41 The final point raised is that there has been a departure from the Yallingup Special Character Area Policy. This is one of the policies listed in Sch 10 to the Scheme. Clause 101(7) of the Scheme states that while such a policy does not bind the Council, the Council nevertheless must have due regard to the provisions of the policy and to the objectives which the policy was designed to achieve, before making its decision. The plaintiffs contend that there have been fundamental departures from the policy, and this is disputed by the defendants. (It seems remarkable that there could be a debate about whether or not the criteria in the policy has been departed from, at least in relation to some of the items, because they seemed to be measurable. This aspect should be considered during the adjournment.) Mr Reid, the husband of the female plaintiff, alleges that Mr Dykstra said to him that "we cannot consider the elements of the Yallingup Special Character Area Policy, because the elements are subjective". The context in which this was said will have to be considered at trial, but the words spoken at least lead to a possible inference that the policy was not considered by Mr Dykstra. The Scheme requires that due regard be had to the provisions of the policy. This point is only likely to avail the plaintiffs, however, if they can show that there has been a departure from the provisions of the policy. They allege that this is so, and therefore there is a serious question to be tried on that point. If the matter is reargued, this aspect may have to be revisited. I did not have the benefit of any submissions about whether it was possible to resolve on the affidavits, the dispute about whether there was, or was not, a departure from the policy.