Undesirable precedent - B & B - Remnant vegetation - Agricultural land - Non-agricultural land - Boundary realignment - Conservation covenant

Draft Denmark Local Planning Strategy, cl 3.2.8, cl 6.1.1.3

Draft Lower Great Southern Regional Strategy, cl 3.10

Shire of Denmark - Rural Settlement Strategy 1999, cl 5.3.2

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(5)(B), s 82(1)

Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 5AA, s 61(1)(a)

Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988)

1 The application for review by Ian and Samantha Carter to the State Administrative Tribunal arises from a decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission to refuse the amalgamation and re-subdivision of Hay Locations 1446 and 1447 Mount Lindesay Road in the Shire of Denmark. The proposal is to amalgamate the two lots of approximately 67 hectares and 61.5 hectares, and re-subdivide into two lots of approximately 124 hectares and 4.3 hectares.

2 The review required an assessment of State and local policy in respect of agricultural land, and an examination of matters relating to the environment, dwelling entitlements, land capacity, land use conflict between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, and the likelihood of an undesirable precedent being set if the subdivision was to proceed.

3 In the view of the State Administrative Tribunal, the principal issue to be addressed is that of precedent and in that respect, it is believed that the probability of a nearby landowner having the same or similar circumstances to this proposal is low. For this to occur, an applicant would have to have an approved and operating tourist use, the prospect of amalgamating lots to produce a more viable agricultural lot and an offer to protect an environmental asset in perpetuity.

4 Following a consideration of the issues, the weight of argument is in favour of the applicants in view of the already operating B & B facility, the continued operation and consolidation of agricultural land, and the protection and conservation of pristine remnant vegetation.

5 The application for review by Ian Carter and Samantha Carter (applicants) dated 12 December 2005, was lodged against the decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission (respondent) of 16 November 2005 to not uphold a request for reconsideration. This request, dated 20 October 2005, was prompted by the original decision of the respondent on 28 September 2005 to refuse an application for the amalgamation of two lots of approximately 67 hectares and 61.5 hectares at Hay Locations 1446 and 1447, Mount Lindesay Road in the Shire of Denmark and re-subdivision into two lots of approximately 124 hectares (Lot A or proposed Lot A) and 4.3 hectares (Lot B or proposed Lot B).

6 In its letter of refusal of 28 September 2005, the respondent advised:

"1. Proposed Lot B is much smaller than the prevailing lot size in the locality and approval to the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for other subdivisions in the surrounding area to create small lots.

2. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the 'Rural' zoning of the land the principal purpose of which is to preserve its rural use and density of development. The subdivision, if permitted, would result in an unplanned breakdown of land holdings.

3. The proposed subdivision is located in an area where conflict between agricultural and rural residential land use is an identified issue. Approval to the subdivision would increase the likelihood of land use conflict, and be contrary to the objectives of Commission Policy DC 3.4."

7 The subject land is described as Hay Locations 1446 and 1447 (Location 1446, Location 1447 and also subject land). Location 1446 is 67.2056 hectares and Location 1447 is 61.5729 hectares.

8 The subject land fronts Mount Lindesay Road and is located some 12 kilometres from the Denmark town centre. It is bordered to the north, south and west by State Forest reserves.

9 The subject land includes two east-west valleys that run to the north and south of an extensive 21 hectare area of high quality remnant vegetation which is dissected by the current north-south boundary of the two existing lots. Both valleys contain watercourses and the land forms part of the Denmark River Water Catchment Area.

10 The subject land is zoned "Rural" in the Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3).

11 The provisions of s 5AA of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) (TPD Act) are relevant to this matter. These provide for the preparation of statements of planning policy which:

"... may make provision for any matter which may be the subject of a town planning scheme ... but shall be directed primarily towards broad general planning and facilitating the coordination of planning throughout the State by all local governments ..."

12 Under s 61(1)(a), the Tribunal is required "to have due regard to" an approved statement of planning policy prepared under s 5AA.

13 Specific policies relevant to the matter include:

a) Statement of Planning Policy No 2.5 - Agricultural and Rural Land Use Planning (SPP 2.5); and

b) Policy No DC 3.4 - Rural Land Use Planning (DC 3.4).

a) Shire of Denmark - Rural Settlement Strategy 1999 (RSS);

b) Draft Denmark Local Planning Strategy (draft LPS); and

c) Draft Lower Great Southern Regional Strategy (draft LGSRS).

