Wilson and Western Australian Planning Commission
[2007] WASAT 296
•15 NOVEMBER 2007
WILSON and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2007] WASAT 296
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2007] WASAT 296 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:227/2007 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 14/11/07 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for review upheld Decision of respondent set aside and subdivision conditionally approved | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALAN MAXWELL WILSON WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Rural subdivision Need for comprehensive structure planning Precedent of previous subdivision approvals Permeability Whether road connectivity is justified Rural seclusion Subdivision conditions |
Legislation: | Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 159 Shire of WyndhamEast Kimberley Town Planning Scheme No 7 Kununurra and Environs, cl 6.5, cl 6.7, cl 6.7.1, cl 6.7.3 |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed,2. The decision of the respondent made on 14 May 2007 to refuse subdivision approval of Lot 15 Egret Close, Kununurra into three lots is set aside and a decision is substituted that subdivision approval is granted subject to the following conditions:,(i) Those lots not fronting an existing road being provided with frontage to a constructed road(s) connected by a constructed road(s) to the local road system and such road(s) being constructed and drained at the applicant/owner's cost. As an alternative, the Western Australian Planning Commission is prepared to accept the applicant/owner paying to the Local Government the cost of such road works as estimated by the Local Government subject to the Local Government providing formal assurance to the Western Australian Planning Commission confirming that the works will be completed within a reasonable period as agreed by the Western Australian Planning Commission. (Local Government),(ii) Arrangements being made with the Local Government for the upgrading and/or construction of Egret Close.The standard of construction of the road within Egret Close shall be a 6 metre width sealed surface on a 9 metre gravel formation and shall terminate at the limit of its southern extent in a standard turning facility designed and constructed to the specifications of the Local Government.,The subdivider shall be solely responsible for the cost of the design and construction of that section of Egret Close extending within the subdivision of Lot 15.,The subdivider shall be required to contribute to the overall cost of the upgrading/construction of the existing section of Egret Close, based on a systematic and fair apportionment of contributions among the anticipated subdividers of land reliant on Egret Close, as estimated and administered by the Local Government. (Local Government),(iii) The land is to be filled and/or drained at the subdivider's cost to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission. Any easements and/or reserves necessary for the implementation of filling or draining are to be granted free of cost. (Local Government),(iv) A strategic fire management plan be prepared and implemented to the specifications of the Local Government and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. (Local Government),(v) All buildings and effluent disposal systems having the necessary clearance from the new boundaries as required under the relevant legislation. (Local Government),(vi) Suitable arrangements being made with the Local Government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) being shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Local Government),(vii) The subdivider of the land shall make arrangements to ensure that prospective purchasers of the proposed lots are advised in writing that provision of a reticulated sewerage service will not be available to the lots and that all future dwellings on the lots will need to be connected to on-site effluent disposal system(s). (Local Government),(viii) The subdivider of the land shall make arrangements to ensure that prospective purchasers of the proposed lots are advised in writing that provision of a reticulated water supply will not be available to the lots and prospective purchasers will be obliged to make their own arrangements to obtain a satisfactory supply of potable water. (Local Government),(ix) Measures being taken to ensure the identification and protection of any vegetation on the site worthy of retention prior to the commencement of site works. (Local Government),(x) Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Horizon Power for the provision of an underground electricity supply service to the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision. If an existing aerial electricity cable servicing the land the subject of this approval crosses over a proposed lot boundary as denoted on the approved plan of subdivision, satisfactory arrangements will need to be made for the removal and relocation of that cable. (Horizon Power),(xi) The provision of easements for existing of future electricity supply infrastructure, as may be required by Horizon Power being granted free of cost to that Corporation. (Horizon Power),(xii) Certification from Horizon Power that financial and other requirements have been satisfied for the removal and relocation of Horizon Power plant or equipment located on or near the proposed subdivision. (Horizon Power),(xiii) Certification from Horizon Power that roadside and block frontage vegetation clearing required for a power line corridor has been completed to suit Horizon Power's requirements. (Horizon Power),(xiv) This approval is valid for three years from the date of the Tribunal's decision. Within this period the Diagram or Plan of Survey in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision should be submitted for approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission when the conditions set out above have been fulfilled. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : WILSON and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2007] WASAT 296 MEMBER : MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 15 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : DR 227 of 2007 BETWEEN : ALAN MAXWELL WILSON
- Applicant
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Respondent
Catchwords:
Rural subdivision Need for comprehensive structure planning Precedent of previous subdivision approvals Permeability Whether road connectivity is justified Rural seclusion Subdivision conditions
Legislation:
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 159
Shire of WyndhamEast Kimberley Town Planning Scheme No 7 Kununurra and Environs,cl 6.5, cl 6.7, cl 6.7.1, cl 6.7.3
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for review upheld
Decision of respondent set aside and subdivision conditionally approved
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Selfrepresented
Respondent : Mr T Sharp
Solicitors:
Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 This is a review of the Western Australian Planning Commission's decision to refuse subdivision of a small rural lot on the outskirts of Kununurra into three lots of about 4 hectares each.
