//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2013] WASAT 33
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2013-03-05
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that this and the preceding [90] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
Goldrange Pty Ltd and City of Wanneroo [2010] WASAT 52
Hawkins and City of Joondalup [2008] WASAT 64
Tah Land Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2008] WASAT 227; (2008) 60 SR (WA) 280
Tah Land Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2009] WASC 196
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 13
... As [the relevant part of the planning framework] makes clear, the application of the sequential approach [that is 'town centres should be the first choice for such developments, followed by edge of centre sites and, only after this, out of centre sites which are currently or potentially accessible by different means of transport'] requires flexibility and realism from developers and retailers as well as planning authorities. The need for flexibility and realism reflects an inbuilt difficulty about the sequential approach. On the one hand, the policy could be defeated by developers' [sic] and retailers' [sic] taking an inflexible approach to their requirements. On the other hand, as Sedley J remarked in R v Teesside Development Corporation, Ex p William Morrison Supermarket plc and Redcar and Cleveland BC [1998] JPL 23, 43, to refuse an outofcentre planning consent on the ground that an admittedly smaller site is available within the town centre may be to take an entirely inappropriate business decision on behalf of the developer. The [planning framework] seeks to address this problem. It advises that developers and retailers should have regard to the circumstances of the particular town centre when preparing their proposals, as regards the format, design and scale of the development. As part of such an approach, they are expected to consider the scope for accommodating the proposed development in a different built form, and where appropriate adjusting or subdividing large proposals, in order that their scale may fit better with existing development in the town centre. The [planning framework] also advises that planning authorities should be responsive to the needs of retailers. Where development proposals in outofcentre locations fall outside the development plan framework, developers are expected to demonstrate that town centre and edgeofcentre options have been thoroughly assessed. That advice is not repeated in the structure plan or the local plan, but the same approach must be implicit: otherwise, the policies would in practice be inoperable.