15 The respondent's position is outlined in the document titled "Respondent's Submissions", dated 30 March 2006, as prepared by the State Solicitor's Office of Western Australia. It broadly argues:

a) TPS 3 does not provide for the subdivision of rural zoned land.

b) The applicants propose to isolate the existing bed and breakfast (B & B) operation on a single lot, effectively separating it from the primary cattle stud use. This is inconsistent with cl 5.2.1(iv) of SPP 2.5 which provides for small scale tourist activities, including farm stay, chalets and B & B where these are incidental to the primary use.

c) The draft LGSRS states that subdivision of rural land will generally not be supported unless provided for in a local planning strategy endorsed by the respondent. There is no local planning strategy which provides for the subdivision of the subject land.

d) The proposal does not comply with cl 3.1.1 of DC 3.4 where there is a general presumption against the subdivision of rural land unless it is specifically provided for in a town planning scheme, an endorsed local planning strategy or an endorsed local rural strategy.

e) The subject land falls within Policy Area 5 of the RSS where the objective of cl 5.3.2 is:

"... to retain existing broad acre farming on capable and sustainable land."

The applicants' proposal for Lot B is inconsistent with this objective as it prevents its ongoing use for cattle grazing and jeopardises the future farming on Lot A by increasing the risk of land use conflict.

f) Clause 3.2.1(e) of DC 3.4 allows subdivision for the relocation of boundaries where:

i) the new boundaries reflect good environmental and land management practices;

ii) no additional dwelling entitlements are created or where the dwelling entitlements are removed or reduced; and

iii) the proposal is intended to facilitate the ongoing agricultural usage of all the lots.

Although no additional dwelling entitlements would be created by the proposal, there is no necessity for the subdivision to achieve good environmental and land management practices as these practices are already in place. Also, the proposal is not intended to facilitate the ongoing agricultural use on all the lots as non-agricultural use on proposed Lot B will not be associated with or dependent on the agricultural activities on proposed Lot A.

g) The subject land is not identified for rural smallholdings in the draft LPS.

h) The RSS and draft LPS clearly identify the subject land for agriculture, and the proposal threatens its long-term agricultural use.

i) The local authority does not support the proposal until such time as it can be demonstrated that the B & B is a viable stand-alone business.

j) The proposal, if approved, is likely to result in future land use conflicts between users of the large rural Lot A and the small rural-residential Lot B, and has the potential to fetter the ongoing and unconstrained use of rural land in the locality.

k) The majority of landholdings within a 4 kilometre radius exceed 40 hectares and an approval will set an undesirable precedent as it may encourage other owners with multiple rural lots to re-subdivide. There is an incentive to do so, as the median price in 2005 for 1 - 5 hectare lots in the Shire of Denmark (the Shire) was $375 000.

16 The applicants' position is outlined in their submissions of 13 March 2006, and broadly argue:

a) There are no extra titles being created and the proposal fully complies with cl 3.2.1(e) of DC 3.4 in the following way:

i) The proposal is more akin to a boundary realignment than an actual subdivision.

ii) The proposal has good environmental and land management practices as the use of the land will not change and the proposed realigned boundary between Lot A and Lot B would run along an existing fence line, and existing services would remain unchanged.

iii) The proposal conserves the ecology as the owners are considering the placement of a conservation covenant on the large central area of remaining vegetation.

iv) Dam systems and vegetation of the northern valley watercourse are helping to slow the water flow and prevent erosion.

v) No additional dwelling entitlements are being created and the proposal intends to facilitate the ongoing agricultural usage on all the lots.

b) The proposal will not set an undesirable precedent because:

ii) No further titles will be created over and above what currently exists.

iii) The proposal upholds SPP 2.5 and DC 3.4 by securing a larger and more viable piece of land for agricultural purposes in perpetuity.

iv) The land as it exists can be sold to two different parties and used for non-agricultural pursuits.

c) The proposal is not out of character with the locality and is not ad hoc development because:

i) The existing subdivisional pattern will not be altered and cl 6.1.1.3 of the draft LPS states:

"Council supports the retention of the current mix and variation of the lot sizes throughout the Shire."

ii) There are twelve rural smallholdings under 12.5 hectares within 5 kilometres (approximately) of the subject land.

d) The Shire has given conditional support to the proposal.

e) There are many rural smallholdings of various sizes in the Shire and many more are earmarked in the draft LPS.

f) The proposal upholds the policy objectives of SPP 2.5 and DC 3.4 in the following way:

i) The land uses will not change as a result of this proposal, which ensures the protection of 124 hectares (proposed Lot A) for long-term agricultural use.

ii) The proposal does not prevent proposed Lot B from being used for more intensive agricultural pursuits.

g) There is no conflict between uses because:

i) The uses on proposed Lot A and Lot B have been co-existing since February 2003 with no conflict arising.

ii) Rural land holders have been encouraged by the government to diversify to enable them to generate income from a variety of goods and services.

iii) The respondent's argument that a future buyer of Lot B would be intolerant of rural impacts such as noise or odour is irrelevant as rural buyers are well informed.

h) Tourism is a major industry for the Shire.

i) The Shire's "Plan for the Future 2005 - 08" aims to:

"maximise the opportunities for the development of a sustainable tourism industry."

iii) The draft LPS at cl 3.2.8 states that an objective is to:

"encourage limited tourist nodes based on existing developments or features."

iv) The existing B & B is agriculturally related in that it assists visitors understand the rural way of life.

i) The land is not zoned "priority" agriculture:

i) The draft LPS states that SPP 2.5 "does allow for small scale tourist activities in the priority agricultural areas where all impacts are contained on site". As the land is for "general" agriculture, such activities would also be allowed.

j) The agricultural resource should be protected.

i) The proposed large lot (Lot A) will ensure that the entire area that is actually utilised for a farming enterprise is encompassed in one title.

ii) As the current titles exist, they could be sold to separate buyers and a fence line would be needed through the remnant vegetation with a 20 metre firebreak. It would also dissect the northern watercourse.

iii) Under the current lot configuration, the owners could sell one of the lots and/or build two more dwellings on existing Location 1446 as provided for in TPS 3 and lease these dwellings out for lifestyle purposes.

17 The principal planning issues in this review are:

a) Is the proposal inconsistent with the intent of State and local policy for agricultural land?

b) Will the creation of a lot smaller than the prevailing lot size be inconsistent with the rural zoning and lead to the unplanned breakdown of rural holdings by way of a precedent effect?

c) Could the long-term use of the proposed smaller lot for non-agricultural purposes fetter the unconstrained use of adjacent and nearby rural land?

18 The prime intent of SPP 2.5 is the long-term protection and support for agriculture in Western Australia. One of the ways in which the policy has attempted to do this is to minimise the potential for land use conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural uses. This is a matter of some substance in this review.

19 SPP 2.5 sets down four key objectives the first of which is to:

"1. Protect agricultural land resources wherever possible by:

(a) discouraging land uses unrelated to agriculture from locating on agricultural land;

(b) minimising the ad hoc fragmentation of rural land; and

(c) improving resource and investment security for agricultural and allied industry production."

20 It is clear to the Tribunal that although the prime intent of SPP 2.5 is to protect and support agriculture, the use of such words as "minimise", "discourage" and "protect ... wherever possible" does open up the opportunity for alternative land uses and subdivision where the circumstances can be justified on planning grounds. In other words, SPP 2.5 is not written on the basis of total inflexibility.

21 This point is clarified in SPP 2.5 by reference to both the "priority agriculture" (cl 5.2.1(iv)) and "general agriculture" zones (cl 5.2.2(iii)) with respect to town planning schemes. It explains under cl 5.2.2(iii):

"(iii) Town planning scheme provisions should be included within the 'General Agriculture' zone to allow tourist activities, including farm stay, chalets, and bed and breakfast, where these are complementary uses to the agricultural use of the land. Impacts associated with these tourist activities should be contained on-site."

22 What cl 5.2.1(iv) and cl 5.2.2(iii) are in effect saying, is that certain low-key uses will be supported in agricultural areas providing they are complementary to the prime agricultural use and any resultant impacts are restricted to the one property. This is clearly an attempt to introduce some flexibility on the subject of land use, but to maintain a tight measure of control over subdivision.