2 The respondent reasoned that the subdivision should not be allowed in the absence of undertaking comprehensive structure planning for the area and that it would set an undesirable precedent for further subdivision.
3 The principle concern of the respondent in relation to the proposed subdivision was that it did not incorporate provision for a connective road system that would allow traffic movement through the subdivision to an adjoining large tract of potentially developable land.
4 The Tribunal was made aware of a number of comparable subdivision approvals recently granted by the respondent without the need for comprehensive structure planning. There was therefore a strong argument suggesting that the proposed subdivision should not be treated any differently. Additionally, the respondent's arguments in respect of the need for a connective road system to access the adjoining lands were discovered to be of limited justification.
5 As the road system appeared to be the only structure planning issue of concern to the respondent, and that the justification for establishing the road connection across the proposed subdivision was found to be tenuous, it was concluded by the Tribunal that there was insufficient justification to refuse the application.
6 The application for review was upheld and the proposed subdivision was conditionally approved.
Introduction
7 This is a review of the decision of the respondent to refuse to grant approval for the subdivision of Lot 15 Egret Close, Kununurra (Lot 15 or the land) in the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley (Shire) into three lots of approximately 4 hectares each.
8 The application for the proposed subdivision was submitted to the respondent on 22 January 2007 and was refused on 14 May 2007.
(Page 4)
9 The applicant lodged an application for review of the respondent's decision with the State Administrative Tribunal on 28 June 2007.
The proposed subdivision and its context
10 Lot 15 is 12.6108 hectares in area. It is one of eight, roughly similar sized, lots accessed from Egret Close, a half kilometre long cul-de-sac extending southward from the Victoria Highway.
11 The location is about 6 kilometres south-east of Kununurra.
12 The landform appears to be generally level or gently undulating in the immediate vicinity, but with views to visually striking rocky outcrops and hills in the landscape background.
13 Lot 15 is typical of lots in the locality of Egret Close and is characterised by the presence of healthy and vigorous native bushland which promotes seclusion and privacy. By contrast, adjoining Lot 1, to the west of Lot 15, constitutes a large, cleared tract of agricultural land.
14 The proposed subdivision of Lot 15 is intended to create two lots of 4 hectares and one lot of 4.084 hectares which will accommodate an existing dwelling situated in the north-west sector of the land. In order to provide access to the new lots, the subdivision proposes to extend Egret Close some 172 metres further south into Lot 15. This will entail the vesting of 0.526 hectares of the land as road reserve.
Statutory and policy instruments
15 The land is zoned Rural Agriculture 2 under the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley Town Planning Scheme No 7 Kununurra and Environs (TPS 7). The objectives of the zone are:
"(a) to ensure the adequate supply of land for intensive agricultural and horticultural holdings in localities of adequate water supply and suitable soil types; and
(b) [t]o promote the use of these lots for the production of horticultural crops and associated uses."
16 Clause 6.5 of TPS 7 refers to the requirements for structure planning within the Overall Planning Areas (OPAs) including OPA No 4 - Old Darwin Road Precinct, within which the land, subject of this review, is located.
17 Clause 6.7.1 provides that:
(Page 5)
- "It is a requirement of this scheme that the subdivision and development of land within the Overall Planning Area as shown on the Scheme Map takes place only after comprehensive planning in accordance with the objectives for each area."
18 Clause 6.7.3 requires a structure plan to address the location and standards of any future roads and access patterns.
19 A Local Planning Strategy (LPS) for the Shire identifies that the locality, in which Lot 15 is located, would be suitable for Small Rural Holdings. The minimum acceptable lot size would be 4 hectares.
The respondent's decision
20 The respondent refused the application for subdivision of Lot 15 for the following reasons:
"1. The western side of the Old Darwin Road precinct requires comprehensive planning (including agreement to an overall road pattern, protection of environmental and surrounding agricultural values, drainage and essential infrastructure). As such, subdivision of Lot 15 Egret Close is not supported in the absence of a comprehensive structure plan for the precinct as required under the [Shire's LPS] and [TPS 7].
