DOWNS�STONEY and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2008] WASAT 178 (11 August 2008)

29 It was the applicant's submission that statements of planning policy and development control policies were not to be used to override more 'finely tuned' instruments of planning control that are directly applicable to a site and locality, such as a planning scheme or an Act of Parliament: Katich & Anor v Western Australian Planning Commission [2007] WASAT 72 (Katich) at [103].

52 Counsel for the applicant summarised from Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40 at [74], criteria adopted by the Tribunal as to the circumstances in which precedent is a relevant consideration in a planning assessment. These are:

64 Decisions of the Commission have resulted in reviews by the Tribunal. The respondent cited Mirco and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 165 and Nurmi and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 241 as examples to be followed. These had been refused because the proposed subdivisions of one lot into two in each instance were considered to be in conflict with the objectives of the zoning, the objectives of SVP Act, Area B and DC 3.4 as well as being inconsistent with the prevailing lot size. The Tribunal dismissed the applications.

65 The applicant referred specifically to Katich in which the Tribunal supported the amalgamation of two viticulture lots and the excision of a house lot for a family member in Area B. Also cited was Squires and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 144, at Torbay near Albany, as an example of the Tribunal allowing subdivision of a rural zoned lot into two low density residential lots consistent with neighbouring lot sizes.