• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

During the tribunal proceedings the Shire and the Commission approved two key strategic documents: the Foggarthorpe Residential Structure Plan (SP) and the Shire of Toodyay Local Planning Strategy (LPS) (para 7). After these approvals the applicant and the Commission sought consent orders for subdivision approvals subject to agreed conditions (para 8). The Tribunal granted leave to the Toodyay Ratepayers' and Residents' Association and to Mr Larry Graham to make written submissions (para 10), received the submissions and submissions from the parties (para 11), and determined the matter on the papers (para 10). Ultimately the Tribunal allowed the review by consent and granted subdivision approval subject to the conditions in Attachments A and B, with each party to bear its own costs (paras 48-49).

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal’s decision turns on statutory and scheme consistency, and whether the original ground for refusal had been addressed.

1. Statutory framework. Section 135 PD Act requires Commission approval for subdivision; s 138(2) PD Act requires the Commission to have due regard to any applicable local planning scheme and not grant approval that conflicts with it (para 14). That statutory constraint framed the Tribunal’s task: could the Commission now lawfully approve the subdivisions consistent with the schemes?

2. Scheme requirements. TPS 1 contained a zone designated 'Urban 6 - Future Urban' with an express requirement that a Structure Plan approved by the Commission and Council be prepared prior to subdivision of the land (TPS 1 cl 3.16.2 and cl 3.16.5 quoted at para 18). The Commission’s original refusal was essentially grounded in the absence of such a structure plan (para 6).

3. Subsequent strategic approvals cured the deficiency. The Tribunal found that the Foggarthorpe Structure Plan and the Shire’s Local Planning Strategy satisfied the scheme’s structure plan requirement and provided the comprehensive planning that had been missing (paras 7, 33). The Tribunal expressly held that the original reason for refusal had been satisfactorily addressed (para 43).

4. Consistency with the strategic framework and SPP 3. The LPS identified the site and adjacent area as one of only two large-scale residential subdivision sites in the Shire and anticipated 650-700 lots from those areas; it identified a need for at least 500 new dwelling units within the Toodyay townsite by 2021 (paras 22-24). The Tribunal found the proposed 375 lots formed part of the strategy to meet anticipated population growth and were consistent with State Planning Policy No 3’s aim of managing growth by directing it to appropriate locations adjacent to existing towns (paras 22-30).

5. Third-party submissions and amenity concerns. The Tribunal assessed objections from the Association and Mr Graham concerning population, services, amenity and the town’s character. It rejected the Association’s calculations on growth (applying a Shire-wide basis gave a 3% rate rather than the Association’s 5.35%), and concluded that infrastructure arrangements would be met by conditions and that the planning instruments contemplated the development (paras 21-26, 30-31). Mr Graham’s expectations about rural outlook were acknowledged but held insufficient because Future Urban zoning and the later LPS/SP reasonably contemplated urban development (paras 44-46).

6. Conditions. The agreed conditions required the subdivider to deliver infrastructure, environmental management and design measures including engineering plans, roads, drainage, water and sewer arrangements, design guidelines, notification of noise and geotechnical constraints, foreshore and nutrient management, and other works (Attachments A & B). The Tribunal considered these conditions appropriate and reasonable (paras 12, 48).

Collectively, because the new strategic documents satisfied the scheme’s pre-conditions, the proposed subdivisions did not conflict with TPS 1 or LPS 4, and the conditions addressed infrastructure and amenity issues, the Tribunal allowed the review and granted approval by consent (paras 16, 33, 42-43, 48-49).

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision in practical terms the Commission had refused the applications on principle: the planning scheme required a structure plan before subdivision could occur. The refusal reflected a common local-government approach to prevent premature subdivision before comprehensive planning is in place (paras 6, 18).

After the Tribunal’s decision, the legal effect is application-specific rather than a sweeping precedent. The Tribunal emphasised that where a scheme conditions subdivision on the preparation and approval of a structure plan, that pre-condition can be satisfied during the course of review proceedings. If, as here, the structure plan and related local planning strategy are adopted and the proposed subdivision is consistent with those instruments and the scheme, the original ground for refusal is removed and approval may properly be granted by consent, subject to appropriate conditions (paras 7, 33, 42-43). The Tribunal also clarifies that community opposition does not trump adopted strategic planning that contemplates the development (paras 30-31).