2. The proposed subdivision does not comply with the Commission's Policy DC 1.1, a provision of Statement of Planning Policy No. 1, State Planning Framework Policy (Variation No 2), by reason that the subdivision is proposed without appropriate comprehensive planning for the area.
3. The proposal is not consistent with orderly and proper planning.
4. Approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for further subdivision of adjoining land."
21 In arriving at the decision to refuse the application, the respondent took into consideration advice by the Shire recommending refusal of the proposed subdivision based on similar reasons.
(Page 6)
The respondent's argument
22 The respondent's argument is broadly based on the proposition that the locality has not undergone comprehensive planning designed to co-ordinate necessary services and infrastructure to enable the proposed subdivision to proceed.
23 As a result of the lack of comprehensive planning of the area, the subdivision of Lot 15, if implemented, would preclude the progressive establishment of an interconnecting road pattern linking with land to the west within the Old Darwin Road Precinct (ODRP), which has been identified under the LPS as suitable (subject to qualifications) for rural small holdings.
24 Mr Jason Bouwhuis, a qualified town planning officer employed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, provided a statement of evidence on behalf of the respondent.
25 Mr Bouwhuis explained the context of the subdivision and the history of the present lot configuration of the area. The locality has been subject to continual subdivision over the past eleven years. There are nine lots presently established in the Egret Close locality.
26 Further subdivision of lots in the eastern portion of the locality has recently been approved by the respondent without conditions requiring "permeability" (a road connection) from land to the west. Similarly, land to the north of Lot 15 has also been approved for subdivision without east-west connectivity. This is because adjoining land to the west is limited in terms of any residential development because of the constraint of the 500 metre "buffer zone" around the rubbish tip sited immediately north-west of the locality.
27 Mr Bouwhuis indicated that a previous subdivision (application 131873, identified as subdivision F in the respondent's Section 24 bundle) had been approved by the respondent and had included a condition requiring a road connection from Egret Close to provide a link to adjoining land to the west. The road link in question was to be located on the northern boundary of Lot 15. Subdivision F has not proceeded because a key component lot has been disposed of to another party.
28 Mr Bouwhuis was of the view that the road connection, as illustrated in subdivision approval F, was desirable in the location proposed because:
(Page 7)
- • it would be located south of the 500 metre rubbish tip buffer zone affecting the adjoining land to the west.
• it will facilitate the movement of vehicles, pedestrians cyclists and public transport between the possible 27 lots anticipated to be serviced from Egret Close, and the potential residential lots which could be established on the adjoining land to the west.
29 Without an east-west road connection linking the adjoining estates, the distance to be travelled by road between the centres of each subdivisional development would be in the vicinity of 4 kilometres. This would be ineffective for any future public transport or rubbish collection service.
30 Mr Bouwhuis advised that, although cl 6.7 of TPS 7 required preparation and adoption of a structure plan, this requirement had been waived by the respondent in the cases of various recent subdivision approvals to the north (subdivision E), east (subdivision D) and subdivision F which includes the subdivision of Lot 15. This waiver was based on:
• the simple nature of the subdivisions and the pressure to release agricultural land in the Kununurra area; and
• a westerly road connection into the remaining area of the ODRP was still possible in the event that subdivisions D, E and F eventuated.
31 Mr Bouwhuis advised that the Shire is expected to undertake a scheme review resulting in the likelihood that, consistent with the Shire's LPS, the whole ODRP would be rezoned to Rural Small Holding. Lot sizes would typically be expected to be a minimum of 4 hectares with an average of 8 hectares. Mr Bouwhuis estimated that the overall lot yield for the ODRP would be in the vicinity of 97 lots. In his opinion, given the ten fold increase in lots expected in the locality, the need for a connecting road system between the Egret Close subdivision and the adjoining land to the west was readily apparent.
32 Mr Bouwhuis drew attention to the preference for establishment of a constructed road, rather than an easement, because "a constructed road makes a westerly road connection far more likely".
(Page 8)
The applicant's argument
33 The applicant has argued that there are no grounds to refuse the proposed subdivision because the respondent has already set a precedent of approving subdivisions of a simple nature in the area without the need for additional comprehensive structure planning and because there is no reasonable justification to impose a requirement for a road across Lot 15 connecting Egret Close to the adjoining land to the west.