23 Under DC 3.4, a number of specific principles and objectives are set down which the respondent will use to determine applications for the subdivision of rural land. Of prime importance is cl 3.1.1 which states:

"There is a general presumption against subdivision of rural land unless it is specifically provided for in a town planning scheme, an endorsed local planning strategy or an endorsed local rural strategy."

24 Similar broad objectives to cl 3.1.1 of DC 3.4 are outlined in the Shire's draft LGSRS and RSS. However, having said that, a letter dated 15 August 2005 from the Shire to the respondent states:

"1. The boundary realignment between Locations 1446 & 1447 Mt Lindesay Road is not supported at this time as it can not be suitably demonstrated that the holiday accommodation business is a viable rural business.

2. Council would be supportive of the boundary realignment when it can be demonstrated that the holiday accommodation business is a viable stand alone business and would be supportive of the application of conservation covenants on the remnant vegetation at the site as detailed in the application."

25 What the Shire appears to be saying is, that if the B & B can operate as a viable stand-alone business, they would support the proposal. In other words, their support is based on an economic argument and is presumably designed to avoid a planning outcome in the longer term where the B & B ceases to operate and all that results is an essentially 4.3 hectare rural-residential lot.

26 What is also interesting in the Shire's response is the use of the term "boundary realignment" as opposed to "subdivision" or "amalgamation and re-subdivision". The use of "boundary realignment" brings into consideration the provisions of cl 3.2.1 of DC 3.4. It states:

"3.2.1 Notwithstanding section 3.1.1, the Commission may approve subdivision of rural land for the following specific purposes:

(i) the new boundaries reflect good environmental and land management practices.

(ii) no additional dwelling entitlements are created or where the dwelling entitlements are removed or reduced.

(iii) the proposal is intended to facilitate the ongoing agricultural usage on all of the lots."

27 In the applicants' submissions, they take the view that their proposal is closer to a boundary realignment than a subdivision, whereas the respondent, in its letter to the applicants of 16 November 2005, states:

"In fact, the proposed re-subdivision is an attempt to use the Commission's 'boundary realignment' policy in a manner which would undermine the objectives of the Commission's Agricultural and Rural Land Use Planning policy."

28 In the view of the Tribunal, this matter is largely a non-issue as the environmental consequences, dwelling entitlements and ongoing agricultural usage of the land are all relevant to this review; whether the matter is considered as a boundary realignment or an amalgamation and re-subdivision.

29 In their submissions, the applicants have argued that although they have adopted good environmental and land management practices, to date, on the land by way of stock-proof fencing around the remnant vegetation and the building of dams and revegetation, there is nothing to prevent the sale of Location 1446 and Location 1447. This would then require the construction of a fence line and a 20 metre firebreak at the boundary separating the lots.

30 This latter point is not addressed by the respondent, but they do argue that subdivision is not required as a mechanism to achieve conservation benefits, and that since the 1996 National Heritage Trust Program, financial initiatives are in place to assist with fencing, revegetation, creation of stock crossings and watering points and the addition of appropriate trace elements to assist plant growth.

31 Although it is not clear as to whether the owners have already taken advantage of Federal funding, what is clear to the Tribunal is that by creating a single large 124 hectare lot (proposed Lot A) and requiring conservation covenants on both the prime 21 hectare and secondary 6 hectare area of remnant vegetation as a condition of subdivision, that the long-term protection of the remnant vegetation is considerably improved.

32 Based on submissions by the applicants, it is argued that currently the owners could sell one of the lots (for example, Location 1447) and, under the provisions of TPS 3, two dwellings could be built on that lot as it exceeds 10 hectares in area.

33 The respondent has stated that it accepts that the proposed subdivision does not create any additional dwelling entitlements, but "... it notes that the dwelling entitlements are not removed or reduced".

34 Although the Tribunal has no information before it in the papers, it would appear that if two dwellings can be built on rural zoned lots exceeding 10 hectares, that a total of four houses could be built on Location 1446 (two houses) and Location 1447 (two houses).

