 24 June 2015, from Mr Alan Roberts, the acting traffic services manager of Main Roads Western Australia. In that letter, Mr Roberts wrote to Ms Swanepoel informing her that he was aware of a letter some eight months earlier from an officer of Main Roads that expressed concern about potential conflict with the line of view on approach to the directions sign for the Lakes Road exit. Mr Roberts went on to say:
Whilst it's probable that the advertising device will be visible to motorists heading north on the Kwinana Freeway when they are in the vicinity of the advanced directional sign for the Lakes Road turnoff, I believe that the spacing between them is such that this will not cause any significant degree of distraction.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal has formed the view that the proposed sign would not of itself cause sufficient distraction to drivers to form a basis for refusing the application.
Issue 5: Would approval of the proposal set an undesirable precedent?
The applicant referred to the fact that there had been approved other signs to the south, similar in design to that proposed as well as other billboards. A plan and photographs were produced to illustrate this point. The applicant said that there would be no other signs on the site because of how the agreement with the owner would be worded.
The respondent pointed out that the existing signs were either not in the Shire, or if in the Shire, were approved under the previous policy. The respondent argued that an undesirable precedent would be set. This was because it did not consider there were any special circumstances that warrant an approval in the no signs area of the MRTPA Signs Policy and so other applicants might make the same claims as the applicant in future applications.
The Tribunal noted there was not yet finalised any agreement with the owner and that the proposed prohibition on signs either on the site or neighbouring lots would be a matter of a commercial negotiation between the applicant and third parties. The ongoing enforcement by the local government of such a private arrangement was not clear. In general terms, the Tribunal is of the view that the proposed sign would create a precedent and having regard to the impact the Tribunal considers the sign would have on the local amenity, this would be an undesirable precedent.
Issue 6: Whether the proposed reed bed component of the development would have an adverse environmental impact
On this issue the submissions related to both mosquito breeding and the wider environmental concern of how the collection, run-off and quality of groundwater would be affected.
The respondent referred to the mosquito breeding problem in the locality and how its baiting program did not extend to private land. It considered further detailed investigations were necessary to determine whether mosquitoes attracted to the new body of water could be managed.
The applicant provided a document titled 'Chironomid midge and mosquito risk assessment guide for constructed water bodies' (2011) prepared by the Midge Research Group of Western Australia. Within that document is a system of assessing the risk of midges and mosquitoes breeding. The applicant provided its conclusions saying that the risk assessment score for this proposal was less than the number said to signify a problem.
The Tribunal had no expert environmental evidence placed before it. Whether the applicant's use of the risk assessment matrix was accurate or not could not be determined. The Tribunal would comment, however, that if in fact a lake with reeds was constructed it might be possible to have as a condition of approval a requirement that the lake be constructed in a prescribed manner and for there to be in place a management plan to ensure that mosquitoes did not breed. In this regard, the Tribunal concluded that the potential for mosquito breeding is not of itself a reason why the development would be refused.
On the second argument on this issue, the applicant further said that the proposed pond and reed beds would provide a clear environmental benefit to the site and the wider Nambeelup area. Ms Swanepoel said an environmental expert had been consulted, however, nothing produced by the expert was put into evidence.
The reed bed pond would be adjacent to one of the sets of culverts placed under the Kwinana Freeway Reserve to accommodate the western flow of water towards Black Lake and the Serpentine River system. The applicant said the reed filter bed would capture water runoff and manage nutrient loads in a more efficient manner. It was said the reed bed would also assist in managing standing water that, according to Mr Cameron, now banked up adjacent to the Kwinana Freeway Reserve before it gradually dissipated through the culverts.
At the location of the proposed sign the Nambeelup Structure Plan Figure 2 shows a green area depicting 'Open Space/Drainage' through which passes a dashed blue line depicting a 'Flexible Alignment' for district arterial drainage. Figure 6 shows a 'Swan Bioplan Regionally Significant Natural Area' in the same location.
At paragraph 9.5 of the Nambeelup Structure Plan is discussion about how the District Water Management Strategy that was prepared in 2010 considered all aspects of the total water cycle including strategies for groundwater management, arterial drainage, surface water management, water quality and nutrient management plus proposed water supply, conservation and reuse and wastewater planning. It was said as development of the industrial area progressed the studies would have to be reassessed. There was no evidence before the Tribunal of how this small reed bed would fit into any of the studies already completed or how findings might need to be adjusted to accommodate the reed bed.
It might be that the proposed pond would be sufficiently small to be incorporated into or adapted or removed if future assessments required this. This also leads to the conclusion that more expert evidence would be required to prove that the pond was not too small to have the claimed environmental benefits for ground water and water flows from the site itself and the wider catchment.
The Tribunal has not been convinced that this water body of about 1000m² would assist in the control of water flow and nutrients over a lot of some 38 hectares and which is situated at the downstream end of a significant proportion of the Nambeelup industrial area. It would appear to the Tribunal that the small pond need not cause a problem in a catchment of this size, but it certainly is difficult to ascertain from the evidence how the proposal provides a solution to any drainage problems in the locality.
The Tribunal has not been convinced that the proposed reed bed would provide the environmental benefit claimed but, likewise, it has not been convinced that the environmental impact would be sufficiently adverse to provide of itself a reason for dismissing the application.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the Tribunal has concluded that the proposed sign would be in conflict with the objectives for signs under TPS 4 and the requirements of the MRTPA Signs Policy. This was because of the proposed height of the sign, the size of the two billboards and the adverse impact the sign would have on the amenity of the site and this locality. The Tribunal has therefore decided to dismiss the application.
Orders
1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The refusal of the Shire of Murray issued 5 March 2015 is endorsed.
I certify that this and the preceding [73] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J JORDAN, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
1
4