34 The applicant challenges the argument of the respondent, that the 500 metre buffer associated with the rubbish tip north of the ODRP would preclude the practicality of any east-west connecting road being considered in the context of subdivision of the north-west portion of the Egret Close locality. The applicant has provided a locality plan, illustrating his understanding of the extent of the rubbish tip buffer, which demonstrates that the land in question adjoining the northern subdivision is not affected by the buffer.
35 The applicant submits that the amenity of the locality will be destroyed by the requirement for a road connection to the adjoining property.
36 The applicant advises that rural rubbish collection is optional and that there is no public transport in the Shire.
37 The proposed link road cannot be achieved anyway because the battle-axe leg of neighbouring Lot 16 which extends along the western boundary of Lot 15 and all the way to Victoria Highway is not subject to this application, and will thus remain a legal barrier preventing connection further west.
38 The proposed link road will be onerous because its location on the northern boundary of Lot 15 will necessitate relocation of water bores, pumps, power infrastructure and a new shed. The proposed road would be within 26 metres of the dwelling located in this portion of Lot 15.
39 The applicant supplied a DVD film illustrating the site of the proposed subdivision and relevant development locations in and about Kununurra. The film provided a useful insight as to the character of the area as well as interesting observations about road systems associated with the local industrial area.
(Page 9)
Draft conditions
40 The respondent has provided a list of draft conditions which would be recommended to be imposed on a subdivision approval in the event that the application for review was upheld by the Tribunal.
41 The applicant has taken issue with several draft conditions.
42 Condition 1 is a standard form of condition requiring that lots created by the subdivision, not fronting an existing road, be provided with frontage to a constructed road connected by a constructed road to the local road system of the locality.
43 The applicant has sought to clarify the expected standard of road construction required by Condition 1. It is submitted by the applicant that the expected standard should be specified as "an 8 metre gravel formation and a 6 metre running surface". This standard would be consistent with the standard specified for the respondent's previous subdivision 131834 (subdivision E).
44 The respondent has clarified that its expectation under Condition 1 would be for "the extension of Egret Close up to where it connects to proposed Lot 12 to a bituminised standard with a 9 metre gravel formation and 6 metre seal".
45 Condition 2 specifies that "arrangements be made with the local government for the upgrading and/or construction of Egret Close".
46 The applicant objects to Condition 2 in anticipation of being solely responsible for the entire cost of upgrading Egret Close.
47 The respondent notes that the applicant would be responsible for the whole costs but would be eligible for recompense from subsequent subdividers under s 159 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA).
48 Condition 3 requires that:
"Prior to the creation of the lots proposed by this application, the lot the subject of this application be created on a separate Deposited Plan showing a 20 metre wide road reserve from Egret Close running westerly along the northern boundary of proposed lot 12, the land for which is to be ceded to the Crown free of cost without payment of compensation."
(Page 10)
49 The applicant rejects this condition as fundamentally untenable.
50 The respondent, in a subsequent revised draft of Condition 3, indicated a degree of flexibility as to the location of the proposed road reserve, which drew an informal, but conditional indication of possible acceptance by the applicant. However, no formal conclusion has since arisen from this revision, nor has there been any explanation as to the impact such a revised condition would have upon the configuration of the proposed subdivision and its resultant practicality.
51 Condition 7 is a standard form of condition requiring the provision of crossovers to the new lots.
52 The applicant contends that the provision of crossovers should be the responsibility of future landowners.
53 The respondent disagrees and reiterates that the responsibility for ensuring accessibility to the lots from the road system is that of the subdivider.
54 Condition 8 and Condition 9 require the subdivider to make arrangements for the formal notification of prospective purchasers that sewerage and water supply services will not be available to the land.
55 Condition 10 requires that measures be taken by the subdivider to identify and protect vegetation worthy of retention.
56 The applicant considers that Conditions 8, 9 and 10 should be advice notes rather than conditions.
57 All other conditions are uncontested.
Analysis
58 Two principle issues arise from the arguments put by the parties to this review.
59 Firstly, should the proposed subdivision be refused because of the absence of comprehensive structure planning for the area?
60 Secondly, if the subdivision should be allowed, notwithstanding the absence of a structure plan, should an approval be conditional on making provision for a road reserve in order to connect the local road system with that anticipated for adjoining land to the west?
(Page 11)
61 Addressing the first issue, the respondent has argued that there is significant potential for development of the land westward of the Egret Close locality and that there is a need to comprehensively plan for the co-ordination of services and infrastructure. In particular, there is a need for a connected road system within the area to facilitate local traffic, public transport and rubbish collection services.