35 As there are already two houses on Location 1446, one of which would sit on proposed Lot B at 4.3 hectares, only one additional house could be built on proposed Lot A. This would mean a total of three houses as opposed to a possible four houses under the current lot configuration.

36 The applicants have argued that each of the two existing lots could not support a viable agricultural business as separate entities. The respondent accepts this point and that the proposed 124 hectare lot (Lot A) would be a more agriculturally viable lot. Accordingly, the amalgamation of existing Locations 1446 and 1447 is supported by the respondent.

37 The difference in view arises with respect to Lot B where the applicants advise, in response to the respondent's submissions, that the proposed 4.3 hectare lot has not been used for agricultural purposes for at least ten years. This is due, in part, to the underlying rocks being closer to the ground's surface, causing the pasture to dry out more easily.

38 The respondent argues that the land is suitable for agricultural use and can be used to graze or isolate stock. The argument is also put that the land has been identified as capable for horticulture, and that the proposal threatens the continued use of the subject land for long-term agricultural purposes.

39 In the view of the Tribunal, the fact that portions of a rural lot are not suitable for agricultural purposes is not of itself a reason for subdivision. There are many instances where similar circumstances exist in the rural zone, but the total landholding remains as a single rural lot.

40 The argument that subdivision could threaten the continued use of the subject land for agriculture by way of land use conflict is another matter.

41 The applicants argue that there is no conflict between the existing B & B use and the beef stud and, in any event, the land is surrounded by State forest with the exception of one neighbour across Mount Lindesay Road to the east. A letter, dated 18 October 2005, from that landowner attesting to the fact that the B & B has not caused problems or concerns was attached as enclosure "U" to the applicants' submissions of 13 March 2006.

42 The respondent argues that where land is subdivided to a size where it will be used for a predominantly residential purpose, this can have an adverse impact on the existing rural use and on traditional rural size lots. It is argued that new residents could have little or no regard for existing land use rights and will object to practices such as the operation of a cattle stud, which may generate offsite impacts such as dust, odour, flies and noise.

43 In the view of the Tribunal, there is little substance in the argument of the respondent in this particular case, and in any event, as outlined in [21] and [22] above, the respondent's policy, SPP 2.5, supports tourist activities such as a B & B use in the agricultural zone; albeit subject to certain conditions.

44 The respondent argues that the subject land is not located in proximity to a tourist node, but, as pointed out by the applicants, Mount Lindesay has recently become a national park and access is via Scotsdale Road and Mount Lindesay Road.

45 In the view of the Tribunal, the proximity of the facility to a tourist node is not an issue in the circumstances of this case where an approval for holiday accommodation (bed and breakfast) was granted by the Shire on 10 December 2005 and registration of the business name (Arcadia Farmstay B & B) was granted on 18 March 2005 by the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection.

46 The applicants argue that an approval would not set a precedent because each case must be treated on its merits and, in any event, there are a number of small lots in close proximity.

47 The respondent argues that the presence of historic small lots in the locality, created prior to current planning policies, does not create precedent. However, an approval would be regarded as a "green light" to other landowners in the area to pursue subdivision.

48 The Tribunal accepts that there are circumstances where an approval could be used as a precedent by others to advance similar proposals elsewhere and invariably applicants, as in this case, argue strenuously on these grounds. However, as pointed out in Aspen Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (Unreported; Appeal No 13 of 1988, 21 October 1988), precedent is not to be treated as a "stand alone" argument and is but one factor to be taken into account.

49 In this particular case, the circumstances are not those of a single rural-residential lot being created, but a single rural lot on which an existing residential structure exists and on which planning approval has already been granted for a B & B. The B & B is operating today as a new and establishing business.

50 What the Tribunal can envisage is that over the longer term, the B & B may not prove to be a successful business venture and, if subdivision has been granted, all that would remain would be an essentially rural-residential lot. This is of major concern to the respondent.

51 Alternatively, the B & B venture may prove successful over time but, quite clearly, it is not possible to predict future circumstances today. It would appear that this "uncertainty" factor is why the Shire did not support the subdivision until the B & B was a viable enterprise.