Note: the Tribunal expressly avoided deciding whether an old scheme (TPS 1) continued to bind the Commission by way of accrued rights after revocation and replacement by LPS 4, because no conflict arose in any event (para 16). Thus the decision does not settle legal questions about accrued rights and transitional application of schemes; it proceeds on the basis that approving the subdivisions did not conflict with either scheme.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. Statutory constraint (para 14): "Subject to subsection (3), in giving its approval under section 135 or 136 the Commission is to have due regard to the provisions of any local planning scheme that applies to the land under consideration and is not to give an approval that conflicts with the provisions of a local planning scheme."

   Plain-English: The Commission must respect the local planning rules; it cannot approve a subdivision that goes against the scheme's rules.

2. Scheme rule requiring a structure plan (para 18): TPS 1 required preparation and approval of a Structure Plan by the Commission and Council before subdivision of the Urban 6 land.

   Plain-English: The local rules said "you cannot subdivide this land for urban purposes until you have an approved plan showing how it will be developed."

3. Tribunal’s core finding (para 43): "The Commission's original reason for refusal of the subdivisions ... has been satisfactorily addressed since the refusals and during the course of the proceedings by the LPS and the SP."

   Plain-English: The key reason the Commission refused was fixed: the Council and Commission approved the necessary planning documents, so that refusal-ground no longer applies.

4. Planning strategy contemplates development (paras 22-24): LPS identifies site as one of only two large-scale residential areas, estimating 650-700 lots likely.

   Plain-English: The local planning strategy specifically earmarked this area for a big residential development; the proposed subdivision fits the plan.

5. Community views do not determine legal compliance (para 31): The Tribunal noted community wishes for "no further residential development" conflicted with the zoning and the strategic planning that actually permits the subdivision.

   Plain-English: Local opposition is a factor the Tribunal considers, but it cannot defeat proper zoning and adopted strategic plans.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is informative when the following fact pattern occurs:

• A proposal for a large-scale subdivision is refused because the local planning scheme requires a structure plan or comprehensive planning before subdivision, and;
• During review proceedings (or after the refusal), the local government and/or the Commission approve a structure plan and/or a local planning strategy that address the scheme’s pre-conditions, and;
• The approved strategic instruments contemplate the development and there is no direct conflict between the proposed subdivision and the operative planning scheme provisions, and;
• The applicant and the decision-maker can agree appropriate conditions to secure infrastructure and environmental outcomes.

In that situation, this case demonstrates the Tribunal will allow a consent approval where the structure plan requirement is now met, consistent with s 138(2), and third-party objections do not otherwise establish a legal basis for refusal (paras 7, 12, 16, 33, 42-43).

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself does not record subsequent appellate consideration or later authorities treating this decision. The Tribunal cited earlier WASAT decisions about accrued rights (Western Australian Planning Commission and CPP Pty Ltd [2006] WASAT 379 and Miller and City of Stirling [2007] WASAT 247) when noting it was unnecessary to resolve whether an earlier scheme continued to apply (para 16). The text does not provide material on how later courts or tribunals treated this 2008 decision. Practitioners should therefore treat this decision as a persuasive administrative tribunal decision on facts where post-refusal strategic approvals cure the original ground for refusal; for authoritative precedent or appellate development further legal research external to this judgment is required.

Still-open questions

The Tribunal explicitly left certain legal questions open:

1. Accrued application of a revoked scheme: The Tribunal said it was unnecessary to decide whether TPS 1 continued to apply for s 138(2) purposes by way of an accrued right after LPS 4 was gazetted because no conflict arose; it therefore did not resolve the legal test or circumstances under which an earlier scheme survives for s 138(2) purposes (para 16). That question remains open in this decision.

2. Weight to be given to community opposition: While the Tribunal rejected the Association’s submissions on the facts here, it did not lay down a rule about the quantitative weight required for community opposition to defeat a planning instrument. How strong community opposition must be to influence a tribunal's discretion in different factual matrices remains a practical question.

3. Interaction with SPP 3 in marginal cases: The Tribunal accepted that SPP 3 was consistent with directing growth to existing towns and that the subdivisions were consistent with the LPS (paras 28-30). However, where a proposed subdivision's strategic fit with state policy is less clear, the balance between regional/sustainability considerations and local strategy could require further judicial consideration.

4. Scope of Tribunal's consent approvals post-structure plan adoption: This decision approves subdivisions by consent subject to conditions. The limits of consent approvals where other parties object, or where approvals post-refusal are more contested procedurally, are not exhaustively tested here.

For practitioners, those open questions highlight the need to examine transitional scheme provisions and accrued rights doctrine in detail in other authorities when advising clients in similar circumstances, and to ensure that any post-refusal approvals (structure plans, strategies) are properly adopted and documented prior to seeking Tribunal consent orders.