62 The applicant has questioned the need for structure planning. It is notable in this regard, that the subdivision of the Egret Close locality has progressed to its present configuration in the absence of any comprehensive structure plan involving land to the west in the ODRP.
63 The Tribunal notes the respondent's recent subdivision decisions in the locality which have approved lots of similar size to those proposed in this application. The respondent has said that these subdivisions were progressed because of their "simple nature" and because a westerly road connection was still possible in the event of their implementation.
64 It is, nevertheless, difficult to understand that the proposed subdivision of Lot 15 is really any more complex than subdivisions D, E or F approved by the respondent. In fact, each of those subdivisions would result in the creation of more lots than the number proposed within Lot 15. The only factor of contention within the subdivision of Lot 15 appears to be whether or not the east-west road connection is required.
65 It therefore appears strongly arguable that a significant and consistent precedent has been established by the respondent's recent subdivision approvals within the Egret Close locality, and that structure planning for the ODRP has not been a relevant consideration.
66 The respondent notably stated in evidence that the proposed subdivision is unobjectionable, save for the lack of the westerly road link.
67 The only demanding consideration pertaining to structure planning by the respondent appears to have been the perceived need for a "permeable" road system. The Tribunal understands this to mean the need for connection of Egret Close to whatever road system might eventuate on the balance of the ODRP area in order to permit a traffic movement system without reliance on returning to the highway.
68 This appears to be a limited structure planning expectation. The respondent has argued that such a road connection is warranted to afford ease of private and public transport circulation and efficient rubbish collection. However, the argument does not convincingly show that
(Page 12)
- transport circulation is so necessary in an area which is presumably intended, at least in part, for quiet rural seclusion. It seems unlikely that there will be a great reliance on public transport or that there would be great inefficiencies in providing a rubbish collection service if there was an absence of a road connection. There are no other particular arguments put by the respondent to suggest the need or desire of residents of Egret Close to be transported to destinations within the adjoining land, or vice versa.
69 The Tribunal does not wish to suggest that there is not a need for timely and methodical structure planning of the ODRP. Indeed, it should be basic to the land use and infrastructure planning of the area in the event that further broad acre land is contemplated for development.
70 What is brought into focus in this review, however, is a legacy of past planning decisions that have now resulted in a well defined, self-contained rural subdivision precinct centred on Egret Close, and a consistent pattern in the conduct of recent subdivision approvals that has set aside the need for any further structure planning of the ODRP. It is difficult to escape the assumption that the current application shouldn't be treated differently.
71 Turning to the second issue of the respondent's preference for a road connection from Egret Close westwards to facilitate a traffic link to whatever road system might occur on the adjoining lands, the Tribunal is not convinced that a sound case has been made for such a requirement. In the event that at some future stage, development does proceed on the adjoining lands to the west, nothing has been shown to demonstrate that it cannot be accessed and serviced independently of Egret Close. In this regard, it is acknowledged that for the time being, some proportion of the adjoining land will be affected by the rubbish tip buffer zone. However, such a constraint would not appear to limit the location of any desired access roads.
72 The Tribunal is not persuaded that there is an overriding need for road connectivity in this case, based on the evidence put before it by the parties. Accordingly a subdivision approval condition to effect such a road connection is not supported.
Consideration of the draft conditions of approval
73 The contentious draft conditions are considered in order.
(Page 13)
74 Condition 1 and Condition 2 require clarification as to the expected extent of upgrading/construction and the standard of construction required for Egret Close.
75 The Tribunal is of the view that the conditions in question should be clear and certain, and not reliant on further negotiation.
76 The Tribunal concurs with the respondent that the appropriate standard for upgrading/construction of Egret Close, which is the principal access road for the locality, should be a 6 metre sealed surface on a 9 metre gravel formation. This requirement is reflected in previous approval F and appears to be a suitable standard designed to meet the eventual needs of the overall number of lots anticipated for Egret Close. The southern end of Egret Close (adjoining proposed Lot 12) should incorporate a standard turning facility designed and constructed to the local government's specifications.
77 The Tribunal agrees that the requirement for upgrading the existing section of Egret Close should be on the basis of a contribution by each of the subdividers of land reliant on Egret Close to the overall cost of upgrading the road as estimated, apportioned and administered by the local government. The Tribunal notes that the local government has already prepared administrative documentation to this effect.
78 Construction of the extension of Egret Close within the subdivision of Lot 15 should be the responsibility of the subdivider.