52 In assessing any planning proposal, it is the totality of the circumstances that must be taken into account and not just one aspect alone. In this case, two large lots of approximately 60 hectares would be amalgamated and re-subdivided to produce one large rural lot (Lot A) and one small rural lot (Lot B) on which a B & B use currently functions. If certain conditions were imposed to protect the total 27 hectares of pristine remnant vegetation on the consolidated proposed Lot A, then the result may well advantage both the applicants and the overall agricultural and environmental objectives of the planning authorities involved.

53 If a nearby landowner was to use the precedent argument based on an approval in this case, the circumstances would have to be the same, or similar. Such circumstances would require the consolidation of landholdings to produce a more viable lot size for agricultural purposes, together with the excision of a smaller land parcel on which an approved use for tourist purposes in the rural zone was already functioning. Again, there would have to be conditions of subdivision to protect an environmental asset, and the overall merits of the proposal would need to advantage the planning objectives of the rural zone whereby farming remained the predominant use on the private property.

54 The proposal seeks to amalgamate and re-subdivide the two existing 67 hectare and 61.5 hectare rural lots on which a farming enterprise, Limorn Beef and Bulls, currently operates. The development on the land comprises a homestead built in 1986, which incorporates Arcadia Farmstay B & B, together with a farm manager's cottage, storage sheds, cattle yards and bull paddocks.

55 The intention is to create a large consolidated holding of approximately 124 hectares and a smaller 4.3 hectare lot in the south-east corner fronting Mount Lindesay Road which would comprise the homestead and some surrounding land. Each lot would be self-contained and no additional dwelling entitlements would be created by the subdivision. As explained in [35] above, they may in fact be reduced from four houses to three houses.

56 If the subdivision was to be approved, it is highly likely that the situation on the ground would essentially remain unchanged.

57 In its conduct of this review, the Tribunal is required to have "due regard" to any approved statement of planning policy prepared under s 5AA of the TPD Act. Of relevance is SPP 2.5 where, as explained in [20] above, the policy is not written on the basis of total inflexibility and alternative land uses and subdivision could be contemplated where the prime intent of the policy to protect agricultural land is not compromised.

58 In fact, cl 5.2.1(iv) and cl 5.2.2(iii) of SPP 2.5 do provide for tourist facilities such as a B & B, providing they are complementary to the agricultural use and impacts associated with the activities are contained on site.

59 The argument by the applicants that because proposed Lot B is not on productive land is of itself a basis for subdivision, is not accepted by the Tribunal. However, their claim that if one or both of the existing lots were sold, it could lead to the construction of a north-south fence through the large 21 hectare stand of remnant vegetation is a valid consideration for the Tribunal.

60 In its submissions, the respondent raised the prospect of possible land use conflicts between non-agricultural uses and agricultural uses, but the Tribunal sees little prospect of this occurring in the current circumstances of a B & B facility where the users are transients and the respondent's own policies provide for tourist facilities such as a B & B in agricultural areas.

61 The submissions on precedent are relatively difficult to assess because if the B & B were to fail as a business operation, the Tribunal accepts the respondent's argument that you would be left with a single 4.3 hectare rural-residential lot. However, the business operation may well prove successful and subdivision will consolidate the existing landholdings into a more viable lot size for agricultural purposes and by way of conservation covenants protect the 21 hectare and 6 hectare areas of pristine remnant vegetation.

62 On balance, the Tribunal accepts the weight of argument by the applicants, subject to the imposition of conditions for the amalgamation of Location 1446 and Location 1447, and re-subdivision to include conservation covenants to protect the total 27 hectares (approximately) of remnant vegetation.

63 For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Tribunal are as follows:

1. The application for review is allowed and the decision under review is set aside.

2. The subdivision application lodged with the respondent and date-stamped 30 June 2005 is approved subject to conditions.

3. Pursuant to s 29(5)(b) and s 82(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), Order 1 and Order 2 do not come into effect until such time as the conditions referred to in Order 2 are finalised, at which time the Tribunal will provide a consolidated order setting out all the conditions of approval.

4. The respondent is to file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicants a set of conditions within 14 days of this Order and the applicants are to file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent a statement agreeing to or identifying any of the draft conditions which it objects to, stating briefly the reasons for each objection within seven days thereafter.

I certify that this and the preceding [63] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

MR L GRAHAM, SESSIONAL MEMBER