Waddell and Anor and Western Australian Planning Commission

The applicants, Waddell and another, sought to subdivide a rural property in East Wanneroo to use one half for rural living, while retaining an existing olive plantation on the other half. The property was zoned "Rural Resource," and the Western Australian Planning Commission opposed the application, arguing it was contrary to the planning framework and the presumption against subdividing productive agricultural land. The applicants contended that the current planning framework was inadequate and that the local authority supported their proposal. The Commission argued that the proposal was inconsistent with surrounding lot sizes and the pattern of development, and that the Tribunal should not make ad hoc decisions or de facto changes to the zoning.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision to refuse the subdivision application was legally sound and whether the draft strategy dealing with land management and water issues could be considered in the decision-making process. The court also had to consider the role of precedent in the Tribunal's decision-making and whether the Tribunal had the authority to elevate draft policies to final status. Additionally, the court had to examine the impact of the proposed subdivision on rural land prices and water use.

The court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on sound legal principles and that the draft strategy could not be considered determinative in the decision-making process. The court also found that the Tribunal was not a statutory planning or land management authority and that the relevance of financial hardship was not a factor in the decision. The court held that the decision on the merits could not ignore policy or precedent or elevate draft policy to final status. The court concluded that the decision not to approve the application for subdivision was affirmed, and the application for review was dismissed. The court's decision followed other Tribunal East Wanneroo decisions and recognised the importance of proper and orderly planning. The court also noted that the difficulties with the memorial on title proposed and the possible effect on further water use were relevant considerations in the decision-making process.