79 The terms of Condition 3 have been a major focus of this review, and in accordance with the analysis of evidence before the Tribunal, and notwithstanding the applicant's late, but unresolved change of heart as to a possible accommodation of the respondent's wishes, the condition is viewed as redundant.
80 Conditions 7, 8, 9 and 10 are considered to be sensible, reasonable, and not particularly onerous, mandatory requirements of the subdivider and are therefore affirmed as suitable.
81 All other draft conditions are affirmed as suitable.
Conclusion
82 Based on the preceding analysis, the Tribunal concludes that the application for review of the respondent's decision to refuse the proposed subdivision of Lot 15 Egret Close, Kununurra should be upheld.
(Page 14)
- Accordingly, the respondent's decision should be set aside and the subdivision should be conditionally allowed.
Orders
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. The decision of the respondent made on 14 May 2007 to refuse subdivision approval of Lot 15 Egret Close, Kununurra into three lots is set aside and a decision is substituted that subdivision approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
i) Those lots not fronting an existing road being provided with frontage to a constructed road(s) connected by a constructed road(s) to the local road system and such road(s) being constructed and drained at the applicant/owner's cost. As an alternative, the Western Australian Planning Commission is prepared to accept the applicant/owner paying to the Local Government the cost of such road works as estimated by the Local Government subject to the Local Government providing formal assurance to the Western Australian Planning Commission confirming that the works will be completed within a reasonable period as agreed by the Western Australian Planning Commission. (Local Government)
ii) Arrangements being made with the Local Government for the upgrading and/or construction of Egret Close.
The standard of construction of the road within Egret Close shall be a 6 metre width sealed surface on a 9 metre gravel formation and shall terminate at the limit of its southern extent in a standard turning facility designed and constructed to the specifications of the Local Government.
The subdivider shall be solely responsible for the cost of the design and construction of that section
- of Egret Close extending within the subdivision of Lot 15.
The subdivider shall be required to contribute to the overall cost of the upgrading/construction of the existing section of Egret Close, based on a systematic and fair apportionment of contributions among the anticipated subdividers of land reliant on Egret Close, as estimated and administered by the Local Government. (Local Government)
- iii) The land is to be filled and/or drained at the subdivider's cost to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission. Any easements and/or reserves necessary for the implementation of filling or draining are to be granted free of cost. (Local Government)
iv) A strategic fire management plan be prepared and implemented to the specifications of the Local Government and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. (Local Government)
v) All buildings and effluent disposal systems having the necessary clearance from the new boundaries as required under the relevant legislation. (Local Government)
vi) Suitable arrangements being made with the Local Government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) being shown on the approved plan of subdivision. (Local Government)
vii) The subdivider of the land shall make arrangements to ensure that prospective purchasers of the proposed lots are advised in writing that provision of a reticulated sewerage service will not be available to the lots and that all future dwellings on the lots will need to be connected to on-site effluent disposal system(s). (Local Government)
(Page 16)
- viii) The subdivider of the land shall make arrangements to ensure that prospective purchasers of the proposed lots are advised in writing that provision of a reticulated water supply will not be available to the lots and prospective purchasers will be obliged to make their own arrangements to obtain a satisfactory supply of potable water. (Local Government)
ix) Measures being taken to ensure the identification and protection of any vegetation on the site worthy of retention prior to the commencement of site works. (Local Government)
x) Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specification of Horizon Power for the provision of an underground electricity supply service to the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision. If an existing aerial electricity cable servicing the land the subject of this approval crosses over a proposed lot boundary as denoted on the approved plan of subdivision, satisfactory arrangements will need to be made for the removal and relocation of that cable. (Horizon Power)
xi) The provision of easements for existing of future electricity supply infrastructure, as may be required by Horizon Power being granted free of cost to that Corporation. (Horizon Power)
xii) Certification from Horizon Power that financial and other requirements have been satisfied for the removal and relocation of Horizon Power plant or equipment located on or near the proposed subdivision. (Horizon Power)
xiii) Certification from Horizon Power that roadside and block frontage vegetation clearing required for a power line corridor has been completed to suit Horizon Power's requirements. (Horizon Power)
(Page 17)
- xiv) This approval is valid for three years from the date of the Tribunal's decision. Within this period the Diagram or Plan of Survey in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision should be submitted for approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission when the conditions set out above have been fulfilled.
I certify that this and the preceding [82] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J ADDERLEY, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
1
0
2